In a not-particularly-surprising move, Arizona passed a very strict law giving police broad powers to crack down on illegal immigration. Equally unsurprising is the backlash from those who worry that rights will get trampled in the enforcement of this law. The biggest complaint is against the provision allowing police to stop anyone they suspect of being here illegally and have them prove that they are legal residents.

I don’t think anyone can reasonably argue that such authority would never be abused. More disturbingly to me, 60% of people favor this law despite the fact that 58% of people in the same poll believe that the rights of some citizens will be infringed upon by the enforcement of this law. If we assume that all 40% of people who do not favor this law are among the 58% who fear the rights of citizens will be infringed then there is almost 1 in 5 who is willing to infringe on the basic rights of citizens in order to enforce our essentially arbitrary immigration laws.

My own position on immigration is the same as it was nearly three years ago – we’re asking the wrong questions and until we take the time to decide what we believe about the value of immigration for our nation we will never be able to write and enforce coherant laws relating to immigration.

My more conservative friends might wish to blackball me for saying it, but I think the first thing we need to do about the immigration issue is abandon any pretense that we are going to catch all the illegal aliens and send them home. If they are doing nothing except building our country throught their own honest labor then I think we are wasting our time trying to round them up and that is completely unacceptable if it also includes infringing upon the rights of citizens who might be mistaken for illegal immigrants.

On the other hand my few liberal friends will undoubtedly take umbrage with my position that immigration status should be a secondary offence, like seat belt laws (or like seat belt laws used to be in some places). A person should not be stopped simply on suspicion of being illegal but if they are stopped for any other reason they may be required to prove their legal status. Anyone who cannot prove their legal citizenship should be deported for any but the most minor of offenses. Those without a valid and current visa should be deported for any offense.

When minors are picked up for any offense their parents may be required to prove their legal status. Unless one parent was a citizen prior to the child’s birth or both parents are citizens currently, the child should be deported with (or to) any non-citizen parent.

Along with such laws, we should make an easy to get “Citizenship Visa” for those who desire to become citizens. The visa would expire after a set time sufficient to become a citizen and they would be deported if they did not become a citizen within the allotted timeframe. Those who left promptly when the visa expired would be able to apply for another such visa five (or possibly ten) years later while those who overstayed their visa would be denied future opportunities for such visas.

And by the way, the military should not accept anyone who was not a citizen or a holder of a citizenship visa.

Ever since the passage of that rancid piece of legislative sausage labeled health care reform Republicans have been talking about repealing the bill. Some even talk about “repeal and replace” as their goal. Alongside that rhetoric (and that’s pretty much all it is at this point) there has been the action taken by the Attorneys General of many states to file suit against the constitutionality of the bill. My purpose here is not to discuss the issue of health care reform; rather, it is to talk about the differences between these two legal paths out of this reform as well as another path which is fundamentally different—nullification—which thus far has not been actively pursued by most opponents of the bill.

While the battle cry “Repeal it!” is very memorable and effective at rallying the emotions of voters who are willing to admit that this bill simply does not pass the smell test, critics of this approach point out that the chances of repealing this bill are virtually nonexistent. To repeal it while Obama is in office would require 2/3 majorities in both houses of Congress to override his certain veto of any bill to repeal. To wait until after he leaves office, even if he only serves one term assures that passion and energy will almost certainly have cooled enough that Congress would no longer consider a bill to repeal it. Remember, there is nothing so permanent as a temporary government program and by 2012 all the bureacracy related to this “reform” will be entrenched.

The lawsuit from many states over this bill has a higher chance of success because even proponents of the bill recognize that the constitutionality of an individual mandate is highly suspect. Actually, the only way to argue that it is constitutional is to argue that the Constitution itself has no force of law beyond establishing the structure of our multi-level government. While this should be a slam dunk in any court that respects the Constitution as the supreme law of the land, I would not trust our Supreme Court to overturn Congress on a piece of legislation that is this emotionally charged unless the legislation were banning abortion or gay marriage. The fact is that the majority of our Supreme Court justices see the Supreme Court as the supreme law of the land rather than the Constitution.

While repeal and filing suit each presume that the federal government is ultimately sovereign, nullification assumes that ultimately the states are sovereign in our republic. Nullification has been used before, mostly during the first century of our nation’s history while the state governments really remembered that they had a sovereign power within the nation as a whole.

I wrote to my state senator and representative asking about nullification and the response I got was:

I don’t know if there is much appetite within the legislature to nullify the health care bill.

That sounds accurate to me but I think we are cutting off the real power of our system of federalism by ignoring such an opportunity to remind Congress by nullifying this lousy bill that the states remain sovereign on most issues according to the Constitution and that we as states have not forgotten that. Instead we crawl back to the federal government and ask if they might please modify or remove the legislation themselves as if we needed permission to act within the sphere of our established rights as a state.

