My candidate for Congress in WA-2, Republican John Koster, pointed out today that the infamously crooked Charlie Rangel has, according to OpenSecrets, contributed $24,000 to incumbent Democrat Rick Larsen. Larsen is tied for receiving the 15th most money, out of the entire Congress, from Rangel.

That can't be good for Larsen.

According to FEC reports, over the last decade Rangel's National Leadership PAC gave Larsen $17,000, and Rangel's candidate committee gave Larsen another $7,000.

Could be worse, though; he could've received $24,000 from Nancy Pelosi, too. Oh wait: he did (from her candidate committee and her "PAC to the Future").

I kid. I think tying Larsen to Pelosi is a. accurate, and b. will justifiably hurt him, but honestly, I don't care that she gave him money. That's how politics works. Same thing with Rangel: Larsen may not have known Rangel was corrupt. But he should do the right thing and, now knowing the money was in part the fruit of corruption, he should do something good with it.

Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.

From the EFF press release (that would be Evergreen Freedom Foundation):

"We believe Gov. Gregoire's climate change executive order is an unconstitutional order," said Michael Reitz, director of the Evergreen Freedom Foundation's Constitutional Law Center, who represents the taxpayers in this case. "Gov. Gregoire violated the doctrine of separation of powers by snatching a failed bill out of the legislative process and issuing it in the form of an executive order. If the governor wants to pass laws, she's in the wrong branch of government."

I can't yet speak to the claims in detail, but the complaint claims that the executive order "directs state agencies, local governments, planning councils, business representatives, and other entities to take specific actions and to implement new responsibilities and processes."

If that's true, the EFF has a strong case. My guess is that the case will rest on how true that is, because, certainly, while the governor has some authority, without specific statutory or constitutional grant, to tell state agencies what to do, it's limited; and more certainly, she has no such authority to tell anyone else what to do.

Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.

Rep. Rick Larsen said last week that getting less money from individual contributions than challenger John Koster "shows that folks across Northwest Washington support my efforts."

According to FEC filings, in the first quarter of 2010, Larsen raised $97,244 from individuals, compared to Koster's $163,188. In the second quarter, just ended in June, Koster still outpaced Larsen in individual contributions, $203,493 to $197,573.

The bulk of Larsen's money during this campaign -- 57% of it, almost $600K -- has come from political action committees (PACs), and most of that has come from out of state, despite Larsen's decrying of the mere possibility of significant out-of-state funds going into Koster's campaign. This quarter, for the first time this cycle, Larsen's individual contributions outpaced his PAC contributions, but it still was less than Koster's.

Koster pulled in only $9500 from PACs (which includes the $5000 from Sarah Palin's PAC), which accounts for only 2.5% of his total. Certainly, it would be nice to have the political connections and high profile Larsen has to rake in that kind of PAC money, but clearly, "folks across Northwest Washington" are so far -- like me -- picking John Koster over party-line Democrat Rick Larsen.

Coming on the heels of a couple of polls that put Koster well ahead of Larsen -- an internal and an external -- it's not looking great for the five-term Democrat. Koster is breathing down his neck, and it's hard to see how Larsen isn't very worried right now.

(P.S. I was on Orcas Island over the weekend, and so was Rick Larsen. I didn't see him -- or his signs -- but I did see many Koster signs between the Ferry and Moran State Park.)

Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.

President Obama, as he has for years, said again the other day that it was the failed Bush policies that got us into our economic mess.

But from all of his campaigning on that a couple of years ago, through now, I've never heard him explain exactly which Bush policies got us into this mess, and how they did it. He's handwaved at tax cuts, but he's never explained how tax cuts caused any economic problems other than, at worst, a higher deficit (which Obama has massively increased, through his vote for TARP in the Senate, then the stimulus and second TARP, and the health insurance bill, and so on). He's mentioned changes in bank laws that happened under Clinton.

What else? Someone out there please enlighten me.

Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.

John Burbank, executive director of the Economic Opportunity Institute, thinks of the children and says, "Taken together, these four initiatives will cost our state -- and our children -- half a billion dollars in public investments every two years, undermining our children's prospects for education and economic opportunity. That isn't patriotic. It is just plain wrong."

Burbank lies throughout his piece -- for example, saying that privatizing liquor sales will result in more teenage deaths (which isn't warranted by the facts), and repealing the new candy-and-soda tax will result in more obesity and diabetes (which is literally impossible, unless people would ingest more candy and soda after the tax is repealed than before it was in place) -- but his biggest lie is the one the Democrats tell us all the time: that a reduction in general funds means a reduction in funding for education.

