Every now and again, the tired argument against the electoral college comes up. People forget we are a republic, and proceed to make suggestions consistent with another form of government. The Tennessean advances afoot with the title Make Electoral College Reflect Overall Popular Vote. Of course, if that is their actual position, the paper needs to close the logical loophole and simply advocate the complete abolition of the system.

The first amateurish argument is that

Technically, it would be possible for a candidate to win as few as 11 elector-rich states and be elected president. This fact in particular has helped fuel the national popular vote movement. Because a small number of states have become decisive, candidates have no incentive to campaign in two-thirds of the states; in effect, disenfranchising much of the electorate. According to nationalpopularvote.com, in the 2004 campaign, candidates concentrated more than 66 percent of money and visits in just five states.

Well, yes - the five states likely to swing, due to the electoral votes they possessed. If there wasn’t a focus on swing states, there would be a focus on swing cities. In any event, if the electoral college was abolished, the number of population centers focused upon would go down, not up. The smaller states get more votes per elector. This sort of ridiculous analysis by The Tennessean’s editorial board ought to have been crumpled up hours before the deadline.

The second installment of The Tennessean’s amateur hour comes in its description of the rationale for the electoral college

There was once a good reason for the Electoral College. The Founding Fathers feared that in direct popular elections, uninformed voters would choose only candidates from their own region, leading to chaotic election challenges.

But time has passed by this tenet of the usually timeless Constitution. The U.S. now has a strong party system and modern communication is such that presidential nominees are known nationwide.

The textbooks nowadays must be awful. From Federalist 68

It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations. It was also peculiarly desirable to afford as little opportunity as possible to tumult and disorder. This evil was not least to be dreaded in the election of a magistrate, who was to have so important an agency in the administration of the government as the President of the United States. But the precautions which have been so happily concerted in the system under consideration, promise an effectual security against this mischief.

In short, the electoral college is the one, last safeguard to preserve the republic. The reasons for its existence extend beyond regional prejudice, as The Tennessean erroneously implies. And if they think small states get short shrift now, just imagine how the smaller states will be treated by national campaigns when their populations are compared to that of the largest cities.

The electoral college is one of the geniuses of the Founders. Let’s not screw that up, too.

They are as follows

From the Supreme Court, the guests are Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas.

I was going to make an abortion crack, but Kennedy slipped through.

That’s the gist of it. Yesterday the Tennessee Attorney General’s office released an opinion on HB3137, which would remove handgun carry permits from the public record. I’ll upload the opinion later today (the opinion can be found here),

Though not carrying the force of law, AG opinion’s are instructive, and can shape how legislation is amended, and whether it is passed at all. The key to the constitutionality of HB3137 according to the opinion is simply legislative precedent, which has been confirmed by the courts. The only factual scenario noted that may result in an “as applied” challenge would likely come under the First Amendment with a media defendant. In short, be sure to lock up the records in a really safe, super secret place.

President Bush on the Democrats’ attempt to circumvent the free market (both of economy and ideology)

Supporters of this regulation say we need to mandate that any discussion of so-called controversial issues on the public airwaves includes equal time for all sides. This means that many programs wanting to stay on the air would have to meet Washington’s definition of balance. Of course, for some in Washington, the only opinions that require balancing are the ones they don’t like.”

“We know who these advocates of so-called balance really have in their sights: shows hosted by people like Rush Limbaugh or James Dobson, or many of you here today. By insisting on so-called balance, they want to silence those they don’t agree with. The truth of the matter is, they know they cannot prevail in the public debate of ideas. They don’t acknowledge that you are the balance … The country should not be afraid of the diversity of opinions. After all, we’re strengthened by diversity of opinions.”

Read the rest of his remarks. This is the George W. Bush that I voted for.

After yet another massacre in a gun free zone, will the gun control lobby fold, or is emotion that much more powerful than rational thought?

