One of the greatest contradictions in politics today are those who declare themselves “pro-democracy” while seeking to gerrymander election districts, support FBI crackdowns on speech, attack reporters and whistleblowers, and defend censorship. One of the most vocal in expressing his pride in “being pro-democracy” is Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers, who just used a partial veto power to negate legislative authority in his state.
Evers was given a bill that increased funding for the 2024-25 school years. Using his partial veto authority, Evers crossed out the “20” and the hyphen. In doing so, he changed the law to allow K-12 schools to raise their revenue per student by $325 a year until 2425. It was never intended nor contemplated by the Republican-controlled legislature.
No one is seriously arguing that this was an intended use of the partial veto authority. Indeed, after prior governors used the partial veto to create new words in legislation, it was barred in 2008. However, Evers is now doing the same thing by eliminating digits and punctuation to create new numbers.
Evers has been a recidivist in such manipulation of legislation, issued 51 partial vetos, including three struck down by the state Supreme Court.
Yet, this is arguably the most offensive to anyone who values the democratic process. Evers is completely ignoring the language and intent of the legislature and committing the state to increases in funding for hundreds of years. It guts the defining power of the purse exercised by state and federal legislatures.
Evers has long put the hype into hypocrisy as a politician who continually portrays himself as a “defender of democracy” while routinely engaging in executive overreach. His favorite tagline is “I’m not going to back down when it comes to defending our democracy.”
Evers clearly approaches saving democracy like the generals approached saving villages in Vietnam when they insisted that they had to “destroy the village in order to save it.”
According to Evers, defending democracy means undoing democratically enacted legislation and unilaterally imposing his own agenda.
Notably, the state school superintendent, Jill Underly reportedly expressed gratitude for the sleight of hand but immediately asked for more money.
This should not be a difficult question legally. No reasonable interpretation of a partial veto power would include the ability to change numbers anymore than changing words. However, the Wisconsin Supreme Court has long been a political battleground in the sharply divided state. The result are elected justices who are regularly accused of partisan agendas.
This case could prove a test of the court’s integrity. To support Evers is to dispense with any pretense of democratic process.
Of course, Evers can insist that the legislature can always override his partial veto if it can muster the two-thirds vote in the divided legislature. However, that misses the point. Regardless of any override, the governor’s actions are still anti-democratic in changing the meaning of a law in this way.
Evers is not the first to use what is called the Vanna White veto of flipping around words or numbers. Republicans governors like Scott Walker and Tommy Thompson also took such liberties. They were equally wrong.
Yet, there is no hue and cry from those who have cloaked themselves in the democratic cause when convenient. Instead there were celebrations. Former Democratic Gov. Jim Doyle said “everybody will shout and scream but he’s got ’em.”
He also “got” democracy.
It is true that Wisconsin has the broadest — and most ridiculous — veto power in the country. However, it was reduced to avoid this type of manipulation of the meaning of laws. Moreover, this is not a change within the confines of the law. The law was designed to appropriate funds for a one year period and Evers turned it into a four century appropriation.
Just as the Washington Post proclaims that “democracy dies in darkness,” it can also die in the daylight. The test of principle is to stand faithful to it when it is not to one’s own advantage. Evers clearly failed that test. However, judging from the gleeful celebrations, he is not the only one.
“… is Wisconsin [Dim] Gov. Tony Evers ….”
There it’s fixed.
DEMOCRACY
____________
“This is not a democracy. Everybody doesn’t get to do what they want to do. Everybody doesn’t get to do what they feel like doing.”
– Nick Saban
___________
“It’s the [restricted-vote republic], stupid!”
– James Carville
______________
The Greeks-cum-Romans learned eons ago that the vote must be restricted in order to save democracy, whereby democracy becomes a restricted-vote republic.
The restricted-vote and the implementation of voting criteria were delegated to the States by the Constitution.
Since the communists (liberals progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs, AINOs) have destroyed this republic ($32 trillion national debt, etc.), perhaps now it can now be saved.
Universal Suffrage, n. – A stupid form of democratic government where those with no skin in the game get to vote themselves money from those who do have skin in the game.
“A BODY OF CITIZENS ENTITLED TO VOTE”
Merriam-Webster
republic
noun
re·pub·lic ri-ˈpə-blik
(2)b(1) : a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law
“[We gave you] a republic, if you can keep it.”
– Ben Franklin
____________
Franklin et al. gave Americans a restricted-vote republic.
The Constitution gave States the power to restrict the vote by any and all criteria.
Having authentic empirical “skin in the game” is the most crucial and significant.
If John Say posts one more comment with an excess of 1,000 words…..
John’s word vomits are a regular feature here. But I bet few bother reading them.
:If John Say posts one more comment with an excess of 1,000 words…..”
Youll What ?
You do understand that remark is arguably a threat of violence ?
There is no reason to not specify what you will do – if what you will do is rational.
There is no reason to post it at all – if as is likely – you will do nothing.
You are either engaged in a veiled threat of violence or like a 4 year old threatening to hold your breath until you are blue.
The only legitimate response to speech you do not like is speach.
Anonymous
Why is it that you think a report to congress mandated by law on cluster munitions means that a shortage of 155mm shells is not classified ?
I am certain that the cluster munitions stockpiles information IS classified.
I also am sure that either it was declassiifed – persuant to the congressional law requiring disclosure to congress.
Or Congress would have had to take the report in a SCIF.
Regardless, AGAIN a National Guard officer in MA is going to jail for much the same information as Biden is spraying on national TV.
Please explain how you are making YOUR choices as to what YOU KNOW is classified and what is not.
There is no rhyme nor reason to it.
You are arguing tyhat because congress took a report on cluster bombs – that ALL munitions information is not classified.
You are concurrently arguing that information that is clearly dated and has no CURRENT national security implications and is merely embarrassing to the current JCS cheif, is obviously classified.
How exactly is information that Miley wanted to invade Iran in 2020 classified, NOW when The fact that we are short on 155mm shells NOW is NOT ?
Again like the typical left wing nut – you want to make things up as you go.
You claim to just “know” what is or is not classified. – Or you are arguing that what is or is not classified is determined by markings. Or you are arguing that what is or is not classified is decided by committee, or you are arguing it is decided by law. Make up your mind.
There is LAW regarding the punishment for diviluging or mishandling national defense information.
