DCRepublican.com

I read an interesting op-ed today in the Washington Times titled “Child Rapist” by Horace Cooper, a Senior Fellow at the American Civil Liberties Union.

The op-ed essentially went over a case that was recently heard before the Supreme Court, Kennedy v. Louisiana, and asked:

who should decide the punishment for a crime, the legislature or the courts? In particular, when determining what crimes merit the death penalty, should state governments have a say or should this power be left to judges?

In Kennedy v. Louisiana, the State of Louisiana was being challenged by Patrick Kennedy, a man who was sentenced to death for the rape of his 8-year-old stepdaughter. It’s important to note that before he was sentenced, a plea deal was on the table that would have removed the possibility of execution.

Kennedy declined the plea bargain and went to trial. He was found guilty and was sentenced to death.

After Kennedy’s sentence, his legal team used the Eighth Amendment as a backbone for their appeal. They argued that sentencing someone to death for something that didn’t result in the death of the other party was in fact cruel and unusual punishment.

While his legal team saw it that way, Kate Bartholomew, a New Orleans prosecutor saw things from a different perspective, arguing in a CNN.com article:

A lot of people think there should not be the death penalty [in this case] because the child survives…In my opinion the rape of a child is more heinous and more hideous than a homicide.”

The Supreme Court had already ruled on a similar case in 1977, Coker v. Georgia, where they argued that the death penalty an excessive punishment for someone convicted of rape.

Even though the Court ruled that the death penalty wasn’t an appropriate form of punishment for rapists, in 1995 the Louisiana Legislature passed a law that would allow executions for those convicted of raping a child under the age of 12.

Knowing the previous ruling of the Court, the State of Louisiana argued that Coker v. Georgia only applied to adults, since it was only those circumstances that the Court considered.

This is something that the Court is going to have to consider in their final decision for a variety of reasons.

Cooper correctly points out:

Tragically there are many voices in the criminal-law community who argue that these types of crimes — due to their very nature — perpetuate when the victims end up engaging in similar behavior.

Considering that very point could create a tough decision making process for the court.

However, I think it is those complexities that highlight what Horace Cooper is trying to get at – these should be decisions that the States should be responsible for making, not the courts.

While I may have differing opinions in terms of what should constitute the death penalty, I completely agree with Cooper’s argument.

Members of the legislature are elected to represent the best interests of the people in their districts (or in this case, parishes). It’s their job to make the laws that they feel are appropriate for certain actions, based on what their constituency would want.

Making these determinations shouldn’t be the role of the higher courts. Their sole purpose should be to enforce the enacted laws, not try and create new ones, or new precedent based on one case.

Cooper concludes:

Upholding Kennedy’s sentence is clearly of first primacy, but the Roberts Court should go further. It should overturn Coker and thereby clearly return to state governments the power to determine what punishment fits the crime.

Absolutely!

Even though I don’t necessarily think that the death penalty is the best sentence (I’m more of an eye-for-an-eye guy, so he’ll get what he deserves in prison ) that should be a decision each state makes, not a small group of ideological judges.

If the Court can successfully reject this case and over-turn Coker, I think we’ll be one step closer to having our government operate in the vision of our founding fathers.

I commend the American Civil Rights Union for speaking up about this case and clearly laying out what is really at stake here. If the court chooses to side with Patrick Kennedy and uphold the Coker decision, a wide window will be open for groups like the ACLU (which clearly opposes the letter of the law) to challenge laws made the legislatures that were elected by the people.

If our elected officials don’t even have authority in terms of making laws based on the concerns and wishes of the vast majority, can we still call this a democracy? Sure, we elect them, but if their decisions mean nothing, what good are they?

I’ve made many posts here regarding my opposition to an alarming trend that I’ve seen growing rampantly here in Washington, a trend that all Americans will pay for, but only a few will reap the benefits of - government bailouts.

While the unorthodox treatment that Bear Stearns got from the Federal Reserve a few weeks ago was enough to cause short-term chaos in financial markets across the globe, the more troubling bailout, without a doubt, is one aimed at the mortgage markets.

Anyone who has received some sort of formal education understands that you shouldn’t borrow more money than you can afford, and more importantly shouldn’t sign a contract where you aren’t 100% confident of the specified terms and/or rates.