I do not prefer to use disasters of any type to make political points. Quite decidedly, this is no more about politics than whether a civilized society ought to prohibit the dumping of toxic waste in the public square. Being on the wrong side of the gun freedom issue actually results in the loss of life. Putting up a sign declaring freedom from firearms does not a safe zone make. Shooting after shooting after shooting occurs in areas where gun control is absolute and campuses around the country still hold to a plainly disastrous policy. They should all be sued.

So, here’s my invitation. All public universities ought to be sued now over their gun free zone policies. As they are governmentally controlled, and the present restriction of constitutional right to bear arms has been shown to serve no public policy purpose, the gun free zone policy is unjustifiably in violation of the Second Amendment and most state constitutions (this would certainly be the case in Tennessee).

I am offering my services. If you are a student, faculty member, or staff member at a public university who would otherwise possess a concealed carry permit (or do already possess one), and would carry a lawful weapon if permitted on your campus, I want you to contact me. The email to use is nmoore-at-moorelegalgroup.com.

The Heller case currently before the Supreme Court will conceivably be one of the most important decisions in the last twenty-five years. In well-written non-legalese,Glenn Reynolds and Brannon Denning have provided a great breakdown on the legal dynamics surrounding the case

Arguably, gun-rights supporters have much more at stake in Heller than their opponents.  The Court’s adoption of the individual-rights reading may be little more than symbolic; if not, it may take years before the Court deigns to clarify its decision.  But a rejection of their position would virtually repeal the Amendment, perhaps emboldening gun-control proponents whose initia­tives were often stymied by legislators’ invocation of the Second Amendment.  On the other hand, a loss might galvanize political action, as losses in Kelo and Bowers v. Hardwick did for property-rights and gay-rights activists.

Hat tip to SaysUncle.

State Senator Rosalind Kurita (D-Clarksville) explains her vote against the bill allowing gun permit holders to enter establishments serving alcohol, as long as they themselves do not drink

Sen. Rosalind Kurita, D-Clarksville, an expert skeet shooter, also voiced reservations about the bill.

“I really don’t see a need to bring a gun into Pizza Hut or O’Charley’s,” she said.

The bill passed the senate 24-6. Senator Kurita’s explanation as to why she is opposed to self-defense in casual dining environments leaves one wanting more (the other five opponents to the bill were Democrats, to include two out of three of the Davidson County delegation).

Intrigued, I decided to take about 30 seconds and do the low-grade research the senator didn’t have time to do. It appears that O’Charley’s doesn’t seem to have much criminal trouble, but the effort to Google “Pizza Hut robberies” paid off.

If there was a place one probably ought to be required to carry a gun, Pizza Hut would be it. An additional 90 second scan of the stories I found showed that there was no mention of the robbers possessing a valid carry permit.

Yet, I am forgiving - it certainly is not too late for Senator Kurita to redeem her position on the bill and salvage the sizable pizza eating vote by offering to rename this common-sense legislation the “Pizza Hut Protection Act”.

The rate of pregnancies ended by abortion has been dropping drastically, now reaching the lowest point since 1975, In short, there haven’t been fewer abortions per capita since shortly after abortion was legalized by Roe v. Wade in 1973. This should surprise no one.

It is data like this that brings to the fore the inherent problem for those who advocate abortion rights. Abortion rights supporters and Shakers are brethren in the path to their own extinction. In simple terms, the Roe Effect explains that those likely to support abortion rights in the future are those aborted today. As the sociological data reliably shows that children tend to mirror the political tendencies of their parents, it is only natural that the cessation of reproduction by a particular political strata would have longterm electoral effects. Because of Roe v. Wade, there are approximately 40 million likely Democrat-inclined voters who never had the opportunity to exist. As the vast majority of women who seek abortions are Democrats, the eventual effect, from congressional redistricting and representation to actual voting practices, will result in a slow population trend away from the more ardent liberal views mired in an unrestrained advocacy of abortion-on-demand of the Democrat Party to the more reasonable and moderate views of the mainstream Republican Party.

