This week's top ten

This week's AP poll:

1. Illinois (72)
2. North Carolina
3. Kansas
4. Duke
5. Boston College
6. Kentucky
7. Wake Forest
8. Syracuse
9. Louisville
10. Oklahoma State

Out: Washington (13).
SEC representatives in top 25: Kentucky, Alabama (11).

The ESPN/USA Today Coaches' Poll, as a bonus:

1. Illinois (21)
2. North Carolina
3. Kansas
4. Kentucky
5. Boston College
6. Duke
7. Wake Forest
8. Syracuse
9. Louisville
10. Michigan State

SEC representatives in top 25: Kentucky, Alabama (14).

Planned Parenthood's abhorrent ratio . . .

. . . of abortions performed to adoptions referred is 138:1, according to this report. One hundred thirty-eight abortions for every single child referred by that organization for adoption.

Actor William H. Macy is quoted on the organization's website as saying, "I believe that life is sacred. That's why I support Planned parenthood." Really? Mr. Macy should reconsider his endorsement with these figures. 138:1 doesn't honor the sanctity of life. Planned Parenthood is a death mill.

Presidential lies

I recently came across a discussion group over what has been the biggest presidential lie. The thread was prompted by Eric Alterman's book, "When Presidents Lie: A History of Official Deception and its Consequences." Knowing how partisan Alterman is, I won't recommend the book, but most of the comments in the group dealt with Bush's sixteen words in the State of the Union Address regarding British intelligence about Iraq's attempts to buy uranium from Niger, and with Bill Clinton's "I did not have sex with that woman."

Two quick comments on each of these. FactCheck.org, run Brooks Jackson, a former CNN correspondent, and having on staff former workers for Senator Chuck Hagel and Senator Edward Kennedy, concluded that while Bush may have been wrong, he didn't lie. As to Clinton, not only did he admit to the nation that he lied about Monica Lewinsky, a federal judge found he gave "intentionally false" answers in a deposition, and held him in contempt of court.

But are those really the biggest presidential lies? What about James Buchanan's disingenuous statement in his inaugural address about slavery in the territories and the Dred Scott decision? He said that slavery in the territories "is a judicial question, which legitimately belongs to the Supreme Court of the United States, before whom it is now pending, and will, it is understood, be speedily and finally settled. To their decision, in common with all good citizens, I shall cheerfully submit, whatever this may be."

Buchanan had been advised before his address that the Court's decision would favor slaveholders, so this statement had profound negative policy implications. Why mislead the country with "whatever this may be"? Was prolonging slavery the biggest presidential "lie"? While not exactly a lie, Buchanan certainly misled the nation on an issue that, four years later, resulted in civil war.

But here's my candidate for biggest presidential whopper: "The era of big government is over." Bill Clinton, 1996.

Some habits die hard

At a recent meeting of the National Association for Television Programming Executives, Ted Turner compared the appeal of Fox News to the popularity of Adolf Hitler prior to World War II. This after apologizing in 1996 to the Anti-Defamation League for comparing News Corporation's Rupert Murdoch to . . . you guessed it, Adolf Hitler. (Ted appears to be recycling his slurs these days.) At that time, he said such an analogy "trivialize[d] a profound historical tragedy."

How can we miss Ted if he won't go away.

Link via Drudge.

This week's top ten

This week's AP poll:

1. Illinois (71)
2. Duke (1)
3. North Carolina
4. Syracuse
5. Wake Forest
6. Kansas
7. Kentucky
8. Boston College
9. Oklahoma State
10. Washington

SEC representatives in top 25: Kentucky, Alabama (14), Mississippi State (24).

Johnny Carson, RIP

Johnny Carson began the final segment of his final "Tonight Show" broadcast by saying, "And so, it has come to this." Indeed it has. The true king of late night television died of emphysema on Sunday at 79. Johnny was unquestionably a great performer. He knew how to make his guests look good, which was the key to making his show successful. When he retired, there was the hope that he would return occassionally with specials, but he apparently treasured the solitude that came with retirement.

He was in the news recently for writing and submitting jokes to David Letterman, which Letterman sometimes used in his monologues. Naturally, many celebrities have commented on Mr. Carson's passing. Here are a few statements.

Like all great performers, Johnny left us wanting more. RIP.

Red state misunderstanding

Apparently Norwegians, as well as Wonkette, misunderstood the president's "Hook 'em Horns" salute, familiar to the University of Texas, as a salute to Satan. This gesture, probably familiar to most red-staters, or at least those in the Midwest and Southwest, is too confusing for some, who automatically assume that the president they scorn for his religious beliefs (remember "Jesusland"?) would openly salute the Prince of Darkness on Bush's Inauguration Day.

All in the family

I just read this column tonight, a week and a half after it was published,but I wanted to post it anyway. It is a strong argument that the Kentucky Senate should have obeyed the court determination that Virginia Woodward should be the lawfully elected senator from the 37th District, as Senate President David Williams voluntarily intervened in that lawsuit, made his separation of powers argument, and lost. On that basis, it takes a position slightly different from the one I made here. Granted, I did not have as much information about the situation when I spouted off, and the analysis in the article may be more sound than mine.

The whole situation reminds me of the reactions of two different American presidents -- one annually honored by Democrats, the other by Republicans -- to Supreme Court decisions that they disagreed with. When the Supreme Court ruled that onlyclusive jurisdiction over the federal government, and not the states, had exclusive jurisdiction over tribal lands, Jackson is reported to have said, "John Marshall has made his decision. Now let him enforce it." (Scroll down to "Native American Removal.")

And Abraham Lincoln, when faced with a decision hostile to his suspension of habeas corpus during wartime, ignored the Court's opinion, later explaining to the Congress, "[T]he whole of the laws which I was sworn to [execute] were being resisted...in nearly one-third of the states. Must I have allowed them to finally fail of execution?... Are all the laws but one [the right to habeas corpus] to go unexecuted, and the government itself...go to pieces, lest that one be violated?[T]he whole of the laws which I was sworn to [execute] were being resisted...in nearly one-third of the states. Must I have allowed them to finally fail of execution?... Are all the laws but one [the right to habeas corpus] to go unexecuted, and the government itself...go to pieces, lest that one be violated?" (Scroll down to "Suspending Habeas Corpus.")