Even so, the government has felt the need to take responsibility for the actions of these irresponsible borrowers, and seems to think that using taxpayer money to stabilize these loans is going to be the best approach to preventing more long-term economic turmoil.

While I haven’t seen seen one good bailout proposal, I’m pleased to see that there are concerned citizens who are rallying against this showing of fiscal irresponsibility by both a select group consumers and the government.

What’s even more pleasing is that many of these people who are rallying against these bailouts aren’t usual suspects.

The impressive part of this movement isn’t the families with the 2.5 kids, white picket fence in the suburbs, etc, who have made smart financial decisions and are usually the first to rally against foolish government intervention. Sure, many of them are on board with opposing these bailouts, as they should be, but the really impressive thing is the number of renters who are following what is happening and realizing that they are getting screwed more than any other group of people.

A few weeks ago, FreedomWorks launched a site called AngryRenter.com, with the goal of bringing attention to how renters are being affected by these ridiculous bailouts.

Keep in mind that renters, for a variety of reasons, have chosen not to buy homes. For many, they are waiting for the market to get better, for others they are waiting until they have more money and for some, they just don’t want to deal with the responsibility.

(here is a great video by Peter Suderman summing things up)

Regardless of their rationale, is their any argument that can justify sticking the burden of covering these bad mortgages on people who don’t even have them? There is absolutely no argument for that.

Of course, the early results of AngryRenter.com clearly show that this is now an issue that has upset many, and if Congress wants to prevent their less than stellar approval rating from reaching new depths, they might want to pay attention.

In only a few weeks, AngryRenter.com has already gathered nearly 12,000 signers to their petition, and I don’t see any reason why that number wont grow exponentially in the near future.

I urge everyone to check out the site, sign the petition and even forward it on to your friends.

It’s tough to get Congress to pay attention to even the biggest issues sometimes, but when you present them with tens of thousands of names, they usually wake up… at least the good ones do.

I know I’ve said on many occasions that the government is notorious for wasting money; however you would think that when it came to something as simple as the concept of a fence, they would be able to get it right eventually.

I guess those of us that made that assumption have been proven wrong.

After a showing of unwavering pressure from border states over the past five years, the United States government found itself in a position where it finally had to make it look like it was doing something to secure our borders, while not upsetting certain groups of people.

What’s the easiest way for the government to make it look like it is doing something? Spend a lot of money on things that don’t work.

Instead of taking the most cost effective approach to patching the many holes in our borders, the Department of Homeland Security gave Boeing $20 million to build a tower that would alert border agents when someone was illegally crossing the border.

CNN.com is reporting that this was another wasted sum of money by the government:

TUCSON, Arizona (AP) — The government is scrapping a $20 million prototype of its highly touted “virtual fence” on the Arizona-Mexico border because the system is failing to adequately alert border patrol agents to illegal crossings, officials said.The move comes just two months after Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff announced his approval of the fence built by The Boeing Co. The fence consists of nine electronic surveillance towers along a 28-mile section of border southwest of Tucson.

Boeing is to replace the so-called Project 28 prototype with a series of towers equipped with communications systems, cameras and radar capability, officials said.

Wouldn’t the later proposal from Boeing have been a better solution anyway?

Furthermore, how much fencing do you think that $20 million could buy?

If we just looked at solutions that have worked for other countries, like Israel, we would see that for $20 million, we could develop the start of what could be one very secure border.

Check out this image:

This layout definitely looks much more effective than anything I’ve seen the United States try and build on our border.

What’s even more impressive is the cost.

For this fence, it only cost Israel $2 million per kilometer. That sounds like a lot, but just imagine how much money the United States spends each year ignoring this problem.

The U.S. government knows that they could be doing a much better job of securing our borders, and they know exactly how well things have worked in Israel.

Even with the knowledge they have on how they could solve this problem, they just throw in enough money to make it look like they are really trying.

Temporarily it will please both sides, but eventually people will see what is really happening and bring back the pressure.

Since today is Earth Day, I figured that I would take this opportunity to make a post that is political in nature, but also addresses a bigger challenge that the United States is facing.