It is this self-imposed dearth of future voters that has already cost Democrats in a variety of ways. James Taranto of The Wall Street Journal has been one of the foremost advocates explaining the results of the Roe Effect

Compounding the GOP advantage is what I call the Roe effect. It is a statement of fact, not a moral judgment, to observe that every pregnancy aborted today results in one fewer eligible voter 18 years from now. More than 40 million legal abortions have occurred in the United States since 1973, and these are not randomly distributed across the population. Black women, for example, have a higher abortion ratio (percentage of pregnancies aborted) than Hispanic women, whose abortion ratio in turn is higher than that of non-Hispanic whites. Since blacks vote Democratic in far greater proportions than Hispanics, and whites are more Republican than Hispanics or blacks, ethnic disparities in abortion ratios would be sufficient to give the GOP a significant boost–surely enough to account for George W. Bush’s razor-thin Florida victory in 2000.

There certainly is an identifiable effect of a particular political group’s proclivity to have more abortions. The degree of the effect, admittedly, is up for debate. No absolute answer can be determined because it’s relatively hard to poll the political tendencies of those who never existed. However, to say the Roe Effect may have swung a few hundred votes in Florida to George W. Bush in 2000 is well within the realm of believability. Congress? Who knows. The actual influence on policy by lost Roe Effect votes is likely dwarfed by the loss of new congressional seats in Democrat friendly regions.

So, in a perverse sort of way, Republican efforts to minimize abortions actually help Democrats win future elections. With enemies like us, you don’t need friends.

The lawsuit filed by the District of Columbia against gun manufacturers has been dismissed.

This could turn out to be a very bad year for the District and the Second Amendment.

The How Appealing blog reports on this decision from the Seventh Circuit (the Seventh Circuit includes Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin - a map of all the circuits can be found here)

Two Hammond, Indiana police officers stopped Earkle Tyler to ask him “why he was being so nonchalant about walking on the street with a beer bottle”: Unbeknownst to the police officers, it is not illegal to have an open alcoholic beverage on the streets of Hammond, justifying a high degree of nonchalance.

The cops then asked Tyler for his ID and had radio dispatch run a check for warrants, which came back clear. Only then, after informing Tyler that he was free to leave, did the police notice the bulge in Tyler’s pants that turned out to be a purple Crown Royal sack containing about 30.3 grams of crack and 24 grams of powder cocaine.

During the suppression hearing at the district court, in an attempt to salvage a flubbed encounter, the officers testified that they stopped Tyler because they suspected he may have been in violation of the Indiana public intoxication statute, but only because he possessed an open beer, not because he otherwise appeared drunk. Based on this explanation, the district court allowed the drugs into evidence, and Tyler entered a conditional plea pending appeal to serve the federal minimum of ten (10) years for the possession offense.

Fortunately, the Seventh Circuit was willing to correct this mistake. And rightly so, as there was so much wrong with it. There was the outright seizure for no reason when the officers took Tyler’s ID. There was no reasonable suspicion to stop Tyler, other than the open beer, which was not against the law. And even if there was enough to justify a Terry frisking (which means a search for weapons), it wouldn’t have resulted in the finding of the drugs. Soft bulges, as a rule, are not usually indicative of weapons. This is a good decision.

The opinion of the court can be found here.

On a related note, why in the world did the federal government take this out of the state’s hands? Was Tyler crossing a state line with the cocaine? It seems apparent the United States Attorney in the Northern District of Indiana needs more to do.

UPDATE After further reflection, I thought I would add a bit to this post. I’ve mentioned it before, but I want to make it clear that it is my conservatism that pleases me when cases like this one are decided correctly. Being tough on crime is perfectly compatible with doing things the right way. Every conservative should shudder when the accused’s constitutional rights are violated in the name of justice.

Apparently, a “disenfranchised” voter paraded around by Indiana Democrats opposing the implementation of Indiana’s voter identification law is also registered in Florida

[Faye Buis-] Ewing became a sort-of poster child for the opposition when the Indiana League of Women Voters (ILWV) told media that the problems Ewing had voting that day shows why the high court should strike it down.

But Indiana Republican Secretary of State Todd Rokita said Monday that Ewing’s tale illustrates exactly why Indiana needs the law. “This shows that the Indiana ID law worked here, which also calls into question why the critics are so vehemently against this law, especially with persons like this, who may not have a legal right to vote in this election,” Rokita said.

