Thursday, May 20, 2004
Is it getting drafty in here, or is it me?
I've written in the past about the possibility that the draft might be reinstituted. This article discusses not only the bills but the work being done behind the scenes to make it possible to put a draft through quickly if enough polticians want to do it. This includes staffing draft boards, removing the possibility of avoiding the draft by going to Canada (though Sweden, the other country that historically received a lot of people avoiding the draft, is not mentioned). The article also provides details on how the lack of an education deferment might work. This is an action site with a link to allow you to contact your Congresspeople.
Here's the full text of HR. 163, from a search on thomas.loc.gov, which doesn't allow linking:
Universal National Service Act of 2003 (Introduced in House)
HR 163 IH
108th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. R. 163
To provide for the common defense by requiring that all young persons in the United States, including women, perform a period of military service or a period of civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security, and for other purposes.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
January 7, 2003
Mr. RANGEL (for himself, Mr. MCDERMOTT, Mr. CONYERS, Mr. LEWIS of Georgia, Mr. STARK, and Mr. ABERCROMBIE) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Armed Services
A BILL
To provide for the common defense by requiring that all young persons in the United States, including women, perform a period of military service or a period of civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) SHORT TITLE- This Act may be cited as the `Universal National Service Act of 2003'.
(b) TABLE OF CONTENTS- The table of contents for this Act is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. National service obligation.
Sec. 3. Two-year period of national service.
Sec. 4. Implementation by the President.
Sec. 5. Induction.
Sec. 6. Deferments and postponements.
Sec. 7. Induction exemptions.
Sec. 8. Conscientious objection.
Sec. 9. Discharge following national service.
Sec. 10. Registration of females under the Military Selective Service Act.
Sec. 11. Relation of Act to registration and induction authority of Military Selective Service Act.
Sec. 12. Definitions.
SEC. 2. NATIONAL SERVICE OBLIGATION.
(a) OBLIGATION FOR YOUNG PERSONS- It is the obligation of every citizen of the United States, and every other person residing in the United States, who is between the ages of 18 and 26 to perform a period of national service as prescribed in this Act unless exempted under the provisions of this Act.
(b) FORM OF NATIONAL SERVICE- National service under this Act shall be performed either--
(1) as a member of an active or reverse component of the uniformed services; or
(2) in a civilian capacity that, as determined by the President, promotes the national defense, including national or community service and homeland security.
(c) INDUCTION REQUIREMENTS- The President shall provide for the induction of persons covered by subsection (a) to perform national service under this Act.
(d) SELECTION FOR MILITARY SERVICE- Based upon the needs of the uniformed services, the President shall--
(1) determine the number of persons covered by subsection (a) whose service is to be performed as a member of an active or reverse component of the uniformed services; and
(2) select the individuals among those persons who are to be inducted for military service under this Act.
(e) CIVILIAN SERVICE- Persons covered by subsection (a) who are not selected for military service under subsection (d) shall perform their national service obligation under this Act in a civilian capacity pursuant to subsection (b)(2).
SEC. 3. TWO-YEAR PERIOD OF NATIONAL SERVICE.
(a) GENERAL RULE- Except as otherwise provided in this section, the period of national service performed by a person under this Act shall be two years.
(b) GROUNDS FOR EXTENSION- At the discretion of the President, the period of military service for a member of the uniformed services under this Act may be extended--
(1) with the consent of the member, for the purpose of furnishing hospitalization, medical, or surgical care for injury or illness incurred in line of duty; or
(2) for the purpose of requiring the member to compensate for any time lost to training for any cause.
(c) EARLY TERMINATION- The period of national service for a person under this Act shall be terminated before the end of such period under the following circumstances:
(1) The voluntary enlistment and active service of the person in an active or reverse component of the uniformed services for a period of at least two years, in which case the period of basic military training and education actually served by the person shall be counted toward the term of enlistment.
(2) The admission and service of the person as a cadet or midshipman at the United States Military Academy, the United States Naval Academy, the United States Air Force Academy, the Coast Guard Academy, or the United States Merchant Marine Academy.
(3) The enrollment and service of the person in an officer candidate program, if the person has signed an agreement to accept a Reserve commission in the appropriate service with an obligation to serve on active duty if such a commission is offered upon completion of the program.
(4) Such other grounds as the President may establish.
SEC. 4. IMPLEMENTATION BY THE PRESIDENT.
(a) IN GENERAL- The President shall prescribe such regulations as are necessary to carry out this Act.
(b) MATTER TO BE COVERED BY REGULATIONS- Such regulations shall include specification of the following:
(1) The types of civilian service that may be performed for a person's national service obligation under this Act.
(2) Standards for satisfactory performance of civilian service and of penalties for failure to perform civilian service satisfactorily.
(3) The manner in which persons shall be selected for induction under this Act, including the manner in which those selected will be notified of such selection.
(4) All other administrative matters in connection with the induction of persons under this Act and the registration, examination, and classification of such persons.
(5) A means to determine questions or claims with respect to inclusion for, or exemption or deferment from induction under this Act, including questions of conscientious objection.
(6) Standards for compensation and benefits for persons performing their national service obligation under this Act through civilian service.
(7) Such other matters as the President determines necessary to carry out this Act.
(c) USE OF PRIOR ACT- To the extent determined appropriate by the President, the President may use for purposes of this Act the procedures provided in the Military Selective Service Act (50 U.S.C. App. 451 et seq.), including procedures for registration, selection, and induction.
SEC. 5. INDUCTION.
(a) IN GENERAL- Every person subject to induction for national service under this Act, except those whose training is deferred or postponed in accordance with this Act, shall be called and inducted by the President for such service at the time and place specified by the President.
(b) AGE LIMITS- A person may be inducted under this Act only if the person has attained the age of 18 and has not attained the age of 26.