They constantly remind us that it is the constitutional "paramount duty" of our state to provide for education for children; what they don't like to note is that this necessarily means that spending money on anything other than education, while education is not being fully funded, is unconstitutional. And that means that if education is underfunded, the Democrats who run the legislature, and the Democratic Governor, are violating the Constitution.

The fact is, they want to cut education, because that's the best way to get people to want to raise taxes. But when they cut education below what they believe is constitutionally required, they are violating the very Constitution they pretend they need to raise taxes to uphold.

I defy Burbank to think honestly about what the Founders would have said is patriotic. He will find that taxing candy, controlling all liquor sales, and deceptively using "the children" to justify all manner of tax increases was not what they had in mind.

The Patriots were contrasted in the Revolution to the Loyalists. The Loyalists supported the central British government, including its high taxes, and backed -- and participated in -- British propaganda. They thought resistance to British rules was morally wrong. They feared the crowds who were angry at the government. They were pessimistic, disbelieving that people could govern themselves.

Burbank, like many of today's progressives, doesn't sound like a Patriot to me. He sounds like a Loyalist.

Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.

Our Washington State Constitution was amended for the fourteenth time, in 1930, to read:

All taxes shall be uniform upon the same class of property within the territorial limits of the authority levying the tax and shall be levied and collected for public purposes only. The word "property" as used herein shall mean and include everything, whether tangible or intangible, subject to ownership.

In 1933, the Supreme Court of Washington decided Culliton v. Chase , saying:

It would certainly defy the ingenuity of the most profound lexicographer to formulate a more comprehensive definition of "property." It is "everything, whether tangible or intangible, subject to ownership." Income is either property under our fourteenth amendment, or no one owns it. If that is true, any one can use our incomes who has the power to seize or obtain them by foul means. ... No more positive, precise and compelling language could have been used than was used in those words of our fourteenth amendment. It needs no technical construction to tell what those words mean. The overwhelming weight of judicial authority is that "income" is property and a tax upon income is a tax upon property.

That is: income is property, therefore an income tax must be uniform, therefore it is unconstitutional to put an income tax solely on the rich.

Now, fast forward some 80 years. Bill Gates Sr. dislikes this decision. He wants to tax the incomes of only the rich, through I-1098. So he gets Hugh Spitzer to write an analysis for Gates' Tax Alternatives Report almost 10 years ago.

Spitzer wrote with the intent of attacking this longstanding precedent, saying, "The lead opinion in Culliton stated that Aberdeen had held that income is property, that a tax on income must therefore be uniform, and that a nonuniform income tax violated Washington's Constitution. As it happens, Aberdeen did not decide that income was a form of property, at least not under the Washington Constitution."

Now, Aberdeen had relied on two opinions that had been overturned, and so itself may be considered inoperative. That, plus Spitzer's assertion that Culliton relied on Aberdeen for its definition of income as property even though Aberdeen didn't do that, should sink Culliton. Right?

Flummery.

Spitzer correctly notes that Culliton claims Aberdeen decided "that income was property for the purposes of taxation," but it's perhaps telling that Spitzer, in his article, never mentions the fact that our Constitution's definition of property was changed between Aberdeen and Culliton, and that Culliton makes explicit reference to that change in the very context Spitzer was referring to:

After the decision by this court in the Aberdeen Savings & Loan Assn. case, supra, deciding that income was property for the purposes of taxation, the people adopted the fourteenth amendment, supra, which made it a part of the fundamental law of the state.

(Emphasis added.)

So even if Aberdeen didn't say that income is property for the purposes of taxation under our Constitution, and even if Aberdeen is no longer operative anyway, Culliton explicitly recognizes that after Aberdeen, the Fourteenth Amendment to our state's Constitution does say that income is property for the purposes of taxation, that "Income is either property under our fourteenth amendment, or no one owns it. ... No more positive, precise and compelling language could have been used than was used in those words of our fourteenth amendment."

If Aberdeen never existed, Culliton would still stand on its own. When discussing the law from other states, Culliton says:

None of the decisions from other states have any bearing upon the law before us, because of our peculiarly forceful constitutional definition and the difference in their constitutional authorization or restriction.

It doesn't say "because of our peculiarly forceful precedents," but refers explicitly to the amended Constitution. It continues:

We have no constitutional provision authorizing taxation of income as one thing and property as another. We have only the constitutional provision that property "shall mean and include everything, whether tangible or intangible, subject to ownership." Until we have such a constitutional amendment, the hands of the people, as well as the legislature, in enacting laws, are tied.