Thoughts on turning 32

Three years ago I received this in my email, and sent it on to a few friends. I also received an updated version the following year. It's a touching, haunting letter that I thought I would share. I will be glad to post attribution if anyone knows who is responsible for creating the letter:

Dear friend,

This week I turn 32. It's hard to believe. How time flies. January 22, 1973 seems like so long ago. I'm the oldest in my family. It’s a pretty big family, but I'll explain that later.

If you're a baby boomer, you probably don't think much of my generation -- Gen X. But that's because we're a threat to you! My generation is changing the world! Just think of all that has happened in the world these past 32 years...

The end of Vietnam. Watergate. Jimmy Carter. Actually, I don't remember much from the 70s, since I was just entering elementary school when Ronald Reagan became president.

I loved the 80s. That's when I grew up, but I had no idea just how much the world was changing.

Then, the Berlin Wall fell. I'll never forget that day in November 1989. I was 16 and on top of the world. I can remember my history teacher telling me that the world would never be the same. He was right.

Then, something even more dramatic developed. The Internet. If you want to understand me and my generation, then go online. When I was in college, a few of my friends saw it coming. We helped start a revolution online. And don't believe it when they say the Internet bubble has burst. The only thing that has burst is the old way of doing business.

Now there are no boundaries for people like me. The sky is truly the limit! I got married three years ago to a beautiful and loving woman, and we're expecting our first child in three months. A new generation begins...

Yes, life is good. Except for one problem.

You see, I wasn't actually born on January 22, 1973. In fact, I wasn't born at all.

I never was given the chance to take even that first breath...never mind the 406 million breaths that would have followed over these 32 years.

Not a single breath.

That's because of something else that happened on January 22,1973.

Seven justices made a decision that would dramatically affect my life... and the lives of 40 million others who would never take a breath.

That's my family. And it's growing every day. In fact, in the next 24 hours the family of abortion victims will grow by about as many people who died when the World Trade Center buildings collapsed.

The 9-11 cleanup concluded after nearly a year, but our cleanup--the one from 1-22 continues.

And to think it was all based on a lie. Jane "Roe" of Roe v. Wade was lied to. And so were you -- if you believed even for a moment that the mass of tissue wasn't a human life.

That mass of tissue was me!

My goal here isn't to make you feel guilty. Rather, think of me... or what could have been me... the next time the topic of abortion comes up.

Think of me graduating from high school and going to college. Think of me getting married and having children. Think of me celebrating my birthday this Saturday with family and friends.

Think of me turning 32.

DOMA challenge rejected in Florida

Two women who obtained a marriage license in Massachusetts took it to the clerk's office in the county where they lived in Florida and tried to have the Massachusetts license recognized as valid in Florida. The clerk refused, citing Florida law and the federal Defense of Marriage Act. The couple filed a lawsuit in federal court challenging the constitutionality of DOMA. A federal judge dismissed the complaint on Wednesday.

The Court rightfully recognized that disallowing DOMA because of the Full Faith and Credit Clause would permit a single state to establish a national policy. It also declined the invitation to declare a fundamental constitutional right to marry someone of the same sex. The Court also held that DOMA was rationally related to the government's legitimate state interest in raising children in homes consisting of a married mother and father.

The Court left open the possibility that the Supreme Court could revisit its prior rulings and strike down DOMA, or determine that there is a fundamental constitutional right to same-sex marriage. How the Court can "discover" fundamental rights in the Constitution 217 years after its ratification is a subject for another post. All in all, though, it was a good day for marriage.

"Hollywood" doesn't understand the First Amendment

Whoopi Goldberg was on MSNBC's "Hardball" on Friday, January 14, demonstrating her lack of understanding of free speech and the First Amendment. Asked why celebrities threaten to leave the country if their candidate of choice -- usually the Democrat -- doesn't win an election, she responded:

"Because you get the feeling, as we've seen—I mean, look at what happened to Linda Ronstadt. Linda Ronstadt said she liked a movie. And the people who came to see her went berserk. They have taken to task many people for saying how they feel about different situations in the country. And the general feeling, I think, with a lot of people who are outspoken about what they think and feel is the idea that, somehow, we're going to be shut down, that it's no longer the American way to be able to express dissonance against your country, against the policies. And that's always been one of the great things that we have been able to do, is to say what we feel or what we think without fear of reprisal from the government. And it's—we‘ve gotten to a place in the country where people are not sure that that‘s still the case."

Whoopi apparently understands that it is fear of repisal from the government that the First Amendment protects against, but she chose a poor example to make her point. It was not the government who tried to stifle Linda Ronstadt after she dedicated an encore to Michael Moore, but the patrons who reacted with passion, and her immediate employer who took swift action. The casino had to gauge what was in its business interests, and chose to terminate Ronstadt's engagement. Michael Moore responded to the incident with the same lack of understanding of free speech, brandishing the First Amendment and calling the casino's actions "un-American." But the First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech." Nothing these people complained of was related to government action to suppress their speech.

So it is with many celebrities. They confuse a negative reaction by the public at large to their political statements as suppression of their right to free speech, when that is not at all the case. Celebrities have every right to say what they wish, but the people who ultimately pay their bloated salaries -- regular citizens -- have the same right to criticize the celebrities for those statements, and even organize boycotts if they choose. That is not suppressing free speech; it is free speech at its most vibrant.

Tim Robbins spoke in April 2003 at the National Press Club, and said, ironically, that "allow[ing] those rights [to disagree with and criticize politicians] to be taken away out of fear, to punish people for their beliefs, to limit access in the news media to differing opinions is to acknowledge our democracy's defeat." Limit access in the news media? He's at the National Press Club, for crying out loud!

Robbins' wife, Susan Sarandon, occasionally wears her squelching of speech with which she disagrees as a badge of honor. This article notes that "[i]n 2000, Sarandon was actively involved in getting Dr. Laura Schlessinger's TV program canceled, due to Dr. Schlessinger's conservative agenda." Sarandon is quoted as saying that while Dr. Laura has a right to her opinions, Sarandon is "totally against wasting the airwaves to giving visibility to a person who is clearly in dire need of compassion, education, and a good shrink herself." Apparently Dr. Laura does not have the same right to express her views as Whoopi Goldberg and Michael Moore believe is due to celebrities, namely, expression without consequence in the free market.

Ah, free speech. It allows people to be ill-informed in public.

This week's top ten

A surprising loss by North Carolina this week, and Joe Crawford has rejoined the Kentucky Wildcats after leaving following the Kansas game, but is under unspecified sanctions. This week's rankings:

1. Illinois (58)
2. Kansas (13)
3. Wake Forest
4. Duke
5. Oklahoma State
6. North Carolina
7. Syracuse
8. Kentucky
9. Boston College
10. Washington

Out this week: Georgia Tech (12), Texas (15).
SEC representatives in top 25: Kentucky, Mississippi State (17), Alabama (22).

