I sparked a minor kerfuffle on my Facebook profile when I changed my status on the anniversary of Roe v. Wade to suggest the case should be overturned. Some agreed and some disagreed, and that's just fine. I posted my status in part to stimulate that debate but primarily to express my view that Roe is bad law based on flawed precedent and an inappropriate expansion of the Constitution. The events of the last few days have only underscored how harmful and frightening a precedent Roe is.
What Facebook people quickly moved into was the question of whether abortion is good or bad. While I am pro-life and believe abortion should be heavily restricted, the legality of abortion is really a question for another day. It is the established constitutionality of Roe that is so odious and the subject of this post.
First, I believe Roe is not the problem but a symptom of a larger problematic legal pattern. Justice Harry Blackmun's majority opinion in Roe owes a debt to previous cases where the Court began referring to a "right to privacy". Don't bother pulling out your Constitution to find those words because they aren't in there. Rather, Justice John Marshall Harlan dipped his toe in the pool when he wrote in his 1961 dissent in Poe v. Ullman that a Connecticut's law banning the sale of contraceptives was an "invasion of privacy".
When the Court reconsidered the same law in Griswold v. Connecticut a few years later, this time the Court struck it down. Justice William O. Douglas--FDR appointee and author of the Griswold decision--dove right in the pool and found something in the Constitution that the Founding Fathers forgot to include: a "right to privacy". What is a right to privacy? Your guess is as good as mine.
What's worse is how he unearthed this long-unknown constitutional nugget. In striking down the Connecticut law and discovering the "right to privacy", Justice Douglas wrote that "specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance." Huh? Not sure what "emanations" and "penumbras" are? I didn't know what penumbras were until my first year of law school. And I always thought emanations were associated with bad smells. Turns out that essentially penumbras are shadows, and emanations are emissions.
Confused yet? In other words, the Constitution doesn't really mean what it says because the specific rights detailed therein cast broad, general shadows that cover a panoply of other rights limited only by the imaginations of enterprising lawyers and legacy-seeking Justices. Put another way, many unspecified (and unknown) rights emit from the specific enumerated rights. Think of a family tree with the "privacy patriarch" at the top and scores of generational offspring.
Naturally, Justice Douglas' emanations and penumbras have elevated all manner of behavior to the status of constitutional "rights". Roe v. Wade is the most controversial example. But take Lawrence v. Texas, the 2003 Supreme Court decision that struck down a Texas law criminalizing sodomy and [surprise!] found that all adults have a constitutional right to engage in such activities. The people of Texas apparently believed there should be a law criminalizing sodomy between consenting adults...or at least should let their archaic and exceedingly rarely enforced law remain on the books. Personally, I think such a law is dumb. But that is worlds away from believing sodomy should be promoted to the level of a constitutional right. Our jurisprudence is now littered with decisions like Roe and Lawrence...and there are many more to come. Remember Prop. 8 in California?
Which brings us to two recent events. First, late Friday afternoon, Pres. Barack Obama signed an executive order reversing the Bush Administration's ban on giving federal money to international groups that perform abortions or provide abortion information. This has been a political hot potato for about 25 years so why the rush? Apparently Obama believes this issue to be of such importance that he couldn't wait any longer than his third day at work to take action on it. Can someone explain to me, if we are in the "worst economic crisis since the Great Depression", why is our President telling us he's going to send millions of our money overseas for abortions?
Second, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco, CA) declared in an interview on ABC Sunday that she supported spending millions on contraceptives as part of the economic stimulus package because it will "reduce costs" for state and local governments [tip of the hat to the Drudge Report for the story]. And who will be recipients of this aid? Well, logically, it would be poor and minorities who can't afford contraception. That doesn't sound very Democratic to me. Perhaps we should start calling Pres. Obama and Speaker Pelosi the Eugenicists in Chief.
The bottom line is this: Roe v. Wade is bad law, poorly decided and based on impermissible broadening of the Constitution beyond its language. It is also directly responsible for Obama's policy shift and Pelosi's bizarre economic analysis.
Either the Constitution means what it says, or it means nothing. Apparently we have chosen the latter. As a result, we can expect our President and his fellow Democrats to continue genuflecting to abortion rights groups, the ACLU and other leftist extremists. Griswold and Roe have massive penumbras.