There is not LAW regarding what is or is NOT NDI. There is an executive order specifying the cassified information process.
An executive order is a command given by the current president. ANY COMMAND IN ANY FORM.
I have heard Turley and a few others say there is no way that appellate courts and the supreme court are going to rule in Trump’s favor.
Sorry the OPPOSITE is true – and has nothing to do with Trump.
Ruling that Trump did not declassify documents by sending them to MAL or that he had to follow a process in an EO by Obama that the courts have ALREADY ruled that a president can change by voice, by tweet or just by ignoring, would create a legal mess.
There is only One resolution to classified documents that works – that is to follow the constitution.
All executive powers vest in the president.
NAtional secutity is a presidential power.
Without changing the constitution, national security choices are exclusively the presidents.
While by EO he can delegate that power to others and put constraints on their use of those powers.
The president can NOT constraint his own exercise of that power, and can not be forced to be subject to the constraint of others.
There MIGHT be an argument here if there was a law passed by Congress – but there is not.
Even then it would be a poor argument – The PRA defines what is an is not a presidential record.
And the courts have already determined that the PRA si only constitutional it the PResident can make that decision themselves, and if that decision is not reviewable by the courts.
It is likely if the courts tried to define the rules for handling National Defense information – that the courts would react the same. deciding that efforts by congress to do so essentially can not apply to the current president.
Darren it is increasingly a PITA to reply to anonymous posters.
Some or all anonymous posts can not be replied to until they are approved.
If you are going to allow anonymous posts – then allow them . Do not separately quarantine them.
And worse block those trying to respond.
turley.org can survive nut cases.
I admire the job you do.
But I would encourage you to err on the side of free speech.
Even by those whose posts I disagree with the most.
Alternatively – though not prefered.
Do not allow anonymous posts.
Annonymous
There is zero doubt that Former President Trump can not declassify anything.
It would be unusual if he said something else.
Regardless, Smith has questioned everyone at this meeting. and he has NOT filed charges covering this incident.
That means Smith does not have the evidence to charge for this.
Apparently Michigan is not any better than Wisconsin when it comes to state political leaders.
Then again Members of Congress are….
oh, look, it is Happy Hour! Not a moment too soon!
SMH
Scuffle breaks out at Michigan GOP state committee meeting
The Detroit News
Eventually, Mark DeYoung, chairman of the Clare County Republican Party, heard the wiggling and walked over to the door, where he saw someone flip him off through a small window. DeYoung opened the door.
“He kicked me in my balls as soon as I opened the door,” DeYoung said.
The scuffle intensified with Chapman running at DeYoung and slamming him into a chair, DeYoung said. DeYoung provided his account in a phone interview from an emergency room in Clare. DeYoung said he had suffered a broken rib.
Chapman alleged that DeYoung had said, “I’ll kick your a–” and swung at him. DeYoung denied those claims.
At one point, Chapman removed his own glasses, Chapman said.
“When you see me taking my glasses off, I’m ready to rock,” Chapman said.
Chapman said he took DeYoung by the legs and knocked him over.
Jonathan: Now that I have explained the “democratic process” and how it really works in Wisconsin let me move on to some really recent developments in the Hunter Biden so-called “investigation” of Hunter Biden. It now appears the house of cards you, Jim Jordan, James Comer and Jason Smith have built is starting to crumble.
A thorough forensic analysis of the material from Hunter Biden’s laptop, at least what that has been publicly reported, is either manipulated or fabricated. At least that’s the consensus of Denver Riggelman, a former GOP legislator and forensic analyst for the Jan. 6 Committee investigation. He now works for the Hunter Biden legal team headed by Abbe Lowell. Lowell wrote a letter, dated 6/30/23, to Rep, Jason Smith, Chair of the House Ways and Means Committee, pointing out specific instances of manipulated and fabricated alleged postings of Hunter Biden. I won’t go into the details of Lowell’s letter. You can read it for yourself. But it’s pretty clear Smith indulged in posting committee material that was fabricated.
But that’s not the only problem with the MAGA Republican’s claims. Rep. Comer promised “whistle blower” testimony that would expose vast corruption in the Biden family. And what happened? All of Comer’s “whistle blowers” went missing. The last, a Russian oligarch, hasn’t been seen in years.
The latest alleged “whistle blower” is one Gal Luft, an Israeli/ American, who claimed he had info of Chinese pay-offs to the Biden family. Luft was arrested in Cyprus in February but skipped bail and has disappeared. Yesterday, the DOJ announced a six count indictment of Luft –including violations of FARA–failing to register as a agent of the Chines government. Luft is on the run and the DOJ has jet to locate him. So Luft is the latest “whistle blower” who probably won’t be testifying for the MAGA Republicans anytime soon.
Now I know. Your Job No. 1 at Fox is going to be to write a column denouncing the DOJ indictment as an attempt to keep Luft from testifying for the MAGA House Republicans. We can hardly wait for that column.
RE: HUNTER BIDEN…..
Gee, a whistle blower exposing a corrupt DoJ, gets charged with “crimes” In other words, its a day that ends in ‘y’
Dennis, this guy exposes an FBI that is wholly incompetent. I see thousands of convictions about to be tossed.
“–including violations of FARA–failing to register as a agent of the Chines government.”
You know who else failed to register as a foreign agent lobbying that very same Chinese company? You guessed it: Hunter Biden himself.
Imagine that, we see how swiftly Biden’s DOJ moved to bring indictment for FARA violations against the whistleblower against Biden. But no FARA indictments for Hunter? Huh. That’s weird.
How do you explain the deals Joe and Hunter Biden were making with the same company? And no FARA charges? You can’t.
Anonymous
“According to what? Running short of that specific type of ammunition would be classified because?”
All information regarding weapons supplies and weapons movements and weapons availablity and weapons functionality is HIGHLY classified.
Are you really so daft as to not understand that ?
Obama had to declassify the locations and numbers of US nuclear weapons to comply with the arms control agreeement he reached with Russians.
Because nearly everything about military readiness is classified.
Is this so hard to understand ?
POne of the major issues involving Ukraine are questions regarding the extent to which our committment to assist Ukraine diminishes our ability to defend Taiwan specifically – and other allies more generally.
There is significant and justified fears that Xi will take this opportunity to distract from internal problems to try to take Taiwan.
While most – including myself think that is unlikely – it is still far more likely than 3 years ago.