Lessons for Kentucky from Newdow?

There are a couple of interesting points in the Newdow opinion that may be pertinent to the situation created by the Senate Republicans in Frankfort by their seating of a member who had previously been ruled by a court as ineligible. Discussing the issue of separation of powers, the Court remarked,

"The reasons why courts should be hesitant to grant such relief [an injunction against the President personally] are painfully obvious; the President, like Congress, is a coequal branch of government, and for the President to 'be ordered to perform particular executive ... acts at the behest of the Judiciary' at best creates an unseemly appearance of constitutional tension and at worst risks a violation of the constitutional separation of powers."

A similar separation of powers issue probably exists with regard to whether a Kentucky court can force the Senate to take a specific act. The General Assembly is a co-equal branch of government with the Supreme Court, and it would create an awkward tension if the Court ordered the Senate to accept a member different from the one already chosen by that body. What if the Senate refused to obey such an order? The Court has no independent enforcement power.

The Kentucky Supreme Court is not always predictable, however, so I am not going out on a limb to say that they will follow this principle; just that they probably should.

Newdow whiffs

A federal district judge on Friday rejected Michael Newdow's request for a preliminary injunction preventing any prayers at next week's presidential inauguration. Newdow had brought a similar action following the 2001 inaugural ceremony, which also failed. I seriously doubt that he will be deterred from trying again later, or from continuing his crusade to erase any mention of God fom public life. He does not deserve scorn, however; he deserves pity.

Kudos

To the Kentucky Medical Licensure Board. It took less than ten minutes to reject the complaint lodged against Governor Fletcher alleging that he violated Kentucky law and medical ethics by signing a death warrant. The Board properly concluded that the governor was acting in his official capacity as chief executive, and not as a physician. This was the only logical outcome for this situation, and the Board should be commended for acting promptly to reject the frivolous complaint.

Squeezing Lemon out of American jurisprudence

The Georgia evolution sticker case is exhibit number 96,482 why the Supreme Court should toss the dreaded "Lemon" test. The test to determine whether the First Amendment's Establishment Clause has been violated is named after the case in which it was first propounded, Lemon v. Kurtzman. The test examines whether the act has a secular legislative purpose, whether its primary effect neither advances or inhibits religion, and whether the act fosters an excessive entanglement between church and state.

It has also proved inherently unworkable, even to the point where six of the current sitting justices on the Supreme Court have, at one time or another, advocated abandoning the test. In 1993, Justice Scalia wrote of Lemon: "Like some ghoul in a late night horror movie that repeatedly sits up in its grave and shuffles abroad, after being repeatedly killed and buried, Lemon stalks our Establishment Clause jurisprudence once again, frightening the little children and school attorneys of Center Moriches Union Free School District."

This most recent application of Lemon in the Georgia case again highlights its flaws. The Court found that there were legitimate secular purposes for the school board to enact the policy requiring stickers. But in a remarkable display of jurisprudential gymnastics, the Court noted that, although there was no evidence that the sticker was adopted to promote religion, the judge found that it did -- despite the fact that it does not mention religion.

Let's get back to first principles. The First Amendment -- under which the policy was challenged -- states in relevant part, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." It is inconceivable that any reasonable person could look at the language of the sticker and conclude that the state of Georgia, through this school board, had made a law "respecting an establishment of religion." Sensible heads should have prevailed, but didn't.

The Supreme Court will have another opportunity in this term to deal the death blow to Lemon when it takes up the Ten Commandments cases from Kentucky and Texas. Keep your fingers crossed.

Speaking of evolution

A federal judge in Atlanta has ordered the state of Georgia to remove labels from the inside of its science textbooks that state the following: "This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered."

The court, in its order, declared that the labels unconstitutionally endorsed religion (!), even though they do not mention any other theory of the origins of life:

"[T]he Court believes that an informed, reasonable observer would interpret the Sticker to convey a message of endorsement of religion. . . . While the School Board may have considered the request of its constituents and adopted the Sticker for sincere, secular purposes, an informed, reasonable observer would understand the School Board to be endorsing the viewpoint of Christian fundamentalists and creationists that evolution is a problematic theory lacking an adequate foundation. . . . [T]here are some scientists who have questions regarding certain aspects of evolutionary theory, and the informed, reasonable observer would be aware of this also. On the whole, however, the Sticker would appear to advance the religious viewpoint of the Christian fundamentalists and creationists."

Incredibly, the Court then stated that "[t]here is no evidence in this [case] that the School Board included the statement in the Sticker that 'evolution is a theory, not a fact' to promote or advance religion." NO EVIDENCE! Nevertheless, it concluded that the sticker did promote or advance religion.

The Court went on to sat that "[b]y denigrating evolution, the school board appears to be endorsing the well-known prevailing alternative theory, creationism or variations thereof, even though the sticker does not specifically reference any alternative theories."

I think the judge presumes too much. Regardless of one's view on the labels, to assume they work as an "establishment" of religion, when they make no mention of religion or any religious theory of the origins of life, jumps the shark. The Court had no problem with the "critical study" portion of the sticker, but said that referring to evolution as a "theory" denigrated evolution. The Court, however, was playing semantics. It referred to evolution as a scientific theory.

For want of a word, the label was lost.

Go ahead, make his day

Clint Eastwood, with Michael Moore in the audience, at the National Board of Review Awards:

"'Michael Moore and I actually have a lot in common - we both appreciate living in a country where there's free expression. But, Michael, if you ever show up at my front door with a camera - I'll kill you.'

"The audience erupted in laughter, and Eastwood grinned dangerously.

"'I mean it,' he added, provoking more guffaws."

It's nice to see that Clint, and Michael, still have a sense of humor. Hat tip Drudge.

God at inaugurations

If the Wallbuilders citations were not "official" enough, hat tip to Jim Robbins at The Corner for noticing this portion of the Pledge Protection Act in the Congressional Record. Every president has acknowledged God upon assuming the office. Mr. Newdow is fighting against history.

More Newdow

Newdow to Time magazine on the Supreme Court's opening phrase, "God save the United States and this honorable Court": "When they say 'God save this court, the first word out of my mouth will be 'objection!'"