(c) VOLUNTARY INDUCTION- A person subject to induction under this Act may volunteer for induction at a time other than the time at which the person is otherwise called for induction.
(d) EXAMINATION; CLASSIFICATION- Every person subject to induction under this Act shall, before induction, be physically and mentally examined and shall be classified as to fitness to perform national service. The President may apply different classification standards for fitness for military service and fitness for civilian service.
SEC. 6. DEFERMENTS AND POSTPONEMENTS.
(a) HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS- A person who is pursuing a standard course of study, on a full-time basis, in a secondary school or similar institution of learning shall be entitled to have induction under this Act postponed until the person--
(1) obtains a high school diploma;
(2) ceases to pursue satisfactorily such course of study; or
(3) attains the age of 20.
(b) HARDSHIP AND DISABILITY- Deferments from national service under this Act may be made for--
(1) extreme hardship; or
(2) physical or mental disability.
(c) TRAINING CAPACITY- The President may postpone or suspend the induction of persons for military service under this Act as necessary to limit the number of persons receiving basic military training and education to the maximum number that can be adequately trained.
(d) TERMINATION- No deferment or postponement of induction under this Act shall continue after the cause of such deferment or postponement ceases.
SEC. 7. INDUCTION EXEMPTIONS.
(a) QUALIFICATIONS- No person may be inducted for military service under this Act unless the person is acceptable to the Secretary concerned for training and meets the same health and physical qualifications applicable under section 505 of title 10, United States Code, to persons seeking original enlistment in a regular component of the Armed Forces.
(b) OTHER MILITARY SERVICE- No person shall be liable for induction under this Act who--
(1) is serving, or has served honorably for at least six months, in any component of the uniformed services on active duty; or
(2) is or becomes a cadet or midshipman at the United States Military Academy, the United States Naval Academy, the United States Air Force Academy, the Coast Guard Academy, the United States Merchant Marine Academy, a midshipman of a Navy accredited State maritime academy, a member of the Senior Reserve Officers' Training Corps, or the naval aviation college program, so long as that person satisfactorily continues in and completes two years training therein.
SEC. 8. CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTION.
(a) CLAIMS AS CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTOR- Any person selected under this Act for induction into the uniformed services who claims, because of religious training and belief (as defined in section 6(j) of the Military Selective Service Act (50 U.S.C. 456(j))), exemption from combatant training included as part of that military service and whose claim is sustained under such procedures as the President may prescribe, shall, when inducted, participate in military service that does not include any combatant training component.
(b) TRANSFER TO CIVILIAN SERVICE- Any such person whose claim is sustained may, at the discretion of the President, be transferred to a national service program for performance of such person's national service obligation under this Act.
SEC. 9. DISCHARGE FOLLOWING NATIONAL SERVICE.
(a) DISCHARGE- Upon completion or termination of the obligation to perform national service under this Act, a person shall be discharged from the uniformed services or from civilian service, as the case may be, and shall not be subject to any further service under this Act.
(b) COORDINATION WITH OTHER AUTHORITIES- Nothing in this section shall limit or prohibit the call to active service in the uniformed services of any person who is a member of a regular or reserve component of the uniformed services.
SEC. 10. REGISTRATION OF FEMALES UNDER THE MILITARY SELECTIVE SERVICE ACT.
(a) REGISTRATION REQUIRED- Section 3(a) of the Military Selective Service Act (50 U.S.C. 453(a)) is amended--
(1) by striking `male' both places it appears;
(2) by inserting `or herself' after `himself'; and
(3) by striking `he' and inserting `the person'.
(b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT- Section 16(a) of the Military Selective Service Act (50 U.S.C. App. 466(a)) is amended by striking `men' and inserting `persons'.
SEC. 11. RELATION OF ACT TO REGISTRATION AND INDUCTION AUTHORITY OF MILITARY SELECTIVE SERVICE ACT.
(a) REGISTRATION- Section 4 of the Military Selective Service Act (50 U.S.C. App. 454) is amended by inserting after subsection (g) the following new subsection:
`(h) This section does not apply with respect to the induction of persons into the Armed Forces pursuant to the Universal National Service Act of 2003.'.
(b) INDUCTION- Section 17(c) of the Military Selective Service Act (50 U.S.C. App. 467(c)) is amended by striking `now or hereafter' and all that follows through the period at the end and inserting `inducted pursuant to the Universal National Service Act of 2003.'.
SEC. 12. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) The term `military service' means service performed as a member of an active or reverse component of the uniformed services.
(2) The term `Secretary concerned' means the Secretary of Defense with respect to the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps, the Secretary of Homeland Security with respect to the Coast Guard, the Secretary of Commerce, with respect to matters concerning the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the Secretary of Health and Human Services, with respect to matters concerning the Public Health Service.
(3) The term `United States', when used in a geographical sense, means the several States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and Guam.
(4) The term `uniformed services' means the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, Coast Guard, commissioned corps of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and commissioned corps of the Public Health Service.
Here, from the Congressional Record, are supporting comments by Rep. Fortney Pete Stark of California on Jan.8, 2003, when the bill was introduced.
SUPPORTING H.R. 163, THE UNIVERSAL NATIONAL SERVICE ACT OF 2003 -- HON. FORTNEY PETE STARK (Extensions of Remarks - January 08, 2003)
HON. FORTNEY PETE STARK
OF CALIFORNIA
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 8, 2003
* Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I am an original cosponsor of the Rangel/Conyers bill, the Universal National Service Act of 2003 (H.R. 163 ), which would reinstate a national draft. I would like to explain my support for this legislation.
* I ardently oppose war with Iraq. The evidence simply does not exist to warrant sending our nation's young people to sacrifice their lives in Iraq. I believe America ought to be an advocate for peace, not imperialism.
