Equal Rights Amendment Has Been Ratified - Is It Valid?

The Equal Rights Amendment (giving women rights equal to those of men) has finally been ratified by the appropriate number of states. That should make it officially the 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution. But sadly, now there is a dispute over how long it took for enough states to ratify it -- and some say that means it is not valid. 

Here is just a small part of how Jesse Wegman describes the controversy in The New York Times:

Even if you are a political junkie, there’s a good chance you didn’t realize that the United States Constitution grew 58 words longer this week. 

Those words, which begin, “Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex,” are the text of the Equal Rights Amendment. Section 3 of the amendment states that it takes effect two years after its ratification, which happened on Jan. 27, 2020, when Virginia became the 38th state to sign on. By its own terms, then, the 28th Amendment went into force on Thursday. American women are, at long last, equal to men in the eyes of the law. Hallelujah.

Or maybe not.

New printings of the Constitution will not include a 28th Amendment. The Supreme Court will not treat it as part of the nation’s fundamental law. There will be no command from on high that women and men must be treated the same. And yet on Thursday, President Biden called on Congress “to act immediately to pass a resolution recognizing” that the E.R.A. has been properly ratified and is part of the Constitution. What’s going on?

The argument that the E.R.A. is now the law of the land is straightforward and compelling. Under the explicit terms of Article V of the Constitution, an amendment “shall be valid to all intents and purposes” when two-thirds of both houses of Congress approve it, followed by three-quarters of the states. The E.R.A. easily passed Congress in the early 1970s, and it has been ratified by 38 states, or just over three-quarters of 50.

“The Constitution is clear: You need to do two things. We did it,” Representative Carolyn Maloney of New York, a longtime E.R.A. proponent, told me. Indeed, no amendment that has cleared Article V’s two high bars has ever been excluded from the Constitution — until now.

The technical reason for this is that the archivist of the United States, David Ferriero, has declined to certify the Equal Rights Amendment, despite a federal law requiring him to do so whenever an amendment has satisfied “the provisions of the Constitution.”

His refusal is based on a 2020 memo by the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, which provides legal advice to the executive branch. The memo contended that the E.R.A. is no longer valid because it failed to meet the seven-year deadline that Congress initially set and then, when the ratification effort fell three states short, extended until 1982. (The last three states — Nevada, Illinois and Virginia — all ratified after 2016, spurred by the election of Donald Trump.) The O.L.C. memo also noted that five states that approved the amendment later tried to back out by rescinding their ratifications. As a result of the missed deadline, the memo said, the E.R.A. “has expired and is no longer pending before the states.” If its supporters want it ratified, they need to start over.

The supporters’ retort: The Constitution says not a word about either deadlines or rescissions. It says two-thirds of Congress and three-quarters of the states, nothing more. In a 2012 letter to Ms. Maloney, Mr. Ferriero appeared to agree with this interpretation. As soon as at least 38 states have ratified an amendment, he wrote, the National Archives publishes the amendment along with his certification “and it becomes part of the Constitution without further action by the Congress.” He also said he did not consider any of the rescissions to be valid.

But following the 2020 Justice Department memo, Mr. Ferriero balked, triggering our current constitutional conundrum. Complicating matters further, the O.L.C. on Wednesday issued a new memo that called into question the reasoning of the 2020 memo and stated that “whether the E.R.A. is part of the Constitution will be resolved not by an O.L.C. opinion but by the courts and Congress.”

The E.R.A. has thus become the Schrödinger’s Cat of amendments — simultaneously part of and not part of the Constitution.

There is much more, and it's well worth reading.

Plurality Of Americans Want Electoral College Abolished

The current popular vote for the November 8th presidential election (according to CNN) is:

Hillary Clinton...............62,523,126 (48%)
Donald Trump...............61,201,031 (47%)
Difference...............1,325,095

That's right. Hillary Clinton got over 1.3 million more votes than Donald Trump did in the presidential election. In any other democracy, that would have meant she would be the next president. But in our archaic electoral system, getting the most votes doesn't mean anything. What matters is winning enough states to get 270 electoral college votes.

This is the second time in the last five presidential elections that the candidate who got the most votes was not chosen by the electoral college to become president (in 2000 and in 2016). This has many people calling for a constitutional amendment to abolish the electoral college -- and let the winner of the popular vote become president.

But what does the general public think about abolishing the electoral college? The Economist / YouGov Poll decided to find out. They questioned 1,659 American adults between November 12th and 15th, and their poll has a margin of error of 2.8 points.

They found that there was not a majority for either abolishing or keeping the electoral college -- but more people want to abolish it than wanted to keep it. A plurality of the general public, and that was also true of every gender, age, race, and income level.

While that is gratifying, it is not enough. It's going to take a substantial majority of the public to make our politicians even consider changing the electoral system. It looks like we're stuck with our undemocratic system -- at least for now.