If Xi thinks we are short of 155mm ammunition – which is the Primary Artillary amunition for US forces, that might lead him to risk invading Taiwan.
Are you really so poor at logic that you are unable to think beyond the first order on ANYTHING ?
“The U.S. military has an abundance of choices regarding weapons systems.”
Correct. But those weapons systems are not competely interchangeable nor all suited for every possible purpose.
155mm artileray shells are the primary artilery used by ground forces. They are also by FAR the ceapest and safest means of short to medium range defense. . A shortage of 155mm artilery means more use of air power and bombs, it means more use of drones and naval weapons. It means more american servicemen directly involved in conflicts.
It also means more cost. It means more US and allied deaths and less deaths of our enemies.
That MAY not determine the outcome of the conflict – or it may.
Even more importantly – it MAY determine whether a conflict occurs at all.
It is near certain that the Ukraine war only happened because incompetence and bad US policy choices by the Biden admin gave Putin his strongest provocation and his greastest chance to succeed/.
Biden has just publicly told Xi that The Tiawanese will rapidly run out of 155mm shells if he attacks NOW.
I would further note that it is likely that many of the US munitions used in ukraine are in short supply.
155mm artilery shells are a very basic staple. When the US is short of those – it is likely short of a wide range of weapons.
” It’s a good thing we have the capacity to produce more.”
It is good to have infinite supplies of almost anything.
But EVERY GOOD THING comes at some expense. The productive capacity of the US is barely expanding under Biden.
1.5% compared to a 100 year average of 3.5%.
That is our ability to make 155mm shells as well as cars and bread and iphones and deliver healthcare.
It is likely that our economy can absorb the costs of producing what is necescary for the war in Ukraine without significant further negative impacts on our ability to educate our kids, or produce iphones or ….
I would further note that the US government has ZERO capactity to produce 155mm shells.
EVERYTHING we produce is produced PRIVATELY. SOME things we produce privately are produced FOR govenrment.
But government does not produce anything.
We – the US govenrment has no ability to produce 155mm shells, We the Free market of the US economy can produce anything that americans want and need sufficiently to be willing to pay for it.
“Running short on 155mm howitzer ammo does not threaten our national security.”
Of course it does.
“Obviously we are not highly dependent on that type of armament.”
You really are a complete moron. We are dependent on EVERYTHING.
We are both physically dependent and we are dependant as a matter of deterence.
We have 2500 nuclear weapons in the US – we have only used 2 in war ever. Yet information about nuclear weapons is highly classified. Why ? because they serve as a deterent. So does every single other weapons system we have.
Finally we are ALWAYS balancing the multiple costs against the benefits to determine what we are going to do.
Absolutely the US can produce nearly unlimited supplies of 155mm shells – or ANYTHING else.
But we can not produce unlimited supplies of EVERYTHING.
The most critical part of the Ukraine conflict was the first 96hours. The same would be true of a conflict in Tiawan.
We are 18months into the Ukraine war BECAUSE there were suffficient supplies on hand or easily deliverable on Hour ONE of the conflict. Not because in 6 months or 3 weeks we could produce massive amounts.
Shells that have not been produced can not be used – in Ukraine – and more importantly in Taiwan should Xi decide now is his moment.
Absolutely no country on earth should be under the delusion that the US can not produce orders of magnitude more than is necescary for our military – or those of other countries in a protracted conflict.
Canaris’s spies delibvered to Hitler figures on projected US war production BEFORE the US entered into the War.
Hilter laughed and called it disinformation – because there was no possibility the US could quickly produce that much.
In reality we produced more than 10 times what Canaris’s spies told Hitler we would.
When there is time – and the conflict is sufficiently existential – our ability to produce weapons is incredible.
Our ability to produce generally is incredible.
We all so the gear up of Covid production in April 2020. We went from shortages of everything to drowning in hand sanitized and masks in 2-4 weeks. Elon Musk was building respirators, and the my pillow guy was making masks.
We can do the same with 155mm shells – if we need to.
But we can not do so at a moments notice, and it is our STOCKPILES that are ONE of the deterances against China attacking Taiwan. Our ability to produce is meaningless if Taipei falls in the first 96 hours.
“That’s not true. ”
Navy V Eagan – SCOTUS case absolutely true.
“A formal process is required once a president wants to declassify something. Presidents can’t unilaterally declassify information on nuclear weapons. It’s not an absolute power.”
False. both as a mater of constitution, caselaw, fact and history.
Every single president since LBJ atleast has released classified information at a press conferance, a speech, to a foreign leader, to the public, sometimes deliberately, sometimes accidentally, sometimes we do not know which.
ALWAYS without any formal process being followed.
Obama declassified nuclear weapons information unilaterally without formal process and gave it to the russians as part of a nuclear weapons reduction deal.
This is not only not unusual it is the NORM for every president.
“President Biden stating 155mm howitzer ammunition is running short is not classified information.”
Of course it is, there is a National Guardman in Massachusetts who is going to spend a great deal fo time in jail for making similar information public.
This is also a stupid argument – if the supply of 155mm shells is not classified – then why is Miley’s plans to invade Iran late int eh Trump presidency ? That did not happen. Why is Trump publicly exposing the fact that Miley planned to invade Iran, was stopped by Trump and them publicly lied about it MORE classified than the fact that Ukraine is short of 155mm artilery shells because we are not producing enough ?
There is no impact on national security from Trump’s revalations. While there are numerous impacts from Biden’s.
You just plain do not know what you are talking about.
“Pretending it is because you say so to create an argument to “prove” the left is being hypocritical is deliberate dishonesty.”
Not pretending. Your creative efforts to pretend that Anything Biden or Clinton or Obama did is sacred, but anything that Trump did is criminal – because you THINK Trump did not spin on one foot while chanting the appropriate mantra, and you THINK that those you favor did – that is “disingenuous”, that is manufacturing a false narative, that is hypocracy, that is LYING.
““Anything that a president does while president that removes classified information from its secure protection – such as blurting it out to the press, handing it to the Russian ambassador, giving it to someone without proper clearance or carting it off to his home DECLASSIFIES IT.”
Not true.”
Absolutely true – Navy Vs Eagan.
The presidents powers on matters of national security – adn specifically classification are not only absolute, they are unreviewable by the courts.