…

Monday night from her Florida home, Ewing said she and her husband Kenneth “winter in Florida and summer in Indiana.” She admitted to registering to vote in both states, but stressed that she’s never voted in Florida.

Not voted in Florida…yet. Kudos to Ms. Ewing! This is not bad strategy. If you are disenfranchised in the state requiring photo identification, it’s prudent to have a backup state in which to vote.

Smart, very smart. Indiana Democrats? Not so much.

The oral arguments over the constitutionality of the Indiana voter ID law were this morning. The SCOTUS blog has a nice summary of the hour long session

It was apparent from the outset that the Court’s more conservative members were most interested in (a) finding that no one had a right to bring the constitutional challenge, at least at this stage, (b) putting off a challenge until the law has actually been enforced or at least until just before election day, or (c) salvaging as much as possible of the Indiana photo ID requirement on the theory that voter fraud is a problem that states have a legitimate right to try to solve.    There was some hand-wringing, particularly by Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr., over  how difficult it is for a judge to “draw the line” on when a voting requirement would or would not pass a constitutional test.

I guess it’s possible the Court may find there is no standing. There is yet to be any harm, and such an approach isn’t a novel one. Everyone can agree that the states have a legitimate interest in minimizing voter fraud of all sorts. The liberal contingent of justices focused more on specifically tailoring that interest

And it was equally apparent that the Court’s more liberal members were most keen about (a) pushing the Court to decide the case now, (b) doing so in a way that at least narrows the impact of the Indiana law on poor or minority voters, and (c) applying some constitutional pressure on the states to regulate voter fraud — if they do so at all — with more specifically targeted statutes.

In the end, it’s going to come down to Justice Anthony Kennedy

He displayed some skepticism about the challenge to Indiana’s law, somewhat impatiently suggesting at one point that the challengers would oppose any kind of voter ID requirement other than a simple signature match at the polling place. Kennedy seemed ultimately to be looking for ways to assure voters who demonstrably would be significantly burdened by the law they they could challenge it, perhaps even before election day came around.

Having not heard the oral argument myself, this summary does hearten me as to the direction in which the Court seems to be headed.

David Kopel summarizes three new research studies examining the Framers’ contextual understanding of the words used in the Second Amendment. In contrast, anti-gun activists tend to read the Second Amendment using their own modern understanding of words like “militia”, instead of viewing the amendment in its proper historical context.

Like I’ve said before, if you don’t like guns, repeal the Second Amendment. A true reading of it doubtlessly conveys an individual right, no less than that of the First, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh and Eighth Amendments. The equivalent of arguing a collective right, misinterpreting the words “the people”, would make the wording used in the rest of the Bill of Rights sound just silly. Attempt to construct a cogent argument for a collective right interpretation of the Fourth Amendment, and you see what I’m talking about.

Well, actually, some of the socialists among us probably can. Nevertheless, I’m willing to entertain ideas for the sake of entertainment.

The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments debating the constitutionality of Indiana’s voter identification law tomorrow

The two sides likewise are at odds over the extent to which voter-ID laws stamp out fraud. Opponents of the Indiana law say supporters can’t point to a single, proven instance in which someone has tried to impersonate a registered voter at the polls.

“The type of fraud that voter ID would prevent — and impersonation fraud is the only type of fraud that voter ID would prevent — simply does not happen,” said Deborah Goldberg, a lawyer with the New York-based Brennan Center for Justice, which opposes the Indiana law.

Republicans say that because voter impersonation is a difficult crime to prove, the absence of prosecutions means little. They also contend they should be allowed to take preventive measures.

“You don’t have to wait until you’re a victim,” Rokita said.

The Democratic arguments against the law remain flimsy. Impersonation fraud does exist, actually. It has existed in Tennessee. In fact, sometimes it’s not even intentional - I believe Sarah had a few experiences as poll worker where daughters attempting to vote for their elderly mothers who couldn’t make it to the polls anymore tried to vote by proxy because “she knew how her mother wanted to vote.” Someone apparently had let her do it before.