Constitutional Amendments On November 3rd Texas Ballot

Texans will go to the polls on November 3rd. In many locations, there are no actual candidates being voted on -- but that doesn't mean it's not important. There are seven amendments to the Texas Constitution being voted on. Those amendments are listed below -- along with the recommendation from Progress Texas on how to vote on them. I think their recommendations are good.

PROPOSITION 1: TOSS UP

Text: The constitutional amendment increasing the amount of the residence homestead exemption from ad valorem taxation for public school purposes from $15,000 to $25,000, providing for
a reduction of the limitation on the total amount of ad valorem taxes that may be imposed for those purposes on the homestead of an elderly or disabled person to reflect the increased exemption amount, authorizing the legislature to prohibit a political subdivision that has adopted an optional residence homestead exemption from ad valorem taxation from reducing the amount of or repealing the exemption, and prohibiting the enactment of
a law that imposes a transfer tax on a transaction that conveys fee simple title to real property.
On one hand, increasing the homestead exemption
is one of the fairest ways to cut taxes. Indeed,
Texas Democrats have called for an increase in the homestead exemption for more than a decade – so it’s easy to see this GOP-led initiative as merely a long- delayed realization of a good idea progressives had
a long time ago. Homeowners appreciate any relief from property taxes, even if that relief does nothing more than slow down rising rates, and cutting taxes for homeowners is certainly more equitable than giving tax cuts exclusively to big corporations.
On the other hand, the cost of this tax cut is significant. There’s no long-term plan for how Texas will pay back the estimated $1.2 billion in lost money for schools; surplus funds will cover the cost in the short-run, but what happens if we don’t collect as much money as we project? Relying on court-imposed changes of Texas’ school finance system is a risky maneuver. At a time when our state budget has yet to catch up from the devastating cuts of 2011, prioritizing tax cuts for some (renters won’t benefit from this tax cut) over investing in community-wide improvements in health care or education can reasonably be considered irresponsible.
Our staff is split on this issue. Rather than tell you how to vote, we encourage you to make a decision that best reflects the needs of you and your family. 

PROPOSITION 2: YES
Text: “The constitutional amendment authorizing the legislature to provide for an exemption from ad valorem taxation of all or part of the market value of the residence homestead of the surviving spouse of a 100 percent or totally disabled veteran who died before the law authorizing a residence homestead exemption for such a veteran took effect.
In 2011, we recommended and Texas voters approved a constitutional amendment that allows surviving spouses of disabled veterans to be exempt from property taxes on the current value of their home. That proposition was forward-looking; Prop 2 would extend this to spouses who would have qualified for the exemption if it had been available to them prior to 2011. Prop 2 would only apply to approximately 3,800 surviving spouses of totally disabled veterans, with a minimal impact to the state budget.
This exemption only applies to spouses of disabled veterans that remain in the residence of the surviving spouse, and is only granted if the spouse has not remarried. Additionally, legislation passed by the Legislature would ensure there is no disproportionate impact on any one community or school district that may have a uniquely large number of people eligible for this tax break within the community.

PROPOSITION 3: NO
Text: The constitutional amendment repealing the requirement that state officers elected by voters statewide reside in the state capitol.
Prop 3 would permit the Texas Agriculture Commissioner, Land Commissioner, Comptroller, Attorney General, and Railroad Commissioners to live outside of Austin. The Governor, Lieutenant Governor, and statewide court officials would still be required to live in the capitol city.
This amendment was originally conceived as a way for Texas’ GOP elected officials to escape prosecution from corruption charges here in Travis County. So

when Attorney General Ken Paxton is indicted for violating securities law – as he is right now – he
could claim residence in a county with a friendlier, Republican-leaning district attorney. A different law passed that allows Paxton and his GOP colleagues to live elsewhere, making the Republicans’ initial purpose of this amendment unnecessary – but there’s still no reason to enshrine a bad idea into the constitution.
Some say that technology allows officials to do more telecommuting from work, and/or that conservative Republicans should not be forced to live in a progressive city like Austin. But what happens
when a Comptroller decides to telecommute for a critical meeting in Austin and the internet goes down? What happens when the Attorney General ends up three hours late to a critical public hearing because the interstate from Dallas to Austin is shut down?
State government officials should be required to work where the seat of government is. If they don’t like how progressive Austin is, they should live here and try to change it – not change the Constitution to accommodate their personal political preferences. 

PROPOSITION 4: YES
Text: The constitutional amendment authorizing the legislature to permit professional sports team charitable foundations to conduct charitable raffles.
Prop 4 allows Texas’ professional sports teams to host what is known as a “50/50” raffle at their home games. These are raffles where contestants (who must be present at the game) can enter to win cash prizes. The payouts are then split 50/50 with the contestant winner and a charity of the organization’s choice – typically
a youth, education, or community program affiliated with the professional sports team. Since this could be considered gambling, a constitutional amendment is required to allow teams’ to participate in such raffles.