Newdow to the Supreme Court on the opening:

"QUESTION: Of course, we have -- we have so many references to God in our daily lives in this country. We opened this session of the Court today . . . with a reference, and I suppose you would find that invalid as well.

MR. NEWDOW: Not -- not under what the -- this Court has to distinguish in this case. No one -- when this Court opens, God save this honorable Court, nobody's asked to stand up, place their hand on their heart and affirm this belief."

The transcript records no objection to the opening.

Is his fifteen minutes up yet?

Michael Newdow, atheist, doctor, lawyer, minister, etc., has re-emerged in American public life. This time, he has added a new item to his agenda. Newdow, you may recall, is the individual who sued, on behalf of his daughter, to have the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance declared unconstitutional. His initial success with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals prompted a public outcry, and the victory was eventually taken from him by the Supreme Court when it ruled he did not have standing to bring a lawsuit on behalf of his daughter, since he did not have legal custody of her.

Like Freddy, Jason, and all of the other horror flick characters who just won't go away, Newdow is back. Once again, he is attempting to have "under God" stricken from the Pledge of Allegiance. In this effort, he has enlisted the assistance of a number of parents who actually do have custody of their children to file the lawsuit (warning: the complaint is in pdf format, it's long, and very repetitive).

Newdow's new twist is the more immediate cause -- he has filed a lawsuit in the District of Columbia seeking an injunction banning "Christian religious acts" from the presidential inauguration, including having ministers appear and to prevent the use of a Bible on which the president places his left hand when he is administered the oath of office.

Newdow complains that he is "offended" by any reference to God at a public ceremony. Having read portions of his inaugural ceremony complaint, offense is a two-way street:

"To Plaintiff, acknowledgements of God (much less endorsements of God) do not express confidence in the future. On the contrary, they remind him of the most egregious past human conduct, where people have literally burned others alive – an unfathomable act – merely because their victims held different religious views. . . . They remind him of September 11, 2001, when a fanatic and his religious followers turned four of our airplanes into bombs, murdering 3,000 of our citizens … all in the name of their God."

Beyond the inflammatory language, Newdow also states that "Interlarding those ceremonies with clergymen espousing sectarian religious dogma does not unite, but rather divides, our citizenry. Similarly, instead of instilling confidence in our governmental structure, it tears at the very foundation upon which that structure is built."

Really? The very foundation on which our government is built? Not according to the builders (inaugural quotations available at bartleby.com):

George Washington -- "[I]t would be peculiarly improper to omit in this first official act my fervent supplications to that Almighty Being who rules over the universe, who presides in the councils of nations, and whose providential aids can supply every human defect, that His benediction may consecrate to the liberties and happiness of the people of the United States a Government instituted by themselves for these essential purposes, and may enable every instrument employed in its administration to execute with success the functions allotted to his charge. . . . No people can be bound to acknowledge and adore the Invisible Hand which conducts the affairs of men more than those of the United States." First Inaugural Address, 04/30/89.

"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports." Farewell Address.

"Whereas it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor." 1789 Thanksgiving Proclamation.

John Adams -- "And may that Being who is supreme over all, the Patron of Order, the Fountain of Justice, and the Protector in all ages of the world of virtuous liberty, continue His blessing upon this nation and its Government and give it all possible success and duration consistent with the ends of His providence." Inaugural Address, 03/04/97.

"[I]t is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue." Letter to Zabdiel Adams, 06/21/76.

"[W]e have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. . . . Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." Works of John Adams.

Thomas Jefferson -- "I shall need, too, the favor of that Being in whose hands we are, who led our fathers, as Israel of old, from their native land and planted them in a country flowing with all the necessaries and comforts of life; who has covered our infancy with His providence and our riper years with His wisdom and power, and to whose goodness I ask you to join in supplications with me that He will so enlighten the minds of your servants, guide their councils, and prosper their measures that whatsoever they do shall result in your good, and shall secure to you the peace, friendship, and approbation of all nations." Second Inaugural Address, 03/04/05.

James Madison -- "In these my confidence will under every difficulty be best placed, next to that which we have all been encouraged to feel in the guardianship and guidance of that Almighty Being whose power regulates the destiny of nations, whose blessings have been so conspicuously dispensed to this rising Republic, and to whom we are bound to address our devout gratitude for the past, as well as our fervent supplications and best hopes for the future." First Inaugural Address, 03/04/09.

Madison was the man who introduced the first ten amendments in the House of Representatives. More on his position on religion in public life can be found here.

One would think that those who laid the foundation would have more insight on its structure than one who comes along two centuries later arguing that it is destroyed by invoking religion.

George W. Bush and faith

There is an interesting article in the Washington Times today in which the president speaks openly about his faith, the role it plays in his life, and the role he believes it has in American life. In response to a question, he also swats at a fly on the wall. Here are some key paragraphs:

"'I fully understand that the job of the president is and must always be protecting the great right of people to worship or not worship as they see fit,' Mr. Bush said. 'That's what distinguishes us from the Taliban. The greatest freedom we have or one of the greatest freedoms is the right to worship the way you see fit.

"'On the other hand, I don't see how you can be president at least from my perspective, how you can be president, without a relationship with the Lord,' he said.

"Michael Newdow, the California atheist who famously failed to get the words 'under God' out of the Pledge of Allegiance, is now attempting to get a D.C. District Court to prevent clergy from participating in Mr. Bush's inauguration.

"'I will have my hand on the Bible,' Mr. Bush said, expressing a tone of amusement and exasperation that one day, even the 216-year-old centerpiece of the inaugural ceremony might be challenged."

Expect the president to get a lot of grief for stating that he doesn't think you can be the president without faith in God. Don't expect to see a lot of people, especially on the talking heads shows, acknowledging that Bush admitted that was his perspective.

There was that other investigation . . .

Chertoff was also the Senate Republicans' chief counsel during the Whitewater investigation. Incidentally, when his name came to the Senate floor for confirmation to the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals, he was approved 88-1 -- with Hillary Clinton casting the only dissenting vote.

DHS nominee & Hillary

There is an interesting connection between the new nominee to head the Department of Homeland Security, Judge Michael Chertoff, and Senator Hillary Clinton. In August 2000, Clinton held a Hollywood fundraising gala. Her finance adviser was recently indicted with relation to this event, for intentionally understating the costs of the fundraising event in order to have more money to spend on the campaign.

