Judge Hudson Reminds Me: We Need Single-Payer!

I am not fond of the health insurance mandate included in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. I agree with Michael Moore that people aren't cars. If health insurance is so important that it warrants a government intervention in the free market as drastic as the insurance mandate introduced to us by Republican Mitt Romney in Massachusetts, then we should skip the middle man and move straight to a universal single-payer system that would guarantee coverage for every American.

Read More
SD Blogosphere Reaction:

• Dr. Blanchard finds Hudson's ruling reasonable but still prefers electoral to judicial remedies.
• Mr. Dahle finds Hudson getting money from a GOP PR firm.
• Mr. Woodring thinks Mr. Jefferson would be proud.
• Mr. Sanborn maintains it is unconstitutional to compel citizens to purchase anything. But does that apply to state governments, too, Michael?
  

I thus react with some ambivalence to Judge Henry Hudson's ruling in favor of the Commonwealth of Virginia challenging the insurance mandate on Constitutional grounds. The ruling is pretty thin gruel in some eyes, a thorough rejection of Obamacare in others.

Hudson rules on two key points. He accepts Virginia's argument that the enforcement of the insurance mandate is a penalty, not a tax. That may not matter to the average citizen—either way, it's money out of your pocket—but it matters to the court and the Constitution. If it's a tax, then Congress can act under the General Welfare Clause, and pretty much every court challenge to health care reform ends. If it's a penalty, then Congress is acting under the Commerce Clause.

That's where things get interesting. Virginia's challenge, like others, hinges on the idea that Congress act under the Commerce Clause to compel people to participate in interstate commerce by buying health insurance. The federal government says everyone eventually participates in the health care "market," and choosing not to buy health insurance shifts costs to everyone else in the market, so federal requirements to maintain financial responsibility for one's own health care via insurance are justified regulation of interstate commerce. Judge Hudson sides with Virginia: he says the government can regulate activity but not inactivity.

Yet state and local governments apparently retain the authority to regulate a host of other economic inactivities. South Dakota still penalizes you for not buying car insurance. The sheriff will nab you for vagrancy if you don't buy or rent a domicile of some sort, and the city or county will come after you again for nuisance violations if you don't engage in enough economic activity to maintain that domicile sufficiently. We punish parents if they don't purchase sufficient food, clothing, and shelter for their children. And not that I need much persuading, but the government will get on my case if I don't engage at some bare minimum in the clothing market.

Judge Hudson's ruling does not threaten state insurance mandates; Hudson appears concerned only with "unbridled exercise of federal police powers."

But the ruling brings me back to my basic argument for a universal single-payer health insurance system. Insurance works better when you get more people in the pool to share the risk. The best insurance possible would be the biggest pool possible: all 307 million Americans in one big pool. We all pay for one big army to protect the entire country from invaders and terrorists and other disruptive forces. We could all pay for one big army of doctors to protect us from the physical and economic devastation of disease and injury.

The right way to provide that universal protection is to stop viewing health care as a matter of commerce (health care doesn't work by free market principles) and start viewing at as a general welfare issue.

McCain, Thune Play Jack Bauer, Torch 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th Amendments

Is Bob Ellis trying to lure me in? Yesterday I grumbled about President Obama's continued abuse of the Fourth Amendment and wondered why the conservative shouters haven't added that point to their charge that the Constitution is hanging by a thread.

Comes now Sam Kephart, granted a guest column on Bob Ellis's Tea Party blog, to decry Fourth Amendment abuses advocated by, of all people, sponsoring Senator John McCain and co-sponsor Senator John Thune. Kephart alerts us to S. 3081, the Enemy Belligerent, Interrogation, Detention, and Prosecution Act.

...S.3081 lacks clear definitions for the operational terms “material support,” “The potential intelligence value of the individual,” and the all-inclusive phrase “Such other matters as the President considers appropriate.” It’s Catch-22 with no way out.

Under this law as currently written, any U. S. citizen who is a war protester, publicly exhibits anti-government sentiments, is a Tea Party activist, or a political opponent of a given Administration could fall (or be made to fall) under one or more of its ill-defined and ambiguous conditions.