And:

It is perfectly obvious that, when the proponents of initiative No. 69 framed the act, they lost sight of our constitutional definition in the fourteenth amendment. The declaration in the law of a purpose to tax all annual incomes as such and not as "property," cannot override the constitution. It is also clear that the people when legislating, the legislature, and the courts, are and should be bound by the limitations, restrictions, definitions and prohibitions of the constitution. It is the fundamental law of the state.

It is simply not possible to read this decision and come away with the idea that it is not entirely supported by -- in the compelling opinion of the Court -- the text of the Constitution. Even though it mentions Aberdeen as support, it quickly notes -- and reiterates many times -- that it is the Constitution's definition of property that is inescapably holding.

Bill Gates, Sr. is going to waste a massive amount of taxpayer dollars putting up a blatantly unconstitutional initiative, and I just hope that he actually believes the nonsense that Culliton was based on bad precedent rather than the text of the Constitution.

Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.

There was a lot of talk today from the Democrats accusing the conservative justices of "judicial activism." What they really mean, of course, is that the justices come up with decisions the Democrats dislike.

The Lily Ledbetter case, for example: one Senator today opined, "what should Lily Ledbetter have done?" She was implicitly arguing that the Court ignore the law and let Ledbetter sue: but the job of the court is to apply the law. To allow Ledbetter to sue would have been activist: it would have been ignoring the law and doing what you think is best instead of following the law.

Senator Franken and others attacked the "activism" of the Citizens United case, which essentially ruled only that government cannot restrict free political speech just because of who is saying it. This is "activist"? To them, yes, it is, because they believe strongly in the obligation of government to restrict speech they dislike: Franken went so far as to argue that without government censorship, we wouldn't have the Clean Air Act or seatbelt laws. Putting aside the question of whether that's accurate, it certainly doesn't make the censorship justified, not in a free country. Down that path necessarily leads to government doing literally whatever it wishes, without any restrictions whatsoever, if it believes it is doing it in the best interests of the country (including torture, warrantless wiretapping, withholding habeas corpus, and so on).

But the most remarkable thing about today, for my money, is that Justice Stevens gave us -- in one of his last opinions, the dissent on McDonald v. Chicago, the gun case -- showed us what actual judicial activism looks like.

Stevens says that the 14th Amendment protects liberty, ensuring that "a measure of dignity and self-rule will be afforded to all persons," and gives some examples: Planned Parenthood v. Casey, Griswold, and so on. He also notes that "perfect state/federal congruence" is only required on matters "at the core" of the relevant constitutional guarantee.

Whether or not our liberty to use contraception or have abortions is protected in the states by the 14th Amendment, what is critical to note is that he sees these things -- which everyone agrees are not in the Constitution -- are "at the core" of constitutional guarantees, but the Second Amendment -- which is actually in the Constitution -- is not. He says, "firearms have a fundamentally ambivalent relaÂtionship to liberty," ignoring the fact that keep and bearing them is a liberty itself, and never explaining why the fact that guns -- like speech and religion and, dare I say it?, abortion -- can cause harm has any bearing on the case before him.

Stevens notes, "Recognizing a new liberty right is a momentous step. ... Sometimes that momentous step must be taken; some fundamental aspects of personhood, digÂnity, and the like do not vary from State to State, and demand a baseline level of protection." But how seriously can we take him when he denies a baseline level of protection for an existing liberty right? Not at all. He adds, "... sensitivity to the interaction between the intrinsic aspects of liberty and the practical realities of contemporary society provides an important tool for guiding judicial discretion."

And there you have it, folks. Ignore every other damned thing Stevens said in his dissent. He couldn't care less about any of it. All that matters to him is allowing government to ban guns, because he thinks that is a good thing. He goes into some detail about why the right to keep and bear arms is "different," but never says how they are legally or constitutionally different, although we know the answer: it's different because Stevens likes the rights to abortion and speech, but not the right to guns. He says owning a handgun is not "critical to leading a life of autonomy, dignity, or political equality." But my copy of the Constitution says it is an essential and guaranteed liberty, and damn Justice Stevens if he tries to take it away from me.

Literally, nothing else Stevens says in his dissent matters, because at the end of the day, no matter what the facts of the case, he would be "sensitive" to "political realities of contemporary society" and rule that States are allowed to ban handguns, simply because he doesn't care about protecting that particular right.