If passed, ten Texas teams could host the raffles:
the Houston Astros and Texas Rangers (baseball);
the Houston Rockets, Dallas Mavericks, and San Antonio Spurs (basketball); the Dallas Cowboys and Houston Texans (football); the Dallas Stars (hockey); and the Houston Dynamo and FC Dallas (soccer). The accompanying legislation for this amendment prevents these teams from profiting from the raffle, and ensures that only teams that existed for three years prior to the law going into effect may participate.
At first, we were hesitant to recommend the expansion of a raffle system that utilizes a charitable cause to improve branding for sports franchises, some of which are valued at over a billion dollars. However, after reviewing the safeguards in the law and considering the fact that charity raffles are merely optional to fans attending games anyway, we believe the potential value of funds that could go to community-focused programs outweighed our concerns. Prop 4 is an easy way to
let communities support those in need, and we hope similar provisions are considered for organizations other than professional sports teams in the future.

PROPOSITION 5: YES
Text: The constitutional amendment to authorize counties with a population of 7,500 or less to perform private road construction
and maintenance.
In 1980, Texas adopted a constitutional amendment that allowed counties with a population of 5,000 or less to build and maintain private roads – because it is often difficult for them to find private contractors to do the work. This simply bumps up that population threshold to 7,500, impacting approximately 20 counties in Texas – including one county that mostly grew in population because of a new prison. This amendment is a simple fix that lets counties keep their roads safe.

PROPOSITION 6:
Text: The constitutional amendment recognizing the right of the people to hunt, fish, and harvest wildlife subject to laws that promote wildlife conservation.
There is no threat to hunting, fishing, or harvesting wildlife in Texas, and the people who suggest conservation efforts are limiting any of those outdoor activities are probably the same ones who thought Jade Helm was a U.S. military invasion of Texas. Conspiracies aside, there is no negative consequence if this amendment passes. Then again, there is no need for
it to pass, either, since it changes absolutely nothing. We recommend skipping it entirely. Or voting for it passionately. Whatever. There’s literally no way you could screw this one up.
Also, that shrug symbol above that you may have seen on Facebook is called an “awl.” Learning that random piece of information is probably more valuable to your life than this amendment will be to anyone in Texas.

PROPOSITION 7: NO
Text: The constitutional amendment dedicating certain sales and use tax revenue and motor vehicle sales, use, and rental tax revenue to the state highway fund to provide funding for nontolled roads and the reduction of certain transportation- related debt.
Just like Texas’ public schools and health care systems, Texas’ roads are chronically underfunded. The reason is that Republican state officials are unwilling to close egregious tax loopholes for big corporations in order to invest in the infrastructure the people of Texas deserve. One analysis by the New York Times found that Texas allows $19 billion in tax exemptions every year. With that kind of tax system, it’s no wonder we struggle paying for better schools, hospitals, and roads.

Prop 7 is an end-run attempt by lawmakers to pay more for roads without having to close any tax loopholes. Or as the Houston Chronicle put it, “This Rube Goldberg constitutional contraption is the outgrowth of lawmakers unwilling to raise the gas tax or user fees to pay for the state’s transportation needs.”
This amendment constitutionally dedicates up to
$5 billion in state tax dollars to transportation. The guaranteed appropriation would be in place until 2032, could be temporarily ratcheted back with a 2/3 vote of lawmakers, and can be extended in 10-year increments with a majority vote of legislators.
We don’t believe in rewarding cowardice, and that’s exactly what Prop 7 is: a coward’s attempt to get permission from Texas voters so legislators can forego real funding solutions for our state’s infrastructure. Prop 7 prioritizes our roads above our schools and health systems, and further limits the amount of discretionary revenue the Texas Legislature may access for other important budget items. We strongly recommend a “no” vote on Prop 7. 

It's Time For Citizens To Overrule The Supreme Court

(Cartoon image of free speech is by Chan Lowe in the South Florida Sun-Sentinel.)

Thanks to a misguided Supreme Court decision, billions of dollars have flowed into our electoral system from the ultra-rich and from corporations -- much of it given in secret. These people hope to subvert the will of the people and buy candidates that will be favorable to them. The Koch brothers have promised to spend nearly a billion dollars in the coming election to get candidates elected who support their far-right-wing positions, and that is just one family -- many more are donating millions each.

Historian Doris Kearnes Goodwin and attorney/author Jeff Clements believe the court's decision was wrong, and that it must be overruled by the people. Here's what they had to say in an article for Reuters:

Surveys show that a large majority of American citizens across the political spectrum oppose the U.S. Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision that opened the door to unlimited political spending by global corporations and powerful unions. Yet when asked about the prospect of passing a constitutional amendment to reverse the decision, too many people argue that it would be “too hard,” even “impossible.”

This argument lacks historical perspective. Every step on the path to fulfill the promise of the American Revolution was “too hard,” but Americans did it anyway. Hard, yes; yet constitutional amendments have come in waves during times of challenge — and Supreme Court obstinacy — much like our own.

The Bill of Rights and the post-Civil War amendments may be the most well-known examples, but this pattern has recurred. A generation after the Civil War renewed the promise of American equality and democracy, for example, the Supreme Court began elevating money to a privileged place in the Constitution. It struck down basic public-interest laws, including the minimum wage, worker safety, the federal income tax and even child labor laws.

