Hello everyone! My next episode will be coming this afternoon. I was well on my way to finishing what I was originally going to post, which was about college, except the judicial branch today has dropped a whole shopping basket full of better things to opine on: The Supreme Court has unleashed a spate of new decisions, notably one forbidding warrantless searches of cell phones, and a federal district judge has shot down Indiana's gay marriage ban. So I'm scrapping my original episode for now and going with what's come down today. I'll see you shortly!
0 Comments
Hello all! I wanted to throw out a note on Episode 12. I typed that episode out today on Microsoft Word, thinking that I could cut and paste it onto here and it would come up in the usual font, size, and color. Obviously, I was wrong about that, and do apologize for any inconvenience. I think it looks kind of nice that way, however, I'd also like to see consistency between episode posts. Also, a video episode is in the works! I don't have a timeline for it yet, but I am planning a video episode in the future. Good evening! I’m going to be putting on an extended episode this evening, discussing the reports circulating that an Article V constitutional amendment convention is close to becoming reality. I’d like to start by reminding everyone that what is being proposed is an AMENDMENT convention, not a constitutional convention; there is a difference, as a “con-con” is called to draft a new Constitution, not amend an existing one.
There has been a lot of buzz recently about the prospect of a convention to amend the Constitution. The effort, whom Indiana Senate President Pro-Tempore David Long (R-Fort Wayne) seems to be the biggest cheerleader, would call the states together for such a convention, authorized under Article V of the Constitution. The aim of the convention would be to develop new amendments to the Constitution, and if approved by the convention, send them to the state legislatures for ratification. A lot of people are eyeing the convention talk, and for good reason: this would be the first time an Article V convention in this manner has been called. Previous amendments, specifically the 11th through 23rd Amendments, originated from Congress, and were generally limited to one, or maybe two, amendments at a time. The convention as envisioned by Long, among others, would allow for as many, or as few, amendments to be considered as the delegates so pleased. It is conceivable, indeed even likely, that the delegates could be limited by the states they represent in what amendments were proposed and discussed; during the Constitution Convention of 1787, many delegates went to Philadelphia with state-imposed restrictions. But just as with the 1787 effort that drafted the Constitution, limitations imposed by the states may not necessarily be adhered to by their delegates. In fact, of the twelve states represented in the Philadelphia gathering—Rhode Island did not participate—only the New Jersey and North Carolina delegations were sent without any directives from their legislatures, and when other delegates began to go against the limits demanded of the New York delegation, which was to amend the Articles of Confederation, not replace them, two of the Empire State’s delegates walked out, leaving Alexander Hamilton alone to speak for them. And in fact, some historians believe the walkout of Hamilton’s companions actually helped the Philadelphia effort, because unlike his colleagues, the future Vice President—who would later lose his life in a duel with Aaron Burr on Long Island—was willing to go against Albany’s desires. Some modern-day commentators, most of them conservative, believe that similar restrictions could be—and likely would be—imposed on state delegates to an amendment convention. They say that restrictions imposed by the state legislatures, or perhaps oaths sworn prior to departing, would keep the delegates “in check” and prevent a runaway convention. But if the delegates of 1787 were so willing to flaunt the desires of the states that sent them, with seeming gusto, what would keep the delegates of the 2010’s from doing the same thing? The simple answer, historically speaking, is nothing. The answer is nothing because no matter how noble the cause, there is an ulterior motive behind the convention. Those supporting the convention say they want the convention because they feel the gridlock in Washington has given them no other choice; but if one looks at what’s