If the Feds believe you are committing a “suspicious activity” or “supporting hostilities,” you can be hauled off and held indefinitely in military custody with neither legal recourse nor due process. Your Constitutional rights to free speech and personal liberties would disappear with the stroke of a hidden pen [Sam Kephart, "S. 3081 and John Thune: National Security Trumps Essential Liberty," Dakota Voice, 2010.10.18].

McCain and Thune's legislation even goes so far as to prohibit the Justice Department from expending any funds to conduct trials for such "belligerents" in the regular judicial system. In other words, if you cheese off Uncle Sam, your judicial rights disappear. No warrants, no grand jury, no speedy and public trial, no jury of your peers. The government can throw you in a hole for as long as it deems "hostilities" to be in effect... which in the age of the global war on terror is forever.

S. 3081 was introduced on March 4 this year and hasn't moved from the Judiciary Committee since. Let's hope it stays that way. And let's hope we hear more from conservatives like Kephart who want to hold Senator Thune and the rest of Congress accountable for protecting all of our Constitutional freedoms from fear.

---------------------
p.s.: This isn't the first time Kephart has said things I dig. It's good to see Bob Ellis associates with at least one guy who can talk sense.

Tenth Amendment Kills Defense of Marriage Act: Health Insurance Reform Next?

The Defense of Marriage Act got toasted in federal court last week, with a Nixon appointee ruling the law a violation of the Tenth Amendment—you know, that little gem conservatives love about powers not delegated to the feds being reserved to the States and the people.

Funny, I don't think I heard repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act on the teabaggers' to-do list. It's certainly on mine: the only help I need in defending my marriage comes from the one person wearing the ring that looks like mine.

But as David Montgomery notes, conservatives might want to cheer a little more loudly—or liberals more cautiously—for this affirmation of the Tenth Amendment:

In particular, a variety of states — including South Dakota — are challenging the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, the 2010 health care bill, in part on Tenth Amendment grounds.

Let's (incorrectly) oversimplify things here for a moment and say that these two measures are linked by the same interpretation of the Tenth Amendment — that a robust judicial interpretation of the Tenth will strike down both DOMA and Obamacare, while a liberal interpretation will uphold both laws [David Montgomery, "Tenth Amendment Collateral Damage," Behind Government Lines, 2010.07.09].

Montgomery poses a Constitutional gut check to both sides. Imagine if we Wellstone Democrats had to trade victory on health care for victory on same-sex marriage. Imagine if Gordon Howie could be vindicated in his crusade to destroy Obamacare but had to accept Adam and Steve's domestic partner insurance benefits and adjoining burial plots in veterans cemeteries.

I think we may avoid Montogomery's proposed dilemma. Attorney General Marty Jackley and his grandstanding pals on the health insurance reform lawsuit aren't making the same Tenth Amendment argument as the DOMA challengers did.

AG Jackley will want to review South Dakota v. Dole, which figures prominently in Judge Tauro's DOMA ruling. South Dakota v. Dole was our lawsuit against Uncle Sam over the 1984 National Minimum Drinking Age Act, which required states to raise their drinking age to 21 or lose some federal highway money. South Dakota sued, saying setting the drinking age was a power reserved to the states. In 1987, Chief Justice Rehnquist and six colleagues disagreed, establishing five criteria to justify a federal law under the Spending Clause, despite Tenth Amendment doubts:

1. the intent is "general welfare";
2. conditions are clear, so states know what happens if they participate or don't;
3. conditions must relate to the purpose of the programs involved;
4. the law must be consistent with the rest of the Constitution; and
5. the financial pressure involved can't be so huge as to effectively leave the states with no choice but to go along.
   

Judge Tauro found that DOMA fails to pass Constitutional muster in part on criterion #4, because DOMA violates the Equal Protection Clause. In other words, DOMA tells states, "You have to discriminate against same-sex couples." Not cool... and not replicated in any way by the health insurance reform law AG Jackley is challenging. The insurance mandate imposes no discrimination.