“Trump took a lot of classified documents claiming he declassified them”
The mere fact that he took them as [president with the intention of making them available to himself as former president means they are declassified.
“but he’s on tape talking about documents he took that are still classified and admitted he couldn’t declassify because he is no longer president.”
And yet Smith did not file ANY charges based on that tape.
I do not know whether Cannon will allow that tape into evidence. I can assure you that unless Smith adds charges based on that Tape, that it will NOT be allowed to be admitted as evidence of FACT.
Nor will it be admissible as a statement against interests – absent charges for THAT incident by Smith.
It MIGHT be admissible as evidence of state of mind.
What is LIKELY is that there wee NO classified docs at the meeting and Trump was exagerating – as he is wont to do.
Biden does that all the time too.
Regardless it is not proof of anything.
I would note that You are also confused about how the law works.
There is ZERO doubt at all that Trump INTENDED to make these documents available to himself as Ex president.
That alone means they are declassified.
If you are able to successfully prove that Trump did not KNOW that doing so declassified them – that changes nothing.
It is not enough to BELEIVE or SAY that something is classified.
It must actually be classified.
There is literally nothing that any president can do that violates the espionage act while President.
There is only one remedy for the YOUR judgement regarding the handling of classified documents as president.
That is impeachment.
You are free to change the constitution to be different.
Though I doubt that will happen. It is not likely to be able to have a functional presidency unless the president has ultimate and unrevieable power regarding what is and is not classified.
This is another common error of left wing nuts.
Beyond being constantly wrong about the law, and the constitution,
Most importantly you idiotically beelive that the law and constitution can actually BE as you wish them and still have functional government.
You believe that law and constitution are just the whims of those who govern us. Not the product of millennia of experience regarding what works and what does not
Whether you like it or not – Your whimsy does not result in functional government – and we have thousands of years of experience proving that what is or is not legal or constitutional is NOT mere opinion.
That SOME ideas regarding the law WORK and others do not.
And your error in forgetting the lessons of the past does not change that.
“Meaning what you claim is not true. Furthermore, if what you claim is true there would be no need for his lawyers to get security clearances to view the documents he took.”
Correct – this has all been one gigantic manufactured farce.
This all would have been resolved with a resounding FU to the Biden administration had NARA gone to court at the start of this.
JW V. NARA and the other cases in its lineage is the precedent Bill Clinton took tapes containing classified information with him as he left office and kept them in his sock drawer.
And the Courts decided he is not only entitled to do so, but that the courts can not even review the matter.
.
“Documents have to be marked “declassified” in order to be truly declassified according to the law.”
Nope, that is wrong on so many levels.
Classified information si automatically declassified whenever it is made public. Again this is a long established principle of law. While AFTER it is made public there is an open question as to whether it was made public legally, there is no question that the information is no longer classified.
Have you ever had classified information training ? I have ? I held a TS/SCI as a defense contractor for several years.
I am perfectly free to discuss in public classified information that is available from non-classified sources – because that information is no longer classified. It does not matter what kind of binder it is in. It does not matter what the pages are stamped.
The Pentagon papers were made public – they are DECLASSIFIED. They were declassified the moment that Daniel Elsburg handed them to WaPo.
While Elsberg arguably committed a crime in doing so. The NYT and WaPo did NOT in printing them.
This is NOT the UK. National security works differently in the US. The government can not bar the press from printing ANYTHING. Classified or not.
As a matter of law Classified markings on a document are an INDICATOR that the document likely contains classified information. They are EVIDENCE that the information WAS and may still be classified. They are NOT proof.
Further the opposite is also true – the ABSENCE of classified marking is NOT proof that something is NOT classified.
So that you are clear Evidence is important – it is not ALONE proof.
When Trump handed the Russian ambassador classified information regarding terrorist activities int he mideast,
That information was immediately declassified – regardless of what markings were on the binder or paper than he handed to him.
When Reagan announced the F117 Steath Fighter publicly – it was immediately declassified. No one needed to go through every peice of paper that mentioned the F117 and cross out the markings.
Yopu are making an imp[ossibily stupid argument.
You are not thinking.
By YOUR argument if DOD failed to go through every F117 document and cropss of the markings, then that document remained classified – even though the F117 itself was not.
Classification is NOT about PAPER, it is about INFORMATION. When you act to declassify the information – you automatically declassify all the PAPERS that are classified because of that INFORMATION.
Classification adn declassification are not clerical processes.
The REVERSE is true – clerical processes exist for the benefit of HUMANS – enabling them to make likely valid assumptions regarding what is and is not classified.
The deleted response: “No. It’s just information that is publicly available. The number or 155mm rounds is not classified information.
https://www.hrw.org/legacy/backgrounder/arms/cluster0705/2.htm#:~:text=The%20Army%20and%20Marine%20Corps,Conventional%20Munition%20(DPICM)%20submunitions
The anonymous poster is lying or unable to read. This problem is typical with Anonymous posters telling everyone to stay clear. They have no reputations to protect, so they will continuously post lies.
Anonymous, you were deleted again, thank goodness someone is here removing the trash. The only truth in your deleted reply was, “I’m lying”. That is the truth.
Anonymous
As I pointed out repeatedly in my longer response – you have given no real thought to your claims, to your arguments.
This is a COMMON flaw on your part.
You do not ever think – how does what I am claiming fit with existing law ? Or the constitution ?
You do not think – if things were as I claim – would that actually work ?
Squashing your arguments is trivial – because you are not interested in “the rule of law”. You are not actually interested in “democracy”. you are not interested in “the constitution”.
You are just interested in reaching your desired ends. You presume that because you have decided that you know what is right and wrong – based on your digestive quirks, that the law, the constitution, what works as a practical matter – all conform to your wishes
We have law and constitution specifically to thwart exactly that approach.
We use philosophy. religion, experience, our hearts and minds, indigestion to determine what is right and what is wrong.
Based on that – following guides and restrictions in the constitution – which we are free to change if we dicover they are in error we craft laws.
Those laws do NOT determe what is right and what is wrong. They determine what is legal and what is not legal.
If we beleive the law does not reflect what we personally beleive is right or wrong – we can work to change the law.
If a law does not WORK as expected – we can change the law. If a law does not conform to the constraints of the constitution – either we must change the law or the constitution.
If the law does not reflect our view of what is right and wrong – we do not fix that by warping our interpretation of the law.