I’m also still fuzzy on how picture identification is going to suppress legitimate voter turnout. Democrats can still give away tasty food and refreshing beverages at the polls, and no one is stopping them from running the voter wagons around target neighborhoods to keep turnout up. It’s not as if Republicans are advocating a statewide fuel surcharge on election days. In fact, all the Democrats’ arguments are easily defused, as the voter identification law in Indiana contains an indigency provision. The sole remaining argument is that it’s simply too much work to get a photo ID, a ridiculous position to hold, the legal equivalent of which is painting your face white, putting on a honking nose, and juggling fire.

The irony is rich for Democrats opposing voter identification who still believe that Ohio and Florida were “fixed”. One would think any measure to ensure vote validity would be appreciated.

Six years ago, Michigan relaxed its standards for obtaining a concealed carry permit. To the observant, the results are anything but shocking

Six years after new rules made it much easier to get a license to carry concealed weapons, the number of Michiganders legally packing heat has increased more than six-fold.

But dire predictions about increased violence and bloodshed have largely gone unfulfilled, according to law enforcement officials and, to the extent they can be measured, crime statistics. The incidence of violent crime in Michigan in the six years since the law went into effect has been, on average, below the rate of the previous six years. The overall incidence of death from firearms, including suicide and accidents, also has declined.

More than 155,000 Michiganders — about one in every 65 — are now authorized to carry loaded guns as they go about their everyday affairs, according to Michigan State Police records.

Certainly the energies of the anti-gun lobby can be channeled into something that actually benefits society.

Courtesies to Instapundit.

The District of Columbia has fired preeminent Supreme Court lawyer Alan Morrison. The District’s appellate brief is due in D.C. v. Heller in two days

Morrison says Nickles [the District's general counsel] sacked him without giving a reason, “but I assume it is because I was seen as a Linda [Singer] loyalist.” Morrison says he is saddened by the firing and its timing. “I wanted to argue the case and thought I could help the District.” Morrison argued 16 cases before the high court as an attorney for the Ralph Nader-founded Public Citizen Litigation Group.

Linda Singer is D.C.’s attorney general, who will be stepping down this Friday, and is a source of strife for the D.C. mayor’s office.

Having lived inside the beltway for three years, I was always bemused at local D.C. politics. Dysfunctional doesn’t even begin to describe it. Usually they just muck things up for those who elect them. This time, though, their incompetence could have much greater ramifications. The irony is that this amateur hour could result in good law for the rest of us.

I am not going to repeat my arguments regarding photo identification to vote, as I was rather thorough a couple days ago (scroll down until you hit the post entitled “Voter IDs? We Don’t Need No Stinking Voter IDs!”, all due respect given to Mel Brooks). However, the issue has been revisited by the the Progressive Nashville blog, citing the findings of a three university study

While the ability of rigid voting requirements to achieve the goal of reducing voter fraud is debatable at best, our results from four separate locations clearly indicate that these requirements have significant electoral implications. Not only does the Indiana law disproportionately impact the communities most vulnerable to changes in the electoral process, there is also a clear partisan bias associated with these laws as well. Our data suggests that a greater number of Democrats than Republicans or Independents are excluded from voting under Indiana’s voter identification laws. This is particularly concerning given the very narrow vote margins associated with several federal, state, and local races in recent memory. While the state interest of preventing voting fraud is an important one, our results here question whether this interest should be advanced despite apparent evidence that this ostensible method of fraud prevention disproportionately impacts specific segments of the electorate.

It is amazing that “fraud prevention” is considered a “debatable” benefit to photo identification for voting. As well, it boggles one’s mind to think that identification - simply proving who you say you are - is considered a “rigid voting requirement” that the disadvantaged are simply too ill-equipped to overcome. I suppose the question is: How reasonably easy should voting be? Should we fund roving vote mobiles to go from neighborhood to neighborhood, ringing a bell to let you know it’s time to come out of your house and vote? I mean, you can vote right there, at the curb. Some overeducated academic somewhere will certainly conclude that anything more difficult than that is simply wrongheaded and partisan.