Satisfied with the above reasoning on the Equal Protection Clause, Judge Tauro dodges Massachusetts's claim on criterion #3, that DOMA's conditions are not germane to Medicaid, state cemetery policy, etc. But I would suggest Massachusetts has a winning argument on that point, too, that AG Jackley won't be able to replicate on the health insurance lawsuit. Keeping homosexuals from saying "I do" is at least a couple policy steps away from the purpose of Medicaid and veteran burials. In health insurance reform, requiring every citizen to carry coverage is pretty germane to health insurance policy.

Judge Tauro's ruling finds that DOMA clearly intrudes on state sovereignty by denying each state the right to define marriage. What similar intrusion on states' rights does the insurance mandate cause? How does the federal insurance mandate prohibit states from passing any number of their own laws relating to health insurance? Massachusetts was able to demonstrate a direct conflict between its sovereignty and the requirements of the Defense of Marriage Act. AG Jackley must show a comparable conflict by which the insurance mandate and other provisions of the Patient Protection Act prevent South Dakota from exercising its sovereignty on health care.

DOMA forced states to discriminate, imposed social policy through unrelated programs, and intruded on an area of state sovereignty with a long-standing, well-attested tradition. The Patient Protection Act does not do any of those things, at least not as clearly as DOMA. AG Jackley and his quixotic friends may have other Constitutional arguments to offer, but they won't much help in last week's Tenth Amendment ruling from Judge Tauro.

Of course, I could be wrong. Dr. Blanchard, a fellow supporter of legalizing same-sex marriage, find's Judge Tauro's ruling more odious judicial activism that reads the Tenth Amendment in a way that runs counter to 220 years of Constitutional practice. Your thoughts?

Gun Rights Predicated on Regulation

Among other juicy topics, the Supreme Court is expected to hand down a ruling on gun rights today. That got me wondering: does the Second Amendment contradict itself?

I doubt that: the Founding Fathers were smart enough not to write illogical statements into the Constitution (well, except for that three-fifths clause). The contradiction I feel coming lies more in the irrational reasoning of folks like the Second Amendment Sisters, who think you ought to be able to pack heat anywhere, anytime, or Governor Rounds and far too many of our state legislators, who think you should be able to make and use guns and ammo in South Dakota without any federal regulation.

Did someone say regulation? Let's review the Second Amendment:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

First phrase: well regulated Militia. The Founding Fathers framed the proper keeping and bearing of Arms in the context of regulation. The Constitution gives Congress the power to call up, organizing, arm, and discipline that militia. Our right to bear Arms appears to exist, in the Founding Fathers' minds, under the assumption that Congress gets to regulate those Arms.

Compare the phrasing of the Second Amendment with its neighbors. No other Amendment feels the need to explain itself. The First Amendment does not say why we need freedom of religion and speech ("A well exercised and expressed conscience, being necessary to the functioning of a free Democracy and personal integrity..."); it goes right to business, saying "Congress shall make no law...." Same with the other amendments: Washington, Franklin, Hamilton, et al. don't explain why the government can't quarter soldiers in peacetime or search without a warrant or impose excessive bail. The later amendments don't go there, either: the Constitution doesn't tell use why we can't have slaves or why we should have an income tax or why we should not or should have a stiff drink.

The Second Amendment is an anomaly, specifying the context motivating its protection. And that context is not individual self-defense or pheasant hunting or a God-given right to blast old buckets with your AK-47 (that happens here at Lake Herman). The Second Amendment explicitly assumes our guns exist in a framework of regulation to serve the State. If you want to posit other gun rights and oppose gun regulation, you can't rely on the Second Amendment; you have to hope for judicial activism.

Jackley Faces Uphill Battle Beating Republican Insurance Mandate Idea

South Dakota Attorney General Marty Jackley agrees with Michael Moore that the health care reform bill's insurance mandate is a bad idea. I agree, too, and have since 2007. If a problem is sufficiently severe that it requires the government to intrude on the free market with mandated purchase, the government might as well go whole hog and provide the mandated good or service.