Monday, January 26, 2009
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Today? History. And Tomorrow?
History is a funny thing.
We rarely know when it will occur but later we often reflect on where we were when it did. JFK's assassination in 1963 was a recent touchstone for this phenomenon, probably because it was a historical "media" event--tragedy unfolding before our eyes with wall-to-wall coverage. And everyone remembers where they were on September 11, 2001. Yet, in both instances, no one except a tiny handful of people knew what was going to happen.
Today is different. President Obama's election guaranteed we would live history today. His inauguration is the last in a series of firsts for America, and, importantly, firsts for Black Americans. Inaugurations are always important affairs, filled with pomp and circumstance as much as smiles and celebration. We all applaud the mantric "peaceful transfer of power". But there was a momentousness to today that overshadowed other recent inaugurations. Some shouted support, some wept, some did both simultaneously. Some cheered in stationary places along the parade route, some traveled along the route to keep pace with the Obamas. Yes, some of the baser revelers even had the temerity to boo and catcall the Bushes and Cheneys. But tears on the faces of Black Americans reflected heartfelt joy and a proud moment in our nation's history and race relations. We've come a long way from slavery, the Three-Fifths Compromise, Plessy v. Ferguson and Jim Crow.
At the same time, there was a Forest Gump quality to today's events. In the movie, Gump linked numerous unrelated historical events with his appearance or participation. Yet he was basically the Everyman--essentially anonymous. Now, it seems witnessing history is insufficient. We have to be in it. We want ourselves to a be part of history, even if we are just unidentifiable faces in media reports and You Tube videos. Unlike Gump, who never sought out his incidental fame, we'll spend lots of money, take time off, travel, use our technologies, and make other significant efforts to inject ourselves into the story.
This tells me three things.
First, we misunderstand how our political system works. Celebration and enjoyment are in order today. But people actually seem to derive personal worth from supporting or celebrating a successful electoral candidate. Obama today reinforced this conflation of national history and personal dignity by stating that his inauguration was all about "You" and "your part in remaking America". Frankly, no it isn't. If you believe he is correct, I have lots of Obama commemorative coins to sell you...at double the original price. Understand that your vote will still count and you should still support your chosen candidates. However, even before the last inaugural balloon has popped, the system will begin grinding forward again, fueled by money, special interests, partisanship, gamesmanship and cronyism.
Second, we misunderstand our role in America. Our role includes raising our families, working hard at our jobs and growing our businesses, pulling ourselves up by our own bootstraps, helping fellow Americans in need, taking responsibility for our actions, and respecting the rights, liberty and freedom God provides and our military protects. After the partying ends, the revelers should go home and work to realize these things. They should not hold out their hands asking for their share of bailout money. They should not expect Obama or anyone else to govern as if it is "all about You". They should not rely on The Government to solve their problems but, rather, should be asking The Government to get out of the way so they can seek their own solutions.
Third, we inflate the impact our political leaders have on our lives. No politician, regardless of party, can impact your life so positively or negatively unless you given them that power. Often we look at the specks in the eyes of our rivals while ignoring the boards in our own eyes. Resist that temptation and begin looking at things on all sides with a critical eye. That will add needed perspective.
Today was an historic day. I'll remember where I was when Obama was inaugurated. I was at work, trying to help clients, earn a living and provide for my family in tough times. Tomorrow, like today, I'll again be back at work. I'll continue to have a wonderful family to come home to, and friends to share fun times. There will continue to be opportunities to serve my neighbors, my neighborhood and community. And I'll not be relying on The Government or Obama or anyone else for assistance, a hand out, or my self worth. I'll be wanting them to get out of the way.
Hopefully, every other American will too.
We rarely know when it will occur but later we often reflect on where we were when it did. JFK's assassination in 1963 was a recent touchstone for this phenomenon, probably because it was a historical "media" event--tragedy unfolding before our eyes with wall-to-wall coverage. And everyone remembers where they were on September 11, 2001. Yet, in both instances, no one except a tiny handful of people knew what was going to happen.