* Yet, war is on the horizon. The President is intent on invading Iraq whatever the cost. Thanks to the President's brand of hotheaded bully diplomacy, war with North Korea may also be imminent. The only real question that remains is whether or not Americans are ready and willing to bear the cost?
* I commend my colleagues Mr. RANGEL and Mr. CONYERS for their wisdom in authoring this bill. I'm honored to be an original cosponsor.
* This bill requires all young Americans--men and women between 18 and 26--to perform a two year period of national service in a military or civilian capacity as determined by the President. For those who conscientiously object to war, the bill assures that any military service would not include combat. Otherwise, there would be no preferences, no deferments, no chance for the well-off or the well-connected to dodge military service for their country, as did our President.
* Reinstituting the draft may seem unnecessary to some. But, it will ensure all Americans share in the cost and sacrifice of war. Without a universal draft, this burden weighs disproportionately on the shoulders of the poor, the disadvantaged and minority populations.
* It is my understanding that out of the 435 Members of this House and the 100 members of the Senate, only one--only one--has a child in active military service. Who are we to know the pain of war when we ourselves will not directly bear the brunt of that action? It won't be us mourning the loss of a child or loved one. Maybe some of you in this Congress would think twice about voting for war in Iraq if you knew your child may be sent to fight in the streets of Baghdad?
* If our nation is to go to war, it is only right that all Americans share in the sacrifice of war. It is time we truly comprehended the consequences. I urge my colleagues to support a universal draft which I believe will make votes for war much more real for many of my colleagues.
What also concerns me about all this is the list of names of people sponsoring these bills. Here's the list (verbatim from the Congressional Record) of sponsors of the House bill and the dates their names were added to the list:
Rep Abercrombie, Neil - 1/7/2003 [HI-1]
Rep Brown, Corrine - 1/28/2003 [FL-3]
Rep Christensen, Donna M. - 5/19/2004 [VI]
Rep Clay, Wm. Lacy - 1/28/2003 [MO-1]
Rep Conyers, John, Jr. - 1/7/2003 [MI-14]
Rep Cummings, Elijah E. - 1/28/2003 [MD-7]
Rep Hastings, Alcee L. - 1/28/2003 [FL-23]
Rep Jackson-Lee, Sheila - 1/28/2003 [TX-18]
Rep Lewis, John - 1/7/2003 [GA-5]
Rep McDermott, Jim - 1/7/2003 [WA-7]
Rep Moran, James P. - 1/28/2003 [VA-8]
Rep Norton, Eleanor Holmes - 1/28/2003 [DC]
Rep Stark, Fortney Pete - 1/7/2003 [CA-13]
Rep Velazquez, Nydia M. - 1/28/2003 [NY-12]
Take a good look at that list. Notice anything interesting? You should. Except for Donna Christensen, the nonvoting representative from the U.S. Virgin Islands, and Eleanor Holmes Norton, the nonvoting representative of D.C., every single person on that list is a Democrat.
In comparison, S.89 has one sponsor, Sen. Ernest Hollings of South Carolina, and no cosponsors as of today. Hollings is also a Democrat.
We have to take context into consideration here. Both these bills were proposed in January 2003, just before the war in Iraq started. Senator Hollings served in the Army during WWII, but most of the House members who sponsored their bill did not have military experience, the exceptions being Rep. Conyers (Army in the Korean War, also National Guard and Army Reserves), Rep. McDermott (Navy Medical Corps during the time of Vietnam, though I have no information on whether he served in a war zone), and Rep. Stark ( Air Force, between Korea and Vietnam.) Perhaps, given the timing, the bills were proposed as a matter of staking out turf for the coming conflict (and I mean in Congress as well as overseas.) Maybe they were proposed as a matter of principle. Usually popular bills acquire a lot of sponsors, who want to get their names recorded, but these haven't gotten many yet -- though Rep. Christensen is the latest, jumping onto the bandwagon on May 19, 2004.
The bills have been read and referred to committee: S.89 is in the Senate Armed Forces Committee and HR. 163 is in the House Armed Services Committee, Subcommittee on Total Force -- but has also been sent to the Department of Defense with a request for executive comment.
That last bit tells me this bill is still active, though undercover. On something like this, they're not going to ask for comment and have that many people involved in the issue if nothing's going to happen with it. If the House manages to pass the bill, it may still have an uphill battle in the Senate -- but if Bush keeps the White House, the Republicans (or the War Hawks of any party) take the Congress, this will come up again and it may go through *very quickly*.
A couple of weeks ago I wrote a post here listing the names of Congressmen and their approval ratings from the Christian Coalition; one of the issues the CC included in determining their support for incumbents was voting to authorize troops to be sent to Iraq. Anyone who received a high grade from the Christian Coalition voted for the war. If you're not sure by looking at the list I compiled, check your own representative's website at www.house.gov.
I'm concerned that this issue is not out in the press, that people are unaware of it, and that more may be going on here than we're aware of. If anyone hears anything on this, feel free to contact me with the link in the upper left of the blogpage and let me know, and I'll check it out.
5/20/2004 05:46:00 PM
Tuesday, May 18, 2004
An update on the ten bills against 'judicial activism'
Since Bush is blathering against what he calls "judicial activism", in connection with Massachusetts allowing same-sex marriages, I thought it time to update the information we have on the status of ten bills the Republicans want passed.
All of these were introduced and sponsored by members of the far-right, Christian-Coalition-approved section of the Republican Party, and are often sponsored by only a handful of legislators. All update information is from http://thomas.loc.gov.
1.House Resolution 446, the Constitution Preservation Resolution:
CRS Summary: Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the Supreme Court should base its decisions on the Constitution and the Laws of the United States, and not on the law of any foreign country or any international law or agreement not made under the authority of the United States.
Status: Referred to House subcommittee on Courts, the Internet and Intellectual Property on Dec. 10, 2003, and still there.
