Convoluted approach to health care

Twisted logic brought us to the stage where we must haggle over details of the Affordable Care Act of 2010.

Legal challenges present arguments against mandatory health insurance which confirm that we should have universal health care. It likewise explains why government should be administering health-care insurance, or at least be the central focus of it.

Opponents dubbed the health-care law unconstitutional because the law dictates that most Americans obtain insurance. Though I am a firm supporter of health care coverage, I wonder if they are right. The clause they are targeting may well be unconstitutional.

This means that to do what is right we must violate the Constitution. Vulnerable people are so powerless that their advocates must resort to an illegal option.

Judge Roger Vinson of Federal District Court in Pensacola, Fla., said during a hearing on Dec. 16 that the law’s mandate for most Americans to obtain health-care insurance would mean “a giant expansion” of the Commerce Clause of the Constitution.

The New York Times quoted Vinson stating, “People have always exercised the freedom to choose whether to buy or not to buy a commercial product.”

The law is being challenged by 20 governors and attorneys general, including my incoming governor and attorney general, Tom Corbett of Pennsylvania; all but one are Republicans.

The parsing, the fine points, the decoding, the decorous proclamations and the interpretations are only beginning to surface. Just reading the emerging arguments is a maddening and annoying experience. Reciting them to Guantanamo prisoners might have succeeded where waterboarding failed.

The Times account explained that the Supreme Court has ruled in the past that Congress can employ its Commerce Clause authority to justify the regulation of “activities that substantially affect interstate commerce.”

Ian H. Gershengorn, a deputy assistant attorney general, told Vinson that the health care market is unique because getting ill is unpredictable and potentially bankrupting. This means that the financial results of lacking insurance, including cost-shifting to others, justify congressional regulation.

Attorneys for the state officials asserted that the new law would for the first time mandate that Americans purchase a commercial product, making it unconstitutional.

Lawyer David B. Rivkin Jr., representing the plaintiffs, proclaimed that the new law “would leave more constitutional devastation in its wake than any statute in our history.”

If Rivkin has a credible argument, why spoil it with prophecies of doom?
Prior to Vinson’s hearing, a federal judge in Virginia - Henry E. Hudson - had already ruled the mandate unconstitutional, prompting Brooklyn Law Professor Jason Mazzone to explain in a Dec. 17 Times op-ed why Hudson may be on sturdy legal ground.

“Judge Hudson explained that whatever else Congress might be able to do, it cannot force people to engage in a commercial activity, in this case buying an insurance policy,” Mazzone wrote.

“The conservative (Supreme Court) justices in particular will no doubt wonder what else Congress can make Americans do if it can make us buy health insurance.”

Mazzone’s commentary triggered a half-dozen responses in the letters section which underscore the need for a government-run system.

“We can all agree on this: 50 million uninsured Americans are going to need medical care at some point,” writes Sandra Schneider, president of the American College of Emergency Physicians. “And we will be required to provide it, whether they pay us or not.”

Writes Harvard Law Professor Joseph W. Singer: “The Constitution does not require us to respect the right not to buy insurance only to force the rest of us either to pay for medical care for others or to deny it when it is needed.”

Andrew Koppelman, a professor of law and political science at the Northwestern University School of Law, adds: “If Congress can’t require people to buy insurance before they get sick, the problem of pre-existing conditions can’t be solved at all. A government in which huge national problems can’t be solved is precisely what the framers were trying to avoid when they replaced the Articles of Confederation with the Constitution.”

Schneider, Singer, Koppelman and the other letter-writers present arguments that only reinforce the steps Congress should have undertaken 60 years ago: Establish a health-care insurance program operated by the government, with more advanced benefits that private insurance companies can provide.

Health care is very much in the public interest. Any disease detected early would prevent epidemics. Preventive care will offset future health problems and free up emergency rooms for real emergencies. Whatever the flaws of government, even senior managers make considerably less money than insurance company executives and their owners.

A government-run health-insurance system will be owned by America’s citizens. Eventually, a public system will probably be far less costly.

Other countries such as Great Britain and Canada may have problems with their systems, but the United States can learn from them and try to avoid said problems.

Our government hardly “insures domestic Tranquility” or “promotes the general Welfare” when it ignores the health needs of up to 50 million of America’s 308 million citizens.

Those phrases are carried in the Preamble of the Constitution, which describes the general intentions of the document. It reads in full: “WE THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

Much can be made of other phrases in the Preamble to augment arguments for a government-run system.

What our leaders are trying to do with the new law is bizarre and probably unworkable. They are employing a roundabout method to make the system work.

If health care is a critical public interest, how do they expect to make the law work through private enterprise? A government-run system would be supported by reliable revenue sources and transfer of funds from other programs that are cut.

The new law sets up the expectation that money for health insurance will be acquired through the private sector. If everyone must buy health insurance, then this process will need to be monitored and policed. That would not be necessary if government operates the program.

In addition, there will be still be Americans who will not be covered by health insurance, anyway.

That we must contend with these complications is silly. Of course, we are stuck with this system because of politics. Most Republicans and some Democrats watered down this legislation.

The public option - a partial government-run operation - might have passed the Senate if not for the Senate’s filibuster rule which allows 41 senators to block legislation.

However, the mandate may not even be necessary. Former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean said on MSNBC that this provision may make little difference. Young people in their early twenties can still be covered by their parents’ insurance, and those over 25 often reach a stage in which they are making more money and raising families whom they will want covered by insurance.

Also, private insurers can establish a reward-and-punishment system for citizens who do not sign up when they are young and healthy, according to Dean.

If Congress had enacted a more stable system, we would not be having this conversation.

Too many Enzis, too few Sanders

Mike Enzi opposes the Zadroga bill to compensate 9/11 workers sickened during the clean-up of the World Trade Center site. He was even accused of quarterbacking a campaign against the bill with a document that Carolyn Maloney called “a pack of lies.”

Bernie Sanders lent the Senate “a Mr. Smith goes to Washington moment” when he conducted a quasi-filibuster in a vain attempt to bring down the so-called bipartisan deal to retain tax cuts for wealthy Americans.

Two senators, two sharply different outlooks on public policy. Each represents the two least populous states in the country.

One could say that we never know what the system will produce. Actually, no. NBC’s Brian Williams suggested that Sanders’ speech was a “Mr. Smith” moment.

However, “a Mr. Enzi goes to Washington moment” is more predictable. Because of the system, each state is allowed two senators, which means the smallest state has as much clout as the largest state.

As it stands, many of the least populous states are conservative and more populous states are moderate to liberal. Vermont, population 621,00, is as liberal as New York or California, and one of the few states likely to be represented by someone like Sanders.

Dick Cheney isn’t exactly Enzi’s next-door neighbor, but they both spent most of their lives in Wyoming and are just about as conservative. Wyoming’s population, 544,000, is even smaller than that of the congressional district represented by Rep. Maloney, primarily Manhattan’s East Side.