This is what true judicial activism looks like: flat-out ignoring the law, your own stated political philosophies and precedents, and common sense, and coming up with completely extra-legal ways to disallow someone from doing what the law clearly says they can do.

Judicial activism is, at essence, ignoring the law and replacing its guidance with your own opinion. Judicial activism is hatred of the rule of law, which "limits" us too much. Far better, in their opinion, to let some people in robes be "sensitive" to "reality" and determine what the law should be on the fly, instead of following the protections we've had in place (and ignored) for hundreds of years.

Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.

Not to criticize any justices in particular -- because I understand the culture and processes of the Supreme Court -- but it is shameful of our system that we could only get a single Supreme Court Justice to agree that "the Second Amendment is ... fully applicable to the States ... because the right to keep and bear arms is guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment as a privilege of American citizenship."

As I guessed, the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment applies to the states, but through "due process" instead of "privileges or immunities."

Of course, what's even more amazing is that a fundamental right of the people of the United States was found not to be a fundamental right by four of the nine justices. This position is only possible to hold -- if you understand the law -- by denying the Heller decision, or by denying the selective incorporation precedent through which rights are "incoporated" to the states by due process.

Either way, it amounts to the same old song: the liberals on the Court hate the rule of law. They care only about their chosen outcomes. The caselaw is absolutely, utterly, undeniably, clear: we have a fundamental federal right to keep and bear arms (Heller), and such fundamental rights, through due process, are applied to the states. There's nothing more to it. You have to deny those settled principles of law to dissent in this case. You have to be a consequentialist who hates the rule of law, setting it aside whenever you don't like its outcome.

That's what these four justices are. Sotomayor has proven herself now, as Stevens, Ginsburg, and Breyer did before her. To wit, Justice Stevens, in his dissent, actually argued against the Second Amendment itself, calling it an "injustice," comparing it to slavery and the subjugation of women: we can't just willy-nilly grant historical rights through the 14th Amendment, because look at these other EVIL historical rights we used to have (implying, of course, that gun rights are also evil).

I don't think more needs to be said than this. On the one side we have people standing up for what the Constitution actually says and means, and on the other, we have people denying our fundamental constitutional rights just because they don't like them.

Thankfully, liberty prevailed and the Second Amendment has taken its proper role as applying to the states, even though it's nearly a century-and-a-half since the 14th Amendment was ratified with that explicit intent.

Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.

The Supreme Court held, 8-1 (only Thomas dissenting) that disclosure of referendum petitions, in general, does not violate the First Amendment. The door is left open to further litigation to see if a narrower case may find in their favor.

There's seven opinions from the nine justices and I've not read them yet. I'm sure the folks behind R-71 aren't happy, but it's not over for them yet.

Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.

I was listening to Obama tonight. He said, “Because there’s never been a leak this size at this depth, stopping it has tested the limits of human technology.” I thought, What about alien technology? He continued: “That’s why, just after the rig sank ...” You contacted aliens? “... I assembled a team of ...” Aliens?! “... our nation’s ...” Secret alien contacts?!? “... best scientists and engineers. ...” Dang.

Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.

In attacking Sarah Palin's endorsment of challenger John Koster (R), incumbent WA-2 Congressman Rick Larsen (D) said, "A Palin endorsement means John Koster is opening his campaign war chest to a potential landslide of out-of-state contributions; contributions that will fund his campaign to eliminate the help seniors are getting to pay for prescription drugs, privatize Social Security, and protect the lax regulations that led to the BP oil spill." (emphasis added)

Those sure sound like awful things, even if his misrepresentations of Koster's campaign were true. But as Jerry Cornfield at The Herald points out, 65 percent of Larsen's contributions come from PACs, most of which are out of state, and has received several thousand from oil companies. Only three percent of Koster's money has come from PACs (in fact, Koster's raised more money from individual contributions than Larsen, since his announcement in January), and of that PAC money, none of it is associated with the oil industry.

I guess Larsen is just trying to use fiery rhetoric to prevent Koster from becoming more like Larsen himself.

Larsen also accused Palin of doing something wrong by using the extremely common "target" rhetoric regarding political races: "She even uses crosshairs in her literature, upping the rhetoric and literally taking aim."

Wow! She EVEN used CROSSHAIRS! LITERALLY taking aim! Shocking, especially since on Larsen's campaign web site, he links to a Seattle P-I article titled "Larsen: Big turnout for House target," without implying there's anything wrong with the former newspaper's use of the word.

