Let's Take Technology, Use it to Provide Government Openness

How about requiring all personal expenses by any government worker by to be paid for on a card programmed to automatically post the expense to the Internet? The cards could be linked to automatically tally the expenses of all employess, and just like that we would know what percentage of government expense is for personal expenses (dinners, travel and such).

I'm Still Sorting Out Court's Decision

Late for bed, but did take a little time to try to wade through the texts of the opinions offered by the Supreme Court on Obamacare.

Of what I did read, it does seem yesterday's post was correct. But, bed is catching me too quick and perhaps I will update this later today when I am more sure.

It seems Chief Justice John Roberts does join not those who joined him in the basic premise of the ruling, but rather with those who dissented, in holding the Commerce Clause does not license the federal government to involve itself in such matters as the individual mandate.

It seems those who joined Roberts in the basic ruling opted out of agreeing with him on the Commerce Clause. I choose to call it a line-item veto. So, do we say the joining of the dissenting opinion to Roberts's view constitute a overriding of the "veto"?

Does it have the weight of being law, then? From what I am seeing, I do not think so. Roberts's opinion comes divided in part, and the four justices who join him sign on as to which of the parts they agree with, but none of the dissenting justices sign on as agreeing with any of the parts.

Still, this from Judge Thomas's opinion is of note. Thomas joined in the dissent with three judges, then added a dissenting note separately and of his own. "I write separately to say a word about the Coommerce Clause," he said. "The joint dissent and the Chief Justice correctly apply our precedents to conclude that the Individual Mandate is beyond the power granted to Congress under the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause.

Thomas lamented that a "substantial effects" test  (whatever that is) "has encouraged the Federal Government to persist in its view that the Commerce Clause has virtually no limits."

The Commerce Clause says simply that Congress has power, "To regulate Commerce . . . among the several States."

Has Line-Item Vetoing Reached the Supreme Court?

Has line-item vetoing reached the Supreme Court? I don't know that that is what happened in today's ruling on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, but I'm sitting here wondering.

So, the individual mandate (the part of Obamacare that requires people to have insurance) was ruled constitutional, but ruled so under the taxing powers of the Constitution, not under the Commerce Clause.

Chief Justice John Roberts, in writing the majority opinion, said, "The individual mandate cannot be upheld as an exercise of Congress's power under the Commerce Clause. That Clause authorizes Congress to regulate interstate commerce, not to order individuals to engage in it."

So, the individual mandate was struck down?

Not at all, says a Deseret News online article titled, "Supreme Court upholds individual mandate in President Obama's health care overhaul." Says the article, "In the moments following release of the decision, Twitter was buzzing with contrary reports of what happened, some major outlets reporting incorrectly that the individual mandate was overturned."

Roberts joined four other justices in ruling that the Affordable Care Act does allow the individual mandate to stand, but Roberts asserted that it was because the Constitution gives the federal government the right to tax that the law stands, not because of the Commerce Clause.

The other four justices wrote a separate opinion, a "concurring opinion," penned by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, saying that in addition to agreeing the individual mandate has license under the taxing provision of the Constitution, they also would have upheld the it under the Commerce Clause.

Would we say the four line-item vetoed the majority opinion? They agreed the individual mandate stands due to the taxation powers, but they line-item vetoed Roberts' contention that the Commerce Clause does not authorize the individual mandate.

Here's how I got wondering about it. From whitehouse12.com, written by someone calling himself I.M Citizen, I read that while the ruling allows the individual mandate to stand under the tax law, it struck it down under the Commerce Clause. Writes I.M. Citizen:

"Chief Justice Roberts actually ruled the mandate, relative to the commerce clause, was unconstitutional. . . . This is critical. His ruling means Congress can’t compel American citizens to purchase anything. Ever. The notion is now officially and forever, unconstitutional. As it should be."

Is I.M. Citizen simply one of the many who incorrectly reported? What of the dissenting opinions? Did they concur with Roberts that the Commerce Clause does not extend authority for the individual mandate? Because, if they did, that makes five votes saying the Commerce Clause gives no such permission.

So, did Roberts side with four justices in deciding that the individual mandate stands under the taxing rights of the federal government, but side with the other four justices in determining that the Commerce Clause only extends to regulating existing business, not creating new business?

'Tis late at night. The mystery must remain, for now.

Will Alcohol Make You Wise?

You must consider this, taken from a webpage on fact and fiction about alcohol:

"The moderate consumption of alcohol does not destroy brain cells. In fact it is often associated with improved cognitive (mental) functioning."

Now, lovers of marijuana have been know to argue it increases their ability to think, Carl Sagan  among them.