The New York Daily News attributed to unidentified sources the claim that Enzi, ranking Republican on the Senate Health Committee, was behind the opposition to the Zadroga bill, which would spend $7.4 billion over 10 years to provide health care and pay victims.

The revenue would be raised from closing tax revenues on foreign corporations. Because Republicans were against employing this source for revenues, New York Senators Charles Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand, both Democrats, suggested other funding alternatives.

The News reported that the Republican document ignores their offers and labels the foreign tax provision a job-killer, and blatantly fabricates the claim that 95 percent of the workers were provided for in a recent $625 million legal settlement.

Only 10,000 people who sued, not the 30,000 who received some form of treatment, are covered by the settlement, the newspaper article clarified.

Calling these claims “a pack of lies,” Maloney said, “If these were legitimate concerns, why are Senate Republican leaders only raising them now, at the last minute, instead of years ago?”

Enzi would not respond to these accusations, but a week later he penned an op-ed piece in the News where he claimed that health-care providers that received federal grants for 9/11 health programs “have failed to tell Congress where that money has gone.”

In a follow-up letter to the News, Maloney and Jerrold Nadler (Ground Zero is located in Nadler’s congressional district) wrote that “Enzi has already gotten detailed responses to the questions he raised. We know exactly how the 9/11 health clinics have spent their money, and so does Enzi.”

Someone is lying. Based on their respective records, who do you believe?

In a Dec. 3 editorial, the Daily News employed phrases such as “distort the truth” and “torture decency” to describe Republican tactics. “They should stand at the graves of all those whose lungs were fatally destroyed, starting with NYPD Detective James Zadroga, who labored 450 hours at Ground Zero, and repeat the libel.” The bill was named after Detective Zadroga.

Bernie Sanders is no hero, but his Dec. 12 speech was special. Special because it is rare. If most or all senators were willing to speak out more than eight hours straight against an injustice, he would have had no need to do this.

President Obama’s deal with GOP senators to spend $700 million to extend tax cuts for the wealthy for two years - specifically, those couples earning more than $250,000 yearly - means $700 million less to reduce the debt or use for other pressing needs.

Sanders, the only senator to identify himself as a socialist, takes a straightforward approach to his job. He says what he stands for and works toward these goals. What he does is hardly heroic because it reflects the views of the majority of his constituents. He was doing his job, and he did his job exceptionally well on Dec. 12.

He wins the state by large margins, first every two years as Vermont’s only congressman a number of times and then in 2006 for his first term in the Senate.

He really does not need to walk a tightrope between competing constituencies, partly because of the state’s growing liberalism and its small population. Nearly half of Vermont’s population lives within 50 miles of Burlington, where Sanders was once mayor.

As a side interest, I like to study Jewish communities around the country. Of all small-town Jewish communities, Burlington and environs is hands-down the most interesting. It has been home not only to Sanders but also Madeleine Kunin, Vermont’s first female governor; Deborah Markowitz of nearby Montpelier, longtime state secretary of state and unsuccessful gubernatorial candidate in 2010; ice-cream makers Ben and Jerry; folk singer Peter Yarrow; a gay assistant rabbi at Burlington’s only Conservative synagogue; former Gov. Howard Dean’s wife, a physician; and homosexual state lawmaker Jason P. Lorber, a native Philadelphian who is also a standup comedian.

Most of them are transplants to Vermont. Sanders was raised in Brooklyn.

From this environment, it is no surprise that someone like Sanders makes democracy come alive. In Vermont, he is surrounded by vital people like Lorber and Dean. Too bad he is in the minority in Washington.

End or amend the Senate

U.S. Sen. Chris Dodd argued, if inadvertently, for eliminating the Senate during his otherwise classy farewell speech on Nov. 30.

If historians and pundits agree on nothing else, they firmly concur that delegates to the 1787 Constitutional Convention created the Senate to establish a smaller assembly of wiser, cooler heads to assess the legislation of the far larger House of Representatives before allowing any of it to become law.

Delegates sharply disputed giving each state an equal number of votes in either chamber before they reached a compromise allowing all states two members each in the Senate, while representation in the House of Representatives would be proportionate.

James Madison and other delegates supported this arrangement once they were left with the choice of enacting a Constitution with this clause or leaving Philadelphia with empty hands. Their vote for it was grudgingly given.

Too often, you must wonder if many members of the Senate are deliberately insulting the memory of the Constitution’s framers with their behavior.

While Dodd certainly did not call for abolishing the Senate, he contradicted himself by affirming that the Senate in practice today is too often not the Senate envisioned by Madison.

Dodd said, “Our electoral system is a mess. Powerful financial interests, free to throw money about with little transparency, have corrupted the basic principles underlying our representative democracy. And, as a result, our political system at the federal level is completely dysfunctional.

“…Intense partisan polarization has raised the stakes in every debate and on every vote, making it difficult to lose with grace, and nearly impossible to compromise without cost.”

The cost of the tax compromise will be $700 billion each year to extend tax cuts for our wealthiest citizens.

The senator, who has represented Connecticut for the last 30 years, also said: “The Senate was designed to be different, not simply for the sake of variety, but because the framers believed the Senate could and should be the venue in which statesmen would lift America up to meet its unique challenges.

“The history of this young democracy, the framers decided, should not be written solely in the hand of the political majority. In a nation founded in revolution against tyrannical rule, which sought to crush dissent, there should be one institution that would always provide a space where dissent was valued and respected.”

Huh? In one breath he is saying the Senate structure is being abused, and in the next breath he is repeating the vision that Madison and his fellow framers held for the Senate.

So what is the point of keeping the Senate, or at least the Senate as we know it?

I cannot see any point. The very kind of partisan bickering that consumes the House of Representatives is prevalent in the Senate over most of the same issues. Even if we keep the Senate, its very structure and process requires some fundamental changes.

At the current rate, I would concur with any detractor that little will ever change. However, it is critical that we lay out what is wrong with the system because these are obstacles that prevent any progress.

To change policy, we almost definitely need to change the system.

I imagine that anyone concerned about progressive issues would be frightened if the Senate was abolished this January since Democrats will still be in the majority, while Republicans will control the House.

However, in any future election the Republicans could rule both chambers or, if we only had the House, Democrats might be in control.

As it stands now, we just expend lots of time and effort that end in deadlock and/or bad bargains.

If the Senate was eliminated, its extra responsibilities such as appointing Supreme Court justices and ratifying treaties can be transferred to the House.

In addition, the 100 seats taken from the Senate could be added to the House. That would at least guarantee far more representation in the House. This could benefit progressive causes since Republicans would lose some of the more liberal segments of their congressional districts.