But you know, AG Jackley, as you and your mostly Republican pals sue Uncle Sam, keep in mind the following:

• You'll also have to argue against something your own party, big business, and the insurance industry have been asking for for years.
  
• Paging Mitt Romney (and other socialists): "We insist that everybody who drives a car has insurance. And cars are a lot less expensive than people."(Perhaps Romney's defense of the insurance mandate can be included in the amici curiae for the federal government.)
  
• John McCain floated the idea back in the early 1990s... but back then it was a convenient rhetorical device to offer in response to the Clinton health care plan. Funny how (a) the Republicans never followed up when they retook Congress in 1994 and (b) how the Republicans consistently define their position by taking whatever the Democratic President proposes and prefixing not.
  
• Tom Schaller of FiveThirtyEight says you're wrong... unless you plan to annul some of our favorite social insurance mandates, like Medicare and Social Security.
• This post from a Con. Law prof linked by Mr. Woodring says you have an uphill fight.
• Your main argument seems to be that the health insurance mandate is a tax on living, a requirement to take part in commerce. You argue it differs from auto insurance mandates in that people can choose not to drive and thus not have to buy insurance. Well, people have been known to choose not to live....
• "Just like people are required to have car insurance, they could be required to have health insurance." Tommy Thompson, HHS Secretary under GW Bush, Sep. 2008.
  
• But the government already does mandate coverage on every living person: I have to buy clothes, don't I? (Oh, wait: I could knit... ;-) )

Fun with Marty: SD AG Jackley Joins Doomed Health Care Lawsuit

Our global warming resolution was embarrassing enough. Now South Dakota Attorney General is trying to get South Dakota on Rachel Maddow again, signing our good name, along with twelve other state AGs, to a really weak lawsuit against Uncle Sam to block health care reform.

I eagerly downloaded the document (eagerly hyperlinked by our state website [sorry! link since removed by state!]), hoping to find some profound legal arguments. Instead, I found pretty thin gruel, a bad mix of shaky Constitutional references and policy arguments more suited to the well of Congress or the campaign trail than a court of law. Here are some tidbits a judge will be throwing out shortly:

Paragraph 2: "The Constitution nowhere authorizes the United States to mandate, either directly or under threat of penalty, that all citizens and legal residents have qualifying healthcare coverage." Nor does the Constitution authorize construction of a federal spaceport in Florida, but I haven't heard Florida AG Bill McCollum, lead plaintiff on this suit, ask the courts to nullify NASA.

Also not authorized by the Constitution: minimum wage legislation, development of the Internet, or federal definitions of marriage.

Paragraph 4 questions the federal government's power to establish eligibility guidelines and operating rules for Medicaid. The suit calls health care reform "an unprecedented encroachment on the sovereignty of the states." But it is precedented: welfare reform in 1996 imposed lots of new restrictions on how states administered social assistance programs. Republicans didn't see anything unconstitutional about that. Federal program, federal rules.

Paragraph 4 also undercuts the policy argument AG Jackley made on SDPB Dakota Midday Tuesday that the states can solve health care needs better. The lawsuit says state budgets are in dire straits and they can't afford to withdraw from Medicaid. The lawsuit states Medicaid has become "customary and necessary."

States can solve better, but only the federal government can solve. Which is it, Mr. Jackley?

Of course, whichever it is doesn't matter: Mr. Jackley's moaning about tight state budgets and (later) unfunded mandates is purely a policy argument that has no weight in the courtroom. Health care reform may be an ill-conceived, expensive, ineffective law (compared to Canadian single-payer, it definitely is!). But the judge won't care. Jackley needs to show the law is unconstitutional. The Constitution does not forbid expensive or ineffective laws. Unless we get an activist judge (and we wouldn't want that), Paragraph 4 wastes the court's time.

Paragraphs 6, 7, and 8 gripe about unfunded mandates. Nowhere does the lawsuit cite the case law that finds unfunded mandates unconstitutional. (Hit those law journals, kids!) If AG Jackley does find such case law, though, the court will have to nuke another unfunded mandate: elections. (Darn: midterm elections are unconstitutional: Dems hold Congress while courts figure that out.)