My opinion: There's no way to know how long a bill will sit in committee, and we could be surprised by a few of these, but I think this one will stay in committee.
2. Senate Resolution 275: A Resolution to Affirm the Defense of Marriage Act
CRS Summary: Expresses the sense of the Senate that: (1) Congress should take whatever steps necessary to affirm the fact that marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman; (2) same-sex marriage is not a right, fundamental or otherwise, recognized in this country; (3) neither the U.S. Constitution nor any Federal law shall be construed to require that marital status or its legal incidents be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups; (4) the Defense of Marriage Act is a proper and constitutional exercise of Congress's powers under the effects clause of section 1 of Article IV; and (5) that no State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such entities, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.
Status: Referred to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary as introduced, on Nov. 25, 2003, and still there.
My opinion: There's no way to know about this one, but it only has six cosponsors --
Sen Wayne Allard, Sen Sam Brownback, Sen Jim Bunning, Sen John Cornyn, Sen Rick Santorum, Sen Jeff Sessions – all of whom are floating somewhere off the tip of the primary feather on the right wing of the Republicans, so it may go nowhere except for show: "See, I'm not afraid of those fierce gay people! I'm opposing them in print with my friends!"
3. House Resolution 468: Expressing disapproval of the consideration by Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States of foreign laws and public opinion in their decisions, urging the end of this practice immediately to avoid setting a dangerous precedent, and urging all Justices to base their opinions solely on the merits under the Constitution of the United States.
Status: Referred to the House Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet and Intellectual Property on Dec. 10, 2003, and still there.
My opinion: This was an outburst of a bunch of right-wing-tip Republicans who wanted to blow off steam and make their opinions known. I doubt it's going anywhere.
4. House Resoluion 1547: Religious Freedom Restoration Act
CRS Summary: Amends the Federal judicial code to deny the district courts of the United States, Guam, the Virgin Islands, and the Northern Mariana Islands and the United States Court of Federal Claims jurisdiction to hear or determine any case in which any requirement, prohibition, or other provision relating to religious freedom that is contained in a State or Federal statute is at issue.
Status: Referred to the House Subcommittee on the Constution on May 5, 2003, and still there.
My opinion: This one makes me nervous, and I'm keeping an eye on it. But it's been in committee a year, so it may not make it out.
5. House Resolution 3893: We the People Act
From the bill: ". . . Congress has the responsibility to protect the republican governments of the States and has the power to limit the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and the lower Federal courts over matters that are reserved to the States and to the People by the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. [...]
"The Supreme Court of the United States and each Federal court shall not adjudicate any claim involving the laws, regulations, or policies of any State or unit of local government relating to the free exercise or establishment of religion; any claim based upon the right of privacy, including any such claim related to any issue of sexual practices, orientation, or reproduction; or any claim based upon equal protection of the laws to the extent such claim is based upon the right to marry without regard to sex or sexual orientation . . ."
Status: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary on March 4, 2003, and still there.
My opinion: this steps on too many toes to be politically feasible, including Jefferson's and James Madison's, and it's full of Dominionist rhetoric. It's been in committee for a year; it's not likely to emerge.
6. House Resolution 3799: Constitution Restoration Act of 2004
CRS Summary: Amends the Federal judicial code to prohibit the U.S. Supreme Court and the Federal district courts from exercising jurisdiction over any matter in which relief is sought against an element of Federal, State, or local government or officer of such government by reason of that element's or officer's acknowledgment of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government.
Prohibits a court of the United States from relying upon any law, policy, or other action of a foreign state or international organization in interpreting and applying the Constitution, other than the constitutional law and English common law.
Provides that any Federal court decision relating to an issue removed from Federal jurisdiction by this Act is not binding precedent on State courts.
Provides that any Supreme Court justice or Federal court judge who exceeds the jurisdictional limitations of this Act shall be deemed to have committed an offense for which the justice or judge may be removed, and to have violated the standard of good behavior required of Article III judges by the Constitution.
Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet and Intellectual Property on April 26, 2004.
My opinion: This is one to watch, as the last referral was made less than a month ago. It seems to be proceeding through the system, and it may emerge before the next recess. It may, however, be there to be used as a bit of leverage by various people, to be brought out only as a threat. The wording in the first paragraph is uncomfortably similar to the religious-exemption-from-providing-health-care law in Michigan.
7. Senate Resolution. 2082: Constitution Restoration Act (Related bill for H.R. 3799)
CRS Summary: Amends the Federal judicial code to prohibit the U.S. Supreme Court and the Federal district courts from exercising jurisdiction over any matter in which relief is sought against an element of Federal, State, or local government or officer of such government by reason of that element's or officer's acknowledgment of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government.
Prohibits a court of the United States from relying upon any law, policy, or other action of a foreign state or international organization in interpreting and applying the Constitution, other than the constitutional law and English common law.
Provides that any Federal court decision relating to an issue removed from Federal jurisdiction by this Act is not binding precedent on State courts.
Provides that any Supreme Court justice or Federal court judge who exceeds the jurisdictional limitations of this Act shall be deemed to have committed an offense for which the justice or judge may be removed, and to have violated the standard of good behavior required of Article III judges by the Constitution
sdiction by this Act is not binding precedent on State courts.
Provides that any Supreme Court justice or Federal court judge who exceeds the jurisdictional limitations of this Act shall be deemed to have committed an offense for which the justice or judge may be removed, and to have violated the standard of good behavior required of Article III judges by the Constitution.
Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, Feb. 12, 2004. No movement since.
There's a related Senate bill with (as far as I can tell) the same wording, S. 2323. It's also in the Committee on the Judiciary, but it was sent there on April 20, 2004.
My opinion: Same as the last bill. These have been worked on too recently and haven't been in committee long enough for me to feel comfortable.