Laws are drafted by legislatures – not courts. not executives.
The entire focus of Turley’s post is that one individual does not get to make law that binds all of us. We are not a monarchy.
“In State and Revolution, Lenin wrote of his revolutionary utopia: ‘only in communist society . . . will a truly complete democracy become possible and be realized’, superseding the imperfect democracy of capitalist states.” Quoted from https://library.fes.de/libalt/journals/swetsfulltext/13937520.pdf The Eastern European puppet states set up by the Soviet Union after WWII frequently referred to themselves as “peoples democraciesAt wors”. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_democracy_ (Marxism%E2%80%93Leninism) East Germany called itself the German Democratic Republic (DDR in German). So, the word “democracy” has come to mean almost nothing. At worst, it means that the people in power believe they have a mandate, based on winning an election, for oppressing the populace.
The Governor is a tyrant, we might as well admit it
I grew up in a nation when the law was respected a great deal more than it is today. Many did not agree with the equal rights amendment but in the long run the law was respected. Then came along the guy who said he had a pen and a phone and the law was of no consequence because of the power that he declared to be his own. This man still considers himself to be the king and he is still the leader of the Democratic party. We should not be surprised that other Democrats today are just following the example displayed by King Barry the Great. He said “The badges? We don’t need no stinking badges”. The movie would have been much better if Barry would have played the role of the bandit. Now here we are at the place that he led us to. His seed of deception is now found at the FBI and the CIA. The wound has now festered and is now being properly treated to keep the infection from spreading further. We all can be a part of applying new bandages on a day in November of 2024. The stench of the infection can be curtailed or the pungent smell of puss can continue. Your call.
I didn’t wash my hand for a week when I was 16 so I could recall the “smell of puss”. You must’ve meant “pus”. Ick.
While this is about democracy – it is about the rule of law – not man.
What con be a more obvious test than whether a single person with the stroke of a pen can radically change the DEMOCRATIC actions of hundreds.
I would note that we have a GENERAL problem with our Government – state federal and local.
It is indisputable that the US constitution – and state constitutions specifically intended to give govenrment powers – but to make them very difficult to excercise. To REQUIRE near unanimity to accomplish anything.
What has evolved is the opposite. Courts can legislate unilatterally, Governors and presidents can do so at the stroke of a pen. Instead of a system where government can not restrain our rights unless we have near unanimity, we have a system where control fo a single office in government allows our rights to be infringed unless we all DISAGREE.
Overall I support Executives having partial veto powers. Bujt only to REDUCE not expand legislation, and a partial veto so only require a simple majority to override. The executive would then be free to veto the WHOLE act, with the 2/3 majority needed to override.
This political gamesmanship is wrong and is destrictive – not of democracy – but of trust in government.
Ukraine can join NATO because it is not really in a war: Ukraine has been under a prolonged terrorist attack from a terrorist state.
Jonathan: Wisconsin is famous for its cheese and beer–as well as its partial vetoes used by governors to craft a budget every year. Former GOP Gov. Tommy Thompson holds the record at 457 alone in 1991. Evers is parsimonious in his use of the partial veto.
Basically, this year’s budget fight was over the GOP desire to give an across the board income tax cut of $35 billion that would have benefited mostly the wealthy. Evers vetoed that by lowering the tax cut to $175 million and doing away with the lower rates for the 2 highest earning brackets. On education, Evers used the partial veto to increase the amount of revenue for K-12 public schools to $325 a year until 2425. He did that by taking the budget language that originally applied for 2023-24 and 2024-25 and striking the “20” and the hyphen to make the end date 2425. The GOP legislature could override Evers’ partial veto but they don’t have the 2/3rds vote.
Another dispute, which you don’t mention, is that the legislature wanted a $32 million budget cut for the University of Wisconsin—equivalent to what UW spends on DEI programming and staff. It is part of the GOP’s crusade against DEI programs across the country. Evers had to compromise and was only able to protect 188 DEI positions that will probably end in the next budget.
So why are you raising a red flag about the budget process in Wisconsin? You claim partial vetoes by Evers amounts to “executive overreach”, “unilaterally imposing his own agenda” and a violation of the “democratic process”. It is no such thing. Wisconsin may have the most sweeping partial veto power but the use of it doesn’t make it “anti-democratic”. What you are apparently complaining about is that the GOP controlled legislature didn’t get everything they wanted–like tax cuts for the wealthy and getting rid entirely of the DEI program at UW. You apparently don’t understand how the legislative process works. Would you prefer the Wisconsin GOP be able to pass a budget into law without any constraints–sort of by fiat? That’s not how it works. Nobody gets everything he/she wants. You saw that in the fight between Pres. Biden and the GOP controlled House over the debt limit.
But when the GOP controlled legislature in Wisconsin doesn’t get everything it wanted you call that a violation of the “democratic process”. I call that just “sour grapes” on your part!. Despite what you claim the democratic process is alive an well in Wisconsin.
I bet that Comer and Durham will get to the bottom of that, after all, they have “credible witnesses”
TURLEY called out the GOP as well, and clearly stated those governors were equally wrong.
Your reading comprehension is as partisan as your opinion.
How bad are things? As I understand the Hyde amendment, basically it prohibits the use of federal funds to pay for abortion services. There is no ambiguity that I can see. In October of 2022, the Defense department established a policy that provides paid leave and reimbursement costs for travel for servicemembers who cross state lines to get an abortion. Again, there is no ambiguity there. Unless I don’t understand appropriations correctly, the DoD is federally funded. This would mean they established an unconstitutional policy as it violates federal law.
Sen. Tuberville is protesting this unconstitutional policy. He took an oath and so did everyone else in the senate. Constitutionally, that’s their sworn duty. Sen. Tuberville is using the senates own rules to hold up confirmations and promotions of high ranking military personnel to force the DoD to change their unconstitutional policy or to get congress to change the Hyde amendment. And he is standing alone in supporting and defending the constitution. That’s where we are today in this now unconstitutional republic.
I love it when s@@tlibs hold themselves up as the final arbiters and authority on “our democracy(tm”). They make and bend the rules as needed, but it’s all for our own good, right?
S@@ew “our democracy(tm)”. It’s not working too well. I’m looking for our Diocletian or Franco.