The American public took matters into their own hands during the Progressive era at the turn of the 20th century. With the 16^th amendment in 1913, Americans reclaimed the power to levy a progressive income tax, without which many of President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal social programs would not have been possible.

The 17^th amendment that same year provided for popular election of U.S. senators. This replaced the old system of election by state legislatures, in which, according to the New York Times, a millionaire, either by outright bribery or contributions to a party’s campaign coffers, could buy a Senate seat “just as he would buy an opera box, or a yacht or any other luxury in which he could afford to indulge himself.” Finally, with the ratification of the 19^th amendment in 1920, women gained the right to vote after a struggle that had lasted for more than half a century.

Four decades later, two additional constitutional amendments removed further barriers to political equality. The 24^th amendment in 1964 protected the right of all Americans to vote in federal elections, regardless of the ability to pay a poll tax. President Lyndon B. Johnson hailed “the triumph of liberty over restriction, declaring “there can be no one too poor to vote.” The 26^th amendment in 1971 reduced the voting age from 21 to 18, which ensured that young adults eligible to serve in the armed forces were able to vote.

Each of these fights required hard work, tough challenges and resilience. This is as it should be. Constitutional amendments are warranted only by what James Madison called “extraordinary occasions.” That is why enacting and ratifying an amendment to the U.S. Constitution is no easy matter.

The situation we face today with regard to campaign finance is one of those “extraordinary occasions.” Overwhelming political spending by a relative handful of organizations and extremely wealthy people is marginalizing the voices and participation of most Americans. In the 2012 presidential election, a few dozen super-PAC donors exceeded all the contributions of $200 or less from the nearly four million donors to the Romney and Obama campaigns combined.

The 2014 midterm elections brought even greater concentration of big spenders. Indeed, virtually all political spending now comes from far less than 1 percent of Americans, and increasingly from global corporations using “dark money” entities to obscure the source.

The result of such unbalanced concentrated power in the U.S. system of government is exactly as Madison and other founding fathers feared: failure of effective republican self-government due to powerful factions and corruption.

The Supreme Court that issued the Citizens United decision will not correct itself. Over the past five years, the sharply divided court has only expanded the ruling. In a series of decisions, it has invalidated traditional powers of the states, striking down longstanding anticorruption laws in Montana and nullifying new approaches to strengthen voter-funded elections in Arizona and Maine. In the 2014 McCutcheon decision, the court struck down a limit as high as $123,000 on total contributions to candidates for Congress. In Hobby Lobbyand other recent decisions, courts are empowering corporations to seek even more exemptions from laws based on ever-broadening theories of corporate rights, including speech, religion and equal protection as “persons.”

To hope that the current court will fix things is folly. That is why the 28^th amendment is necessary to overturn Citizens United, just as Americans have used the amendment process to overturn the Supreme Court six times before.

The 28^th amendment would restore the power of Americans to enact reasonable election spending laws that protect the political equality of all. Specifically, the Democracy For All Amendment, which more than 165 senators and representatives have introduced, restores the authority of Congress and the states to enact election spending laws and to distinguish between human beings and corporations in doing so.

Five years after Citizens United, it is time to accept the historical gravity of our situation. It is time for Americans of all political viewpoints to come together to win the 28^th amendment — and to renew U.S. democracy again.

9th Circuit Tosses Marriage Bans And Cruz Panders To Right By Promising Amendment To Guarantee Inequality

(The photo at left was found of the Facebook page of the inimitable Juanita Jean -- owner of the world's most dangerous beauty salon.)

A couple of days ago, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear 5 cases appealed from three Circuit Courts of Appeal -- letting stand the rulings from those courts that a state ban on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional. After seeing that, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals saw no reason for more delay or discussion, and yesterday they issued a ruling that the state bans on same-sex marriage in Idaho and Nevada were unconstitutional. The court said:

“We hold that the Idaho and Nevada laws at issue violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because they deny lesbians and gays who wish to marry persons of the same sex a right they afford to individuals who wish to marry persons of the opposite sex, and do not satisfy the heightened scrutiny standard we adopted in SmithKline.” 

In addition to Nevada and Idaho, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals also covers Alaska, Arizona, Montana, California, Oregon, and Washington. Alaska, Arizona, and Montana still have same-sex marriage bans -- but I expect they will soon be declared unconstitutional by a U.S. District Judge now that the appeals court and the Supreme Court have made their positions clear.

There are still cases pending in some other Circuit Courts of Appeal, but I expect they will now be disposed on pretty soon. It looks like we may be finally nearing the end of the arguments over this equal rights issue.