already being tossed around as potential amendments, it seems that, no matter the bipartisan nature, this convention is being dominated by conservatives. Many of the states involved are under Republican leadership. And given the state of affairs in Washington, with a Republican-dominated House of Representatives and Democrats controlling the Senate and the White House, the GOP has the most to (potentially) gain from such an endeavor. Loosely translated, “dysfunction in Washington” means “Democrats”. But what other choice does the Republican Party have? Even if they gain control of the Senate this year, which is still a distinct possibility, President Obama will still be a Democrat, and even with a Republican-controlled Congress, they may not have enough of a foothold to just run roughshod over the White House, even with a conservative Senate. And there would still be enough “establishment” Republicans in the senate to pre-empt any Tea Party shenanigans, even if briefly. So to the Republicans, their only hope of shaping America the way they want it to be shaped is to call an amendment convention, throw out some potential Constitutional amendments, and go on a PR blitz to convince the requisite 38 states of the benefits of ratifying any amendments that rise from this occasion. So what’s being thrown around so far? Like I said above, most of the rumored potential amendments would clearly benefit the Republicans, like an amendment repealing the 17th Amendment and returning Senate elections to the state legislatures, or an amendment requiring a three-fourths vote of state legislatures before the debt ceiling can be raised again. In fairness, a balanced budget amendment has garnered support from Democrats, as has proposals to institute term limits, and any Democrats participating in the process could, theoretically, attempt to introduce amendments beneficial to their causes in exchange for support for Republican-proffered amendments that they would otherwise scoff at. The conservative pundit Mark Levin has come up with eleven “liberty” amendments that include those mentioned above, as well as amendments giving states the authority to override federal law or enact amendments without Congressional intervention, defining the Commerce Clause to mean that states cannot impede commerce between other states, which he says was James Madison’s intent in the first place (although Jack Rakove, whose splendid Original Meanings is based in large part on research using Madison’s writings, would disagree), and requiring a photo ID to vote. There are a few others in there, but I’ll save those for a later episode. And I don’t want anyone to think that I’m totally bashing the concept; on the contrary, I think it’s interesting, and whether I agree with what would come out of it or not, I’d like to be able to tell my grandkids someday that such an event took place in my lifetime. I’m also not knocking the Republicans by any means—but neither am I completely supporting them; they’ve been dealt a bad hand, and have to play it the best they can. The problems in Washington rest on both sides, not just one, and perhaps a convention to amend the Constitution, or at least the threat of one, will be enough to end the gridlock. My only goal here was to examine the potential problems that could arise during the process, and to examine some of the potential ulterior motives involved. Long, Indiana’s Senate president pro-tem, acknowledges that an Article V convention is a long shot. I’m not so sure that it’s as unlikely as he thinks it is; I’m also not so sure that he fully understands the potential for such a convention to devolve rather quickly into the kind of petulant bickering that the 1787 constitutional convention ultimately turned into. Senator Long is a man worthy of respect, and I know that, whether or not I agree with him, he’s doing what the voters in Fort Wayne sent him to do. My only hope is that he, and those who stand with him, think good and hard about the can of worms they might be opening up. I will be dedicating a future episode to analyzing several of the potential amendments being thrown around. Until then, keep your feet on the ground, and keep reaching for the stars—rest in peace, Casey Kasem. Also, I would be remiss if I did not recognize the passing of Tony Gwynn, “Mr. Padre”, the longtime San Diego slugger and baseball hall of famer who once called Indiana home. Gentlemen, I drink a toast to you. Hi there! As promised, here is my newest episode.