In 2003. when Chertoff was nominated to the federal bench, Byron York of National Review Online wrote this piece detailing objections raised by Larry Klayman of Judicial Watch to Chertoff's nomination. Peter Paul, a Hollywood businessman, helped organize the Clinton fundraiser, apparently hoping to secure a business deal with Bill Clinton after he left office. Paul later sued the Clintons, alleging election fraud by under-reporting his contributions to the fundraiser. Judicial Watch, representing Paul, asked the Justice Department to prosecute the Clintons and sought immunity for Paul in exchange for his testimony. At that time, Chertoff was head of DOJ's Criminal Division, and he declined to give Paul the deal he requested.

On the eve of the committee vote for Chertoff, Klayman alleged that he had incriminating information related to Chertoff regarding the "misuse of organized crime operatives by the FBI and other government agencies" in New Jersey, while Chertoff was U.S. Attorney there. The Committee investigates the allegations against Chertoff and found "no credible evidence linking Mr. Chertoff with any of the wrongdoing alleged by Judicial Watch."

Since the information warranted an investigation into Chertoff (as York noted), and since Clinton's finance adviser has been indicted regarding the same fundraiser, will some investigative journalists not motivated by partisan bias -- oh, say, at CBS, for instance -- begin to investigate the Clintons' role, if any, in the allegations? I'm not holding my breath.

"Extremely foolish" Democrats

Democrats, and pro-abortion forces, are constantly chiding Republicans for what they call extreme, vehement, hostile opposition to abortion, but recent news articles have indicated that, since their election loss, Democrats have been re-thinking their own strident advocacy of abortion rights. Which is why you would assume that the news that pro-life former Congressman Tim Roemer's decision to run for the chairmanship of the Democratic National Committee would be welcome news, right?

Guess again. Phil Johnston, chairman of the Masachusetts Democratic Party, has labeled the candidacy of Roemer "extremely foolish." Johnston said, "The fact that we lost the 2004 presidential race by a narrow margin should not result in the abandonment of our party's core principles."

So much for re-thinking the party's position. Of course, Republicans can start abandoning their core principles -- like the belief in the right to life, also enshrined in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States -- any day now.

This week's top ten

Surprisingly, Kentucky stayed on this week's list, even after Sunday's home loss to a depleted, but still powerful, Kansas team, and a big jump for Mississippi State this week:

1. Illinois (58)
2. Kansas (13)
3. North Carolina (1)
4. Wake Forest
5. Duke
6. Oklahoma State
7. Syracuse
8. Georgia Tech
9. Kentucky
10. Texas

Out this week: Connecticut (12).
SEC representatives in top 25: Kentucky, Mississippi State (11), Alabama (23).

Armstrong Williams

For Armstrong and whoever in the administration thought it would be a good idea to pay a political commentator to promote the administration's education objectives, this belongs in the Colossally Stupid Blunders Hall of Fame.

Constitution -- in crisis or at work?

Kentucky's General Assembly has a fascinating situation on its hands regarding one of its newly-elected members -- at least, the Senate has determined that she was elected. In November's elaction for the 37th District seat, Republican Dana Seum Stephenson faced off against Democrat Virginia Woodward for the right to represent that district in the Kentucky Senate. On November 1, one day before the election but over two weeks after absentee balloting had begun on October 15, Woodward filed a lawsuit in Jefferson County, alleging that Stephenson failed to meet Kentucky's residency requirement for the Senate. The following day, Stephenson out-polled Woodward by approximately 1,000 votes to win the election the democratic way. Subsequently, the Jefferson Circuit Court held that Stephenson was not a duly qualified candidate, handing Woodward the election the Democratic way.

Stephenson did not appeal the circuit judge's ruling, instead filing a challenge with the Senate. Under Section 38 of the Kentucky Constitution, "[e]ach House of the General Assembly shall judge of the qualifications, elections and returns of its members, but a contested election shall be determined in such manner as shall be directed by law." The Senate voted to seat Stephenson as the duly-elected Senator; Woodward has filed suit in Franklin Circuit Court asking a judge to award her the seat and to prevent Stephenson from acting in her senatorial capacity.

The Franklin County lawsuit represents a potentially monumental struggle between the courts and the legislature over who has the ability to determine who may be seated as a member of the legislature. Article 27 of the Kentucky Constitution states, "The powers of the government of the Commonwealth of Kentucky shall be divided into three distinct departments, and each of them be confined to a separate body of magistracy, to wit: Those which are legislative, to one; those which are executive, to another; and those which are judicial, to another." Article 28 then states, "No person or collection of persons, being of one of those departments, shall exercise any power properly belonging to either of the others, except in the instances hereinafter expressly directed or permitted."

Essentially, Woodward is now asking a court to force the legislature to seat her as the duly elected senator from the 37th District. Does a court have the power, under the Constitution, to do so? One former chief justice of the Kentucky Supreme Court thinks so. The highly respected former justice, John Palmore, speaking of the Jefferson Circuit Court's ruling, stated, "Right or wrong, when a judge decides something, it is binding on the people involved if they don't appeal."

This is true as far as it goes. But if the Court does not have the authority to make the decision in the first place, there is no binding effect on anyone resulting from a piece of paper that a judge may choose to issue from his chambers. For instance, a judge may issue a decree declaring Dan Rather or Michael Moore to be paragons of media objectivity, but that does not necessarily make it so.

The crucial questions in this case are, was this a properly contested election, and if so, what are the procedures designated by law to determine the dispute? If this was not a properly contested election, which most Senate Republicans apparently believe, no court -- not even the Kentucky Supreme Court -- can tell the Senate who it must recognize as a member of that body.

In 1900, in Beckham v. Taylor, the highest Court in Kentucky examined a challenge to the legislature's determination of the winner of a gubernatorial election. The Court, while stating that it was "firmly convinced . . . that the General Assembly . . . [had] done two faithful, conscientious, and able public servants an irreparable injury in depriving them of the offices to which they were elected by the people of this Commonwealth; and a still greater wrong has been done a large majority of the electors of this Commonwealth who voted under difficult circumstances to elect these gentlemen to act as their servants in the discharge of the duties of these great offices," nevertheless refused to intervene:

"[T]he courts of the State, under the limitations imposed by the Constitution have no power to go behind the legislative journals, and review the judgment of the General Assembly in a proceeding over which they are given, by the Constitution, exclusive jurisdiction, and from whose determination of the question no appeal is provided. . . . [I]t appears from the exhibits filed with the petition that the General Assembly have, pursuant to these regulations, decided the contests for the offices of Governor and Lieutenant Governor in favor of the contestants, and if no appeal or power to review their finding is given to the courts by the Constitution, which is the basis of all power both in the Legislature and in the courts, their finding would seem to be conclusive of the question."