Obviously there is enormous support behind the movement that is striving to eradicate global warming and I give them a lot of credit. They have done a great job mobilizing and I have no doubt that their reach is now into the millions.

I’m not going to try and argue against global warming. I’m not a scientist nor will I try to pretend that I am.

But what I will continually argue against is the use of government mandates to try and address global warming and the other ecological problems we’re facing.

Even those mandates that have been praised by many on the Left (like those relating to Ethanol), have only later been proven to be more harmful to the environment than the products they were aiming to replace.

Furthermore, CNN.com is even reporting that this energy-by-corn-ogasm has also created problems for world food prices:

Those battling global warming by promoting biofuels may unintentionally be adding to skyrocketing world food prices, creating what one expert calls “a silent tsunami” in developing nations.

The rising prices are “threatening to plunge more than 100 million people on every continent into hunger,” Josette Sheeran, executive director of the United Nations’ World Food Program, said on the agency’s Web site Tuesday.

The article continues:

Producing fuel from plant crops is supposed to be greener than drilling for oil, and biofuels generally burn cleaner, too. But the global biofuels industry now stands accused of a list of side effects that are said to be damaging lives, especially of the world’s poorest people.

The drive for more biofuels means more investment is going into those crops, meaning less land and less investment going in for food crops, causing a massive conflict and resulting in rising prices, which is having a huge negative impact, especially on developing countries,” said Clare Oxborrow, food campaigner for Friends of the Earth.

Is this really a trend that we want to see continue?

As it stands now, the United States has used corn as the save-all-product, when in reality it is something that is just over-subsidized and keeps better, healthier and cheaper products from coming into the United States in higher quantities. Furthermore, it drives up the prices of things like sugar – courtesy of some unfair government regulations.

I think the track record for government mandates on all of these energy and eco-projects have shown to be complete failures that have wasted tons of money and left the environment worse than it was originally.

The answer to me seems simple: government mandates simply don’t work.

I’m sure I’ve just upset a lot of environmentalists out there, but I truly believe that choice could be the best solution for making the environment better – not the government.

Just look at the environmental movement that is sweeping across the country today.

These people aren’t motivated by government mandates, but instead are motivated by knowing that they can do something that will help make the world a better place, and for some there is also the added benefit of knowing that they can save some money.

If there were no mandates in the next 10 years, would the environmentalist progression slow down? I don’t think so.

This movement is growing on its own, so why should the government get in the way of that?

With fuel prices soaring, I’ve even seen many far-right conservatives purchase hybrid vehicles, simply because they are more economical.

Furthermore, I don’t see any reason why any homes built in the future won’t be made to be as energy efficient as possible.

Even those who think that global warming is a complete myth and nothing should be done, will still buy into the efficiency argument, simply because it is more economical.

I think that all of this will lead to a mentality shift amongst the next generation, who will also see the advantages of being Earth conscious, and be able to make these decisions on their own.

CNN.com has a few pages showing how people can “go green,” without having the government telling them how to do it. I urge everyone to check these out and consider some of the options.

Even I, DC Republican, have started to adapt some of these “green ideas” into my world.

I don’t do it because I’m a raging environmentalist, but because I see no harm in making the world a cleaner, greener place, while saving myself some money at the same time.
Link 1

Link 2

With the start of the Pennsylvania Democratic Primary just hours away, I’ve found myself in a reflective state, looking back at what has really been accomplished by the two candidates over the past six weeks.

Of all of the tours had by both candidates around the state, I can’t think that of one new policy idea that was completely rolled out. Furthermore, even after all of the debate and media coverage, I still can’t find myself in a position where I can tell you why one candidate is better than the other.

From what I’ve seen, there are a lot of people who have found themselves in the same position and these are people who live in Pennsylvania.

It’s quite clear that this hasn’t gone unnoticed by the candidate’s campaigns either. Instead of going after statements that were made by either candidate in Pennsylvania, most of the attack ads are focusing on something that has been drawn out too long already – special interest dollars.

Here is a quick video summary:

When the race is between three Senators, as much people might hate it, special interest money is going to come up. All of the candidates have received money from a PAC or PAC affiliated donor at some point. All of the candidates have met with lobbyists, and yes, I guarantee you all of the candidates are friends with at least a handful of DC “power lobbyists.”

