Topic: Objective review of Republican candidates for President

[Christo]

Einer Elhauge: If Health Insurance Mandates Are Unconstitutional, Why Did The Founding Fathers Back Them? TNR, here

[Todd]

This would be more significant if Elhauge were on the SCOTUS. 

What's that quip from Justice Robert Jackson - We are not final because we are infallible, but we are infallible only because we are final.

[eyeresist]

There goes the gay vote!

Romney was bully who cut off a gay pupil's fringe, say ex-school friends

"They came upon Lauber, tackled him and pinned him to the ground," the article said, "As Lauber, his eyes filling with tears, screamed for help, Romney repeatedly clipped his hair with a pair of scissors."

"It was a hack job," recalled one of the friends, Phillip Maxwell, a lawyer and childhood friend of Romney, who said he was in the dorm room when the incident occurred. "It was vicious." Another of the friends, Thomas Buford, a retired prosecutor who volunteered for Barack Obama's 2008 campaign, admitted helping restrain the boy. "It happened very quickly, and to this day it troubles me," he said.

Mr Romney's campaign initially denied the incident. "Anyone who knows Mitt Romney knows that he doesn't have a mean-spirited bone in his body," Andrea Saul said in a statement.

"The stories of 50 years ago seem exaggerated and off base and Governor Romney has no memory of participating in these incidents."

In a separate allegation, Mr Romney is said to have taunted a different closeted gay student by chanting "Atta girl!" every time the boy tried to speak in class.

[Todd]

There goes the gay vote!

Popped into a couple online news sources - WP included.  The user comments offer some free entertainment, that's for sure.  How long will Romney be dogged by this incident?  Oh, probably shouldn't have used the word 'dogged.'

[Mirror Image]

I personally am for gay marriage. This is the 21st Century, not the 18th Century. They should be treated and given the same rights as people who are heterosexual. Whether Obama endorsed gay marriage for their vote is up in the air but I personally don't believe it is a country's job to tell people how to live their lives and to deny them the same rights heterosexual couples have seems unjust.

[coffee]

Einer Elhauge: If Health Insurance Mandates Are Unconstitutional, Why Did The Founding Fathers Back Them? TNR, here

Very, very innarestin.

[drogulus]

      The Romney revelation wasn't much of a surprise, was it? He was a passable governor in Massachusetts where his personal creepiness was in check.

      Romney will not be elected President. In the next few months his support will decline. Conservatives don't like him any better than they liked McCain, and moderates are revolted by his behavior and lack of principles. Liberals will not sit on the sidelines. Obama will win, not in a landslide but by a comfortable margin.

      The only reason Romney is the nominee is that the Republican Party has crossed a threshold. They can no longer field a candidate acceptable to the broad middle of the electorate that can pass muster with the party filtering mechanism, now in the control of people who used to inhabit the dark corners, locked in attics etc. It a God, gold and guns party, no one else is welcome and not many want to be.

      There is a solution. We could move to nonpartisan reapportionment, which would force both parties to compete for the center. It's a state level fix, so it will take time to implement, but I think it's coming.

[Todd]

We could move to nonpartisan reapportionment

Let's see, the term gerrymandering dates back 200 years exactly.  Yes, I think non-partisan apportionment will come any day now.

[drogulus]

Let's see, the term gerrymandering dates back 200 years exactly.  Yes, I think non-partisan apportionment will come any day now.

     It will happen. There are different models used now, and each state will choose its own. Most will be bipartisan commissions appointed by governors and state legislators, some will arrive by ballot measures. The hurdle is the state party apparatus which benefits most from partisan extremism. Sometimes it will take a referendum to get past opposition, sometimes a reform governor will do it, fulfilling a campaign promise. Once a few more states implement it momentum will build.

[Todd]

It will happen.

Wishful thinking.  Both parties benefit from it too much to change to some idealized or even practically non-partisan scheme.  A state here or there may change, but it will not sweep the nation in the next 10, 20, 30, or 40 or more years.  Of the various mechanisms used to thwart partisanship, only open primaries are valuable, and then only to an extent.  Bipartisan commissions, if evenly split, produce nothing (see the FEC), and ballot measures are just awful, leading to years of legal challenges and unintended consequences.  None of this is new.  The Founders themselves warned of the evils of factions - right before splitting into factions.  And do remember, any reform can be rolled back, altered, or manipulated.

[drogulus]

     Those are the reasons it will be tough. It will spread slowly.

[Todd]

It will spread slowly.

Again, the term gerrymandering is 200 years old, but the practices it describes are even older.  Electoral shenanigans are as old as the Republic.  Much older, if one looks to other, ancient examples.  This doesn't bother me a great deal.  As long as their are at least two parties constantly fighting for the upper hand, it will prevent one from gaining too much power over the nation as a whole.  As long as that doesn't happen, things are good.  Plus there's more entertainment to be had.

[drogulus]

     I share your distrust, if that's what it is, of referenda. Occasionally they accomplish something worth doing. Most of them are nuisance issue stuff.