I demand that Rick Larsen condemn the Seattle P-I for upping the rhetoric with its use of a word that has been commonly used in political races since before anyone of us was born! And then I demand that Rick Larsen condemn himself for putting such vile rhetoric on his campaign home page. Despicable.

Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.

No, not Brian Baird, Bryan Baird.

At the state GOP convention last Friday, people were abuzz with news that the incumbent Democrat might have reneged on his promise to not seek another term, and had filed as an independent. Alas, it had not happened: instead, a 24-year-old kid filed, even though he would not turn the constitutionally mandated age of 25 until next March (which means, of course, that he'd likely have been eligible to run if not for the Twentieth Amendment ... yet again, the Constitution disenfranchises a minority).

Baird filed, and then the Secretary of State's office returned his fee, having been told they couldn't legally accept his filing.

It makes me wonder why there isn't an automated system for catching that sort of thing. The candidates file by computer, and all the State has to do is check the birthdate, and automatically reject a filing by someone who doesn't meet the age requirement. It's not hard.

But then again, Secretary Sam Reed's office still refuses to do this basic, simple, obvious, automatic check for voter registrations, too, which is why we've had underage children voting in recent years.

Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.

His name is Bob Etheridge, a Democratic* Congressman from North Carolina. After being asked a simple (though perhaps loaded) question on a sidewalk, the Democratic* Congressman -- in the words of the NRCC -- "lost it" and assaulted the questioner: an unnamed, self-professed, college student. The Democratic* Congressman grabbed the person on the wrist, and later on the neck; he repeatedly asked, "who are you;" and then he lied that he had a "right to know" who the student is.

Frankly, I am more disturbed by the lie than by the physical assault. The physical assault, while disturbing, was a one-time incident, resulting in only a temporary loss of liberty to the victim. Such a lie, though, from an elected official of the federal government -- a Democratic* Congressman -- could be used to permanently deprive someone of his First Amendment rights.

Thinking more about it, though, I wouldn't be surprised that a Democratic* Congressman didn't know that we have a First Amendment right to anonymity, since the Democratic* Party has spent so much time in the last couple years assaulting our First Amendment rights (saying groups of people lose their right to speech when they exercise their right to associate, for example).

OK, maybe that was overly partisan. It's not like some Republican politicians don't have First Amendment problems too (John McCain did help author the bill I am referring to, after all). But I get really angry about government assaults on liberty, whether corporate assaults on corporate liberty (lockstep Democratic* opposition to the rights of filmmakers), or individual assaults on individual liberty (a Democratic* Congressman assaulting an individual on a sidewalk).

I agree with some of the commenters I've seen that the Democratic* Congressman should be removed from office as soon as possible. Practically speaking, that may mean just waiting until November, of course. It's notable that currently, Democratic* Congressman Bob Etheridge's election web site is not responding.

*Note that I used the proper form of the party name here. As an adjective, the word is "Democratic," not "Democrat." I took great pains to make sure everyone knows that this is a "Democratic" official, not merely a "Democrat" official: that he is, in fact, an elected member of Congress that belongs to the Democratic Party. (You're welcome!)

Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.

I was visiting some friends in Portland, Oregon, and I was told about an incident at the local Red and Black Cafe, in which a police officer was asked to leave because their customers (sorry, "collective members") do not feel safe around police.

Said the co-owner (which I assume, as this IWW closed shop is "worker-owned" and "collectively managed," is simply one of the baristas) said, "If there's a police officer there, I wouldn't feel safe in that situation. I would feel worried that the officer might Tase the person or potentially shoot them for having a mental health issue."

I suggest they add "wearing a law enforcement uniform non-ironically" to their list of prohibited behviors ... as long as "fostering inane and irrational paranoia" is still protected.

Regardless, what's clear is that they agree with Rand Paul that the right of private discrimination, while often an abomination, is protected by our Constitution. And because that view is "inherently racist," well ... I regret to report that these lovely people in Portland are racists.

Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.

Tomorrow I will be going to the WSRP Convention and at 3 p.m. there's a Consitution and Policy Workshop and a Citizen-Journalism Workshop.

The former's description reads:

This workshop is tailored to individuals wishing to learn more about constitutional principles. Listen to experts on our U.S. and state constitutions, discuss our founding documents, and learn how to analyze the constitutionality of proposed laws.

The latter's reads:

Tired of not seeing topics you care about reported? Do you want to develop better writing and research skills? Learn how to do just that from top bloggers, political commentators, and newsmakers in the region.

I don't know which to go to. (I signed up for both.)

Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.