Aside from the special interest attack ads, the other attack seems to be on universal health care. What’s funny about these attacks is that they are going after each others plans, when in reality none of them will ever be implemented.

All candidates, Democrats and Republicans, make big plans for when they get elected, in terms of implementing different policies. However, the reality is that the majority of those plans never make it through the legislature.

Just as an example, take President Bush’s 2004 Social Security plans. Even when Republicans had control, they weren’t able to pass one of his biggest campaign pushes.

People shouldn’t be surprised to find that the same will probably hold true if a Democrat is elected, even with a Democratic majority in the House.

These plans, while they might sound good in their initial proposals will never make it through the bodies as they appear now. Each member of Congress wants their stamp on it and will do what they can to make sure it’s there.

This is where almost all legislation seems to fail.

I guess that’s why I’ve found it so odd that this is how the Democrats chose to wind down their races leading into the election.

Instead of driving hard key issue, like the economy, or going after Senator McCain more aggressively, they’ve chosen the path that only highlights both of their weaknesses against each other, instead of showing their viability against Senator McCain.

But, from a Republican perspective – this is great. They’re going to have their donor based maxed and polarized before they even have a presumed nominee. That’s something that even one of Howard Deans spin-cycle emails cant downplay.

Just look at what CNN.com is reporting on their front page today:

Obama has outspent his rival in Pennsylvania, thanks in part to his hefty fundraising.

He raised $41 million in March, compared with Clinton’s $20 million, according to the latest campaign finance report.

In March, Obama spent about $31 million on his presidential campaign, compared with Clinton’s $22 million.

I don’t see any way that Obama or Clinton can raise that much money without their donors reaching the FEC limits.

The Republicans should really start taking advantage of this… soon.

I haven’t seen all that many mail pieces of phone calls going from the McCain camp, or the RNC talking about how we’re at an advantage here.

When a party has been beaten down over the last 8 years, this is positive news that will make people want to make an investment in the GOP.

But you can’t get money if you don’t ask… so hopefully they’ll start soon.

Just when I thought that there was no Alaskan who could be less of a fiscal conservative than Senator Ted Stevens, the pitfalls of another Alaskan, Congressman Don Young are brought back into the spotlight, this time with the likely prospect of intervention from the Department of Justice.

Without a doubt, the actions of Congressman Young are far more appalling and apprehensible than any of the ridiculous earmarks that Senator Stevens has tried to push through Congress.

Here is a brief recap from CNN.com illustrating the problem Congressman Young now finds himself facing:

WASHINGTON (CNN) — The Senate voted Thursday to seek a federal investigation into a 2005 earmark on a highway funding bill that was altered after Congress approved the measure but before President Bush signed it.

Earmarks are requests for money by a specific legislator, usually for her or his constituency, added onto often-unrelated government spending bills.

The $10 million earmark — originally designated for improvements to Interstate 75 in Lee and Collier Counties in Florida — was changed to put the money into building an interchange in Lee County, an apparent violation of congressional rules.

The staff of Rep. Don Young made the changes, the Alaska Republican’s spokeswoman said Tuesday, saying the staff had “fixed” a mistake in the original bill.

A proposal put forward by Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-California, to direct the Justice Department to investigate passed the Senate by a vote of 63-29.

Without a doubt, Congressman Young is in deep, and he’s known this for awhile.

Unlike bad earmarks from Senator Stevens that were for Alaska, this earmark was a pet project for Daniel J. Aronoff, a well known real-estate developer that helped Congressman Young raise $40,000 just a few days before the measure was introduced on the house floor.

It’s sad to think that even after all of these scandals, there are still Congressman (particularly Republicans) who are willing to do whatever they can to add to their war-chest. He wasn’t the first and probably wont be the last.

What’s even more appalling, is the response that one of Arnoff’s consultants gave the New York Times:

“We were looking for a lot of money,” said the consultant, Joe Mazurkiewicz. “We evidently made a very good impression on Congressman Young, and thanks to a lot of great work from Congressman Young, we got $81 million to expand Interstate 75 and $10 million for the Coconut Road interchange.”