Today is different. President Obama's election guaranteed we would live history today. His inauguration is the last in a series of firsts for America, and, importantly, firsts for Black Americans. Inaugurations are always important affairs, filled with pomp and circumstance as much as smiles and celebration. We all applaud the mantric "peaceful transfer of power". But there was a momentousness to today that overshadowed other recent inaugurations. Some shouted support, some wept, some did both simultaneously. Some cheered in stationary places along the parade route, some traveled along the route to keep pace with the Obamas. Yes, some of the baser revelers even had the temerity to boo and catcall the Bushes and Cheneys. But tears on the faces of Black Americans reflected heartfelt joy and a proud moment in our nation's history and race relations. We've come a long way from slavery, the Three-Fifths Compromise, Plessy v. Ferguson and Jim Crow.
At the same time, there was a Forest Gump quality to today's events. In the movie, Gump linked numerous unrelated historical events with his appearance or participation. Yet he was basically the Everyman--essentially anonymous. Now, it seems witnessing history is insufficient. We have to be in it. We want ourselves to a be part of history, even if we are just unidentifiable faces in media reports and You Tube videos. Unlike Gump, who never sought out his incidental fame, we'll spend lots of money, take time off, travel, use our technologies, and make other significant efforts to inject ourselves into the story.
This tells me three things.
First, we misunderstand how our political system works. Celebration and enjoyment are in order today. But people actually seem to derive personal worth from supporting or celebrating a successful electoral candidate. Obama today reinforced this conflation of national history and personal dignity by stating that his inauguration was all about "You" and "your part in remaking America". Frankly, no it isn't. If you believe he is correct, I have lots of Obama commemorative coins to sell you...at double the original price. Understand that your vote will still count and you should still support your chosen candidates. However, even before the last inaugural balloon has popped, the system will begin grinding forward again, fueled by money, special interests, partisanship, gamesmanship and cronyism.
Second, we misunderstand our role in America. Our role includes raising our families, working hard at our jobs and growing our businesses, pulling ourselves up by our own bootstraps, helping fellow Americans in need, taking responsibility for our actions, and respecting the rights, liberty and freedom God provides and our military protects. After the partying ends, the revelers should go home and work to realize these things. They should not hold out their hands asking for their share of bailout money. They should not expect Obama or anyone else to govern as if it is "all about You". They should not rely on The Government to solve their problems but, rather, should be asking The Government to get out of the way so they can seek their own solutions.
Third, we inflate the impact our political leaders have on our lives. No politician, regardless of party, can impact your life so positively or negatively unless you given them that power. Often we look at the specks in the eyes of our rivals while ignoring the boards in our own eyes. Resist that temptation and begin looking at things on all sides with a critical eye. That will add needed perspective.
Today was an historic day. I'll remember where I was when Obama was inaugurated. I was at work, trying to help clients, earn a living and provide for my family in tough times. Tomorrow, like today, I'll again be back at work. I'll continue to have a wonderful family to come home to, and friends to share fun times. There will continue to be opportunities to serve my neighbors, my neighborhood and community. And I'll not be relying on The Government or Obama or anyone else for assistance, a hand out, or my self worth. I'll be wanting them to get out of the way.
Hopefully, every other American will too.
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
Chirping Crickets During the Bacchanalia
"When the American people spoke last November, they were demanding change--change in policies that helped deliver the worst economic crisis that we've seen since the Great Depression."
--President-elect Barack Obama, speaking to reporters on January 6, 2009.
"In the short run, we face the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression..."
--Peter R. Orszag, testifying before Congress as President-elect Obama's nominee to head the Office of Management & Budget, January 13, 2009.
Now, let's leave aside the obvious fact that the economic situation in the late 1970s and early 1980s was far worse than the economy is today (thank you, President Carter). Historically high interest rates, unemployment rates hovering between 8% and 11%, "stagflation", the oil crisis.... But, I digress.
Obama and his crew continuously warn of trillion dollar deficits, trillion dollar stimulus packages, trillion dollar bailouts, scaling back tax cuts, massive unemployment, and other economic horrors since Election Day. "Talking down" the economy is Obama's strategy to lower expectations so that any success--and even less significant failures--will be seen as a huge victory. Smarter, more efficient government is the order of the day (where have we heard that one before?)...but somehow we get there by lots of additional spending. Gird your loins.