I don’t want to understand, dialogue or reconcile with these people. I want a DIVORCE.
antonio
Few things disgust me more lately than having to quote the Anti-Trump, secret-democrat political sham that calls itself Fox “News,” but some valid information managed to sneak its way onto that garbage website concerning this recurring problem of partial vetos in Wisconsin:
” ‘The two notorious vetoes in Wisconsin were called the Frankenstein veto, which is when a governor strikes words in multiple sentences and then sort of stitches them back together,’ Vebber told Fox News. Those, he said, were eliminated in 2008.”
https://www.foxnews.com/media/inherently-undemocratic-wisconsin-govs-veto-creating-400-year-education-budget-trigger-lawsuit
So apparently the legal issue here is about whether Evers can do with numbers what he’s already been prohibited from doing with words. This shouldn’t be a close call, but with logic being an endangered species in the US, and possibly extinct in Wisconsin, there’s no predicting how this fight will turn out.
I was surpriseto see Turley out against election gerrymandering, then I followed his link to find is only against Democrats doing it in New York and has never said a word against Republicans who do it far more often in this era. It’s how Republicans have a super majority in the Wisconsin State Legislature and had a majority in the State Supreme Court, they cheated.
It’s how Joe Biden is sitting in the White House. They cheated.
Biden–cheated? Proven by what evidence? How many recounts, re-recounts, audits and investigations does it take to prove that Trump, Giuliani and those who claimed Biden didn’t win are LIARS? Every poll predicted Trump’s loss. But, you keep believing otherwise–why? Because you choose to believe a chronic, habitual liar over state election officials and investigators.
I think I am going to faint…Gigi actually said something that was true, and mostly correct. But I must quote the esteemed Judge Chamberlain Haller. “That is a lucid, intelligent, well thought out objection…overruled”
You can say Biden didn’t cheat, but the election was not free and fair by any means.
You can deny that there is “proof”, but there is plenty of evidence. It has been shown by the twitter files that state actors were involved with squelching the Hunter laptop story, which whether you choose to accept it or not, implicates the President in his schemes. Poles have shown that this INFORMATION (not disinformation like those lying, scheming bureaucrats called it), would have had a significant impact on the votes of an outcome changing number of people. And whether you choose to believe your lying eyes or not, is not the point. Not the gov’t, a cabal of “experts”, the media, big tech, nor anyone else should get to choose what information is available for an informed public to use as they see fit in deciding their vote. That’s the stuff of banana republics and dictatorships.
Tom,
Well said.
I could actually hear Judge Haller’s voice when I read that! Great!
“Every poll predicted Trump’s loss.”
Yes and….Polls were wrong.
Polls were fraudulent.
Poll predictions were meant to deflate, dissuade, disparage voters to the point of ‘what’s-the-use-let’s-sit-this-one-out’ apathy.
Though, it could be said the voters being polled were messing with the pollsters as well –by lying to them. Which is why so many Hillary fans were in total shock. Not us Trump voters, though. We knew what was happening.
If you drove anywhere in the country during the 2016 election, all you saw for miles and miles was Trump signs, shirts, billboards, hats, yard signs….everywhere. Then you might see a scant few Hillary signs scattered here and there. No energy, no enthusiasm. It was obvious on the ground which campaign had the energy of the people behind it. And that candidate won: Trump.
Same energy was there in 2020. But Joe Biden magically ‘won’ after vote counting stopped, stopped!!….in the wee hours…. in all the swing districts…. in all the swing states….til….voila! They squeaked out enough “ballots” to declare Biden the winner…. by a laughable grand total of some 81,000,000 votes.
Again, anyone, and I mean anyone, who believes Joe Biden “won” the election “fair and square” is a dang fool.
Recall that ballots were mass mailed out all over the country whether someone requested a ballot or not, whether they voted in person or not — they got a ballot in the mail. The normal process requires an application for a ballot and your signature is then kept on file for a verification when your ballot is returned. Mass mailing of unsolicited ballots where there were no signatures to verify against the ballots mailed back was large scale fraud waiting to happen. And it did happen. No signature verification at all. Ballots ballots everywhere. Drop boxes everywhere. It was in-your-face-election-corruption and fraud being done in too many ways to count. The election was stolen. Anyone who believes otherwise is a fool.
If you watched Joe Biden’s inauguration, it was apparent what we were watching was an installation. No crowds allowed, no protesting, no criticizing, no calling it a stolen election, no nothing. Just a very eerie looking “inauguration” of the man who sat in his basement and still got the most votes of any president in the history of the world. It was beyond laughable how fraudulent the whole thing was….and still is.
You seem to be woefully short on evidence of said cheating as several courts have indicated. Maybe something new will show up when Trump goes to trial in Georgia or in DC over his fake-elector scam?
Republicans who do it far more often in this era.
First, I assume “it” refers to partisan gerrymandering, as racial gerrymandering is evidently required to some by the VRA, and that helps Dems. But I’m not sure where you get the “far more often” part. When I was following the issue a couple years ago, there were GOP-favored maps in NC and PA (the letter struck down by a state supreme court ruling), while there were Dem-favored maps in MD and NY (again, the latter struck down by a state court ruling), and so on. It seemed about equal. Both state court rulings – in NY and PA – were based on the state constitution, so it makes a difference whether a particular state’s constitution allows for partisan gerrymandering in terms of whether it will survive a court challenge. Overall, the reporting was that the two parties had battled each other to a draw. See, e.g.:
https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2022-06-03/democrats-republicans-fight-redistricting-stalemate
One thing to keep in mind when just looking at raw numbers: there is a geographical component which can make normal map-drawing seem like a partisan gerrymandering favoring the GOP just slightly. Basically it works like this: Democrats tend to cluster in large urban areas, while Republicans tend to cluster in rural areas, so the balance is lopsided in each case. But, and this is the important thing, the Dem clustering in urban areas is more pronounced. As a consequence, if the map-drawer follows a state constitution’s neutral benchmarks relating to compactness, contiguity, equality of population, and avoiding municipal and county splits, this will tend to favor the GOP just slightly, and if an extra-constitutional factor of proportional partisan representation is included in the map-drawing, a certain amount of partisan gerrymandering is needed to counteract that tendency. The irony, then, is that what looks like a gerrymandered map in its result is actually the result of choosing not to gerrymander.
oldmanfromkansas,
Thank you for that well thought out, backed by facts to a baseless comment.