Aside from this being a bold reply, I think it makes it quite clear that Congressman Young probably wasn’t the only member of Congress helping Mr. Arnoff get the projects that he needs.

Looking at what is being presented, and Congressman Young’s continuous “no comment” replies, I don’t see any way that he will get out of this. In fact, even though I am a Republican, if he is found guilty, I hope that the he has the book thrown at him. I’m guessing Senator Coburn probably agrees with me as well.

Congressman Young isn’t a rookie to Washington. In fact, he’s been here longer than I have been alive. As any member, hill staffer and lobbyist knows, there is a simple procedure in place to correct a bill that has already been passed by the House and Senate.

It’s called a “concurrent resolution.”

This isn’t an unknown process, in fact, I would argue that it is probably one of the most widely used processes amongst both bodies, especially when there are bills that have multiple earmarks and/or provisions. Regardless of how his staff tries to sugarcoat this, the procedure for correcting these bills is known and there is no way around the process, regardless of chairmanships and/or status.

Of course, one cant help but notice the timing of this.

This was something that happened in 2005, but for some reason it took over two years for major action to be requested? The Democrats have obviously been waiting and holding onto this one, and their timing is perfect.

For weeks, there has been virtually no talk of Republicans on the news, simply because John McCain has had smooth sailing after Mike Huckabee finally left the race. This means that all of the political coverage has been of Senators Clinton and Obama beating each other up, which has played a toll on mobilizing Democrats.

However, now the Republicans are back in the hot seat, and I wouldn’t be surprised if the Democrats are able to use this a catalyst to raise a good deal of money for their candidates.

As unfortunate at it is, I think that this could very well be the straw that breaks the back of the NRCC… they just are having a horrible year.

Even though this is old news, CNN is finally reporting that Senator Obama won’t be submitting earmarks for the 2009 budget.

This year, as the Senate funding request deadline approaches and the final primaries of the Democratic nomination process draw near, Obama’s staff told CNN the junior senator from Illinois will request no earmarks for fiscal year 2009.

The dramatic change is in line with a statement Obama issued last month in connection with an amendment calling for a one-year moratorium on earmarks in the Senate.

The amendment, sponsored by federal earmark foe Sen. Jim DeMint, R-South Carolina, was shot down by a vote of 79-21.

“We can no longer accept a process that doles out earmarks based on a member of Congress’ seniority, rather than the merit of the project,” Obama’s statement said.

“The entire earmark process needs to be re-examined and reformed. For that reason, I will be supporting Sen. DeMint’s amendment and will not be requesting earmarks this year for Illinois,” the statement added.

Of course, Hillary Clinton’s name was also on this amendment, however I think it’s quite clear that she only signed on for purposes other than having a real concern with how earmarking is done.

Clinton will still make requests for the coming year, but will limit those earmarks to “the most critical needs for New York and America,” according to a statement from her staff.

Clinton previously has not made her earmark requests public. But she added about $2.2 billion into spending bills between 2002 and 2006, according to the watchdog group Taxpayers for Common Sense.

In the 2008 budget year, Clinton — by herself or with other lawmakers — obtained scores of earmarks, according to the group. Those requests amounted to $342 million.

The sad reality is that even with all of the presidential nominees on board with this moratorium, both Republicans and Democrats voted against what I believe was one of the most important amendments presented on the Senate floor this year.

It’s quite clear that Hillary Clinton is just using this issue to gain some ground with concerned Democrats, but I must give credit to Senator Obama for his leadership on this issue. I don’t agree with him on much, but the Coburn-Obama amendment, which created an easy-to-use, online database to track government spending was a key step in making the government more transparent as possible.

Of course, amongst all of the candidates, both past and present, Senator McCain has what is by far the best record on earmarks. His position is quite simple: he doesn’t request them.

This is one issue that I hope Senator McCain really drives home as the election draws near.

Sure, Obama has a good record on voting against earmarks, but the reality is that he still has requested millions of dollars for projects that were by no means essential for his constituents. Even though he can talk the talk, his record clearly shows that he hasn’t been able to walk the walk.

I’m guessing all the talk of the Clinton/Obama “dream ticket” will probably start to slow down after Wednesday’s Democratic Debate in Pennsylvania.

