Square State

Why didn't anybody notice that "Joe the Plumber" was a repackaging of "Tom the Tinker"?

news round-up by johne:

• Looks like Norm Coleman is about out of options.  Minnesota is expected to certify the results today. Making Al Franken the 59th Democratic Senator (counting Lieberman).
• Obama has selected Virgina Governor Tim Kaine to head the DNC.
• I'm sure you've all heard that NM Gov. Richardson has withdrawn his name as commerce secretary.  Pay for Play?  Say it ain't so Joe Bill.
• Things are so bad in Colorado Springs they're going to try to repeal TABOR.
• Want more info on Michael Bennet?  The Post has one, two, three, four, five articles.  The Rocky has one, two, three, four.
• State GOP complains about activist judges.
• Say goodbye to Allard and Tancredo.
• What are unions good for?  Saving your benefits.  Denver Post non union employees are losing their 401K matching contributions.
• Boulder's velodrome just opened.  It's about time this state had more than one track for cyclists.

So, you have finally decided to stop boring your Significant Other with how you could do a better job than those so and so's at the local political level, or perhaps the Party elders have cornered you at a dinner dance about the fact that it is time for you to run for that open seat. Now what? Well the Dog is here to help you, if only a little bit. There is a bunch of things that you should know and do if you are going actually be elected instead of being an "also ran".  
The first thing is homework. Yeah, you thought you left that all behind in school, but as M.C. Hammer said "Ring the bell, school is in session". No matter what level of office you are running for you will need to find out the following:

1) Who holds the seat now? Is the incumbent a Dem or Repug? How long have they held this seat?  All of these factors are going to effect how you go about wining. If the seat is held by a Dem that is not term limited you had better gird your loins for a real battle in the primary. That is not to say that you can't win, it is just a lot harder to when you do not have the explicit support of the Party, which you most likely will not if there is an incumbent.

If the seat is open or held by a Repug, you might still have as primary battle, but at least it will be more of an even field fight.

2) Now you need to look at the last four or five cycles. You need to know how many votes each candidate received. This is important because it will let you set a goal for the number of votes you will need to win. By putting this in a numeric form instead of 50% +1 it lets you target voters for contacts and will make your efforts more effective. You should be able to find this info on your local newspapers website.

3) For the same time period, what was the fundraising and what was spent? Be sure to look at the primary challengers, even the ones that lost. Knowing how much you will have to raise to be competitive is very, very important. After all it is no use being the gal or guy with all the best ideas if you can not get your message out. At the local and even state level there are lots of things you can do to keep these costs down, but you will still need a significant amount of money for things like direct mail. Consultants will tell you (and they are right) that you need eight direct mail pieces to win an election. Those will not be cheap. This should be a real gut check moment for any fledgling candidate. If you do not have tons (or any) money of your own to pour into a campaign, you need to be very confident that you will be able to raise the money needed. Sadly you can not count on the State or County Party to make this up for you. They may or may not come through with the dough, so your best bet it is to plan to do it yourself.

4) What is the registered voter make up of your district? If you are a Dem (which the Dog is assuming given where you are reading this) and you live in a district that is 68% Repug, you are in a bit of a pickle. You had better be a pretty damn conservative Dem to have a chance in a district like that. You can find this information at the Sec. of States website (most of the time) or you can request it from them. Don't forget to look for Indy voters, in some places they may be more than either the Dems or Repugs (like the Dogs district).

5) Now you need to know the population of your district and where is concentrated. Ideally you would be able to hit every door in the district, but realistically you are going to have to choose where you will get the most benefit for the time you are going to put in (you did know that this is going to completely take over you life for the next year or two, right?). What cities do you have in your district? Where are they in relationship to each other? Which ones have predominately Dem City Councils? What about the County Commissioners? Are they mostly Dems or Repugs? All of this is going to tell you a lot about the voting habits of your constituents, and it is far better to know the scope of the job you are looking at then to assume that everything will be groovy.

Now that you have the number and are still sure that you want to do this (you still do, don't you?) it is time to start working on yourself. You need to be ready to answer a couple of big questions, mostly because everybody and their brother is going to ask them:

1) Why do you want to do this? There are going to a million different answers to this question, but one that is a total loser is "Well, because I think I can". That is where Caroline Kennedy got into trouble. It is not enough to want to be in a position of power, it is all about what you want to do with it. From the Dog's point of view if one of the top reasons is not that you want to serve the people of the district; you should reconsider your actions. Good government requires people that know they are being elected to make decisions that will positively impact the people that elect them. You have a certain amount of ego if you are even considering running. Ego is not a bad thing, if you can back it up with actions, so be sure that you want to act in the peoples name and not just your own.

