Republicans unveil "Mount Vernon Report"

What a conglomeration of whooha. To the Republicans credit, they're keeping the Dems in office just by their own brain adled incompetence. Let's take a look at their "ideas"-

We recommit ourselves to the ideas of the American Founding. Through the Constitution, the Founders created an enduring framework of limited government based on the rule of law. They sought to secure national independence, provide for economic opportunity, establish true religious liberty and maintain a flourishing society of republican self-government.

Okay. The "true religious liberty" begs clarification, but of course there isn't any in this thing.

The conservatism of the Constitution limits government’s powers but ensures that government performs its proper job effectively. It refines popular will through the filter of representation. It provides checks and balances through the several branches of government and a federal republic.

Good, keep it simple like fourth grade civics. Easier for integration of the Tea Baggers. No real change here that I can see. But that's all there is, just a bunch of platitudes and vague regurgitating of rah rah "CONSTITUTION!!!" bullet points.

On second thought, there is one thing that stands out about the "Report"- they put it on a cool old timey template and made the "original" signatures just like the ones on the Constitution!! Well then, we must take them seriously. You can peruse it yourself here.

Not So Fast: Senate Has a Say on Obama's Successor

By GottaLaff

(via)

This should answer all your questions:

Q: What is the Senate's authority to seat or not seat an appointee like Burris?

A: The Constitution makes the Senate the ultimate arbiter of a senator's qualification and election when it says, in Article I, Section 5, ''Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members ...''

Q: But doesn't a state's governor decide who should fill a Senate vacancy?

A: The Constitution allows governors, if they are authorized by state legislatures, to appoint a senator in the event of a vacancy to serve until the next general election.

Some states restrict this authority [...] In any case, the Senate has final say over whether a governor's pick should be allowed to serve in the Senate.

Q: On what grounds may the Senate refuse to seat Burris?

A: Technically, the Senate doesn't need a specific reason; it sets its own standards for who may serve. But in this case, senators have a rule they might cite requiring an appointment be signed both by the governor and by the secretary of state. Illinois Secretary of State Jesse White says he will refuse to sign any Blagojevich appointment. [...]

Q: What if the Senate can't agree?

A. The Senate has, when refusing to seat an appointee, referred the matter to the Rules Committee for investigation. [...]

Q: What happens if Blagojevich is removed and a new governor appoints a different person to the Senate seat?

A: It still would be up to the Senate to determine which person should be seated.

More here.

A post by our Commenter in Chief from Connecticut

By Commenter Chris via GottaLaff

Chris e-mailed me the other day regarding the subject below, and I invited her to send me a full post on it. It's happens to be about, but not limited to, Connecticut and the effort to introduce ballot initiatives, bypassing the state Constitution:

First, a little background: Connecticut amends its Constitution through conventions . They meet and propose whatever changes, which are then put before the electorate for approval. Any proposals approved by the voters become part of the Constitution.

So, November 4, 2008 being the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November in the even-numbered year next succeeding the expiration of a period of twenty years from the date of convening of the last convention, electors in Connecticut will vote on the ballot question:

"Shall there be a Constitutional Convention to amend or revise the Constitution of the state" as required by Article 13 of the CT Constitution. [Sec. 2] If a majority votes yes, then a convention must be held no later than one year after the date of the vote [Sec. 3]. If a majority votes no, a Constitutional Convention may be held in one of the intervening years [but not earlier than 10 years from the date of the last convention] at the request of a two-thirds majority in each house of the Legislature [Sec. 1]

That's how we do it and it's complicated for a reason.

This year, proponents of holding a convention want to put forth the proposal of changing Article 13 . They want to implement an "Initiative Referenda", which basically means doing away with the conventions and bringing proposed amendments directly to the voters, the way it's done in other states, such as California. I don't like it.

For the record, I live in California, and I don't like it either.

Our Constitution has been around longer than the US Constitution and it's supposed to be difficult to change it.

It's supposed to be a deliberative process, rather than one that is subject to popular whims and fears, which is what direct initiative will bring us.

The proponents say that they will push for an agenda to amend the Constitution to provide for limiting property taxes (how well did that work out for ya, CA?). They also want hard changes to the Constitution for immigration reform, a three-strikes law, ethics reform, eminent domain reform, term limits, a recall provision, and "More!!! Much More!" .

All of those things (except eminent domain – which does need reform) can be accomplished by the Legislature. We don't have to change the Constitution for them, except maybe the recall provision, which I'm not convinced is a good idea anyway.

And then there's gay marriage. The CT Supreme Court decision earlier this month made direct initiative imperative if the voters want gay marriage banned. Richard Blumenthal, CT Attorney General, said that the court was the final arbiter and the decision would be respected.

Jodi Rell acknowledged that banning gay marriage was a fight she could not win. The decision was based on the equal protection under the law clause of the Constitution, so any amendment would have to address that. Do we really want to screw with equal protection? Do we really want one segment of the population deciding what rights another segment is allowed to have??

A major point of the Constitution is to protect the individual from the tyranny of the majority!

There are others ideas out there which could find their way onto the ballot from initiatives - things we haven't thought of yet. And every popular whim that can gather enough signatures on petitions will make it to a ballot in November. We could be taking a lot of the decision-making power out of the hands of the people we've elected to make decisions about the way the state is run.

After writing all this, it is clear to me that my opposition to the ballot question isn't about amending the Constitution; it is against direct initiatives.

It is an argument best given when the question is about amending the Constitution to allow for Initiative Referenda. But still, I'm voting NO on the ballot question, just to be safe.

I completely agree with Chris. We have had election after election in which we vote on initiatives that are worded badly, are too convoluted for many to understand (I believe Rachel Maddow made that point last night), and most importantly, should never have made their way on to the ballot.

Chris's heartfelt and intelligent e-mail to me was too important to gloss over, and I'm thrilled to have been able to share it with you.

Does BushCo have a secret succession plan?

By GottaLaff

Now that my computer is gone forever, and until I can load a new one (or even buy one), I can't upload videos. Go here to see a clip of Jane Mayer on CNN, and to read the rest of this piece:

Mayer's book contains myriad shocking revelations about the Bush administration's war on terror policies, but it also lets some questions linger. For example, has President Bush issued a secret order cutting Congress out of the line of succession in case the Bush and vice president Dick Cheney were simultaneously killed.

Slate's Bruce Ackerman lays out the possibility.

Apparently sometime in the 1980s, President Ronald Reagan issued a "secret executive order" that in the event of the death of the president and the vice president "established a means of re-creating the executive branch." Reagan's order violated the express terms of the Constitution and governing statutes.

Does a similar order exist today? We aren't told. But we do know that Dick Cheney participated in the secret "doomsday" exercises under the Reagan order, and given his central role at present, it is imperative for Congress to find out.

Can we keep the pressure on John Conyers please?