---------------------------------------------------------

 Meanwhile, the Senate embarrassment from Texas, Ted Cruz, saw a political opportunity in the Supreme Court's refusal to hear those cases (and uphold the marriage bans). He promised to introduce a constitutional amendment in Congress that would guarantee the LGBT community could continue to be treated unequally in the United States. He said:

“The Supreme Court’s decision to let rulings by lower court judges stand that redefine marriage is both tragic and indefensible...When Congress returns to session, I will be introducing a constitutional amendment to prevent the federal government or the courts from attacking or striking down state marriage laws. Traditional marriage is an institution whose integrity and vitality are critical to the health of any society. We should remain faithful to our moral heritage and never hesitate to defend it.”

Of course, Cruz's silly amendment has absolutely no chance of actually becoming a part of our Constitution. It would have to get a two-thirds vote in both the Senate and the House, and then be ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the states -- and it has less chance of clearing any of those hurdles than a snowball does of surviving in the Mojave Desert at the height of Summer.

But Cruz knows that. He is just playing politics. He wants to run for president in 2016, so he is pandering to the teabagger/evangelicals in his party -- because he knows they will have the biggest say in who the Republicans nominate in 2016. There is no depth to which Cruz will not stoop to feather his own political nest.

(The caricature of Ted Cruz above is by DonkeyHotey.)

Republicans In Senate Kill Constitutional Amendment

Last week progressives were cheering because a filibuster was stopped and the constitutional amendment overturning the Citizens United and McCutcheon court decisions was finally allowed to come to the Senate floor for a debate. There were even some Republicans who voted to allow that.

Unfortunately, as some of us suspected, those Republicans didn't want the constitutional amendment passed (or even voted on) -- they just wanted the debate to happen to keep the Democrats from trying to force a vote on other issues (like equal pay for women). On Thursday, Senate Democrats tried to bring the amendment up for a vote. But they failed. Every single Republican voted to continue the debate rather than hold a vote, and since stopping the debate required 60 votes, the Republicans were able to carry the day.

The vote was denied by a 54 to 42 vote -- with every Democrat voting to have a vote on the constitutional amendment, and every Republican voting to deny that opportunity to vote. This should come as no surprise. The Republicans know that they are the biggest beneficiaries of the massive donations by the rich and the corporations -- and they don't want to give that up. After all, their primary interest is in getting re-elected -- not in protecting the free speech rights (or voting rights) of ordinary Americans. They want money to equal speech, because they can win the money battle (but not the real speech battle).

This was a good constitutional amendment, and it needs to be passed. But that's never going to happen as long as the Republicans control the House and have the filibuster in the Senate.

Franken Compares "Citizens United" To Money Laundering

Senator Al Franken (D-Minnesota) took to the Senate floor to support the constitutional amendment that would overturn the Supreme Court Citizens United decision, and return control of campaign finance to Congress. Here is some of what he had to say (as reported by politicususa.com):

This is real, M. President: spending by outside groups more than tripled from the 2008 presidential election to the 2012 presidential election, when it topped a billion dollars – that’s billion with a “b.” What happened in the interim? Well Citizens United was decided in 2010 – the floodgates were opened.

And, worse still, the middle-class isn’t just being flooded; it’s being blindfolded, too – because these wealthy special interest groups often can spend the money anonymously, so voters have no idea who’s behind the endless attack ads that fill the airwaves. Here’s how it works: if you have millions of dollars that you want to spend, you can funnel it through back channels so that it ends up in the hands of a group – typically one with a generic and benign-sounding name – that uses the money to buy ads, often without disclosing the source of its funds.

This whole thing looks to me a lot like money laundering – except that it’s now perfectly legal. And, again, this is real: a study just came out which showed that, in the current election cycle alone, there’s already been over 150,000 ads run by groups that don’t have to disclose the source of their funding.

And get this: things are only getting worse. Earlier this year, in a case called McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission, the Supreme Court was at it again, recklessly doing away with a law that prohibited people from giving more than $123,000, in the aggregate, directly to candidates in an election cycle. One-hundred-and-twenty-three-thousand-dollars. Who has that kind of money lying around to spend on elections? The super-rich, maybe. But the middle class sure doesn’t. The folks I meet with in Minnesota – who are trying to make ends meet, pay off their student loans, train for a new job, save some money to start a family – they sure don’t. And those are the folks who most need a voice here in Washington.

So the way I see it is this: there are two ways that we can go from here. On the one hand, we can continue to let Citizens United be the law of the land. We can perpetuate the fallacy that corporations have a constitutional right to flood our elections with undisclosed money; we can let deep-pocketed special interests buy influence and access – and then set the agenda for the rest of the country.

Or … Or, we can say, enough is enough. We can restore the law to what it was before Citizens United was decided – and, more to the point, we can restore a voice for millions upon millions of everyday Americans who want nothing more than to see their government represent them.

(Senator Al Franken's caricature above is by DonkeyHotey.)

Amendment To Overturn "Citizens United" Supreme Court Decision Will Get A Vote In The U.S. Senate

The illustration above is by Joseph Keppler and is called "Bosses of the Senate". While it is from a much earlier time in the history of this country, it depicts something that is happening again -- the control of the Senate (and the House of Representatives) by corporate interests through the use of an army of lobbyists and huge campaign donations to candidates that will do their bidding.