2) Why should you be the one to be elected? What about your experience or outlook makes you the one that should hold this office? It needs to be short and specific so that people can get a quick handle on you. Most of the voters (sadly) are going to vote for or against you on the strength of a few words, so be sure that your words give them a road map to your skills and ambitions (remember the ambitions should be about what you are going to do to make their lives better).

You will need to put in some real time and word smithing for the above questions. Start making notes, start practicing it in the mirror, practice on your friends and spouse. This is little stump speech is something you are going to say over and over and over, so it better sound like you and be pitched at the people of your district.

Next you need to start working on you extra circulars. Just like Junior year of High School you are going to need to put some time in on things that show what a great choice you are. If you do not already belong to a service club (Optimists, Rotary, Lions, etc.) you had better pick out at least one and join now. It seems like a strange thing but people will judge you ties to the community by your participation in these clubs. But there is an upside for you, when you start your serious fund raising the members of these clubs are a great source!

You should also find some kind of business organization and join it. No matter how you come down on the management/worker split, you will need some contact with the business community. They are also constituents just because you have an ideological difference with them is not an excuse to ignore them. By being part of some business org you will get to hear what is important to this community and perhaps, know how your opponent will come at you.

Be sure that you reach out to local party officials, both those that hold office and those that just work within the Party. They are going to have wealth of good information for you, but you will have to go get it form them, they are not going to rain it down on you. You want to cultivate as many as possible, as having the Party structure behind you can make the difference between winning and losing. Since this is your first run for office, be relatively humble. People love to show off how much they know, so Big Ears, Little Mouth is the strategy to pursue with them.

Finally, you should start to look for the issues in your district. If you don't subscribe to all the news papers, do so now. Start following the words and actions of the person that holds the seat you want to take from them. It is going to be important to know if they are serving the people or themselves. You are going to become an expert on the problems of your district and or State, so you had better start now.

Obviously this is just the beginning of running for office. In the future the Dog will talk more specifics of how and what you should do in your campaign, and most importantly when, but for now if becoming X-Elect in November 2012 is your goal, then these are the things that you should be doing in the next few months.

The floor is yours.  

As I said earlier, it's pretty clear that Michael Bennet was appointed to the U.S. Senate solely because of his aristocratic credentials - ie. connections to money and Establishment power and Beltway insiders. It had almost nothing to do with his relevant experience, because if that was the basis for an appointment, every other major candidate had more of that. And, as the Denver Post notes, it had absolutely, positively nothing to do with his public positions on issues:
But while everyone from business leaders to political heavyweights to education reformers agree that Bennet is almost always the smartest guy in the room, his positions on nearly every key issue facing the country are completely unknown.

"Soon," Bennet said both during and after the official announcement.

Foreshadowing the hard-fought senate race expected in 2010, state GOP chair Dick Wadhams seized on Bennet's silence.

"His continued refusal today to state his positions on issues suggests someone who isn't clear where he stands," Wadhams said. And then he demanded to know Bennet's stance on an upcoming measure in the Senate that would eliminate the secret ballot in union votes.  

One of two disconcerting realities is at work here: 1) Bennet's positions are known by the Establishment forces that got him the Senate job, and those positions aren't threatening to that Establishment (read: they are corporate conservative) or 2) Bennet himself doesn't yet have positions on the major issues.

I guess the latter would be better than the former in that it would hold out the possibility that Bennet will end up being a solid Democratic vote on issues like health care, ending the war, and the Employee Free Choice Act. But the fact that Colorado now has a senator whose never held elected office and therefore has no voting record*; has lived most of his life in D.C. and not in state; has served as a key adviser to a right-wing billionaire; and hasn't stated any public positions on key issues before the Senate highlights just how odd - and troubling - Ritter's appointment is.

*Note: I think having served in elected office - or at least having run for such office - should be a key qualification for a Senate appointment not as much for political/reelection reasons, but because in having served/run for office, a candidate has built up something of a public record on many issues (whether that public record is actual votes or public statements) and therefore the citizens being represented by said candidate at least have some idea of where that appointee actually stands.

Gov. Bill Ritter just spoke at a hastily organized press conference announcing the appointment of DPS superintendent Michael Bennet to the US Senate replacing Ken Salazar.  Technically, he can't be appointed until Salazar either resigns, or is confirmed in the senate as Interior Secretary.  Hopefully his centrism will mean he's an easy confirmation, right.  Right?

I will update this shortly, but for now, here's the press release:

Gov. Bill Ritter today announced that he is appointing Denver Public Schools Superintendent Michael F. Bennet to represent Colorado in the U.S. Senate, praising Bennet as a proven 21st century leader and problem-solver in both the public and private sectors.