8. House Resolution 3920: Congressional Accountability for Judicial Activism Act of 2004
From the bill: ". . . The Congress may, if two thirds of each House agree, reverse a judgment of the United States Supreme Court if that judgment is handed down after the date of the enactment of this Act; and to the extent that judgment concerns the constitutionality of an Act of Congress.
Status: Referred to House Judiciary and House Rules committees on March 9, 2004; referred to the Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet and Intellectual Property on April 2. 2004.
My opinion: How much does Congress want to annoy the Supreme Court? There are still some moderates on the Court who aren't fond of being ordered around. And how much do these particular Republicans want to annoy everyone else? The bill has 25 cosponsors, but it hasn't acquired more, which is what happens when a bill looks likely to pass – everyone wants on the bandwagon then, or wants a soapbox to stand on to denounce it. It's in the committee recently, so it may still be live.
9. H.R. 3190: Safeguarding Our Religious Liberties Act
CRS Summary: Declares that among those powers reserved to the States and their political subdivisions are the powers to display the Ten Commandments, to recite the Pledge of Allegiance, and to recite the national motto on or within property owned or administered by them.
Declares that: (1) the Pledge of Allegiance shall be, "I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with Liberty and justice for all."; and (2) the national motto shall be, "In God we trust."
Excepts from the jurisdiction of Federal courts inferior to the Supreme Court the display of the Ten Commandments and the use of the word "God" in the Pledge of Allegiance.
Status: 9/25/2003:
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary. Sept. 25, 2003; referred to the Subcommittee on the Constitution on Oct. 22, 2003.
My opinion: This is right-wing-tip boosterism; I think it'll stay in committee unless the Far Right wants to use it to make noise and drum up support from the Bible Belt during the campaign. If it doesn't show up then, it's probably dead – unless Kerry gets in and the Right wants to make a lame-duck last stand.
10. Senate Resolution 1558: Religious Liberties Restoration Act
CRS Summary: This bill will reserve to the States (a) the power to display the Ten Commandments on or within State property; (b) the power to recite the Pledge of Allegiance on or within State property (noting that the official Pledge will remain as it currently reads, including"under God"); and (c) the power to recite the national motto -- "In God we trust" -- on or within State property.
Most importantly, this bill will keep these powers out of the jurisdiction of Federal courts other than the Supreme Court.
Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, Aug. 1, 2003.
My opinion: This bill is slightly differently worded than the last, but it's the same thing for all intents and purposes. It's been sitting in committee for a while; it may stay here.
Bear in mind, I have no power over the Congress. If it were politically feasible and good for the Republican campaign, all of these would be out of committee and on the floor immediately.
5/18/2004 11:30:00 AM
Tuesday, May 11, 2004
Who's on the Christian Coalition's Most Favored Congressmen list?
Trying to sort out the voting patterns within the Congress is like trying to dissect a Tyrannosaurus Rex with one of those really tiny X-Acto knives with a blade that keeps disappearing into its handle. However, since I have the (currently sedated) hypothetical beast right here, and a great deal of data to look at, I'm going to make the first cut now.
Let's look at the members of Congress in terms of how much the Christian Coalition approves of the votes they've cast in 2003. In order to have 100 percent approval from this group, the representative would have had to cast the following major votes (and vote according to these principles on other legislation):
-- For the Bush tax cuts (for tax cuts for the wealthy)
-- For limiting the patients' bill of rights, limiting non-economic damages in lawsuits. (pro-big business)
-- Against campaign finance reform (again, pro-business and pro-lobbyists)
-- For oil drilling in the Alaskan National Wildlife Reserve (against environmental conservation)
-- For allowing faith-based charities to receive government funding (against separation of church and state)
-- For barring gay people from involvement in the Boy Scouts (against homosexuality, and against public education, as this measure made it law that public schools that didn't let the BSA meet there would lose all federal funding -- including grants and loans for graduating seniors going to college)
-- For the ban on partial-birth abortion (anti-choice, anti-privacy)
-- For arming commercial airline pilots (pro-NRA)
-- For authorizing the president to negotiate international trade agreements (extending presidential powers where they have not gone before)
-- Against funding the international court (isolationism and sovereignty issues)
-- For the war in Iraq (pro-war, pro-aggression)
-- Against allowing employees of the Department of Homeland Security to unionize. (against collective bargaining, or unionization in any form)
As you can see, this is something of an omnibus category. It has been borne out, however, across the board in analysis of the vote by other groups. Congressmen who received high approval from the CC received low scores from the ACLU, the League of Conservation Voters, the National Education Association, and so on. I'll be getting more into these issues later, when I'm able to put online the spreadsheet I've complied and am working from. For now, we'll deal with this one omnibus category as a first step in looking at the current crop of legislators on Capitol Hill.