Even if this century-old case does not provide the resolution to the current fiasco, all parties would be better served to faithfully remember the emphasized portion of the text.

For the record, the actions of the Senate Republicans are pretty shoddy, and appear to be motivated by the desire to have a supermajority to work with in the immediately pending off-year session. Elections are to be conducted by rules that are put in place before the election occurs, and should not be changed during the middle of the contest. This was one of the driving principles in Florida in the 2000 presidential election. Interestingly, the residency requirement is what forced Hunter Bates off the gubernatorial ticket as Ernie Fletcher's running mate. I know that Democrats still outnumber Republicans in Kentucky in terms of voter registration, but doesn't the GOP have enough Kentucky residents to place on the ballot for elections? This is becoming an embarassing (and recurring) problem for Republicans in the Commonwealth.

More perspective

Rep. K. Michael Conaway (R-TX) from the Congressional Record:

"Mr. Speaker, several members have mentioned the inconvenience that many voters may have experienced on voting day by having to stand in line to wait their turn to vote.

"I want us to put that inconvenience into a proper perspective. It goes without saying we should eliminate any barrier to voting that we reasonably can eliminate. That said, one day last year the Afghan people got up early one morning, put on their best clothes and set out to vote for the first time. They left the safety of their homes to vote at the express threat to their safety and very lives. They were threatened with being shot and killed or maimed by bombs. In addition, many stood in line all day to vote.

"I believe we should look to the Afghan people for an example of how to fulfill our responsibility to vote."

More Jesse Jackson, Jr.

Reviewing his floor remarks from the House Daily Digest, I now note that he said the following, in addition to the previously quoted remarks: "Americans do not have the explicit right to vote in their Constitution. In 2000, the U.S. Supreme Court in Bush v. Gore ruled: 'The individual citizen has no Federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States.' So at present, voting in the United States is a State right, not a citizenship right." He calls voting a "State right [that] is not a citizenship right, but a right defined and protected by each State and limited to each State."

Jesse is wrong, and disingenuous, in his conclusion. It is incorrect for him to say that the Court concluded that "voting . . . is a state right." The Amendments to the Constitution are full of references to the right to vote. The 15th Amendment states that "[t]he right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude." The 19th Amendment states that "[t]he right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex." The 26th Amendment states that "[t]he right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age."

Nothing in the Constitution prevents citizens from voting for city council members, state representatives, or even presidential ellectors, if permitted. Possibly, Jackson intended to discuss the right to vote for president. But his remarks are not so limited. Voting for, or selecting, presidential electors is a task assigned to the state legislatures. It is wrong to say that voting, as a general matter, is not a citizenship right.

It is perfectly fine to debate whether this is the proper way to select the president. My previous posts, and my personal opinion, reflect that the present system is the best way to preserve the dual sovereignty of our federal republic between the sovereign state governments and the federal government. But Jackson's inaccurate statement during yesterday's debate is not a constructive way to engage in, or to begin, a healthy, spirited, and intellectually honest debate over the manner in which the president is selected.

I was close

This is how Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA) portrayed the Ohio election results in a statement during yesterday's debate on the floor of the House: "We all know this is not deja vu. The Supreme Court did not appoint President Bush this time, as it did in 2000. But again, in 2004, the Democratic process was thwarted."

Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY): "[T]he right to vote has been stolen from qualified voters. Stolen through corruption, through political cynicism, through incompetence, through technical malfunction."

J.D. Hayworth speaks

Republican Representative from Arizona J.D. Hayworth made these prescient comments on the floor of the House during yestarday's debate:

"In what should be a reaffirmation of our constitutional Republic and the Electoral College, a Member has chosen to dispute the outcome of voting in the State of Ohio. Despite that fact, speaker after speaker on the minority side, including the leader from California, has said they accept the verdict of the election. Do not misunderstand, I say to my colleagues. This is a vitally important point.

"The problem we confront with this debate is that it serves to plant the insidious seeds of doubt in the electoral process. All the talk of election reform, all the talk of hearings that the leader championed, all the process complaints, some that are inaccurate that have come from the other side, are points to be debated in the regular business of this House. Yes, they are important. But to disrupt the Electoral College, to say in effect, hey, we just want to shine light on this problem, is not the proper use of the people's time. And with all due respect, I question not the intent; but the net effect is this: again, it is to place doubt and to institutionalize forever the notion of grumbling and a lack of acceptance of the verdict of the people. In less elevated terms, Mr. Speaker, it is called sour grapes; and it is sad to see in this House.

"Mr. Speaker, I would be remiss if I did not point out that this view is not shared universally, despite the kind words for the Member who brought this from her friends on that side of the aisle. Listen to the comments from Kerry campaign spokesman David Wade: 'I'd give my right arm for Internet rumors of a stolen election to be true, but blogging doesn't make it so. We can change the future; we can't rewrite the past.'

"Or Kerry spokesman Joe Lockhart on Election Day: 'We think the system has worked today. There were thousands of lawyers deployed to make sure that no one tried to take advantage or unfair advantage and, by and large, it has worked. I've seen very few reports of irregularities, and even the ones we have seen, after a little investigation, you find there is not much going on.'

* * *

"Mr. Speaker, one of the virtues of our system is this: in America, there are never lost causes because, in America, there are never fully gained causes. That is why we have the electoral process. How sad the electoral process has been sidelined today for a publicity stunt."

The king of rock and roll

Tomorrow, January 8, would have marked the 70th birthday of Elvis Presley. The official Elvis website has some interesting events noted for tomorrow.

The Elvis phenomenon is really remarkable. Most performers struggle for years to become well-known, and the best have a breakthrough moment that catapults them to major stardom, and the fame gradually decreases, similar to the familiar "Bell Curve." Elvis had a radically different trajectory. He skyrocketed to fame fairly quickly, where he remained until the dreaded "movie years" on the 1960s. He returned to the international spotlight with performances in Las Vegas and Hawaii, the latter of which was watched in forty countries by an estimated 1 to 1.5 billion people. He again declined in popularity until his death in 1977, and has become in death as popular as he had ever been in life.

Elvis, still takin' care of business after all these years.