What has been really interesting to me was not that Bennett recognized how slim his chances are right now (I’ve never thought that he was as ignorant and disconnected from that reality as the necessarily optimistic tone of his campaight might make him appear) but that the commentary from all quarters since he took the shot seems to converge on the fact that not only is Mike Lee the clear frontrunner of all the candidates, but Senator Bennett is probably not even his closest challenger. In the race for second place it appears that Tim Bridgewater is currently in the lead.

Right now as Bennett tries to peel some support away from Lee it may be Bridgewater who is the primary beneficiary instead of Bennett. At the same time, Mike Lee is working his hardest to make sure the race for the Republican nomination ends on May 8th. I’m confident that Mike understands that he can’t count on that result although his position seems very safe to be among the top two if there is a primary.

The Bennett campaign continues to say publicly that they think they have a decent shot and that they are making headway among the delegates. We should expect that kind of public statement from the campaign because any serious candidate must be at least publicly optimistic about their chances or else they have no reason to stay in the race. Consider that, like the Bennett campaign, the official line from the Lee and Bridgewater campaigns is that they are making headway among the delegates. I’m sure if you added all their optimism up it would add to well over 100% of all delegates – and that doesn’t count the optimism from any of the other five candidates.

Along with polls come public discussions such as this one of what the polls actually mean and how the convention will play out. Of course all such discussions are nothing more than guesswork but there are a few facts that can tell us a lot about how long Bennett will hold a seat in the Senate. The first fact is that he needs to receive votes from 40% of the delegates to even land in a primary. Also, all the rhetoric from the various campaigns and the delegate poll seems to be remarkably consistent in placing Bennett-supporting delagates somewhere in the low 20% range right now. There is also strong consensus that Bennett is highly unlikely to be the second choice for many delegates because a large portion (easily over 40%, almost certainly over 50%, and quite possibly over 60%) will vote for anyone except Bob Bennett this year. Because of this I feel very confident in saying that Bennett’s magic number at the convention in first round voting is 30% of the votes.

Even if Bennett were the top vote getter in the first round, if he only received 29.5% of the votes in that first round I am very confident that he would not be able to pick up enough votes in later rounds to reach the 40% plateau no matter which of his challengers were left in the top three. (I am not limiting that possibility to Lee and Bridgewater even if they are the only challengers I have mentioned in the post.) Even if he were to receive the most votes in the second round, say 36% (that is my wildest imagination if the first round generated only 29.5% for him), the third round would see virtually every delegate who had not already voted for him voting for whoever was left of his challengers and there would be no primary.

If Bob Bennett currently has the support of 22% of the state delegates, as this poll has indicated, that would mean he needs to convince another 8% to support him in the first round. That is approximately 300 delegates he will need to sway in this highly anti-incumbent atmosphere to have any chance of surviving into a primary.

I was mildly impressed with the statistic that 97.7% of delegates made it to the convention but considering that they (we) were elected only 18 days ago I would consider anything under 95% to be disappointing. I can’t wait to see the attendance at next year’s convention. Then I would be pleasantly surprised if we got 75% attendance.

I have come to the conclusion (again) that conventions could operate more quickly if we could reduce the amount of generic campaigning such as having current officeholders speak if they have nothing more to say than we are fed up with the actions of the other party and we’re going to take back the presidency/House/Senate/governorship/state legislature (whichever ones apply). We could also save time by skipping the speeches that say nothing more than give ourselves a pat on the back for the great things we have done in {whichever of the above we control currently}. (That might also save some hospital bills.) For example, my reaction when Orrin Hatch spoke was that even when he said the rift things he completely failed to convince me that he cared about anything more than getting to stay in the Senate.

If all speeches were focused on “here’s what we are or should be working on going forward” the time would be more valuably spent.

Somehow my post came to his attention and Rep. Bishop felt that he was being unfairly maligned as his staff could find no record of my questions getting to their office. At some point (I suspect recently) Rep. Bishop discovered that they had received my questions and considered them important (or unique) enough to warrant an individual response instead of a stock answer. The questions were given to the congressman himself and then somehow they slipped through the cracks and been buried. When he discovered his mistake Rep. Bishop took it upon himself to track down my phone number (and it’s not an easy task to sort through the many David Miller’s out there) and offer his apologies and a personal response to my questions.

I was quite surprised when I received his call Wednesday evening and I appreciated very much the time he took to speak with me. His was not some simple two minute call to appologize and share his position on earmarks in answer to my questions. I stead he took the time to listen to my thoughts and enegage in a full conversation until I was satisfied that I was being heard. He did not even attempt to change my opinion on those points where we do not share a common perspective but I finished the phone call confident that we share the same overall goal on the subject of earmarks and that he understands the reasons I think earmarks should become a thing of the past.