There are some assumptions you’re totally off on. You indicated that racial gerrymandering related to the VRA helps Democrats when the opposite is true. It may guarantee limited minority representation but typically hurts Democrats overall by ensuring Republicans get most of what’s left. Once Shelby v. Holder took effect, Republicans immediately and I mean the very next day, began their own racial gerrymandering in the opposite direction. Recent SCOTUS decisions in Alabama and Mississippi notwithstanding, several other states like Florida redid their maps to favor Republicans and subtract once minority-held seats. DeSantis vetoed the Republican drawn maps because they didn’t go far enough and because of the supermajority they created in the previous census, he got his way. If you actually are from Kansas, you should be familiar with a gerrymandered supermajority. Republicans have done it a lot more in recent history. It was wrong when Democrats did/do it and equally wrong now.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/03/27/politics/kansas-racial-gerrymandering-supreme-court/index.html#:~:text=In%20a%20controversial%20decision%20last,dilution%20of%20minority%20voting%20strength
I can definitely see how racial gerrymandering for compliance with the VRA can concentrate AA votes into one or two districts and then cause others to be more GOP-friendly. But if that’s the case (which again I don’t deny), why do Dem-allied entities seek to enforce that? Or maybe they don’t I don’t know. You tell me if you know.
Ultimately gerrymandering is a political decision. We may not like it, but unless the Equal Protection Clause has something to say about it (as it apparently does with race), or the constitution of the particular state has something to say about it, it’s legal, no?
The bottom-line problem you’re dealing with – and here I am making an assumption, based on the things you say, that you dislike gerrymandered maps that favor the GOP – is that many states are dominated by a couple big cities with mainly small towns and countryside in between. Think NY (NYC and Buffalo), PA (Philly and Pittsburgh), MO (St. Louis and KC), WA (Seattle and Spokane), TN (Nashville and Memphis), NV (Reno and LV), . As I mentioned, the political geography of states like that make it so that if the neutral criteria are followed – compact, contiguous, equal population, avoiding municipal/county splits – the GOP will have a natural advantage based solely on where people freely choose to live. In your opinion is it incumbent upon map-makers to counteract that political geography in the service of partisan proportionality? That would elevate proportionality above all other considerations, which, to my mind, would be improper.
I am against all gerrymandering, the Supreme Court allows for partisan gerrymandering as long as the intent wasn’t race-based despite the result. This means if not enough people say the quiet part out loud, it’s okay.
I don’t accept your premise that the GOP has a “natural advantage” if maps were drawn fairly. I think the advantages were created specifically to achieve an end. The most egregious cases aren’t contiguous or compact. When Democrats attempt it it isn’t right, nor when Republicans do it. In this era, Republicans are ahead in gerrymandering by a wide margin.
I don’t accept your premise that the GOP has a “natural advantage” if maps were drawn fairly. I think the advantages were created specifically to achieve an end.
It’s a well documented phenomenon that the GOP has a natural advantage based on so-called “political geography” – meaning they aren’t as tightly packed in red areas as the Dems are in blue areas. Here’s a link discussing it:
https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/sdut-the-gop-advantage-geography-or-gerrymandering-2014mar30-story.html
The consequence is that if maps are drawn according to neutral criteria, the GOP has an advantage – again, simply based on where people choose to live. You can choose to not accept it if you like, but the reality remains the same.
Given that maps aren’t drawn on neutral criteria in reality, we may never know.
maps aren’t drawn on neutral criteria in reality
Computer programs are used nowadays that draw hundreds of thousands of maps in a very short time. They can be adjusted for any number of criteria. Many are drawn neutrally, and partisan performance is projected based on historical voting data. If by “reality” you mean the maps that become law, perhaps you are right, I don’t know. But if “reality” includes computer generated maps that are used for performance testing, then you’re wrong. In my dictionary “realty” includes computer generated maps.
Here’s how my state designed its maps, based on the Governor’s desire to exceed even the Republican Legislature’s wishes. Find me a state that used your fairly designed computer generated map.
https://www.propublica.org/article/ron-desantis-florida-redistricting-map-scheme
I can understand your disagreement with what happened in Florida, but that has little bearing on the topic we were discussing – whether the political geography of many states give the GOP a natural (albeit modest) advantage when maps are drawn fairly. Given the court decisions I mentioned in PA and NY, the maps those two states ended up with had to be drawn according to neutral constitutional criteria.
I’m saying that whether it’s possible to draw fair maps and whether those maps would “naturally” favor the GOP is meaningless because no states do that.
I don’t like gerrymandering, but no one seems willing to provide a better solution. I would create a computer program to redistrict the state and would pass its implementation to the future so that the program developed wouldn’t affect the coming elections.
That said, Democrats must learn that when they play hardball politics, it comes back to bite them. Enigma only wants to enact laws that protect his views and understanding of right and wrong, which in his case, is faulty.
In the case of Florida, one should imagine what the map should look like if race and other things weren’t taken into account. It would probably look like boxes representing near squares where the size changed because of population.
Look at Enigma’s example. One will see that the 2022 map looked like a gerrymandered map cutting across the state with a semi-serpentine appearance, obviously made to touch on a specific population. DeSantis’s map was more box-like and, based on a superficial look, didn’t appear gerrymandered. The SC decision years ago was a decision that led to intense gerrymandering. I am not commenting on any other factors.
All should look at Enigma’s map link.
The comparison was between a map drawn by the Republican Legislature and one selected by DeSantis (which happened to eliminate two Black Congressmen). Fair had nothing to do with it.
You say it wasn’t fair or neutral, yet your argument is, it “happened to eliminate two Black Congressmen”. In other words, ‘fair’ is not what you look for. You are looking for a solution that satisfies your wants. We don’t know how many black Congressmen will be elected and I think DeSantis eliminated a couple of white Congressmen. With you, it is always about race.
Did you see the Congressional maps drawn? Were they more neutral, or were the legislators concerned about new districts while their previous ones were erased?
Did you see the map they drew? Did you compare it to what DeSantis had drawn? The Supreme Court map looked like the worst of gerrymandering.
Everyone should look at the map the Supreme Court created. It wasn’t neutral.
Your reply demonstrates that you only search for partisan solutions that suit your needs while telling everyone else to be fair.