As I have conceded, this will probably never happen. Even so, the Senate must still change. The most obvious problem is the filibuster. The Senate will likely be asked to consider changes that would at least weaken the filibuster, allowing debate to end within a reasonable amount of time.

If it was not for the filibuster, Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont would not have needed to conduct his own filibuster of sorts. Unlike many of his colleagues, Sanders views his job as a civic duty, not as an instrument for political calculations. He should be the standard, not the exception.

We will find out early next month what the Senate does.

The most overriding obstacle to accomplishing anything in Congress is the composition of the Senate. Every state is allowed the same number of senators, no matter how many Americans are affected by its decisions.

A rough estimate shows that the 57 Democrats and two independents represent more than 200 million Americans, and next month they will still represent slightly less than 190 million. Republicans will represent roughly 116 million Americans.

New York and California’s four senators, all Democrats, represent a combined one-sixth of the nation’s population.

Even when Republicans held the majority of seats in the Senate, they often fell short of representing the majority of the population.

In 1787, delegates from New Jersey, Maryland and Delaware adamantly contested proportionate representation in either the House or the Senate because they feared large states like Virginia, Pennsylvania and Massachusetts would control the agenda.

As many readers may recall, the Connecticut delegates proposed the famed “Connecticut Compromise” to elect House members on a proportionate basis and allow each state two representatives in the Senate. The Connecticut plan was ignored for four or five weeks until the delegates quietly adopted it in a close vote on July 16.

Madison and four other advocates of proportionate representation buried the issue on July 17 when they learned that no other large-state delegates felt strongly about the matter.

Today, New Jersey outranks Virginia in the population rankings, respectively 11th and 12th, and Massachusetts is 15th and Maryland is 19th. While Delaware ranks 45th, its interests align far more closely with the larger and more progressive states than with the conservative states, many of which are ranked lower in population.

Nine out of 10 senators from those five states are Democrats, and Republican Scott Brown broke Massachusetts’ Democratic streak in the Senate last January in an off-off year election. Democrats still retained all 10 House seats on Nov. 2.

If the Nov. 2 election does not bear out Delaware’s political leanings, I cannot what would. My search for comprehending that is quite bewitching.

It is always possible for a collection of the smaller states to control the Senate. Actually, this is about an ideological combination of smaller states with senators from large conservative states, such as Texas, and swing states like Pennsylvania.

We can hope that moderates and liberals constitute a majority of the Senate, but there are no guarantees.

Most importantly, the Senate would at least become more democratic if the states are represented on a more proportionate basis. If we maintain a 100-seat chamber, the smaller states would need to lose one senator and some larger states would be represented by more than two senators.

Texas would benefit as well as California and New York, while divergent ideological states like Vermont and Wyoming - respectively, 49th and 50th in the rankings - would each be represented by one senator.

If Sanders is the odd man out in Vermont, perhaps he can simply set up residence across Lake Champlain on the New York state side and run for a new Senate vacancy there. After all, he grew up in Brooklyn.

The amendment process works against changing the structure of the Senate, but changing the system is a prerequisite to changing policy.

Maybe we’ll get more people like Sanders in the Senate.

The new House dummies

As an African-American role model, Allen West must be advising the average black teenager to be a “bayonet.”

Andy Harris asserts that employees should be granted health insurance on their first day on the job, but not for those who are out of work.

If their names are not already familiar to you, you have probably guessed that they are Republicans. In fact, both will become members of Congress next month.

They have already distinguished themselves as hard-right conservatives not ready for prime time. Because Republicans have the majority in the House of Representatives, vulnerable citizens may have to pay for their decisions.

They both ousted incumbent Democrats, West in south Florida and Harris on the eastern shore of Maryland. With these and other episodes, Harris and West tripped a political trap door suggesting that they are hypocritical, incompetent amateurs.

It is true that the majority of voters in their congressional districts put them in office, but they could be considered products of the system - the unrelenting two-party system that leaves little elbow room for independent candidates.

West launched his political career when he made an impromptu speech at a Fort Lauderdale Tea Party rally in 2009 which was viewed by more than 2.3 million times on YouTube, The Washington Post reported.

His words: “You better get your butts out there and understand it’s a fight, and you better fight for America. You need to leave here understanding one simple word and that word is ‘bayonet.’ You need to leave here and charge this enemy for your freedom.”

Bayonet? He joined some bizarre company like Sarah Palin who employ militaristic terms when criticizing political leaders. The word “bayonet” took on a new layer of meaning when he told a Washington Post reporter: “One of the implied responsibilities that I do have as a black member up here is to be a role model and an example.”

Just what is he telling inner-city black teenagers from broken homes who commit crimes? White people who are on constant alert for young black criminals might conclude that he is urging black teens to use longer, sharper knives.

Of course, using the word “bayonet” in any political context is plain reckless irresponsible. Connecting it to his Washington Post quote makes the reference utterly stupid and ridiculous.

Harris has campaigned to repeal the Affordable Care Act which will plug part of the gap in providing health insurance for those who do not have it. According to The Baltimore Sun, Harris denounced the public option “as a gateway to socialized medicine” during a debate on the health-care law.

Less than two weeks after being elected to Congress, Harris attended a briefing on employee benefits for new members of Congress, staff aides and family members where he questioned why he must wait a month for his new health insurance coverage to start, according to Politico, a Capitol Hill newspaper.

He said, “This is the only employer I’ve ever worked for where you don’t get coverage the first day you are employed (as quoted in Politico).”

An unidentified congressional staffer told Politico that Harris reacted “incredulously” when told he would not receive coverage on Jan. 3 when the new Congress is sworn in.

There is more to the incident, but Harris’ question was sufficient to prompt 59 House Democrats - including three of his fellow Marylanders - to sign a letter blasting Republicans for hypocrisy.

The Baltimore Sun reported that in a letter to Republican congressional leaders, they professed surprise that Harris, who was not identified by name, “would complain about not having health care coverage for a few weeks, even after campaigning to repeal the Affordable Care Act, which will help provide coverage to millions of Americans who find themselves without health insurance for months or even years.

“You cannot enroll in the very kind of coverage that you want for yourselves, and then turn around and deny it to Americans who don’t happen to be members of Congress.”

West and Harris’ constituents have the right to vote for these guys, but we can readily question their wisdom in doing so.

One culprit is our two-party system. Obviously, those who voted Republican were disappointed with the Democrats’ track record. They did not believe that President Obama exercised sufficient leadership, or they were fearful of the economy’s future, or they felt desperate about ongoing unemployment.

Democrats lost some Jewish votes, probably because of their view that Obama has at times been abrasive to Israeli leaders. While Israel has been in the wrong at times, I was personally concerned about the president’s approach.

West, who has hawkish views on Israel, probably attracted Jewish votes that were previously cast for Democrats; his district takes in parts of Fort Lauderdale and Boca Raton.