Thank you Rep. Bishop. You deserve as public an acknowledgement as the criticism I offered before.

At the caucus meetings it is important for those running for state delegate positions (and those who are voting for delegates), regardless of which senate candidate they may favor, to keep in mind that delegates have more to do than pick and support a senate candidate. For example, in my precinct there are three offices that have intra-party challenges (assuming nobody files to run for the Republican nomination against Rob Bishop today):

• Governor — Gary Herbert, Richard Martin, and “SuperDell” Schanze
• U.S. Senate — Bob Bennett, Tim Bridgewater, David Chiu, Cherilyn Eagar, Leonard Fabiano, and Mike Lee
• House District 20 — Becky Edwards, Chet Loftis, and D J Schanz

Interestingly the incumbent is alphabetically first in each of those races.

All caucus attendees need to keep in mind that a state delegate must attend to each of the races, not just the one they are most interested in. We may give more weight to the race that we are most concerned with but we must realize that the position encompasses all the races.

Out of respect for the seriousness of this situation and the honor that should prevail within the elective body this should have been handled somwhere other than the floor of the house. Regardless of where the public announcement was made it should not have been followed with applause for any reason. (I might make an exception if he had chosen to announce his resignation in the same prepared statement.) I’m not saying that his colleagues should have publicly castigated him when he made the announcement but there was nothing to applaud in his admission of shameful past actions.

I believe that anyone who participated in that inappropriate applause should publicly explain their participation. Anyone who does not do so in the next few days should face at least a token opposition in the primaries by an opponent who will demand an explanation of that action. There are only two possible explanations: “I was foolishly caught up in the crowd” or “I was coerced to join in the applause.” Either reason should be publicly acknowledged.

I questioned my own representative relative to what happened and her explanation was in line with “it was a reaction to very surprising news.” In her own words she said:

At that time, his statement was so out of context for what we were expecting to hear . . . My personal reaction at that initial moment of hearing the 2 minute statement was thinking that while his political career was most likely over, 1) that the forthright nature of the confession was admirable and courageous, 2) the work he had done as a legislator was effective . . . and 3) he had been a real support to me on several tough issues this session. Those 3 thoughts, combined with the fact that in the House we have a propensity to stand and clap for everything, led to that reaction from all of us. Also, when Speaker Clark finished his statement it was an invitation to stand and support our colleague. There was no condoning or justification or excusing the behavior included in the statement, however.

Now, understand, the standing/clapping is a very different issue than condoning the initial behavior . . .

However, I can see how inappropriate the clapping was and the message that it sends to the public. It is confusing and misleading at best and ultimately was the wrong reaction to a wrong venue for a significant statement such as this. (From private email correspondence—used with permission.)

I consider that to be a reasonable explanation especially in light of a statement she made later that as more information has become available she is very disturbed by the behavior.

I think it is as important for the public to be conscious of how much more we know now than was public when his statement was read as it is for public officials (now and in the future) to recognize that a very measured public response is always in order (whether in drafting laws or in supporting a colleague) because the public will still see their initial response after more information is available.

Just to be clear from the beginning, this topic is inspired by the Kevin Garn story and while I will refer to that story specifically everything I say is meant to apply to any matters of the private morality of a public official.

First, I would like to say that Rep. Garn seems to be dealing with this in the best way he knows how. Second, I agree with this comment on Holly’s site saying that we should:

hold our elected officials to the highest moral and ethical standards

Having said those things, I don’t believe that Rep. Garn’s problem is any of my business because he is not my representative. If he were my representative that would be another story.

If he were my representative then I would think it perfectly appropriate to ask whatever questions I felt necessary to determine who the issue should weigh in my voting decisions.  If he were my representative my position right now would be to thank him for his service and encourage him to step down and let someone else serve so that this issue could not hang like a cloud over the office that he had been entrusted with. That would be my position despite the fact that I believe this situation is not quite as salacious as it would appear to be at first glance (like if you read the headlines and not the rest of the story).

Because he is not my representative I consider this to be a matter between him and his constituents. My interest in the story should go no further than to wonder if my representative was among those who gave him a standing ovation and if she was, to ask her why she would do that. Personally I think the appropriate response to hearing a colleague read that kind of prepared statement should be shocked silence, certainly not a standing ovation.

If this is typical of his many previous campaigns it is a wonder that he was ever elected to anything and no wonder that he lost so many races he ran in. More importantly, if this is any indicaion of how he operates then he has no business being a legislative aid in Washington, let alone a senator. His rightful place in the capital could be nothing more than “tourist” if this disappearing act is any indicator. So far it appears that every single candidate is working harder than Mr. Cook despite the fact that every one of them had a headstart.