Today, the focus of my opinion is on cops, and how to pay for them. Louisville and Jeffersonville both want to hire more police. For Louisville, the motivation is some hard self-examination in the wake of the downtown mob violence back in March; for Jeffersonville, the impetus depends on who you believe more, with the mayor saying it's necessary because services aren't being provided to the areas annexed several years ago, and the city council president saying the need for more police is strictly because the Jeffersonville end of the Big Four Bridge is finally open. In both cases, there's controversy over how the new police are going to be paid for. Over in Louisville, Mayor Greg Fischer proposed 3% franchise fee on LG&E gas bills. The fee would contribute roughly $5 million towards public safety, namely the Louisville Metro Police Department; that money would help hire, train, and pay 24 new officers--fifteen based out of a downtown substation that recently opened, the other nine deployed into the First or Second Divisions. A Real Time Crime Center would also be established so that LMPD could monitor the surveillance cameras downtown, which are currently monitored by Louisville Metro Corrections. Naturally, some members of the Metro Council were adamantly opposed to the idea. And who could blame them? Residents in Jeffersontown and St. Matthews, or areas covered by a police department other than LMPD, would not have to pay the fee, essentially making it a tax on those who receive LMPD service. And there was a question about how the city can fund thousands of dollars in bicycle lane conversions--a controversy in itself--but has to find money to hire new cops. Metro Council Republicans felt that the fee was unnecessary, that money could be diverted from other uses (for example, bicycle lanes) to add new cops. Others wanted to wait until an outside review of LMPD staffing was finished. In the end, Fischer got a 2% increase. This figure will only provide roughly $2.8 to $4.3 million in extra revenue. The fee passed several days ago, 12-10, with most Republicans voting against, one abstaining, and four not voting. When the new officers will hit the street is anyone's guess; the real question is, will they be enough? I'm willing to bet not. Meanwhile, on this side of the bridge, Mayor Mike Moore wants to add 25 new police officers to Jeffersonville's force, at a rate of 5 officers per year for 5 years. In making his proposal, Moore said that the city is not making good on promises made when several areas east of the city were annexed in 2011, and that the 25 new officers would keep the promise regarding police protection. He also noted the compared to other cities in the area, which have 2 to 2.5 officers per 1,000 residents, Jeffersonville has just below 2 officers per 1,000 residents; the FBI recommendation is between 2 and 2.5 officers per 1,000 residents. City Council President Dennis Julius, who has declared his candidacy for mayor in the next mayoral race, sees it differently. To him, Moore is not motivated by annexation, but by the recent opening of the Big Four Bridge ramp, the subsequent jump in JPD overtime, and the need to bring in off-duty officers to help provide security around the Big Four in the interim. Julius agrees that more cops are needed, but doesn't think the city needs 25 new cops; in his eyes, more cameras and drones--yes, drones--are needed, with fewer new cops. Whatever Mayor Moore's motivation, which I will not comment on, he's right. Jeffersonville needs more police officers. Although I don't live in Jeffersonville, I'm in the city a lot, and I somehow doubt 25 would even be enough. Cameras are nice to have things, but they can't answer runs for service. And the mere mention of drones is ludicrous, for the same reasons--coupled with the same privacy concerns that have led people in other areas to declare "open season" on drones, vowing to shoot them down. And like with cameras, a drone can't answer runs. I have a scanner, and I listen to it on a fairly regular basis. Police Chief Chris Grimm recently told the City Council that JPD has become a "reactionary" department; the scanner traffic I hear tells me that's almost an understatement. Ultimately, there is a turf war starting to brew between Mike Moore and the City Council, much in the same way that there was, or maybe still is, one between the Metro Council and Greg Fischer. What everyone needs to do is sit back, take a deep breath or two, and come up with some sort of workable solution, perhaps one that doesn't involve franchise fees. Or drones. I hope they do, because neither city can afford to see a repeat of March 22. And while they're at it, Chiefs Steve Conrad and Chris Grimm need to take a good look to see if two dozen is enough. I don't mean to criticize them at all, but 24 or 25 new cops doesn't seem enough. Hello out there! I apologize for being away for so long; unfortunately, life has been calling the last couple of months. Fortunately, I'm at the point now where I can get back to it.
I'm going to change a few things up around here. For starters, I'm going to undo all the references to "us"; I shouldn't act like there's more than one person running this blog. I'm also going to only run one or two things, instead of three like I have been. And finally, I'm only going to post twice a week for the time being. Once I get a little more time--i.e., at the end of this monster summer semester at school--I'll start working my way back to daily posting, but for now, twice a week should do the trick. I'm also going to find a better background picture. This wave looks neat-o, but I think it kind of interferes with reading the entries. So sit tight, folks, and grab some popcorn; my next episode's coming right up! |
About UsJust some guy talking about stuff Archives
July 2015
|