It didn't take long

The New York Times today editorializes on the Democrats' failed objection to the certification of Ohio's electoral votes. Yesterday I remarked that following the vote count, liberals would attempt to de-legitimize President Bush's re-election. The Times does just that today:

"Democrats were obviously most vocal about the sloppy and highhanded way the election was run in many places, but the Republicans should also object. Mr. Bush won the most votes, but he has been deprived of universal confidence in the way they were counted."

Well, if your universe is the editorial page of the Times, that may be true. But for most Americans -- and even, as the Times notes, many Democrats who spoke yesterday -- there is little doubt that Bush fairly won the election.

Elections are events conducted by human beings, subject to all of the failings and imperfections that we all suffer daily. It is unlikely that there has ever been an election for president in which some errors weren't made. But the definition of an error, justifying counting a specific vote, changes depending on your perspective. Is it an error if other races on the ballot have a candidate marked, but the presidential race has no choice marked? Is it an error, justifying placing the ballot in a single candidate's column, if more than one candidate is marked on the ballot? Is it an error, rising to a constitutional violation, if an individual has to stand in a long line while waiting to vote? (I was under the impression that we encouraged voter participation in this country, but I am beginning to wonder, considering all of the complaints about long lines at the polls that were voiced yesterday.)

The answers to these questions, in a logical universe, would be "no." But that is not the universe of the Times.

Jesse Jr.'s frontal assault on federalism

I am only a little surprised that the Democrats have become as blunt in their disdain for federalism as was expressed by Jesse Jackson, Jr., at a press conference by the Congressional Black Caucus following the debate on the objection to Ohio's electoral vote Thursday. His remarks at the press conference are stated with even more force in this press release.

Jackson states,

"Today's objection is not about an individual, but our institutions. It is not about Republicans, but our Republic. It is not about Democrats, but our democracy. It is not about an election result, but our election system - it is broken and needs fixing. The fundamental reason is this: Americans don't have the explicit right to vote in their Constitution. . . . One-hundred-and-eight of the 119 nations in the world that elect their public officials in some democratic manner have the right to vote in their Constitution - including the Afghan Constitution and the interim document in Iraq. The United States is one of the 11 that don't! Shouldn't we be one of the 108 that do? As the greatest nation with the greatest democracy in the history of the world I think so. We need to build our democracy and our voting system on a rock, the rock of adding a Voting Rights Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that applies to all states and all citizens. We need to provide the American people with a citizenship right to vote and provide Congress with the authority to craft a unitary voting system that guarantees that all votes will be counted in a complete, fair and efficient manner. It's the only foundation upon which we can build a more perfect Union."

Well, then. Congressman Jackson would completely jettison two hundred sixteen years of our nation's history -- the nation he acknowledges "as the greatest nation with the greatest democracy in the history of the world" -- and claims that the election system is broken on the apparent basis that the Democrats have lost two consecutive presidential elections. I suppose he doesn't believe that it is possible that the greatness he rightly ascribes to the strength of this country might remotely be related to the manner in which the Framers designed the Constitution?

He is right on this point -- the Constitution does not grant individuals the right to vote for president; that is a duty assigned to the state legislatures, who, at their discretion, may allow individuals to select electors for president and vice-president. But the question raised by Congressman Jackson is even more fundamental.

The Constitution was not entered into by individual Americans, but by the separate states. It concludes, "done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth." The Constitution was then submitted to the States for ratification in Convention. Fortunately, the only manner in which the Constitution may be changed also runs through the state legislatures. In short, the Constitution is a compact between the states, not between and among individual citizens. I have previously discussed the history behind this here and here.

The disdain for this Constitutional system, which has served the country well even by Jackson's admission, is troubling. Democrats do not wear losing well.

. . . and one to go

The House of Representatives has voted down the objection to the certification of Ohio's electoral votes 267-31. Ohio's electoral votes stand as submitted.

One down . . .

The Senate has voted 74-1 to overrule the objection to Ohio's electoral votes and allow them to stand as cast. Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA), the senator who signed the objection, was the lone dissenter.

What you won't hear at the Gonzales hearing

While Senate Democrats grill Alberto Gonzales and essentially accuse him of condoning the use of torture in the interrogation of unlawful combatants, you will probably not hear Democrats mention that one of the liberals' favorite law professors, Alan Dershowitz, advocated precisely that tactic in the wake of 9/11. Speaking about "ticking time-bomb" circumstances, Dershowitz stated in this interview that:

"[we could use] a torture warrant, which puts a heavy burden on the government to demonstrate by factual evidence the necessity to administer this horrible, horrible technique of torture. I would talk about nonlethal torture, say, a sterilized needle underneath the nail, which would violate the Geneva Accords, but you know, countries all over the world violate the Geneva Accords. They do it secretly and hypothetically, the way the French did it in Algeria. If we ever came close to doing it, and we don't know whether this is such a case, I think we would want to do it with accountability and openly and not adopt the way of the hypocrite."

In this op-ed piece, Dershowitz outlined his proposal:

"[N]o torture would be permitted without a 'torture warrant' being issued by a judge. An application for a torture warrant would have to be based on the absolute need to obtain immediate information in order to save lives coupled with probable cause that the suspect had such information and is unwilling to reveal it. The suspect would be given immunity from prosecution based on information elicited by the torture."

Dershowitz justified his argument by stating that it happens already, so steps should be taken to make it legal in certain circumstances. And Gonzales is the radical for asking the Justice Department to give a legal opinion on the status of the law regarding torture? Oooo-kaaaaay.

The Democrats' response to the vote certification

Assuming the Democrats follow through with their plan to object to the Ohio electoral votes, there is little doubt that the objections will not be sustained by either house of Congress. Following this defeat, will the Democrats say that the constitutional process worked, and that the election has been finally and fairly decided? Some will. But those who are mounting the challenge will speak of how the "Republican-controlled" Congress railroaded the dabate through to "select" George W. Bush as president. The "selected, not elected" mantra has worked so well for Democrats since 2000, as they have lost House and Senate seats in both 2002 and 2004, and the presidency in 2004, that they will continue to beat that drum for four more years in an effort to de-legitimize Bush's presidency.

Their only hope is to convince the country that, despite Bush's electoral win, and despite his 3.4 million vote margin of victory in the popular vote (which was sacrosanct in 2000, when Al Gore won the popular vote). Although no Democrat has been quoted for the record, many understand that today could well be a watershed day in the party's history. In addition to challenging the electoral vote, they are smearing the first Hispanic to be nominated as Attorney General of the United States in his confirmation hearings before the Senate. The implosion continues.