These who voted Republican had legitimate concerns, though they might have had doubts about their final choice. What was their alternative? They wanted to send a message to the Democrats and they were left a single option.

Most independents would come in a distant third because they are weakened by the winner-take-all system. A runoff system, probably Instant Runoff Voting, would have provided voters with three or more choices who would have a better chance of winning.

Moderate and liberal voters also had various reasons to worry about Democratic positions. However, they usually stick with the Democrats because they fully expect the Republicans to be much worse.

So far, two new members of Congress are quite clueless.

Shape of political map not so gloomy

“Americans spoke out in a clear repudiation of Washington and elected leaders who refuse to listen to the people.”

Which Americans? Americans who voted in San Francisco hardly repudiated their congresswoman. Nancy Pelosi, departing Speaker of the House of Representatives, received 80 percent of the vote on Nov. 2.

John Boehner, incoming Speaker of the House and author of the statement above, received 66 percent of the vote from Americans who live in Cincinnati’s northern suburbs, which is about par for a congressman who has served for 20 years.

In his home state of Ohio, Boehner sure outdid Bill Johnson, a fellow Republican who eked out a victory with 50 percent of the vote. Democrat Marcia Fudge outdid all her Ohio colleagues in the House with 82 percent. Representing a suburban Cleveland district, Fudge has only been in office for two years.

It does count that Republicans now control the House and plan all kinds of mischief. However, they do not represent all Americans. They may not even represent the majority of Americans.

A check of an electoral map courtesy of The New York Times shows that districts in the heartland - what many easterners condescendingly refer to as flyover country - are heavily represented by Republicans, even before the Nov. 2 shake-up.

In America’s coastal sections, you are not in Kansas any more, John Boehner. Few districts on the West Coast or in the Northeast flipped. Especially, most districts in the big cities and their close-in suburbs remained in Democratic hands, though there were disturbing failings.

While Republicans made gains in the Senate, Democratic senators were re-elected in the first and third most populous states (California and New York) while Republicans kept a Senate seat in Florida, fourth most populous state. However, Marco Rubio benefited from a split vote between a moderate independent and a liberal Democrat.

Republicans were elected to Senate seats in Illinois and Pennsylvania, fifth and sixth most populous, but with narrow margins. Democrats also held onto Senate seats in the Northeast and West Coast states of Washington, Oregon, Connecticut, Maryland and Delaware. Not to mention hotly contested races in Colorado, Nevada and West Virginia.

Nine months after Republican Scott Brown won a traditional Democratic Senate seat, Massachusetts Democrats held onto all 10 House seats while Democrats in Connecticut kept all five House seats.

Maryland Democrats lost a congressional seat, but they will still represent six of the state’s eight districts. Delaware’s lone representative will be a Democrat who won the seat vacated by Mike Castle, a popular Republican, so he could run for the Senate. Maybe some readers heard of Christine O’Donnell, who trounced Castle in the Republican Senate primary.

The most gaping conclusion one can reach from checking the electoral map is the difference in political choice between Americans who live in and around major metropolitan areas and many of those who do not.

All told, Democrats in January will represent 22 congressional districts and Republicans seven districts in New York City and its suburbs in Connecticut, New Jersey and Long Island, and Westchester and Rockland counties in New York state. One district, which covers eastern Long Island, is undecided at this writing.

The big cities and their immediate suburbs comprise a mix of masses of poor and vulnerable citizens, the middle-class and the wealthy - the super-wealthy, for that matter.

If the rich want their taxes reduced so sharply, why do they continue to elect Democrats like Henry Waxman to represent Beverly Hills, Carolyn Maloney for Manhattan’s Upper East Side and recently Jim Himes for Greenwich and Westport in Connecticut’s Fairfield County? We’re talking about three of the wealthiest districts in the country.

In the city, a Republican narrowly won back the district covering Staten Island and part of Brooklyn, but Democrats held onto all other districts in the city. Staten Island was previously represented by Republicans for many years.

In the suburbs, Republican Nan Hayworth handily beat incumbent Democrat John Hall in the district covering portions of counties north of New York. Hayworth won all the counties in her district but northern Westchester, the principal suburban county immediately north of the city. Hayworth lives in Mt. Kisco, also home to Governor-elect Andrew Cuomo, which is in Westchester. Hall lives in the northern end of the district, in Dutchess County.

While Hayworth won part of Rockland County, the rest of Rockland and Westchester counties will continue to be represented by Democrats Nita Lowey and Eliot Engel.

However, Republicans will represent the majority of suburban voters around Philadelphia after flipping three districts in Pennsylvania and New Jersey. All three Democratic representatives from Philadelphia were re-elected.

In the Philadelphia races, Bob Brady ran unopposed while Chaka Fattah was re-elected with 89 percent of the vote. This was part of an intriguing pattern where many Democrats representing urban districts received 80 percent or more of the votes. A number of Republicans, mostly in Texas, could also claim such heavy victories.

All-time champion for winning representatives of either party was Jose E. Serrano of the south Bronx at 95 percent. In New York City alone, he was followed by Nydia Velazquez, 93 percent; Edolphus Towns, 91 percent; Yvette Clark, 90 percent; and three others at 80 percent or more. Charles Rangel, who was convicted of ethics offenses by a congressional committee, received 80 percent. Thought you wanted to know since we’re on the subject.

Most of the 80 percent or above Democrats are Latinos, African-Americans or whites who represent districts where racial minority groups comprise the majority. As a white Jewish male, I am in the minority in Bob Brady’s district. Brady, who is white, is also the city’s Democratic leader.

A final pattern: Some of the victorious Republicans won with very narrow margins, though some Democrats also eked out their wins.

It is not so significant that Democrats fared better than it might appear, but that moderate and liberal citizens want candidates who will represent their concerns.

Four independent candidates could claim such support. Lincoln Chafee, an independent and lapsed Republican, was elected governor of Rhode Island. Independent candidates for governor in Maine and senator in Florida performed well and might have won if not for the winner-take-all voting system in their states. Sen. Lisa Murkowski, while a longtime Republican, represented Alaska’s middle by beating Republican nominee Joe Miller, an ultra-conservative Tea Party candidate, through write-in votes.

Many independent voters who supported Republicans had only Democrats and Republicans to choose between. They probably recognized that, from their viewpoint, they voted for the lesser of the evils.

Fortunately, the shape of politics in America is not as evil as it might seem.

A preferred way to elect our leaders

Peter LePage could not convince the majority of his neighbors in Waterville to elect him governor of Maine.

The Republican candidate who suggested he would tell President Obama to “go to hell” received 2,306 votes in Waterville while his main rivals - independent Eliot Cutler and Democrat Libby Mitchell - received 1,521 and 1,484 votes, respectively, overtaking LePage with more than 3,000 votes.