Paragraphs 32 through 37 make an argument akin to breach of contract, saying the plaintiffs agreed to participate in Medicaid under certain conditions and that Uncle Sam is now changing the conditions. There could be a little legal ground there... but the AGs make themselves look like dupes. All but one of the AGs are Republicans, and Republicans always tell us to beware the federal government. Yet these paragraphs tell us the plaintiffs never expected that the federal government might try to expand Medicaid or federal power therethrough. Good grief.

If Marty Jackley wanted to legislate, he should have run for Congress. Our AG should respect the Constitution enough to avoid wasting our time and the court's with his policy preferences.

Feds, Lobbyists, Corporations Invade Classrooms; Conservatives Oddly Silent

Given some conservatives' vociferous efforts to keep President Obama from fomenting Marxist revolution in the classroom, I'm surprised I still have a job.

I'm also surprised that I haven't heard those same conservatives raise the red flag about some other intrusions on the sanctity of the classroom:

• South Dakota gubernatorial candidate sends out a press release trumpeting Constitution Day (that's tomorrow) as a celebration of "free enterprise and individual initiative"—words that appear nowhere in the Constitution, which created a stronger central government to solve the problems that the individual states under the flimsy Articles of Confederation could not. Munsterman fails to decry Constitution Day as a faux non-holiday enacted by the federal government in 2005 and mandating specific educational programs at all schools. This isn't just an optional speech from the President; this is required curriculum, demanded by Washington! Where's the outrage?
• I've heard some conservatives argue that ethanol is bad fiscal policy, bad food price policy, bad wildlife policy. I'm waiting to hear conservatives scream about the ethanol lobby's efforts to indoctrinate our kids in the classroom. The Renewable Fuels Association, Renewable Fuels Foundation, and National FFA are putting an ethanol-focused curriculum into our schools. They're even offering money to bring kids to Orlando, Florida, for further brainwashing. Oh, our poor kids!
• And last I checked, our schools are still rife with corporatist propaganda, as Coke, Pepsi, et al. take advantage of our stingy funding of schools to insert their advertisements into gyms, hallways, classrooms, and school signs to subject captive audiences of impressionable youths to their marketing. I await the explanation of how President Obama's call to homework does more damage in the classroom than corporate America's call to consume.

If I hear even half the ruckus over any of these intrusions into our kids' education that I heard over President Obama's speech last week, I'll be happily flabbergasted.

Republic, Not a Democracy: So What?

The folks to my right often seem to make great fuss and feathers over declaring that America is a republic, not a democracy. They puff up with professorial pedantry (hey, I thought that was my gig!) as if this simple observation is the cornerstone of all political wisdom. They recite their Adams, Hamilton, and Madison, and fulminate as if praise of democracy is blasphemy against the Pledge of Allegiance and other sacred American texts.

America is a republic, not a democracy. Sure. So what?

How does "republic, not a democracy!" change our approach to any practical question of policy? How does it help us frame our discourse about health insurance reform, taxes, or education? Whether the Senate is elected by state legislatures or we let the darn 17th Amendment contravene our Founding Fathers' intent and elect Senators ourselves, we still have to build roads and schools and fighter jets. Whoever is making the decisions, the great unwashed masses, the Senators, the philosopher kings, does "republic, not a democracy!" help anyone make a practical decision?

The only takeaway I get from the "republic, not a democracy!" chanters is that the chanters are elitists. Aren't they really saying that they, like the Founding Fathers, didn't trust the common citizen to make decisions of great import, and that we thus had to insulate the leaders from popular pressure? Aren't they saying that expecting our ruling elites to mingle with the masses at town hall meetings and take their cues for governing from the hysterical shouts of the mob is absurd, farce at best, tyranny at worst? Aren't they really saying that our leaders should be further removed from and less responsive to the momentary passions of the citizens? That's not what I was hearing at the Glenn Beck Madison picnic on Saturday... but that's what "republic, not a democracy!" appears to mean.