Count every (electoral) vote!

Today is the day established by law on which the electoral votes, cast by the electors in all fifty states on December 13, 2004 (pursuant to 3 U.S.C. Sec. 7), are counted by the Congress. There are detailed instructions provided by statute for receiving and certifying the votes of the electors.

House Democrats have prepared a report (pdf format, and no, I have not read it -- I don't have the time to waste right now) challenging the validity of the Ohio votes, and apparently have persuaded at least one senator to go along with and sign the planned objection to the Ohio electoral votes. According to the law, as soon as the objection is properly made*, the two houses of Congress, meeting in joint session to count the votes, retire to their separate chambers to debate the objections and vote on them. As both houses are controlled by Republicans, it is unlikely that either house will sustain the baseless objections. Many rational Democrats are apparently opposed to the objection, and even one senator, the defeated presidential candidate John Kerry, has issued a statement that he does not intend to join the protest.

What, then, is the point of the objection? As a political tactic, it seems likely only to further alienate Congressional Democrats, as they make a pointless challenge that even the defeated candidate does not support, from the overwhelming majority of Americans who are ready to put the election behind and proceed with the nation's business. The only (limited) utility that I can see is as a civics lesson. For the first time in more than 125 years**, there will be an official challenge to the electoral votes, and Americans will watch the constitutional process work. Our system provides for an orderly transfer (or retention, in this case) of power, and even provides the machinery to challenge suspect votes.

No rational person -- possibly even Senator Boxer -- believes that the Ohio electoral votes were fraudulently cast. (Note her quote in the news article, stating that, "I have concluded that objecting to the electoral votes from Ohio is the only immediate way to bring these issues to light by allowing you to have a two-hour debate to let the American people know the facts surrounding Ohio's election." Not that the Ohio electors didn't properly cast the votes, or that they were not properly certified; she just wants a debate about the facts of Ohio's election.) For this the Congress, thanks to some intransigent Democrats, will waste taxpayer money for two hours debating the Ohio votes. It's a shameless, playground mentality from the nation's oldest political party, which appears to be on the brink of senility.

* There was a hilarious occasion in 2001, when Representative Maxine Waters (D-CA) attempted to object to the Florida electors. Al Gore, then-vice-president and president of the Senate, was presiding over the count. The following exchange occurred between Gore and Mad Max (emphasis mine):

"The VICE PRESIDENT. For what purpose does the gentlewoman from California (Ms. WATERS) rise?

"Ms. WATERS. Mr. Vice President, I rise to object to the fraudulent 25 Florida electorial votes.

"The VICE PRESIDENT. Is the objection in writing and signed by a Member of the House and a Senator?

"Ms. WATERS. The objection is in writing, and I do not care that it is not signed by a Member of the Senate.

"The VICE PRESIDENT. The Chair will advise that the rules do care, and the signature of a Senator is required. The Chair will again put that part of the question: Is the objection signed by a Senator?

"Ms. WATERS. Mr. Vice President, there are gross violations of the Voting Rights Act from Florida, and I object; and it is not signed by a Senator.

"The VICE PRESIDENT. The Chair thanks the gentlewoman from California. On the basis previously stated, the objection may not be received."

**CORRECTION: This marks the second time in 125 years that the chambers were forced to separately deliberate an electoral vote question. In 1969, a "faithless" elector dedicated to Richard Nixon actually cast his vote for George Wallace. The bodies deliberated separately and agreed to allow the vote to count for Wallace (scroll down to "Disposing of objections"). Mea culpa.

This week's top ten

From the latest AP poll:

1. Illinois (62)
2. Kansas (10)
3. North Carolina
4. Wake Forest
5. Duke
6. Syracuse
7. Oklahoma State
8. Kentucky
9. Georgia Tech
10. Connecticut

Out this week: Pittsburgh (16).
SEC representatives in the top 25: Kentucky, Mississippi State (18), Alabama (19).

The nanny state attacks

In his dissent in Lawrence v. Texas, Justice Clarence Thomas referred to Texas's sodomy law as "uncommonly silly." Not to be outdone, the California legislature has enacted a host of laws that seem well-fit for that categorization. This article notes that California:

"has the nation's toughest helmet law for kids on bikes and skateboards, and calorie-laden soda pop was banned in elementary and junior high schools last year. Saturday, laws went into effect to restrict kids from riding scooters or riding in the front seat of a car. They'll also be kept out of tanning salons and face costly fines for drag racing in the streets. . . . [T]hey will face fines for playing with toy and BB guns that look too much like the real thing, or e-mailing pirated music and movies to friends."

The reason for these laws? "[P]arents don't have time to monitor their children's activities. 'That's where the state needs to step in, when there is sufficient information when it suggests that kids are doing certain things that harm them,' said [Assemblyman Leland] Yee, D-San Francisco. 'The state has an interest to protect them.'"

So now, "[c]hildren under 14 are banned from using tanning salons, unless they have a doctor's note, and those 14 to 18 need parental permission to receive a tan."

According (link in pdf format) to Pro-Choice America (formerly known as the National Abortion Rights Action League), "government cannot mandate healthy family communication. Laws requiring parental notice or consent actually harm the young women they purport to protect." Is NARAL-PCA referring to soda laws, or scooter laws, or tanning salon laws to protect children? Of course not. It opposes parental-consent laws for minors to obtain abortions. The paper states,

"The American Medical Association takes the position that: 'Physicians should not feel or be compelled to require minors to involve their parents before deciding whether to undergo an abortion. . . . [M]inors should ultimately be allowed to decide whether parental involvement is appropriate.' The American Academy of Pediatrics also opposes parental involvement laws: . . . '[M]inors should not be compelled or required to involve their parents in their decisions to obtain abortions, although they should be encouraged to discuss their pregnancies with their parents and other responsible adults.'"

Does NARAL-PCA have any legal support for these arguments that parents need not be notified before their minor children undergo a surgical procedure? Unfortunately, yes. The Supreme Court's abortion jurisprudence is a buffet for the pro-choice movement. The Court has stated that "a special-consent provision, exercisable by a person other than the woman and her physician, as a prerequisite to a minor's termination of her pregnancy and . . . without a sufficient justification for the restriction[,] . . . violates the strictures of Roe and Doe."

So now in California, a minor can't go to a tanning salon without written consent from a parent, but surgery? No problem, as long as it's for an abortion. It's the upside down world that Alice discovered down the rabbit hole, with tragic consequences.

Hat tip: The Corner.