Some of that power had been reined in through campaign finance laws passed by Congress -- but a couple of recent Supreme Court decisions (Citizens United vs. FEC and McCutcheon vs. FEC) has restored the power of corporations to control Congress by eliminating the campaign funding restrictions imposed by Congress. The Court found that corporations were people and money was speech -- and restricting the amount of money a corporation (or rich individual) could donate to campaigns was a violation of free speech.

These were bad decisions, since money is not speech and corporations are not people (since they would insure that corporations and the rich have more "speech" than ordinary Americans) -- and they have resulted in massive campaign donations by corporations and individuals to influence our elections.

There is a cure for this, and it comes in the form of Senate Resolution 19 -- which would amend the United States Constitution to give Congress the power to control campaign financing (thus overturning both the Citizens United and McCutcheon decisions of the court). This amendment is badly needed to restore sanity in the financing of elections, giving ordinary Americans as much say in elections as corporations. But that resolution has been blocked by a Republican filibuster in the Senate (which prevented it from coming to the floor for an up or down vote).

Yesterday, than filibuster hurdle was brushed aside by a coalition of Democrats, Independents, and some Republicans -- who approved a cloture motion to stop the filibuster on a 79 to 18 vote (with all 18 votes to continue the filibuster coming from Republicans). The Republicans who voted to continue corporate control of Congress through massive campaign spending were:

Barrasso (Wyoming)
Chambliss (Georgia)
Coburn (Oklahoma)
Crapo (Idaho)
Cruz (Texas)
Enzi (Wyoming)
Inhofe (Oklahoma)
Isakson (Georgia)
Johnson (Wisconsin)
Lee (Utah)
Paul (Kentucky)
Portman (Ohio)
Risch (Idaho)
Roberts (Kansas)
Scott (South Carolina)
Shelby (Alabama)
Thune (South Dakota)
Toomey (Pennsylvania)

This does not mean the resolution passes the Senate -- just that it will now be debated and voted on by the full Senate. It will have to get a two-thirds vote in the Senate (67 votes), but don't let the vote on invoking cloture fool you -- that will be very difficult, and maybe impossible (since no Republican sponsored Senate Resolution 19). Many, if not all, of the Republicans voting to invoke cloture did so to keep the Democrats from bringing up votes on other issues (such as equal pay for women) in the short time the Senate has left before recessing. They hope to drag out the debate on the resolution to amend the Constitution before finally voting to kill it just before a recess.

Even if the resolution was to get the required 67 votes by some miracle, it is almost a foregone conclusion that it would die in the House of Representatives -- where at least 290 votes would be needed before it could be sent to the states (where three-fourths of the states would need to ratify it, or 38 states).

I don't mean to belittle the Senate vote yesterday. It was a victory, but only a tiny victory -- and there is still a long hard road to be tread before any amendment could be approved. And you can bet the Republicans will throw up roadblocks every bit of the way (because they know they are the primary beneficiaries of the massive corporate donations).

This is just one more reason why the Republicans must be voted out of power in the coming November election.

The Futile Effort To Ban Same-Sex Marriages With A Constitutional Amendment

Last week the Supreme Court delivered a serious blow to the opponents of legalizing same-sex marriage, when they struck down the portions of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) that prevented the federal government from granting the same rights and privileges to same-sex married couples as they grant to opposite-sex marriages. DOMA was the last line of defense the right-wing had to stop federal acceptance of same-sex marriage, and now the Supreme Court has declared it to be unconstitutional.

But that hasn't stopped those opposed to equal rights. They have been fighting a losing battle for a while now, and they have no intention of stopping that fight. At least 29 House Republicans, led by Kansas Republican Rep. Tim Huelskamp (pictured at left), have introduced a constitutional amendment in the House of Representatives -- an amendment called the "Marriage Protection Amendment", which would ban same-sex marriages anywhere in the United States. The amendment reads as follows:

Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.

Of course, a snowball has a better chance of surviving the summer in the Mojave Desert than this amendment does of passing enough hurdles to actually become a part of our Constitution. The bill would need to be approved by a two-thirds majority in both the House of Representatives and the Senate, and then it would have to be approved by three-fourths of the 50 states -- and it doesn't stand a chance of meeting any of those requirements.

The right-wing fundamentalists have already lost this war to deny equal rights to all Americans, whether they want to admit it or not. This is nothing more than a dying whimper.

A Proposal That's Badly Needed

When the Constitution was written and adopted, I believe the Founding Fathers meant for their newly created Congress to be composed of citizen legislators -- people who would serve for a while and then return to their civilian lives and jobs. They never meant to create a class of career politicians who would create special privileges and rewards for themselves -- things not available to the general public. But that is exactly what has happened.

The career politicians now serving in Congress have rewarded themselves with excellent pay (which they themselves can raise whenever they want), superb health insurance (unavailable to the general public except through exorbitant premiums), and a very generous retirement plan (which would be the envy of even the strongest union). And this doesn't even take into account the huge expense accounts and other numerous perks. While these politicians are extraordinarily stingy when it comes to helping the poor, children, the elderly, and the unemployed, they have spared no effort in providing a life of ease for themselves.