Here are the members of the House of Representatives who received a 100% approval rating for their voting in 2003, by last name and congressional district:
Bonner, Jo AL- 1
Everett, Terry AL- 2
Rogers, Mike AL- 3
Aderholt, Robert AL-4
Boozman, John AR-3
Renzi, Rick AZ-1
Franks, Trent AZ-2
Shadegg, John AZ-3
Doolittle, John CA-04
Nunes, Devin CA-21
Miller, Gary CA-42
Cunningham, Randy CA-50
Hunter, Duncan CA-52
Musgrave, Marilyn CO-4
Tancredo, Tom CO-6
Beauprez, Bob CO-7
Miller, Jeff FL-01
Brown-Waite, Ginny FL-05
Stearns, Cliff FL-06
Mica, John FL-07
Bilirakis, Michael FL-09
Putnam, Adam FL-12
Harris, Katherine FL-13
Weldon, Dave FL-15
Feeney, Tom FL-24
Diaz-Balart, Mario FL-25
Norwood, Charlie GA-09
Gingrey, Phil GA-11
Burns, Max GA-12
King, Steve IA-5
Manzullo, Don IL-16
Shimkus, John IL-19
Souder, Mark IN-3
Burton, Dan IN-5
Pence, Mike IN-6
Hostettler, John IN-8
Moran, Jerry KS-1
Ryun, Jim KS-2
Tiahrt, Todd KS-4
Whitfield, Ed KY-1
Lewis, Ron KY-2
Vitter, David LA-1
Bartlett, Roscoe MD-6
Hoekstra, Pete MI-02
McCotter, Thaddeus MI-11
Gutknecht, Gil MN-1
Kennedy, Mark MN-6
Akin, Todd MO-2
Wicker, Roger MS-1
Rehberg, Denny MT
Jones, Walter NC-03
Hayes, Robin NC-08
Ballinger, Cass NC-10
Terry, Lee NE-2
Saxton, Jim NJ-03
Smith, Chris NJ-04
Garrett, Scott NJ-05
Ferguson, Michael NJ-07
Pearce, Steve NM-2
Turner, Mike OH-03
Sullivan, John OK-1
Cole, Tom OK-4
Weldon, Curt PA-07
Shuster, Bill PA-09
Toomey, Pat *** PA-15
Pitts, Joe PA-16
Murphy, Tim PA-18
Barrett, Gresham SC-3
DeMint, Jim SC-4
Janklow, Bill SD
Wamp, Zach TN-3
Blackburn, Marsha TN-7
Johnson, Sam TX-03
Thornberry, Mac TX-13
Neugebauer, Randy TX-19
Burgess, Michael TX-26
Davis, Jo Ann VA-01
Forbes, Randy VA-04
Goode, Virgil VA-05
Goodlatte, Bob VA-06
Cubin, Barbara WY
Note #1: Ernie Fletcher, a Republican who formerly held the seat in the Kentucky Sixth District and was rated at 100 percent for 2002, has left office there and has been succeeded within the past year or so by Ben Chandler III, a Democrat who has not been in office long enough to be rated.
State abbreviations without numbers denote at-large districts; the district comprises the entire state.
Also -- please take note that *** after a name indicates that that person is not running for re-election. It's impossible to tell (for this post) whether the rating of the person's votes indicates the person's own preference or whether it's the preference of his electoral district, and therefore indicative of the probable leanings of his successor. I hope to be able to address this further later on.
Following are the representatives whose voting records received 90-100% approval, indicating that they differed from the CC position on only one issue or vote the entire term:
Bachus, Spencer AL-6
Hefley, Joel CO-5
Nussle, Jim IA-1
Latham, Tom IA-4
Otter, Butch ID-1
Crane, Phil IL-08
Hastert, Dennis (speaker) IL-14
LaHood, Ray IL-18
Chocola, Chris IN-2
Northrup, Anne KY-3
Rogers, Harold KY-5
Camp, Dave MI-04
Rogers, Mike MI-08
Kline, John MN-2
Blunt, Roy MO-7
Hulshof, Kenny MO-9
Pickering, Chip MS-3
LoBiondo, Frank NJ-02
Welsh, James NY-25
Reynolds, Tom NY-26
Chabot, Steve OH-01
Portman, Rob OH-02
Lucas, Frank OK-3
Istook, Ernest OK-5
Hart, Melissa PA-04
Peterson, John PA-05
Brown, Henry SC-1
Wilson, Joe SC-2
Jenkins, Bill TN-1
Hall, Ralph TX-04
Culberson, John TX-07
Brady, Kevin TX-08
Smith, Lamar TX-21
DeLay, Tom TX-22
Carter, John TX-31
Sessions, Pete TX-32
Schrock, Ed VA-02
Cantor, Eric VA-07
Petri, Tom WI-6
Green, Mark WI-8
Note #2: Dennis Hastert, as Speaker of the House, does not vote on every issue. However, he is the leader of his party and has been given his rating based on his views if not his votes. I have no personal insight into how the CC or any evaluating organization determines its ratings, but I have to assume that every group's evaluations are biasd in their own favor. Even so, it would be stupid to assume that the party leader could not defer from the views of the party and remain in power.
Note #3: The only Democrat on the list, so far is Ralph Hall of Texas, who received a 92% rating for 2003 and a 100% rating for 2002. The 159 people on this list constitute roughly 36.5 percent of the House of Representatives.