So where's the belt tightening? Americans everywhere are limiting or downright eliminating unnecessary expenses and extras from their budgets. Suddenly, that $4 latte is not so refreshing. Most of us have stopped traveling, spending on big ticket items, and splurging on big parties. Most of us are learning to live with less...except, of course, the New York Yankees. Shouldn't the federal government take the lead in reducing excess? Shouldn't the Change We Deserve include trimming the fat from discretionary spending and scaling back the upcoming inaugural?
And, let's not forget there is a war going on. American soldiers are giving their lives in Iraq and Afghanistan. Of course, Obama is backtracking on his 16-month Iraq troop pull-out pledge, too, instead saying he will consult with commanders to devise a safe withdrawal strategy. Duh! That's been the only reasonable approach all along, even though saying so would not have gotten Obama elected. You didn't really think The One was truly committed to that firm timetable, did you? Don't be naive. The Change We Deserve includes Changing One's Positions when it's expedient.
In sum, according to the Obama-ites, the economy is abyssmal--certainly far worse than, say, when President Bush was inaugurated in 2005. And war, as always, is hell. Agreed. Shouldn't these facts dictate a more somber mood and frugality for the upcoming inaugural festivities? Some Mainstream Media (MSM) liberals chastised Bush in 2005 for the "huge cost and unprecedented security", expressing reservations over the extravagence when compared to more noble on which the money could be spent, and were wringing their hands over celebrating the peaceful transfer of power during wartime.
Today, the only reservations the MSM has for the Obama inauguration celebration are for limos, fine DC restaurants, and fancy balls. The cost for Obama's inauguration is currently estimated to exceed $150 million. That's $150,000,000.00. More than 3 times the cost of Bush's 2005 inauguration and 5 times more than Bill Clinton's 1993 inaugural. Yet instead of caterwauling about unrestrained luxury in hard times--or letting the crickets chirp as they disregard the issue this time--the MSM is giddily anticipating the bacchanalia of A-list parties, balls and concerts with the most famous of the famous. Three times the cost of the last inaugural during "the worst economy since the Great Depression" and nary a criticism from the MSM.
But the spending doesn't stop there. Congress generously allocates $100,000.00 for "household transition costs" for each incoming administration. That doesn't sound like much but it is a lot in these times. Remember, Obama raised $750 million during the campaign. That's $750,000,000.00. More than was raised by all the 2004 presidential candidates of all parties combined.
Here's a suggestion for the Obamas: Take, say, $25,000.00 of the money from Congress, buy some new furniture, stuff for the kids' rooms, and some new china, and then take the remaining $75,000.00 and return it to the Treasury. And scale back the coronation. Take the roughly half of the $150 million paid by taxpayers for the inaugural celebration and use it to fund scholarships for the children of fallen soldiers and law enforcement officers. Or lower our taxes. Or don't spend it at all.
Now that's change I can believe in.
--President-elect Barack Obama, speaking to reporters on January 6, 2009.
"In the short run, we face the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression..."
--Peter R. Orszag, testifying before Congress as President-elect Obama's nominee to head the Office of Management & Budget, January 13, 2009.
Now, let's leave aside the obvious fact that the economic situation in the late 1970s and early 1980s was far worse than the economy is today (thank you, President Carter). Historically high interest rates, unemployment rates hovering between 8% and 11%, "stagflation", the oil crisis.... But, I digress.
Obama and his crew continuously warn of trillion dollar deficits, trillion dollar stimulus packages, trillion dollar bailouts, scaling back tax cuts, massive unemployment, and other economic horrors since Election Day. "Talking down" the economy is Obama's strategy to lower expectations so that any success--and even less significant failures--will be seen as a huge victory. Smarter, more efficient government is the order of the day (where have we heard that one before?)...but somehow we get there by lots of additional spending. Gird your loins.
So where's the belt tightening? Americans everywhere are limiting or downright eliminating unnecessary expenses and extras from their budgets. Suddenly, that $4 latte is not so refreshing. Most of us have stopped traveling, spending on big ticket items, and splurging on big parties. Most of us are learning to live with less...except, of course, the New York Yankees. Shouldn't the federal government take the lead in reducing excess? Shouldn't the Change We Deserve include trimming the fat from discretionary spending and scaling back the upcoming inaugural?