Constitutional scholarship is great. But esoteric points about political philosophy don't really help us solve problems... and if you aren't careful, they can knock the legs out from under your everyday citizen activism.

Tiller Murder Suspect Says More Killings Planned: Time for Torture?

From AP, an hour ago:

The man charged in the shooting death of abortion provider Dr. George Tiller warned Sunday that more violence is possible.

Scott Roeder, being held on charges of first-degree murder and aggravated assault in Tiller's killing one week ago, called The Associated Press from the Sedgwick County jail.

Tiller, whose Wichita clinic was among only a few in the U.S. performing third-trimester abortions, was shot while serving as an usher at the Lutheran church he attended.

"I know there are many other similar events planned around the country as long as abortion remains legal," Roeder said.

He would not elaborate [Roxana Hegeman, "Suspect in Kan. Doctor's Death Warns of Violence," AP via Google News, 2009.06.07].

It looks like we have Michael Sanborn's hypothetical come true: a suspected domestic terrorist in our custody declares he knows of more terrorist acts planned around the country. He refuses to talk to police, demanding his lawyer.

For those of you who believe torture is justified to protect Americans from terrorism, is it time to torture Scott Roeder to force him to tell us what he knows about future terrorist attacks?

Side question: should the AP stop taking this creep's calls? This media-hog is on a par with Osama bin Laden. Should a suspected terrorist like this have phone privileges that allow him to use the AP to issue further threats against the United States of America?

U.S. Courts Free Religious Terrorist, with Deadly Results

...but that's how things work in a nation of laws.

The accused murderer of Kansas abortion doctor George Tiller, Scott Roeder, had all the makings of a domestic Christian terrorist. In 1996, he was arrested for sporting bogus license plates. Police discovered bomb components and instructions in Roeder's car. He declared himself above the law, subject only to what he decided were "common sense" laws. The judge called Roeder a threat to public safety and sentenced him to probation. Roeder proceeded to violate that probation and get arrested a year later for tax delinquency. (See KAKE TV video here.) His religious fanatacism—"very religious in an Old Testament, eye-for-an-eye way" says his ex-wife—caused the collapse of his family. He subscribed to literature that justified the assassination of abortion providers. He associated with known anti-government groups like the Kansas Unorganized Citizens Militia and a Freemen group called "One Supreme Court."

Just a week ago, Roeder was caught on videotape vandalizing a Kansas City clinic, but a clinic worker said the video wasn't strong enough evidence to support a conviction. Another worker reported Roeder's license plate number to the FBI on Saturday, but the FBI said (CNN's words) "nothing could be done with the information until a federal grand jury convened."

There was as much evidence against this religious fanatic as there is against any detainee in Guantanamo Bay that he was a threat to public safety. Yet this man was not detained indefinitely without charge or subjected to torture. He received due process, and his original conviction was overturned on the technicality that the police had not followed the law in searching his vehicle. Due process and the Constitution allowed this religious terrorist to go free, to escape justice long enough to kill an American citizen on American soil.

But I still love the Fourth Amendment and the Constitution. I still want domestic wiretaps and the whole Patriot Act repealed. I still want all religious terrorists, whether in Guantanamo Bay or the Sedgwick County Jail in Wichita, to be charged and tried or, if the government doesn't have a case, to be set free.

Such is the price we pay for being America, for choosing laws over tyranny.

-------------------------------
Note: I extend my appreciation to Ken Blanchard, who issues an unequivocal denunciation of domestic terrorism. Why can't Pastor Hickey and other abortion opponents speak that clearly?

Bonus Tax: Darn Good Policy, and Perfectly Constitutional

Bill of attainder, ex post facto... you know what to do kids: scream real loud!

Dr. Blanchard joins the chorus declaring HR 1586, the AIG bonus tax, an unconstitutional bill of attainder.

I'll lay my bet to the contrary: HR 1586 will pass Constitutional muster. It is no more a bill of attainder against the executives of AIG than the PATRIOT Act was a bill of attainder against Osama bin Laden (though while we're thinking about the Constitution, I'd happily trade HR 1586 for a repeal of the PATRIOT Act). It is no more an ex post facto law than the tax refunds proposed in the stimulus package, which, oddly, provoked no such Constitutional outcry.