Of course, I understand the Democrats’ partisan dilemma. In 2004 I volunteered as one of the roving lawyers for the Davidson County Republican Party, randomly checking out precincts to ensure things were being done correctly, and basically confirming that the election rules were being followed. In one of the heaviest Democratic precincts, I watched volunteers calling voters to let them know there was food at the poll, enticing them to come out vote. If my voters were that hard to turn-out, I’d probably be caterwauling about voter identification, too.

The flimsy argument against voter identification isn’t sticking, and Democrats are attempting to re-frame the debate. I am not, nor is any Republican I know, interested in “rigid voting requirements”. We are interested in integrity - period.

Keeping their attempt to reframe the debate in mind, the Progressive Nashville blog invokes the cheese head model

While have fair elections is vital to confidence in our system, the process doesn’t need to be restrictive in order to be safe. Wisconsin is a prime example.

Wisconsin offers on site, election day registration. During the 2004 elections, I worked as poll watcher and observed dozens of people arrive at a precinct, many who had never voted before, walk in, be registered and vote. Expecting a high turnout for the election, officials had brought in extra staff to handle the registration chores while allowing registered voters to move through the polls smoothly. The process worked and only a handful of ballots were later disqualified.

Guess what? That’s okay. I don’t have any problem with registering to vote the day of an election. Just do this one thing - prove who the heck you are.

Many of you have likely been following the battle in federal court over a prayer group’s use of Lakeview Elementary and its facilities. The American Civil Liberties Union and Americans United for Church and State have assisted the plaintiff parents in suing the school district over the use of the school as a site for prayer, and apparently, the effects of invoking the Almighty.

From what I’ve read about the case, the ACLU and AUCS are on shaky constitutional ground. In fact, the only reason I’m commenting on the situation at all is The Tennessean’s bastardization of the Constitution in its opinion piece on the case found in today’s paper. The headline of “their view” is entitled

There’s room for discussion on freedom of, from religion

Well, actually, there isn’t. There’s no room for discussion on “freedom from” religion in any honest debate on the First Amendment, the problem being that particular phrase cannot be found anywhere in the founding document.

Of course, the lack of textual authority doesn’t stop some, like abortion proponents, from claiming the bulwark of constitutional protection, but the First Amendment is one part of the Constitution that has yet to be defaced by the living document hordes’ use of “penumbras” and whole-cloth counter-textualism. Let’s keep it that way.

If you’re going to facilitate an honest debate, let’s start by being honest. Now, having read their editorial, The Tennessean’s position seems rather sensible; however, the headline, which is the reader’s first impression of your thoughts, and of extreme importance, falls within the category of being absolutely atrocious.

Let me begin by stating that I am no fan of the United Nations. I believe that is a corrupt organization whose members believe they have actually accomplished something of merit when they pass yet another resolution that bears no consequences.

I must also share that I am very conflicted when it comes to the issue of the death penalty. At certain moments, I wonder what is actually accomplished by the state’s killing of a criminal besides the perpetuation of violence. Then, I hear about someone who has abused a young child and I want to volunteer to saw off his limbs and pour acid into the open wounds while jamming lit cigarettes into his face and repeatedly clipping at his manly parts with nail scissors. So, as you can tell, I am torn.

I write all of that to get to this. I was given a moment of pause this morning when reading a piece in the “World Briefing” section of The New York Times. The General Assembly of the United Nations passed a nonbinding resolution 104 to 54 with 30 abstentions that calls for a moratorium on the death penalty.

Of course, the United States was one of the countries that opposed the resolution. Some of the countries that joined with us to vote against the resolution? Iran, Myanmar, North Korea, Sudan and Zimbabwe. I don’t know about you, but I’m more than a bit uncomfortable being on the same side of any issue with these countries. Chalk another point up for “oppose” on my personal death penalty scorecard.

Now, for that couple in Texas who tortured their daughter and then stuffed her body into a storage container … oh, do I have plans for you.