And, let's not forget there is a war going on. American soldiers are giving their lives in Iraq and Afghanistan. Of course, Obama is backtracking on his 16-month Iraq troop pull-out pledge, too, instead saying he will consult with commanders to devise a safe withdrawal strategy. Duh! That's been the only reasonable approach all along, even though saying so would not have gotten Obama elected. You didn't really think The One was truly committed to that firm timetable, did you? Don't be naive. The Change We Deserve includes Changing One's Positions when it's expedient.
In sum, according to the Obama-ites, the economy is abyssmal--certainly far worse than, say, when President Bush was inaugurated in 2005. And war, as always, is hell. Agreed. Shouldn't these facts dictate a more somber mood and frugality for the upcoming inaugural festivities? Some Mainstream Media (MSM) liberals chastised Bush in 2005 for the "huge cost and unprecedented security", expressing reservations over the extravagence when compared to more noble on which the money could be spent, and were wringing their hands over celebrating the peaceful transfer of power during wartime.
Today, the only reservations the MSM has for the Obama inauguration celebration are for limos, fine DC restaurants, and fancy balls. The cost for Obama's inauguration is currently estimated to exceed $150 million. That's $150,000,000.00. More than 3 times the cost of Bush's 2005 inauguration and 5 times more than Bill Clinton's 1993 inaugural. Yet instead of caterwauling about unrestrained luxury in hard times--or letting the crickets chirp as they disregard the issue this time--the MSM is giddily anticipating the bacchanalia of A-list parties, balls and concerts with the most famous of the famous. Three times the cost of the last inaugural during "the worst economy since the Great Depression" and nary a criticism from the MSM.
But the spending doesn't stop there. Congress generously allocates $100,000.00 for "household transition costs" for each incoming administration. That doesn't sound like much but it is a lot in these times. Remember, Obama raised $750 million during the campaign. That's $750,000,000.00. More than was raised by all the 2004 presidential candidates of all parties combined.
Here's a suggestion for the Obamas: Take, say, $25,000.00 of the money from Congress, buy some new furniture, stuff for the kids' rooms, and some new china, and then take the remaining $75,000.00 and return it to the Treasury. And scale back the coronation. Take the roughly half of the $150 million paid by taxpayers for the inaugural celebration and use it to fund scholarships for the children of fallen soldiers and law enforcement officers. Or lower our taxes. Or don't spend it at all.
Now that's change I can believe in.
Wednesday, January 7, 2009
Harry Reid--Atypical Boob; Barack Obama--Typical Politician
I haven't blogged for awhile...something about some holidays that were going on...
Anyway, some friends have asked me about my support of California's Prop. 8. I will post on that issue soon but this Illinois Senate seat controversy has my attention right now.
Preliminarily, I have to state that Illinois' Democratic Gov. Blagojevich sounds like a premium scumbag...not to mention a bad model for that hairy creature sitting on top of his head. If he's committed crimes, try him and send him to prison. Until that happens, or he resigns or is forced out of office, he is still the governor of Illinois. Not only does he have the power to appoint Prez-elect Obama's replacement, he has a duty to do it. That's the biggest freakin' card he has to play, and he's played it. It doesn't look like there is anything ethically wrong with the appointment or the process Blago used. I have no idea whether Roland Burris, his appointee, would make a good or bad senator. But, frankly, I don't care. Not because I live in a different state that starts with the letter "I". I don't care because Blago can pick whomever he wants. If he was dumb enough to accept payola to appoint Burris, then convict him of that too. But as long as the appointment was legal, that's the end of the issue. Burris should take his seat without delay. Or so one would think.
Enter Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-NV. Over the weekend, when stories leaked that Blago might appoint someone, Sen. Reid went on the Sunday talk shows steadfastly committing to refuse to accept any appointment Blago might make. Sen. Reid held his guns for a full 3 days. Then news came out today that a "resolution" to this dispute has been reached and [surprise!] Burris will be seated.
So Reid changed his mind. That doesn't make him a boob. People posture and ultimately compromise in negotiations all the time. His self-righteous comments prompted me to pull out a copy of the Constitution and check it out for myself. And I learned Reid is a boob for other reasons.
Ultimately, after looking at the issue, it comes down to this: How can the Senate Majority Leader not know his US Constitution? Apparently, Reid neglected to consider the 17th Amendment. Now, admittedly, this is not an amendment that we see discussed all the time in the news or on Law & Order. But the language is clear: when there's a Senate vacancy, the executive of that state makes the appointment. It doesn't matter if the executive is a scumbag, or if Harry Reid thinks he's a scumbag, or if the particular appointment (or the executive) might make one party or the other look bad. And it doesn't give anyone in Congress veto power over the executive's decision or the authority to block the chamber doors. Not even a Senator with healthy self-esteem and dismal judgment.