Statewide, Cutler, Mitchell and two other independent candidates shared 62 percent of the vote. LePage, who is mayor of Waterville, received 38 percent; Cutler, 37 percent; and Mitchell, 19 percent.

The Maine election was among at least five three-way or more state races - also, Florida, Alaska, Rhode Island and South Dakota - that were vulnerable to a gloomy outcome because two alike candidates might cancel each other out.

This kind of outcome is nothing new. A check of presidential election results - reaching back more than two centuries - produces some amazing nuggets of information. George Washington, who probably made enemies during his first term, was re-elected to his second term in 1792 with 50 percent of the electoral college votes. John Adams took 25.7 percent of the electoral vote in 1796 to win his only term as president, and was turned out of office in 1800 by his vice president, Thomas Jefferson, who received 26.4 percent of the electoral vote.

Only electoral college vote totals were available for the early presidential elections.

Abraham Lincoln received 39.6 percent of the popular vote in 1860. Woodrow Wilson, a Democrat, was elected in 1912 with 41.8 percent as incumbent Republican president William Taft and Progressive Party ex-president Theodore Roosevelt split most of the remainder of the vote, respectively 27 percent and 23 percent.

Harry Truman’s election was threatened in 1948, leading to the infamous “Dewey defeats Truman” headline, but it is rarely if ever mentioned that two liberals and a conservative shaved votes from both Truman, the Democrat, and Republican Thomas Dewey. Truman presumably lost more votes to the independent candidates. Truman won 49.5 percent of the votes to Dewey’s 45 percent. Strom Thurmond, the longtime Republican senator, won 2.4 percent while Socialist candidate Norman Thomas took 4.7 percent and Progressive hopeful Henry Wallace, who preceded Truman as vice president, won 2.3 percent.

Whether anyone is pleased or furious with the results on Nov. 2, all five elections scream for a new system of electing the people who could make life-or-death decisions affecting our fates.

Political reform organizations have been promoting a system called Instant Runoff Voting that allows the election of a candidate to receive the majority vote in a race with multiple rivals.

Under this system, roughly, a voter casts a ballot for his preferred candidate (Candidate A) and then votes for other candidates in order of preference. Let’s say his second preference is Candidate B.

The first result leaves no candidate with a majority, but Candidate C has the top spot with a plurality of 40 percent. The voter’s first preference, Candidate A, has 20 percent and Candidate B has 33 percent. His vote for A is transferred to B and, if most voters think this way then B will win with 53 percent of the vote.

Because Maine employs the winner-take-all system, its next governor can now follow through with his intent to tell the president to “go to hell.” Paul LePage, the Republican, was elected with 38 percent of the vote while his two closest opponents shared 56 percent.

“Three is a crowd in our current voting system,” reads a description posted by the Center for Voting and Democracy. “Plurality voting, in which the candidate with the most votes win, is dysfunctional when more than two candidates run.

“It promotes zero-sum politics that discourage new candidates, suppress new ideas and encourage negative campaigns rather than inclusive efforts to build consensus.”

The Center for Voting and Democracy further clarifies how IRV works: “IRV allows voters to rank candidates in order of preference. Voters have the option to rank as many or as few candidates as they wish, but can vote without fear that ranking less favored candidates will harm the chances of their most preferred candidates.

“First choices are then tabulated, and if a candidate receives a majority of first choices, he or she is elected. If nobody has a clear majority of votes on the first count, a series of runoffs are simulated, using each voter’s preferences indicated on the ballot.

“The weakest candidates are successively eliminated and their voters’ ballots are redistributed to next choices until a candidate earns a majority of votes.”

Instant Runoff Voting is currently employed to elect mayors and other officials in San Francisco, Minneapolis, Aspen, Colo., Takoma Park, Md., and London, England, according to the Center for Voting and Democracy.

Australians have elected its House of Representatives this way since 1949 and Ireland has elected its president since 1922 with IRV.

Instant Runoff Voting offers voters many advantages that genuinely makes democracy come alive. Most importantly, IRV precludes the election of the least-desired major candidate. Of course, determining who is least desirable is a subjective matter.

This concern played out in Maine. It is safe to speculate that Cutler would have left LePage in the dust if the state employed Instant Runoff Voting. There were media reports of voters saying they did not want LePage as governor, but nonetheless he is now governor-elect.

IRV would also eliminate petty maneuvering among the candidates, as occurred in Florida’s three-way tug-of-war between Marco Rubio, Charlie Crist and Kendrick Meek.

Rubio, a tea-party candidate who won the Republican nomination, ultimately won with 49 percent of the vote while Crist, running as an independent, took 30 percent and Meek, the Democrat, received 20 percent. To give Rubio credit, he came awfully close to a majority vote while Crist and Meek eked out a combination of the majority.

However, Crist probably would have clobbered either Rubio or Meek in a head-to-head contest. He has emerged as a popular governor whose politics has been vague. Between the three candidates, he came as close to representing the center while Meek would support the liberal Democratic agenda. Of course, Rubio represented the far right.

Meek, a little-known congressman representing Broward and Miami-Dade counties, had never caught fire as a candidate and it was questionable if an African-American could win statewide office in Florida even if he ran one-on-one against Rubio.

The choice was a dilemma for moderates and liberals. Progressives who preferred Meek considered voting for Crist because a split vote would leave Rubio with the job. As the election progressed, even some black Democrats wanted Meek to drop out. Bill Clinton had some talks with Meek, though both denied that Clinton asked him to or demanded that he quit the race and endorse Crist.

The polls were less favorable for Rubio than the end result. His polls never exceeded 45 percent. However, it is likely that the ongoing conflict over Crist and Meek’s chances overshadowed the entire election. Maybe independents who might have voted for Crist were turned off by this sideshow and decided to vote for Rubio.

This system affords voters a greater opportunity to elect independent candidates to office. Lincoln Chafee was elected governor of Rhode Island under the traditional system four years after voters unceremoniously dumped him as senator.

Chafee was a Republican in the Senate, where he seemed to fear that Dick Cheney would spank him if he misbehaved. As a northeastern state, Rhode Island was trending away from the Republican Party in part because of President Bush’s policies, so Chafee’s defeat appeared to be inevitable. Chafee, a decent guy who clearly found his situation during the Bush years distasteful, subsequently quit the Republican Party and ran as an independent this year.

However, Chafee only took 36 percent of the vote this time. The Republican won 34 percent and the Democrat 23 percent. Chafee probably would have received a majority vote if IRV kicked in, but there was no IRV to kick in. He barely rose above the one-third point.

Independents have won elsewhere, but they were usually prominent and/or wealthy people who managed to win overcome the existing system. IRV would have opened up elections to candidates who are less known and have limited treasuries.