And I’m saying that the assertion that “no states do that” can be disproved with a single counter-example, of which I’ve given two. But you steadfastly refuse to acknowledge it. I’m now concluding that I’m wasting my time with you. No matter what proof or straightforward logic is presented to you, you’ll put your hands over your ears and say “no!” it it’s not something you already accepted as true. Have a good evening, sir.
Wasn’t New York one of your examples? Theirs is a partisan process as well with each side trying to best the other. Saying you do things right doesn’t make it so. Especially with the courts now as partisan as legislatures. It’s true you haven’t convinced me because straightforward logic isn’t used in any state, including your own Kansas.
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/what-went-wrong-new-yorks-redistricting
The misery index is exceedingly high in Enigma. He cant see the forrest from the trees. There is a reason he never talks about joy, love, family, all anathema to the Left. Read his blog. It is enough to make you jump out of a window.
The many problems with Enigma include his reliance on government to solve his problems. Happily blacks are walking away from the LBJ Democrat plantation and realizing they do better by working hard just like Hispanics do to improve their lives. Some blacks like Enigma cant imagine living unshackled and free from their Democrat masters.
Liberals Can’t Comprehend Black Economic Progress
It undermines the argument that society is stacked against racial and ethnic minorities.
https://www.wsj.com/amp/articles/liberals-cant-comprehend-black-economic-progress-real-estate-interest-rates-893b647
By Jason L. Riley, WSJ
Between 1963 and 2012, unemployment averaged 5.1% for whites and 11.1% for blacks. The 2008 financial crisis hit black workers especially hard, with unemployment reaching 16.8% in March 2010. Under President Obama, black unemployment declined but didn’t fall below double-digits until the seventh year of his presidency. When he left office in January 2017, the black jobless rate was 7.5%. Under President Trump it dipped to 5.3% in August 2019, then fell to a record-low 4.7% in April of this year.
Positive black economic trends undermine the liberal argument that we live in a society stacked against certain racial and ethnic minority groups, so these trends tend to get played down or spun to advance a left-wing agenda.
” he never talks about joy, love, family, all anathema to the Left.”
To the left abortion is joy. With abortion one eliminates love and family.
Hello, Enigma. Haven’t spoken to you in a while.
You may be interested to know that the predecessor to the Democrat Party created gerrymandering, in 1812, in order to break the Federalist Party stronghold in a county in Massachusetts. The voting district was redrawn until the resultant contorted serpentine shape resembled a salamander. The practice became known as “gerrymandering”, a play on the name Elbridge Gerry, the governor who signed the bill that redrew the district, and its resemblance to a salamander.
As this was before the Civil War, it was not, in fact, created to suppress the black vote, though Democrats certainly became rather infamous for doing so during Jim Crow.
Republicans have made several efforts to get rid of gerrymandering, or at least to weaken its effects. Republican Chief Justice Earl Warren ruled that all voting districts have to have equal populations, update congressional districts every decade, and that each member represent the same number of citizens. More Democrats voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1965, which also addressed voting district distribution.
Since gerrymandering is still permitting, both sides do it. It’s rather strange how Democrats insist gerrymandering is a Republican vice, since in 2022 Democrats wiped out the only Republican voting district in Maryland by gerrymandering, held a majority in Illinois by drawing districts that looked like jagged Christmas trees, and changed New Mexico from a Republican majority of 14 to a Democrat majority of 4 by gerrymandering.
At this point, Democrats just say, gerrymandering is a racist tool of Republicans, and the media just amplifies it without contemplation.
There is a natural inclination for each party to increase their clout. I live in a conservative rural area, next to a town that is strongly Democratic, with another conservative rural town in another direction. The only way for rural people to have any political voice is to link them all together, though by definition, they would be sparse and spread out. A rural community that uses well water 50 miles from me would have similar issues to ours, while the town 15 miles away, with city water and suburbs would have entirely different problems and concerns. It would make more sense to constituents to draw a voting district where one district represents the vast, spread out rural areas, while other districts deal with cities, towns, and suburbs. That could look like a pretty interesting voting district map, yet the intention is to aptly represent voters in unique areas, rather than disenfranchise anyone. I doubt many redistricting committees would be so altruistic, however.
Karen S.
Thank you for your well thought out and backed by facts comment.
Hello Karen S, I’m well aware of the history of gerrymandering and how important it was in Democratic strategy. I know how racist the Democratic Party was (and is) and that they have far more cumulative blood on their hands then Republicans (who are catching up).
The Republican Party was founded on lofty ideals, I point to their slippage as beginning with the Compromise of 1877 when they agreed to remove federal troops in the South to win a contested Presidential election. The following year they gave us Posse Comitatus to ensure they wouldn’t return. They opened the gates for Jim Crow and averted their eyes for the next century.
The Republican Party, at least the party they were even recently, had some things Black people could appreciate and respond to. Black people once voted over 97% Republican and the massive shift didn’t happen without cause.
Except for one thing, I wouldn’t be a single-issue voter. There are Republicans I respect and even admire, but until your Party rejects voter suppression they can never get my vote. Repeating the claim it doesn’t exist will never work, especially when they are working so hard to achieve it. Gerrymandering is just a part of the problem, look at what happened the very day after Shelby v. Holder passed in 2013 and preclearance was eliminated. I do agree with SCOTUS that it was unfair to single out certain states and communities. The whole country should require preclearance, then a whole lot of suppression would go away.
You will continue to vote on The Single issue of accusing Repubs of voter suppression? Oh please.
Tulsi Gabbard left Democrat party.
Kyrsten Sinema left Democrat party.
there are more….
including just the other day Mesha Mainor of Georgia who left the Democrat party saying:
“For far too long, the Democrat Party has gotten away with using and abusing the black community. For decades, the Democrat Party has received the support of more than 90% of the black community. And what do we have to show for it? I represent a solidly blue district in the city of Atlanta. This isn’t a political decision for me. It’s a moral one.”
You Go girl. Lead the way…
I left the Democrat Party for Independent in 2020 after being a Democrat my entire life.
¡Ya basta con los Izquierdistas!
¡exactamente correcto!
lástima que el enigma sea tan obtuso
Obtuse – that’s exactly right, and the word I was looking for in my response above at 7:42. He presents as a reasonable person at first but trying to get him to actually engage with ideas is a fool’s errand.
¡exactamente correcto!
He estado en tus zapatos!
I understand the exasperation you feel when it comes to debating enigma.