Why do we keep sending schmucks like this to Congress? Reid is up for reelection in a couple of years. It's high time for the people of Nevada to retire him.
Also of concern is that Obama gave such a ho-hum middle of the road response when asked about the controversy over Burris. If he had any balls, and truly is bringing Change to DC, he should have said something like, "Blago is still the governor and he alone has the authority to make the appointment. If he goes through a lawful process and appoints someone, that decision has to be honored. Then the people of Illinois will have the opportunity to approve that choice when the seat is up for election." Instead he gave the kind you'd hear from a typical politician, not the Agent of Change.
Let's not forget, Obama was an editor of the "Hahvahd" Law Review and is a former Constitutional Law professor! This is his speciality! Yet, apparently he doesn't know what the 17th Amendment says either.
Or maybe he's just like almost every other politician. Then again, this is the same man who thought there were 57 United States. That's certainly not typical.
Anyway, some friends have asked me about my support of California's Prop. 8. I will post on that issue soon but this Illinois Senate seat controversy has my attention right now.
Preliminarily, I have to state that Illinois' Democratic Gov. Blagojevich sounds like a premium scumbag...not to mention a bad model for that hairy creature sitting on top of his head. If he's committed crimes, try him and send him to prison. Until that happens, or he resigns or is forced out of office, he is still the governor of Illinois. Not only does he have the power to appoint Prez-elect Obama's replacement, he has a duty to do it. That's the biggest freakin' card he has to play, and he's played it. It doesn't look like there is anything ethically wrong with the appointment or the process Blago used. I have no idea whether Roland Burris, his appointee, would make a good or bad senator. But, frankly, I don't care. Not because I live in a different state that starts with the letter "I". I don't care because Blago can pick whomever he wants. If he was dumb enough to accept payola to appoint Burris, then convict him of that too. But as long as the appointment was legal, that's the end of the issue. Burris should take his seat without delay. Or so one would think.
Enter Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-NV. Over the weekend, when stories leaked that Blago might appoint someone, Sen. Reid went on the Sunday talk shows steadfastly committing to refuse to accept any appointment Blago might make. Sen. Reid held his guns for a full 3 days. Then news came out today that a "resolution" to this dispute has been reached and [surprise!] Burris will be seated.
So Reid changed his mind. That doesn't make him a boob. People posture and ultimately compromise in negotiations all the time. His self-righteous comments prompted me to pull out a copy of the Constitution and check it out for myself. And I learned Reid is a boob for other reasons.
Ultimately, after looking at the issue, it comes down to this: How can the Senate Majority Leader not know his US Constitution? Apparently, Reid neglected to consider the 17th Amendment. Now, admittedly, this is not an amendment that we see discussed all the time in the news or on Law & Order. But the language is clear: when there's a Senate vacancy, the executive of that state makes the appointment. It doesn't matter if the executive is a scumbag, or if Harry Reid thinks he's a scumbag, or if the particular appointment (or the executive) might make one party or the other look bad. And it doesn't give anyone in Congress veto power over the executive's decision or the authority to block the chamber doors. Not even a Senator with healthy self-esteem and dismal judgment.
Why do we keep sending schmucks like this to Congress? Reid is up for reelection in a couple of years. It's high time for the people of Nevada to retire him.
Also of concern is that Obama gave such a ho-hum middle of the road response when asked about the controversy over Burris. If he had any balls, and truly is bringing Change to DC, he should have said something like, "Blago is still the governor and he alone has the authority to make the appointment. If he goes through a lawful process and appoints someone, that decision has to be honored. Then the people of Illinois will have the opportunity to approve that choice when the seat is up for election." Instead he gave the kind you'd hear from a typical politician, not the Agent of Change.
Let's not forget, Obama was an editor of the "Hahvahd" Law Review and is a former Constitutional Law professor! This is his speciality! Yet, apparently he doesn't know what the 17th Amendment says either.
Or maybe he's just like almost every other politician. Then again, this is the same man who thought there were 57 United States. That's certainly not typical.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