Alaska - hardly Sarah Palin’s Alaska - ultimately dumped Joe Miller, who ousted incumbent Sen. Lisa Murkowski in the Republican primary. She returned as a write-in candidate, running against both Miller and the obscure Democrat, Scott McAdams. Democrats hoped that Murkowski and Miller would split the Republican and/or conservative vote, leaving McAdams with a winning plurality. Even without IRV, Murkowski won handily. If IRV was in place, it is a safe bet that Murkowski would have been elected by a majority vote.

The South Dakota outcome should leave us wondering what would have happened had IRV been employed. Democratic Rep. Stephanie Sandlin was ousted by Republican Kristi Noem, 48 to 46 percent. Independent Thomas Marking received 6 percent of the vote.

No question that Marking’s voters wanted neither major-party candidate representing them in Congress. If they had a choice to list a second preference, would they have viewed the Democrat or the Republican as the lesser of the evils? IRV might have altered the course of the South Dakota House election.

Senate filibuster can become history

Republicans won control of the House of Representatives, but Democrats won control of the Senate.

Huh? Democrats have held the majority of Senate seats since January 2007, so isn’t that control?

Holding the majority and being in control can be two entirely different matters. Democrats lacked control of the Senate because the filibuster disrupted their agenda. They needed 60 votes to end filibusters, and they frequently watered down bills such as health care reform to pass meaningful legislation.

Now Democrats have an opportunity to water down or eliminate the filibuster, as they are permitted to do on the first day of the legislative session by a majority vote.

If they pass up the opportunity to alter the filibuster and other Senate rules, they are hopeless imbeciles.

Senate rules can be changed by a majority when the next session of Congress opens in early January.

After the trouble the filibuster has caused President Obama’s agenda, it makes sense that the surviving Democratic majority would change the Senate rules applying to the filibuster at its first opportunity.

It is remarkable that the Senate created the filibuster because it disregards the will of the majority.

Under the Constitution, the Senate and the House are authorized to create their own rules. The Senate Web site reports that the filibuster became popular during the 1850’s, but it is unclear how it originated.

Interestingly, some delegates to the Constitutional Convention in 1787 occasionally suggested measures requiring more than a majority in Congress.

Democrats signaled earlier this year that they might move on the filibuster and other rules. A Senate committee was holding hearings on this concern.

Possibly the Democrats’ first inclination would be to amend the filibuster process to ensure that it does not obstruct legislation in any acute way. The filibuster might block movement for a short amount of time, but otherwise the filibuster would be rendered ineffective.

The Democrats probably fear that any change in Senate rules will provoke criticism, especially from Republicans. So what? The Republicans are on the attack no matter what the Democrats do.

The idea of amending rather than ending the filibuster would limit political fallout, but Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and friends should not worry about it. They should merely do what is best for the nation.

If they do not act against the filibuster and other Senate rules, they will pay for their omission every time they introduce a bill or the president nominates someone for a White House position or judicial seat.

However, Norman Ornstein, resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute offered this measure in a New York Times op-ed last Aug. 28: “The Senate could replace the majority’s responsibility to end debate with the minority’s responsibility to keep it going.

“It would work like this: for the first four weeks of debate, the Senate would operate under the old rules, in which the majority has to find enough senators to vote for cloture. Once that time has elapsed, the debate would automatically end unless the minority could assemble 40 senators to continue it.”

Ornstein emphasizes that the filibuster is useful, and his proposal would allow the filibuster to be put to proper use without being abused. “It gives the minority party the power to block hasty legislation and force a debate on what it considers matters of national significance,” he writes.

If Ornstein’s idea can work, the Democrats might be able to try it. However, does the debate need to extend to four weeks? Isn’t it possible that the Republicans will assemble those 40 senators just to spite the majority?

We may not be sure about its origin, but we know the cost of the filibuster only too well.

The McCain qualifier

Meghan McCain, 26, whose father chose Sarah Palin as his running mate in 2008, slammed Christine O’Donnell’s qualifications as a Senate candidate during an interview on ABC News’ “This Week” on Sunday, Oct. 15.

She proclaimed, “She has no real history, no real success in any kind of business. What that sends to my generation is, one day, you can just wake up and run for Senate, no matter how (much of a lack of experience) you have.”

I would certainly not vote for O’Donnell, but she still has the constitutional right to run for office. One day, Meghan will be able to wake up one day and run for the Senate - when she turns 30. She can now run for the House of Representatives (25 is the minimum age) and at 35 she can run for president.

She can even compete with her father for the Republican nomination…in 2020. Or she can run against dad in the general election as a Democrat or of another party.

When the delegates convened for the Constitutional Convention in 1787, they demanded very little of candidates for the presidency, the House and the Senate. They only need to meet certain age requirements and to live in their state on election day. Candidates for Congress must live in this country for so many years and, as we all know, a candidate for president must be born in this country.

This last requirement alienated Frank Costanza, George’s father on Seinfeld, who emigrated from Italy to Queens. Played by Jerry Stiller, Frank one day declares: “That’s why I could never become president. That’s also why, from an early age, I never had any interest in politics. They don’t want me, I don’t want them.”

Practically speaking, both qualified and unqualified candidates get nominated and elected to office. It is the right and responsibility of the people to decide who is suited for public office, and very often the public makes both exceptional and dreadful choices.

Most people would gamble their life savings on Democrat Chris Coons wiping out O’Donnell, a Republican, in the Delaware Senate election on Tuesday.

If Meghan wants to do this right, she might start a drive to amend the Constitution to add requirements for qualifications. Her father would be easily disqualified if the qualifications cover even temperament, courtesy to colleagues and…drum roll, please…judgment in their choice of vice presidential running mates.

We will never forget when her dad, Sen. John McCain, picked Palin to run for vice president in the presidential election. We also will never forget what McCain gave us.

The question of qualifications is intriguing. Some people would automatically demand an IQ test. More conservative citizens may well set a quota on graduates of Eastern Seaboard universities like Yale, Harvard and Princeton.

It is worth considering a set of qualifications not only for presidential candidates but also congressional hopefuls. It would be awfully hard to determine qualifications on which most Americans can concur.

However, three related issues come to mind which deserve consideration.

Recall when Hillary Clinton ran for senator of New York? Critics piled on that she was moving from Arkansas to New York as sort of a carpetbagger in reverse. She was criticized for running for the Senate almost immediately after moving into the state.

It is legitimate for anyone to wonder if she was taking advantage of New Yorkers to establish a political career. After all, Clinton must have understood that New Yorkers would be more accepting of her political views than Arkansans.

In West Virginia this year, Republican Senate candidate John Raese divides his time between West Virginia and Palm Beach. His children attend school in Palm Beach and his wife is registered to vote in Florida, not West Virginia.

Maybe he plans to divide his time between Palm Beach and Washington, D.C., if he is elected senator.

Residency requirements for congressional candidates should be expanded. Candidates must demonstrate a basic commitment to the state they want to represent or govern. That can only be guaranteed by enactment of strong law or amendment of the Constitution.