Following are the representatives who received 80-90% approval from the Christian Coalition, in order by state and congressional district:
Young, Don AK
Gallegly, Elton CA-24
Bono, Mary CA-45
Rohrabacher, Dana CA-46
Issa, Darrell CA-49
Crenshaw, Ander FL-04
Foley, Mark FL-16
Shaw, Clay FL-22
Linder, John GA-07
Weller, Jerry IL-11
Johnson, Tim IL-15
Lucas, Ken KY-4
McCrery, Jim LA-4
Ehlers, Vernon MI-03
Knollenberg, Joe MI-09
Burr, Richard NC-05
Bradley, Jeb NH-1
Porter, Jon NV-3
Fossella, Vito NY-13
Quinn, Jack *** NY-27
Gillmor, Paul OH-05
LaTourette, Steven OH-14
Regula, Ralph OH-16
Ney, Bob OH-18
English, Phil PA-03
Gerlach, Jim PA-06
Sherwood, Don PA-10
Duncan, John TN-2
Granger, Kay TX-12
Cannon, Chris UT-3
Wolf, Frank VA-10
Nethercutt, George WA-5
Dunn, Jennifer WA-8
Capito, Shelley Moore WV-2
Following are the representatives who received ratings of 50-80% from the Christian Coalition:
Cramer, Bud AL-5
Berry, Marion AR-1
Ross, Mike AR-4
Ose, Doug CA-03
Thomas, Bill CA-22
Dreier, David CA-26
Lewis, Jerry CA-41
Shays, Christopher CT-4
Boyd, Allen FL-02
Marshall, Jim GA-03
Simpson, Mike ID-2
Lipinski, William IL-03
Kirk, Mark IL-10
Costello, Jerry IL-12
Biggert, Judy IL-13
Hill, Baron IN-9
Alexander, Rodney LA-5
John, Chris LA-7
Gilchrest, Wayne MD-1
Stupak, Bart MI-01
Upton, Fred MI-06
Ramstad, Jim MN-3
Peterson, Collin MN-7
Skelton, Ike MO-4
Taylor, Gene MS-4
McIntyre, Mike NC-07
Bereuter, Doug NE-1
Bass, Charles NH-2
Frelinghuysen, Rodney NJ-11
Wilson, Heather NM-1
King, Peter NY-03
Kelly, Sue NY-19
Sweeney, John NY-20
Boehlert, Sherwood NY-24
Houghton, Amo *** NY-29
Oxley, Michael OH-04
Hobson, David OH-07
Tiberi, Pat OH-12
Pryce, Deborah OH-15
Walden, Greg OR-2
Greenwood, Jim PA-08
Murtha, John PA-12
Doyle, Mike PA-14
Holden, Tim PA-17
Platts, Todd PA-19
Davis, Lincoln TN-4
Sandlin, Max TX-01
Turner, Jim TX-02
Paul, Ron TX-14
Stenholm, Charles TX-17
Bonilla, Henry TX-23
Ortiz, Solomon TX-27
Matheson, Jim UT-2
Davis, Tom VA-11
Sensenbrenner, Jim WI-5
Mollohan, Alan WV-1
Rahall, Nick WV-3
This last group includes 24 Democrats: Bud Cramer, Marion Berry, Mike Ross, Mike McIntyre, Alan Mollohan, Nick Rahall, Jim Matheson, Charles Stenholm, Allen Boyd, Jim Marshall, Solomon Ortiz, William Lipinski, Jim Turner, Jerry Costello, Tim Holden, Baron Hill, Rodney Alexander, Chris John, Max Sandlin, Bart Stupak, Gene Taylor, Mike Doyle, Ike Skelton, Lincoln Davis. Collin Peterson of Minnesota is from the Democrat-Farm-Labor party.
The highest rating received by any Democrat in this group was 76%, by first-term congressman Rodney Hall and fourth-term Chris John, both of Louisiana.
A little mathematics:
81 representatives rated at 100%, 79 from 90-100%, 34 from 80-90%, and 57 from 50-80%. The total rated at 50% or more agreement with the Christian Coalition is 251, out of 435 total membership in the House.
Those rated at 80% or above constitute 45% of the House; those rated at 50% or above constitute 58% of the House. By law, bills are passed by a simple majority; that's 218 votes (50% plus one vote) if the entire House is present, such as for major roll-call votes. In practice, particularly in this term and the last, votes are often done by voice approval rather than roll call and take place late at night when a bare quorum are available, most of which seem to tend to be Republicans. This is contrary to historical practice, but when the rules are waived by a majority of those present, that's what tends to happen. For more information on this, read through sections of http://thomas.loc.gov and notice what time bills are approved and the number of members present.
The total of House members rated at 50% or above is 253 members. A two-thirds majority is needed to overturn a presidential veto of a bill, to expel a member of the House or to propose a constitutional amendment; that would be 290 people.
Sources:
Ratings page for the Christian Coalition, 2003 ratings, on Project VoteSmart. This includes a link to the Christian Coalition home page.
Constitution of the United States
5/11/2004 03:10:00 PM
Tuesday, May 04, 2004
Moore's way
Remember Roy Moore, who was removed as Alabama Chief Justice because he wanted to keep the Ten Commandments monument in the courthouse rotunda, in violation of separation of church and state?
He didn't get back into his previous office as chief justice, so he has decided to run for president "to receive the highest civic award possible". (You'd think he'd have figured out that it's a job, not an award, but no.)
Moore, who evidently considers the Republicans to be too tinged with unwelcome liberalism, is heading the ticket on the Constitution Party, whose stated goal is to limit the federal government to its delegated, enumerated, Constitutional functions and to restore American jurisprudence to its original Biblical common-law foundations.
Yes, this is another outbreak of Dominionist thought -- Christian Reconstruction to the core. The Constitution Party is an outgrowth of the former US Taxpayers Party, and in the 2000 elections had candidates on the ballot in 41 states. More info about it here. The party platform is here.
5/04/2004 12:31:00 PM
Monday, May 03, 2004
The South Will Rise Again
I think I'm probably one of the few here who isn't surprised by the extent of Virginia's "Marriage Affirmation Act" (details here.). This is, frankly, all of a piece with the kind of legislation that comes from the Former Capital of the Confederacy (And Don't You Forget It.)
I'm saying this as someone who lived and worked in Virginia for nearly four years, and who worked for the government there. The place does not work the same as most other states, for several reasons.
First, Virginia is not a state; it's a commonwealth. So are Massachusetts, Kentucky and Pennsylvania. What this means is that the state Assembly makes all the decisions for the lower governmental bodies as well as all the decisions at the state level. There's no such thing as local government making local laws; the local governments have to petition the Assembly to pass laws affecting localities. When I worked for Arlington County, we had to petition the Assembly to allow us to have direct deposit for government employees' paychecks, because the state constitution (written by Thomas Jefferson, yes, That Thomas Jefferson And Don't You Forget It) said that wages for government employees must come directly from the county treasurer without going through outside hands.
What this means, in terms of the new law, is that local municipalities will not have the right to pass laws to ameliorate or challenge what the Assembly has passed. Any challenges will have to come in court from individuals.