Protests Grow By The 99%

The protests by "the 99%" against the buying of America by the richest 1% continues in New York. But it is no longer just a few hundred. Now it is a few thousand, and yesterday at least a dozen unions joined the protest. That means the middle class is paying attention. In addition, the demonstrations have spread to other cities across the nation. We may actually be witnessing the birth of an actual grassroots movement -- and one that is badly needed in this country.

Meanwhile, MSNBC talking-head Dylan Ratigan has been at the demonstrations for the last few days. He recognizes that one of the core beliefs of the demonstrators is that the richest 1%, through the corporations, have bought the federal government and now dictate what laws will be passed and what candidates will be elected. So he has made a concrete proposal -- a constitutional amendment to take the money out of elections. It wouldn't solve all of America's problems, but it would be a good first step. Here is his proposed amendment:

"No person, corporation or business entity of any type, domestic or foreign, shall be allowed to contribute money, directly or indirectly, to any candidate for Federal office or to contribute money on behalf of or opposed to any type of campaign for Federal office. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, campaign contributions to candidates for Federal office shall not constitute speech of any kind as guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution or any amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Congress shall set forth a federal holiday for the purposes of voting for candidates for Federal office."

He is asking people to sign on to his amendment proposal. When I last checked over 110,000 people had signed on (and I added my name). That's a pretty good start, but it is not nearly enough to get the attention of the politicians. It would probably take 10 times that number to get their attention. If you would like to add your name (and I hope you will) you can go to this webpage --http://www.getmoneyout.com/?recruiter_id=110982.

But whether you sign on to Ratigan's proposed amendment or not, I urge you to give the Occupy Wall Street demonstrators (the representatives of the 99%) whatever support you can. It's important to the re-establishment of the American democracy. The richest 1% have ruled this country for long enough.

Constitution Needs A New Amendment

The United States Supreme Court makes some mistakes every now and then. The Dred Scott decision was a bad mistake, which history later corrected. The court decisions, especially the 5-4 decision in Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission, that give corporations the same right as people in the United States was another mistake.

And it's a mistake that could turn our representative democracy into a fascist oligarchy -- a government in which only the corporations and the rich have any input into decisions. The best way to correct the court's mistake, and the way to keep the court from doing it again, is to pass a new constitutional amendment -- an amendment that makes it clear that corporations and other business and political organizations are not people and don't have the same rights as people.

Texas progressive David Van Os is encouraging all Democrats to pass a resolution to this effect in their county and senate district conventions, and then again at the state convention. We cannot count on national politicians to do this on their own. We must give them a push, and passing resolutions in our conventions can be the start of that needed push. To get things started, Van Os has written out the proposed resolution. If you are attending a convention this weekend, copy it down and introduce it at the convention for a vote.

Here is his resolution:

RESOLUTION - CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO OVERRULE CORPORATE PERSONHOOD

Whereas, the founders of our nation proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence authored by Thomas Jefferson that government is founded only on the consent of the governed; and

Whereas, we proudly embrace this founding premise of democracy; and

Whereas, we cherish the belief articulated by Abraham Lincoln that our forebears intended to establish a government of, by, and for the people that shall not perish from the earth; and

Whereas, our forefathers and foremothers made monumental sacrifices to ensure they preserved our nation's democracy so they could hand it down to us for our benefit and enjoyment; and

Whereas, the United States Supreme Court recently held in the Citizens United v. Federal Communications Commissiondecision that corporations are "persons" under the Constitution, thus possessing the same Constitutional rights and protections as natural, living human beings; and

Whereas, the Supreme Court ignored the plain fact that corporations are artificial entities which do not have the natural capacity to give or withhold the consent of the governed or to participate in government of, by, and for the people; and

Whereas, the Supreme Court majority of five judges that made this ruling subverted the very concept of democracy for which so many of our forefathers and foremothers have sacrificed so much; and

Whereas, the Supreme Court majority of five judges that made this ruling subverted the democratic political process by removing all effective limitations on the pernicious flow of massive corporate money into election campaigns; and

Whereas, the intellectual dishonesty of the Supreme Court ruling is demonstrated by the fact that the Constitution on its face does not give corporations the rights of persons yet the five judges who made the ruling claimed to be strict constructionists in their confirmation hearings; and

Whereas, since the Supreme Court majority purported to base its ruling on Constitutional interpretation it will require amendment of the Constitution to overrule the Court's decision; and

Whereas, amendment of the Constitution is a proper and time-honored method for the people to overrule Supreme Court decisions of erroneous Constitutional interpretation; and

Whereas, the Constitutional amendment process contains checks and balances to ensure that the Constitution is not amended lightly and should only be done for the most pressing of reasons; and

Whereas, equating corporations to natural persons is so fundamentally damaging to our democracy that it is now imperative to amend the Constitution to clarify that corporations are not Constitutional persons; and

Whereas, only by such Constitutional amendment will the people regain the right to regulate and limit corporate behavior by such legislative action as the people may desire through their legislative representatives, including but not limited to time-honored prohibitions on corporate spending in political campaigns; now

Therefore be it resolved, that the following amendment to the United States Constitution should be adopted by the U.S. Congress and submitted to the states for ratification without delay: Amendment 28 - Natural Persons The words "person" and "persons" wherever used in the United States Constitution and the Amendments thereto shall be construed to mean only natural persons.