They should live in their adopted state for a specific number of years, probably between three to five years. Anyone living in his residence must be registered to vote in the state that s/he seeks to represent.

We should also consider whether a House member should live in the congressional district that s/he represents.

My representative, Democrat Bob Brady, lives in Philadelphia, but a different section. Brady has served his constituents well and he certainly understands the needs of the congressional district, which are primarily the same in the district where he lives.

In addition, there is always the potential that a member of Congress can be redistricted out of their district. S/he could be representing, and living in, a congressional district for decades and then the state legislature changes the district’s boundaries separate from the town or street where the congressperson lives.

It just seems peculiar that a member of Congress lives outside his/her district no matter how effective, qualified and experienced s/he might be.

The provision requiring presidential candidates can be safely overturned. Two governors who are barred from running for president can probably be trusted for loyalty to America just as much as any other politician here.

Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm moved from Vancouver, Canada, to California when she was 4 years old and later moved to Michigan. Her husband is a Michigan native.

California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger moved from Austria to Los Angeles more than 40 years ago and has been an American citizen for more than 25 years. As a movie superstar, he has been a taxation bonanza and he contributes to charitable causes.

Besides, the United States is at peace with both Austria and Canada for the moment.

For those who want to assure that Schwarzenegger cannot be elected president, we can submit this provision: no mangled Austrian accents in the Oval Office.

Constitutional path to end institutional homophobia

Keeping track of political news developments as the Nov. 2 elections approach has been alternately amusing and depressing.

At home, the lunatic vote threatens to prevail because the looniest collection of candidates for congressional and governor races are actually being taken seriously by voters.

Foreign tyrants who are not tied down by trivial things such as a system of checks and balances persist in murdering, torturing and jailing their own citizens.

Two episodes, foreign and domestic, left me with a smile. First, a brave, earnest Chinese scholar named Liu Xiaobo was awarded the 2010 Nobel Peace Prize on Friday, Oct. 8. Chinese rulers were, to say the least, upset.

In California, a federal judge ordered our government to immediately end its witch hunts that would finish with the expulsion of military servicepersons because they are homosexuals.

The oppression that is routine fare in Iran, China and elsewhere should offer stark contrast to the liberty we enjoy here, but oppression has always existed in the United States. It is a matter of degree.

America’s system of government debuted as a bad bargain when the first post-Constitution Congress convened on March 4, 1789, at New York’s then-City Hall across a narrow street from what is now the New York Stock Exchange. George Washington, who owned slaves on his plantation outside Alexandria, Va., was inaugurated as our first president on April 30.

The continuation of slavery was the worst element of the bad bargain, but it was not the only flawed feature. The electoral college which selected the president made sense for its time, but now it is anachronistic and plainly a form of tyranny. The amendment process renders the system nearly impervious to substantial progress.

The second worst was the system of representation. While the House of Representatives is based on proportional representation, the Senate allows equal representation for every state at two senators each. This political arrangement has obstructed progress and maintained a massive system of institutional racism.

Cities like New York City and Los Angeles, populated by masses of vulnerable people, were shortchanged because they are part of large states which have limited clout in the Senate, since they have no more voting power than states with far smaller populations.

Institutional racism is really a flawed term, as “racism” could generically encompass the full range of prejudices. That would include homophobia.

Judge Virginia A. Phillips left me with reason to smile after the Federal District judge on Oct. 12 ordered the Pentagon to cease and desist from administering the “don’t ask, don’t tell” law that bars openly gay citizens from serving in the military.

The 17-year-old law prohibits the military from asking members of the service if they are gay, but these service members will risk expulsion if they disclose their sexual orientation. That improves on the longterm policy of banning military service for gays altogether.

Yet even “don’t ask, don’t tell” violates the civil rights of fellow Americans who are willing to risk their lives for the rest of us.

Phillips, whose court is located in Riverside, Calif., wrote almost exactly that. She said the policy “infringes the fundamental rights of United States service members and prospective service members” and violates their rights of due process and freedom of speech, The New York Times reported.

She was telling it straight, no pun intended. They are citizens who have all the rights of heterosexuals.

This law also infringes on all our lives since millions of our tax dollars are spent to train service members. Veteran nurses have been expelled as have students at a language school in Monterey, Calif. The Times reports that 12,500 homosexuals have been discharged under the law since 1993.

President Obama’s reaction has been bizarre. He opposes this law and wants Congress to repeal it. Sen. John McCain said the Republicans will filibuster any repeal at this time. The GOP is in the minority and yet they are authorized to block legislation supported by the Senate majority.

Obama’s people persist in appealing the judge’s ruling to a higher court. They claim they are duty bound to defend laws enacted by Congress.

What will happen if the White House drops the case? Will Congress impeach him? Of course, the Democrats would never impeach Obama and the Republicans would find any excuse to impeach him if they retake control of Congress.

In another strange twist, the Pentagon announced that it will accept applications from openly gay recruits.

How does this work? The courts have begun the process of moving back and forth between suspending and enforcing the law. If a recruit joins the service now, making it known that s/he is gay, then the next day they can be discharged if the law is in effect.

The president predicts that the law will be repealed “on my watch.” How? Ultimately, the Supreme Court could rule in favor of keeping the law, so we cannot count on them.

If Democrats retain control of both houses of Congress, they will be positioned to change the Senate rules to ensure that the filibuster does not threaten the majority vote. Of course, the Republicans may wish to end the filibuster because it threatens their policies.

The twists never end, do they?

Shouting Koran-burn in a crowded Ground Zero

The mosque flap morphed from ugly to silly two days before the ninth anniversary of the travesty which left 3,000 Americans dead.

By late Thursday afternoon, Sept. 9, The Rev. Terry Jones announced that he canceled his Koran-burning bonfire near Gainesville, Fla., after Secretary of Defense Robert Gates phoned him - on condition that the planned mosque and Islamic cultural center will be moved further away from Ground Zero.

Whew! We were saved from a spectacle that will surely incite more Muslims in the Middle East who will kill American soldiers and other infidels.

In the next nanosecond or two, a Mosque backer retorted that no such condition was established.

The mosque plan is still a go. In fact, Team Mosque stressed that relocating the center would look as if they were backing down, which would also infuriate the Muslim world.

So, we are talking about two situations in which the sponsors have the right to do whatever they want because they own the properties and, with one relatively minor exception, they are both abiding by the law.

This mosque business raises questions about our freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment and our inherent right to do whatever we want so long as we harm nobody else.

Most of the questions afford such easy responses that they expose how absurd this controversy has become.

For the record, I wish the mosque is moved, but I also recognize their right to build it on their property. The same for Jones, though I find the idea of Koran-burning dumb and disgusting.

The single intriguing question: You plan to take action that is your full right, yet you have strong reason to believe that it will provoke other individuals to harm innocent people. How do we address this situation?