     I'm less impressed by 200 year old, or 2,000 year old precedents. If you think things can't change they will anyway, but more slowly. It's best to try to move them along if you favor them.

[Todd]

I share your distrust, if that's what it is, of referenda.


I'm less impressed by 200 year old, or 2,000 year old precedents. If you think things can't change they will anyway, but more slowly. It's best to try to move them along if you favor them.

The state I live in is rotten with initiatives, most of them awful, and the entire concept of an initiative is in many ways incompatible with constitutional government.  What’s the point in constitutional government if a majority of a minority of ill-informed citizens can change it every two years?  (Most initiatives involve changing the state constitution in these parts.)

As to 200 or 2000 year old precedents, it’s not so much that I think things cannot or do not change, but rather that one of the things to aspire to is to make systemic change as difficult and cumbersome as possible.  Such change should be difficult.  In addition, I look at history and see the desire of people to control others, irrespective of whether the government is monarchy, oligarchy, or democracy.  Best to make such control as fleeting and inconsequential as possible.  I also see that whatever reforms or changes may be implemented, some people will always try to mitigate the effects of such changes. 

[drogulus]

The state I live in is rotten with initiatives, most of them awful, and the entire concept of an initiative is in many ways incompatible with constitutional government.  What’s the point in constitutional government if a majority of a minority of ill-informed citizens can change it every two years?  (Most initiatives involve changing the state constitution in these parts.)

As to 200 or 2000 year old precedents, it’s not so much that I think things cannot or do not change, but rather that one of the things to aspire to is to make systemic change as difficult and cumbersome as possible.  Such change should be difficult.  In addition, I look at history and see the desire of people to control others, irrespective of whether the government is monarchy, oligarchy, or democracy.  Best to make such control as fleeting and inconsequential as possible.  I also see that whatever reforms or changes may be implemented, some people will always try to mitigate the effects of such changes. 

     I agree with all of your points, though I will try to conceal my disappointment. Yes, they will try, we will try, and so on. Nevertheless, the country was formed by people who ignored your sensible advice. We should do our best to fuck them over big time.

[Todd]

Nevertheless, the country was formed by people who ignored your sensible advice.

Not true at all.  Look how hard it is to change the Constitution.  That's brilliant.  Federalism, enumerated powers, etc.  The structure of the US political system is beautifully structured to limit the potential damage wrought by overzealous reformers.  For every FDR, there is a Supreme Court appointed by his predecessors.  Good stuff.

[eyeresist]

Let's see, the term gerrymandering dates back 200 years exactly.  Yes, I think non-partisan apportionment will come any day now.

You need someting like this:

...the AEC [Australian Electoral Commission] has one primary outcome for which we are funded, namely:

1. Maintain an impartial and independent electoral system for eligible voters through active electoral roll management, efficient delivery of polling services and targeted education and public awareness programs.

[Todd]

You need someting like this:

Won't happen.  Both parties benefit too much from the current system.  Democrats may like to occasionally talk of reform - but not really of their safe districts.  Some members of Congress are elected and reelected with profoundly undemocratic margins - in 2008, some representatives were elected with 75, 80, even 90%+ of the vote.  The highest I recall was a Democrat from New York who had something like 95 or 97%  Even dictators running phony elections don't give themselves that much of the "vote." (Saddam Hussein was an exception.)  Any commission would be appointed evenly between the duopoly.  We'd need to move to open primaries, and even then we'd need a way to allow for more than just two candidates, since the reality in some parts of the country is that you'd have two Democrats or two Republicans running against each other in the general election.

[chasmaniac]

Not true at all.  Look how hard it is to change the Constitution.  That's brilliant.  Federalism, enumerated powers, etc.  The structure of the US political system is beautifully structured to limit the potential damage wrought by overzealous reformers.  For every FDR, there is a Supreme Court appointed by his predecessors.  Good stuff.

You're looking after the fact. I thought the quoted remark referred to the revolutionary origins of the US. Neither parliament nor king was asked whether there should be a new country and if so, what should it be like? 

[Todd]

Neither parliament nor king was asked whether there should be a new country and if so, what should it be like?

That's certainly true, but I don't see a whole lot of support for fundamental structural change in this country.  Oh, sure, people whine about, say, the Electoral College about once every four years.  Or perhaps they whine about lifetime appointments of Supreme Court justices (which Rick Perry, of all people, offered a sensible solution to).  Or maybe corporations being treated like people, which is not strictly true, but it's a Big Idea du jour.  (Okay, it’s been an issue since at least Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad, but it waxes and wanes.)  But these issues can be addressed without fundamental change - simply (hah!) amend the Constitution and/or pass the appropriate legislation.

Some people want “real” change.  Some people want “substantive democracy.”  I got it.  But do such desires actually correspond to the ideals and plans of the Founding Fathers (if that even matters)?  Would such changes really be for the better?  And how would that look?  And who would lead such a change?