Term Limits Are A Good Idea

I seldom have much good to say about Republicans in Congress. In general, I think they are obstructionist and favor the giant corporations over the rights of individual citizens. But as they say, even a broken clock is right twice a day -- and I think some Senate Republicans have found one of those times where they are right.

Sen. Jim DeMint (R-South Carolina) and several colleagues in the senate are trying to revive the idea of term limits for those in Congress. They are proposing a constitutional amendment that would limit service in the House to six years (three terms) and service in the Senate to 12 years (two terms).

De Mint (pictured) says, "Americans know real change in Washington will never happen until we end the era of permanent politicians. As long as members have the chance to spend their lives in Washington, their interests will always skew toward spending taxpayer dollars to buy off special interests, covering over corruption in the bureaucracy, fundraising, relationship building among lobbyists, and trading favors for pork -- in short, amassing their own power."

I'm not a big fan of Senator DeMint, but there is little doubt that he is absolutely right about this issue. Far too often, we have politicians of both parties who act in their own interest rather than the interest of the citizens they were elected to serve (just look at a number of the blue dog Democrats).

I know some of you may think that term limits would cause the Congress to lose some valuable experience. I disagree. That's why Senators and Representatives hire a competent staff. That staff is supposed to do the research so they can supply their bosses with the requisite expertise to deal with complicated issues.

I firmly believe that our Founding Fathers meant we should be governed by elected citizen representatives -- not by a class of professional politicians acting in their own interest. I also believe term limits might inspire some political courage (a quantity that is far too rare these days). Those in Congress might be more likely to vote in the interests of the citizens, knowing that they won't have a career in Washington however they vote.

I doubt if this amendment has much chance of success, because it must have the support of two-thirds of the members of both houses of Congress (and that's what killed it last time it came up). If it does fail, it'll be because the professional politicians voted to maintain the status quo.

I have no doubt that if the citizens could vote on this amendment, it would be approved by a huge margin.

Feingold Amendment Should Be Approved

The filling of vacated seats in the United States Senate this year has left a lot to be desired. Frankly, it was a mess. It definitely showed the need for the Constitution to clearly delineate how vacated senate seats should be filled. Just look at what happened this year.

First, we have the nutty governor of Illinois -- Rod Blagojevich. He decides that he should be able to sell the Illinois senate seat to the highest bidder. Then he gets caught on tape trying to do just that, and is arrested by federal agents. He faces impeachment and a criminal trial, but that didn't stop him from making a senate appointment anyway. So now Illinois is saddled with a senator blemished by Blagojevich's criminal behavior, and it'll be a couple of years before they can replace him.

Then we have the weird pick of New York's governor -- David Paterson. From the very start, there were two clear favorites of the people of New York. In every poll conducted, Cuomo and Kennedy were far ahead of any other candidate. So who does Paterson choose? He ignores the wishes of the people of New York and picks his own favorite -- an virtually unknown representative from upstate. Again, it'll be a couple of years before the people can choose for themselves.

Add to this the fact that a caretaker senator was chosen in Delaware. The people will choose their real senator in a couple of years. This is OK I guess, but they have given away two years of seniority, and seniority is important in the U.S. Senate.

The states also can't seem to agree about how to vacated senate seats. Some states let the governor pick, but have a fast special election. Some states let the governor pick, and then wait a couple of years for a real election. Some states just have a quick special election and let the people choose. In some states, the governor must choose someone from the same party as the leaving senator, and in other, the governor can choose someone from either party.

Senator Russ Feingold believes it is time to fix this mess. Sen. Feingold says, "The controversies surrounding some of the recent gubernatorial appointments to vacant Senate seats make it painfully clear that such appointments are an anachronism that must end. In 1913, the Seventeenth Amendment to the Constitution gave the citizens of this country the power to finally elect their senators. They should have the same power in the case of unexpected mid-term vacancies, so that the Senate is as responsive as possible to the will of the people."

Feingold is proposing a new constitutional amendment. He says, "I plan to introduce a constitutional amendment this week to require special elections when a Senate seat is vacant, as the Constitution mandates for the House, and as my own state of Wisconsin already requires by statute."

This just makes sense. If a senator elected by the people vacates his/her seat, it should be the citizens of that state who choose the replacement. This is already done for House members, and there's no reason why it can't be done for senators. I think this is an excellent amendment, and I believe it has a good chance of being approved. At least, I hope so.

Once again, Russ Feingold shows us the best way to solve a problem.