Certainly, we will insist upon self-control. Mr. Jones, your action is reckless and depraved. You are placing our sons and daughters in uniform at risk of their lives. Be sensible, man.

Failing this, what about a law to bar such actions? True, this is free speech, or rather freedom of expression. However, this minister clearly planned to commit an act that he knew would endanger lives. Couldn’t a case be made that this would be a form of reckless endangerment? After all, Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes stated in an opinion he wrote that “falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater and causing a panic” could not be considered free speech.

The crowded-theater scenario is not just a free-speech issue. Upon hearing the alert of a fire, the theater patrons will believe they are in immediate danger and might very well trample each other to escape death. The offender should know this.

The Koran-burning hardly sets off immediate danger. Jones was made fully aware that Muslims around the world would be so offended that they will kill people associated with the West.

I don’t buy it as a form of reckless endangerment. The Islamists have free will. It is they who are creating the dangers, not Jones.

At best, you could argue this as a form of indirect reckless endangerment. Jones burns the Koran and many Muslims attack innocent people. No, too much of a stretch. Way too much of a stretch.
My only caveat is that setting fire to any kind of printed material could potentially endanger lives and property. Even a controlled fire might somehow get out of control.

However, any form of desecration of the Koran is a person’s right so long as it is his Koran.

An interesting tidbit: Holmes applied the theater-fire rule when he wrote a unanimous opinion upholding the conviction of an American socialist for urging draft-age men to defy orders to join the army during World War I.

Holmes contended that this call to resist would jeopardize the war effort. I have heard far worse during the Vietnam war and subsequent wars. Holmes backed away from this attitude in at least two subsequent opinions.

The Gainesville controversy led directly to a comparable flap when Derek Fenton, a New Jersey Transit employee, was fired two days after he tore up pages from the Koran outside the mosque site and burned them with a lighter. NJT released a statement claiming that Fenton, who worked at NJT for 11 years, “violated New Jersey Transit’s code of ethics” and “violated his trust as a state employee,” according to the Associated Press.

Not only was Fenton, 39, acting as a private citizen but he also took this action in another state. Maybe he Not only was Fenton, 39, acting as a private citizen but he also took this action in another state. Maybe he could be seen from across the Hudson River in Jersey City.

The civil liberties take on this, as quoted in The New York Daily News, was expressed by Democratic New Jersey state Sen. Raymond Lesniak: “So long as his actions, however misguided, took place on his own time, and he was not acting in his capacity as a representative of NJ Transit but as an American exercising his constitutional rights, then the agency is clearly in the wrong.”

Finally, The Boston Globe carried this letter by Annette Thomas of Clarkston, Mich.:

“I was at a bookstore, and the manager told me a man had just attempted to purchase the Koran to burn tomorrow on the anniversary of Sept. 11. The customer’s credit card, thank goodness, was declined.”

As with gun control, maybe we should require background checks for any book patron who seeks to purchase a copy of the Koran.

It already benefits Tea Party ingrates

The Tea Party should be grateful to our founders for the Constitution they shaped, yet it is not good enough for them.

Some of the Constitution’s key provisions invite obstruction of laws and practices that would serve all Americans, especially the most vulnerable. The Constitution’s powers tilt in favor to the elite and the minority of citizens.

It is possible for the least populous states to control the agenda, and in different ways that has happened.

The Chicago Tribune reports that some in the Tea Party movement along with other conservatives seek reconsideration of several constitutional issues. They are right in the sense that the Constitution is in desperate need of review, but their approach is only a regression to a system not much better than King George’s rule.

Their starting point for constitutional revision is the 14th Amendment, which assures citizenship to anyone born in the United States. Members of Congress who created the 14th Amendment had sought to guarantee equal rights for former slaves shortly after the Civil War ended.

It is doubtful if Rep. Thaddeus Stevens of Lancaster, Pa., and his associates foresaw that immigrants would flock here illegally and give birth to children who are automatically deemed citizens of the United States.

That’s a strange situation, of course. Federal authorities could potentially allow children to remain and be afforded an array of public services while their parents are deported.

Not exactly a family-friendly policy.

Anyone vaguely familiar with the process of amending the Constitution recognizes that it is a complicated matter which ultimately requires the consensus of sharply divided constituencies. Even the recognition of motherhood and apple pie could be stopped dead at any point in the process.

Depending on one’s point of view, there does seem to be something wrong with how the 14th Amendment affects immigration. Either the measure can split families apart, or it permits a nice little racket for illegal immigrants to establish roots in the United States.

What we must love about conservative revisionists is their skill at, well, revisionism. Here’s what
Mark Meckler, a co-founder of Tea Party Patriots, pronounces: “The Founding Fathers understood the states created the federal government, and the states should reign supreme. Not the other way around. We are far from that.”

Thirteen of the current 50 states “created the federal government,” and they allowed the federal government momentous powers that naturally superseded state laws wherever state and national laws conflicted. The remaining 37 states could only be admitted to the union by the assent of Congress, so who created whom?

The article also relates that tea party advocates support a return to “founding principles” and adherence to the framers’ original intentions.

When the Constitutional Convention began in May 1787, the foremost principle of the delegates was to establish a framework to effectively govern the new nation without depriving anyone of their freedom. At least, that’s how it started. Some delegates arrived late and others departed early.

By late August, the foremost principle was to get this chore over with and head home. In fact, Richard Beeman’s book chronicling the Constitutional Convention, entitled “Plain, Honest Men: The Making of the American Constitution,” raises questions as to whether the delegates inserted clauses in this much-glorified document just so they could settle minor disagreements swiftly.

As for the concept of original intent, whose original intent? Some delegates sought to end the slave trade while Deep South delegates in particular resisted. The end result was to allow the trade to continue another 20 years.

James Madison and other framers vehemently fought for proportionate representation in both the House of Representatives and the Senate, and representatives of the smaller states - ironically, that faction included New York and New Jersey - demanded equal representation in Congress. The compromise required proportionate representation in the House and allowed each state two senators.

Interestingly, some Tea Partiers now want senators to be chosen by their respective state legislatures, as was originally the case. Plenty is wrong with the Senate’s governing structure, but that’s not one of them.

I can understand why they do not focus on the absence of proportionality in Senate representation. With two senators each, every state has equal clout, which means that the 26 least populous states can conceivably call the shots.

In reality, the problem lies in ideology. More smaller states are conservative than liberal. California and New York - the first and third most populous states, respectively - together comprise one-sixth of the nation’s population; all four senators are Democrats and Democratic presidential candidates regularly have these states locked up.

So, the Tea Party opens with a built-in advantage supplied to them by delegates from the small states and the slave states.

One of their proposed regressive steps is to eliminate the income tax. How would they replace it?

Here’s an idea: Tax states on the basis of the amount of land. Alaska would be in deep trouble.