But what do I know? Dr. Blanchard is an honest-to-goodness NSU poli-sci guy; I'm just a DSU computer geek who married a poli-sci major. Who ya gonna call?

How about Dr. Laurence Tribe of Harvard Law, who says we can tax those bonuses without violating the Constitution. HR 1586 denies no due process, it targets no "closed class of named executives," and "the ex post facto clause applies exclusively to criminal punishment," not taxes.

Of course, we don't get to have lawyer fun unless the Senate passes the bonus tax. So, Senator Thune, as you head toward your 2010 re-election campaign, are you ready to defend bonuses for AIG execs on a somewhat tenuous Constitutional claim? Senator Thune's resolution of that thorny question should be fascinating.

NRA's Wayne LaPierre Lies to Me... on My Phone

So I'm enjoying the KELO news with my three-year-old when the phone rings.

"Who is it?" she asks.

"I'll find out," I say, dashing over to the phone.

After that telling auto-dialer pause, a young lady says, "Mr. Heidelberger?" After my hesitant acknolwedgment, she launches into a nervously brisk spiel explaining that she's with the National Rifle Association calling gun owners across South Dakota to conduct a survey. She says NRA exec Wayne LaPierre has a message that she promises will only be a minute, followed by a survey.

O.K., I'll bite.

The young lady plays the recording. Wayne LaPierre rolls says President Obama's vow to protect the Second Amendment "was an outright lie." LaPierre rolls out his finest fight language, saying Obama is stacking his administration with folks hostile to gun rights and warning the battle is now. Grand crusade stuff.

The tape ends, and on comes—whoops! now it's a guy! The autodialer must have cycled me over to another call center lackey. He asks pleasantly if I could hear Wayne LaPierre all right.

Sure did.

"So do you trust the Obama Administration to protect your Second Amendment rights?" the fellow asks.

"Completely."

He stammered just enough toward his "Thank you" to let signal that wasn't the expected answer. (I am the Unexpected™.) I laugh heartily and hang up.

"Who was that, Dad?" my three-year-old asks.

"Liars," I tell her. "Liars."

Wayne, I'm still waiting for that answer on how you and your silly guns will do anything to reverse the recession, reform health care, or contribute in any practical way to any of the other real problems our country faces.

Roberts Sabotages Oath; Biden in Charge?

Do I have to do all the work for the Radical Right?

Sibby and Bob Ellis have missed the biggest story of the day. John Walker is still grading papers. Pastor Hickey came close, but still missed the point: Barack Hussein Obama still isn't the President of the United States. In the parting bumble of the Bush Administration, Chief Justice John Roberts muffed—nay, sabotaged—the Presidential oath, placing "faithfully" at the end of the clause rather than properly splitting the verb phrase. Fundagelicals like Pastor Hickey et al. who believe that salvation hinges on saying and obeying all the right formulas, should be all over this: Obama didn't say the exact words of the oath; therefore, Obama isn't President!

Here's what really happened:

1. Chief Justice Roberts, knowing full well Obama is a natural-born citizen, thought rewording the oath with give sufficient strict Constitutional grounds for him to uphold a court challenge to the Obama Presidency.
2. President Obama, who probably said these words to himself more than a few times over the past few days, immediately caught Roberts's miswording.
3. Obama's sharp Constitutional mind saw the glint in Roberts's eye and knew exactly what he was up to.
4. In that split second, Obama foresaw the court challenge some fringe right-winger would file, formulated the arguments on both sides, and realized he would easily win on a "spirit of the law" argument.
   
5. Realizing Obama had caught him, Roberts stammered out a corrected version.
6. Completely confident, Obama recited the miswording Roberts had offered, as if to say, "Bring it on."
   

Well, that was fun.

Know what's more fun? Dropping "Elect" from my phrasing.

[Photo by Doug Mills, New York Times, 2009.01.20]

President Barack Hussein Obama. Nice.