Second, Virginia has a split personality, in the political sense, and it splits in several different directions. One split is between the Old South of the War Between the States (which you know as the Civil War, but which is locally known as the War of Northern Aggression because the North fired on Fort Sumter first in 1861) and the present day. There are still people who haven't forgotten that the South lost that war, and who bear a grudge because of it. That grudge is sometimes aimed at people who are from the North (not as much as a few decades ago, but it's still there), and sometimes it's aimed at people who are just Not From Here and Don't Know Our Ways. And a good-sized chunk of it is the basic rural vs. urban split, with a very large and fairly wealthy state that is mostly rural -- with the largest amount of the state's businesses and financial wealth located in the north, in Arlington and Alexandria and the part of Fairfax County that is closest to DC. Tyson's Corner, in Fairfax, has more office space than downtown Dallas, Texas, and most of it is high tech. This northern slice of technology and big business (and contracts with government) is what fuels the economy for the rest of the state -- and in return the rest of the state calls that area the People's Republic (as in Communist China.) It's a joke only on the surface; the dislike that much of the rest of the state has for the politically liberal northern tip is profound.
It's an extreme split in terms of common culture and general beliefs. Arlington, the second smallest (land area) county in the US is also the second wealthiest county, (Manhattan is first in both.) Arlington is liberal, multicultural, multi-ethnic and wealthy. Business is conducted in about 79 languages there, and you can get food from almost any country you want. It's pretty much the same in Alexandria, with the added benefit of a good historical Old Town and a flourishing section of artists and theatre, and to a smaller degree in the adjacent section of Fairfax. Go outside that area, and outside the few cities in Virginia, and away from the narrow strip of tourist area along the shore, and you'll find the Bible Belt, including a number of small private religious-based schools whose religious basis is fairly extreme. All the old jokes about rednecks with shotguns in their trucks are real there. Don't get me wrong -- there are wonderful people, and good places to go, but you can never ever forget that you're an outsider, and if, like me, you come with a Northern accent, you're an Outsider and a Yankee (and Don't You Forget It) no matter how much you behave yourself.
I'm not forgetting that the law was passed roughly 2-1 on the vote; not everyone in the Virginia Assembly agrees with it, either, but those who feel the way I do are in the minority in government.
Third, let's go back to the mindset that comes out of the War Between the States and is still smarting about it. Provincial? Yes. Socially isolated at times? Yes. Open to change, new ideas, innovation, new experiences? Not terribly likely. Willing to acknowledge that other ways of life and other ways of doing things are legitimate, genuine alternatives to the traditional one? Not necessarily, and not if it threatens or is perceived to threaten people's ideas of How Things Should Be. And how should things be? Well, the 1950s was a good decade...
If I sound a bit bitter here, it's because I ran into those attitudes every day for years, and because of my position had to smile about it. I'm not smiling now.
Fourth, let's look at the political makeup of the state. Except for Arlington and to some degree Alexandria (neighboring city, and they used to be the same political entity until the 1850s), the state is profoundly Republican, both old-line Conservative and neo-Conservative. In the past ten years, the strength of the Religious Right in Virginia politics has only gotten stronger. Even though there are a handful of solid Democrats in the federal House of Representatives, the majority of House reps are Christian-Coalition-approved Republicans, the ones who think prayer in schools is dandy and if the public schools won't allow it, then how about sending the kids to private Christian schools to be brought up *right*.
In other words, the political structure in Virginia makes it one of the most politically repressive places in the country, the place where I would most expect a resurgence of the Ku Klux Klan, if there were any encouragement. Does this sound to you like a place that wouldn't feel itself threatened by homosexuality in any form? Does these righteous politicians sound like the accepting, welcoming sort that would bring covered dishes to the open house after the commitment ceremony? If they do -- what have you been smoking?
Here's what I think is happening: this is a test, to see how well the idea of pushing gay rights off the table will go. I have no doubt that the timing on this was orchestrated so that it would come out *now*, long enough before the election that the legislators can hope people will have forgotten about it by then, and will have forgotten whatever the candidates for office have said and done about it.
And if they haven't forgotten, and if they've uprooted thousands of people, well, that's Not Their Problem and it Gets Rid of That "Element" that Does Those Things.
Right. Those things like wanting to live peacefully together, enjoy their families, hold jobs and be part of the community.
(As confirmation of my 'test' theory, consider the "Conscientious Objector Policy Act passed in Michigan. Now there are similar bills in other states, proposing the same thing -- that doctors could refuse to do certain kinds of procedures or treat people "if it went against their religious convictions" -- things like in-vitro fertilization for same-sex couples, or providing medicine and treatment for people with HIV or AIDS. Check your state legislature website to see if a similar bill is being considered there: the current list includes Minnesota, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington and West Virginia.)
Do I really have to point out that what has been done is fully in line with the aims of the Christian Coalition, the Republican Right Wing and the views of the White House?
Fight it in whatever way you can. If you own a business and can do this, write to the Virginia Assembly and let them know that because of this prejudiced, bigoted law they've endorsed that you will no longer do business in Virginia. Let your own legislators, in your own states, know that you will not tolerate their taking similar action. I have been planning to buy another computer from the very helpful people at the Apple Store at Tyson's Corner, but I'm going to look for an Apple Store that's in a free state, not a slave one, thank you. And yes, I'm using that comparison deliberately. Whenever a state or commonwealth legislates that some people are less equal than others, that place has reinstituted the oppression of one group of people by another -- and that is slavery. Fifty years ago there were signs on drinking fountains and restrooms in Virginia that said "White Only," and employment ads said, "No Negroes Need Apply." I used to think that Virginia had gotten past the mindset that needed to put someone in a lesser place in order to feel competent and in control, but no longer.
::sigh::
Do extend every bit of help and kindness you can to friends and colleagues who suffer under this law. They didn't ask for it, either.
5/03/2004 09:53:00 AM
|
|