Amongst a series of questions that attempted to demand answers from the candidates was whether or not their Democratic opponent was electable.

Of course, in addition was the question of the season, would the winning opponent consider taking the loser as the candidate for VP.

From CNN.com:

“Yes. Yes. Yes,” Clinton said when pressed to answer whether Obama, the senator from Illinois, could win. Media reports have said Clinton and her campaign have been quietly courting support, chiefly from Democratic superdelegates who could decide a close race at the party’s convention, by arguing that Obama is not electable.

“Now, I think I can do a better job — obviously that’s why I’m here,” said Clinton, who promised she will “do everything I possibly can to make sure that one of us takes the oath of office next January.”

Obama said Clinton could win, too. He also said he would support the New York senator and former first lady if she is the Democratic nominee, although both candidates declined to say whether they would consider naming the other as a running mate.

Does anyone think that Obama would really want Hillary Clinton running with him? I honestly think that these “dream ticket” people are just old-establishment Democrats who get some sick sense of euphoria from seeing a Clinton on the ballot.

While there is no chance in hell that I’ll be voting for a Democrat, I think that it is going to be refreshing to finally see a ballot that doesn’t contain a Bush or a Clinton on it. I’m sure many other voters, from both sides, feel the same way.

Being Hillary Rodham Clinton is no easy job.

Her husband is the biggest player in the world… when she’s tired, she makes up stories that didn’t happen… she goes from being the “shoe-in nominee” to trailing in many of the polls and losing key states.

Life for Hillary isn’t as easy as many think. Sometimes, Hillary just needs a stiff drink to make the days go by:

From CNN.com:

CROWN POINT, Indiana – After a day of taking shots at rival Sen. Barack Obama over his bitter remarks, Sen. Hillary Clinton relaxed in Crown Point, Indiana and took a shot of a different kind – Crown Royal whiskey.

Clinton was at Bronko’s Restaurant having a beer when the bartender asked, “You want a shot with that Hillary?” After some deliberation, Clinton settled on a shot of Crown Royal, a Canadian whiskey.

Later in the evening, the Democratic presidential hopeful also sat down and had some pizza.

Some Clinton’s drink on the job, while others…

As the Democrats start to see that this election probably wont be as predictable as they once thought, the DNC has found itself in a position where they now MUST focus on trying to convince the Federal Elections Commission that Senator McCain did in fact lock himself into campaign spending limits before he became the presumptive nominee.

From CNN.com:

The lawsuit, which was filed in the United States District Court in Washington, is the latest move by the Democratic National Committee that seeks to prove the Arizona senator locked himself into campaign spending limits earlier this year.

The DNC claims McCain did so when he used the prospect of $6 million in federal matching funds as collateral for a December bank loan to his campaign.

But after it became apparent he would be the Republican presidential nominee, McCain notified the FEC in early February that he was not claiming federal matching funds. Claiming those funds would limit his spending on the primary campaign to $54 million.

To be exact, the maximum figure that he could spent, according to the FEC is $56,757,500.

However, Senator McCain has spent well over that amount.

The reality is that at this point, the FEC really doesn’t have the ability or manpower to carryout the request of the DNC, which is why the Democrats must now rely on the courts. But does the DNC think that it’s likely that for the court to take action? It’s the end of an administration, so you can never predict these things.

The Republican National Committee called the lawsuit “total nonsense.”

“It is now clear that the trial-lawyer Democrats’ idea of campaigning for president is to hire lawyers and file frivolous lawsuits,” RNC spokesman Alex Conant said. “It’s unfortunate the DNC is now trying to drag the federal courts into their circus as well.”

This is a good point. Instead of focusing on their candidates and ensuring that all their delegates have a voice at the convention, they are trying to create a distraction to rile up their base and hope they focus on Senator McCain, instead of the back-and-fourth mudslinging going on between Senator Obama and Senator McCain.

For those of us who have, are or will be working on campaigns, this is going to be an interesting case to watch. What I think the most significant thing to watch is how the FEC decided to address this. They are understaffed and essentially have no power. If both sides see that the oversight and enforcement is going to be weak, this could be an even more interesting campaign.