But, alcohol?

Studies have shown light to moderate alcohol consumption increases one's ability to think. Do you think it so? I will neither accept nor reject the notion right now. But, I will wonder.

Further down the page of the fact and fiction article, I find it says the body naturally creates alcohol. So, all of us have alcohol in our bodies, even if we have never so much as sipped the stuff. I find myself wondering if the body naturally creates alcohol, then does this mean it does have a positive effect?

http://www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj/AlcoholFactsAndFiction.html/

I also find myself wondering that if the body naturally creates alcohol, can it not -- if functioning ideally -- create all that is necessary for maximum cognitive function?

I then read a webpage that says the that it is only in rare cases that the body produces alcohol, and the whole idea that if the body produces the stuff, it must be for a reason comes -- well, not crashing down, but stepping down a notch.

Now, as I reflect on my own mind's ability to function at a maximum level, I quite think it capable of doing so. A little false pride, you might say, but I think not. I think not just I, but most of us do have this capability of thinking at a high level -- without taking either alcohol or marijuana. I'm thinking the thing that makes the difference it whether we practice. As the saying goes, "Use it or lose it."

So, whether alcohol or marijuana can increase cognitive thinking, those two drugs are not necessary. We can think at the highest level without them and not run the risk that such drugs rather than increasing our cognitive function, might weaken it.

Just a Thought: Have Runoff Instead of Primaries

I became a Republican today. As I walked in and out of the polling place, a nice-as-the-sky lady who arrived at the same time spoke to me about how she had voted all these years. I don't know that she said voting was the patriotic thing to do, but I could tell that is what she meant.

So, forgive me. If I had not changed my affiliation from independent to Republican for just this one day, I would not have been able to vote.

Should this be allowed? After all, the Republicans want to nominate their own candidates, and some don't like the notion that those who are not party members should have a say. Others say, Let everyone vote in the primary. Whether they are Republican, Democrat or whatever, let them cast their votes.

The danger, of course, is that some not belonging to a party might vote for the weak candidate in hopes of increasing their own party's chances come November.

Here's a possible way around that, and it's just a spur-of-the-moment thought, not something I've given a lot of thought to. Have a runoff in place of the primaries. Have a Democrat and a Republican running for one opening on November's ballot, and another Democrat and Republican running for a second spot on the November ballot.

Come November, this would often (in Utah) mean two Republicans would be facing each other.

I Favor Sean Reyes Over John Swallow

   For attorney general, I'd vote for Sean Reyes over John Swallow.
   Early this month, Swallow said he would move the state Division of Consumer Protection under the umbrella of his office, if elected.
   That might sound fine enough, but it is who Swallow was speaking to that matters. Swallow was talking to a potential campaign contributor who had been maligned by the Division of Consumer Protection.
   In our political world today, many would say offering to make a situation more comfortable for a potential contributor is okay. I disagree. I think when we see such things, it can be good reason to not vote for the person.

Reasons to Vote for Liljenquist Over Hatch

I favor Dan Liljenquist over Orrin Hatch.

Now, I like Orrin Hatch, I do. He played a key role in one of the most significant pieces of anti-abortion legislation in our country's history, the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003. That law outlawed one form of abortion, and Hatch was recognized as a key proponent bringing the law to fruition.

And, Hatch is a major Congressional player in the fight against pornography. He has been credited with getting about half the Senate to sign a letter calling for greater enforcement of obsenity laws.

A third thing I like about Hatch, is that he has been a leader in the fight against the national debt, introducing legislation to amend the Constitution to prohibit deficit spending.

I like Orrin Hatch, I do.

But, then, this . . .

I'm reading along in Facebook, and see a post of how, in 1976, his campaign ads called him, "Anti-Establishment" and "Anti-Incumbent." The ad said, "We need more debates! 18 years is too long!"

Then, a Facebook post links to a news article from 1976, in which Hatch is saying seniority doesn't matter, and that while his opponent is hoping to move up to number 3, the committee chairmanship he has might not matter, anyway, as the committee might be abolished.

I am not a dead-set proponent of term-limits, but with how hard Hatch campaigned against the 18-year seniority of Frank Moss in 1976, I think his stand back then reason to vote against him in 2012. The Orrin Hatch of 1976, in essence, campaigned against the Orrin Hatch of 2012.

Another reason for supporting Hatch's opponent is that Hatch has introduced and supported legislation coming from some of his biggest financial backers. I do not believe legislation should be bought and sold. To introduce and be a key proponent of legislation coming from those who are financially contributing to you does leave open the question of motive in introducing legislation, and it should. We should question our legislators when this occurs.