"This is a critical time in history," Gov. Ritter said. "The economic challenges facing America and Colorado are unprecedented. People are losing their jobs. Businesses are closing. Families are hurting. Our challenges are so serious that it will take a new generation of leaders, a new way of thinking and a bold new approach to problem-solving to steer us through this.

More after the fold.
"Uncertain times call for certain leadership, and that's why Michael Bennet is the right choice to represent all Coloradans in the Senate. He has an impressive record of bringing people together to find common ground and common-sense solutions to complex problems, and of turning around troubled public and private enterprises and leaving them far stronger than he found them.

"Michael will bring a fresh, new approach to the economic crisis," Gov. Ritter said. "He knows we can't fix our 21st-century problems with 20th-century solutions. Working alongside Sen.-elect Udall and President-elect Obama, Michael will devote the same sense of forward-looking optimism, vision and energy to this new role that he brings to every aspect of his life and work. "

Bennet, 44, will fill the remaining two years of Sen. Ken Salazar's term. Salazar is expected to be confirmed this month as Interior Secretary.

"I am humbled and honored to serve the State of Colorado as your next U.S. Senator," Bennet said. "I stand ready to take on the serious challenges facing our country and our state. I have learned from Mayor Hickenlooper that there is no challenge without a solution and no problem too tough to withstand innovative thinking.

"My experiences, not only in public service but also in business, have taught me that when people come together, put aside partisan differences, and focus on pragmatic problem-solving, we can accomplish great things," Bennet said. "I will bring these values with me as I join a new generation of leadership in Washington, DC."

Bennet was unanimously selected by the Denver school board to serve as superintendent in 2005. Over the past four years, his achievements include:

?   Winning voter approval and implementing DPS' ProComp program, the nationally recognized teacher pay-for-performance system.

?   Improving student learning, achievement, graduation rates, enrollment and access to early childhood education opportunities.

?   Ending multiple years of multimillion-dollar budget cuts and increasing investments directly into classroom learning as well as teacher and principal training.

Prior to that, Bennet served from 2003 to 2005 as chief of staff to Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper. He helped construct a new leadership team, balance the budget after years of deficits, renegotiate several collective bargaining agreements and redesign police oversight.

From 1997 to 2003, Bennet served as managing director for Anschutz Investment Co. in Denver. He oversaw the investment of more than $500 million, led the reorganization of four distressed companies, and restructured $3 billion of debt and consolidated three movie theater chains into Regal Entertainment Group, which today is the largest motion picture exhibitor in the world.

"Michael is an accomplished and highly competent leader," Gov. Ritter said. "What impresses me most are his energy, strength of character, temperament and innovative thinking. Michael is the right choice for Colorado's kids, Colorado's families and Colorado's future."

"In Colorado we have been blessed, and we can show the nation how to lead on issues like a New Energy Economy and education reform," Bennet said. "But, we are not isolated and we face our own set of challenges with the economy and protecting our land and water. Through the work of leaders like Gov. Ritter, Sen. Salazar and Mayor Hickenlooper I have seen their efforts to keep Colorado a special place, and that will be my mission every day in the U.S. Senate."

Additional Details About Michael F. Bennet:

Education

Wesleyan University, B.A. history (with honors), 1987

Yale Law School, Juris Doctorate, 1993 (editor-in-chief of The Yale Law Journal)

Professional

Superintendent, Denver Public Schools, 2005 to present

Chief of Staff to Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper, 2003 to 2005

Managing Director, Anschutz Investment Co., Denver, 1997 to 2003

Special Assistant U.S. Attorney, Connecticut, 1997

Counsel to Deputy Attorney General, Washington, D.C., 1995 to 1997

Law Clerk, U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, 1993 to 1994

Personal Assistant, Ohio Gov. Dick Celeste, 1988 to 1990

Personal

Married in 1997 to successful natural resources attorney Susan Daggett. They are the proud parents of three daughters: Caroline (9), Halina (7), and Anne (4).

STATEMENTS OF SUPPORT FOR MICHAEL BENNET

"I congratulate Michael Bennet on his appointment as Colorado's next United States Senator, and Governor Bill Ritter for making a splendid choice. Michael Bennet perfectly reflects the qualities of the ruggedly independent state he has been chosen to serve. An innovator in the public and private sectors, he has shown himself willing to challenge old thinking and stale policies. His breakthrough work at the helm of Denver's schools has reflected that commitment, and established Michael as one of the nation's leading education reformers. He will be a breath of fresh air in Washington."

President-elect Barack Obama

"If I am confirmed to serve as Secretary of the Interior, Michael will bring to the United States Senate an impressive background and a wealth of experience - both as an accomplished public servant and a successful businessman - that will help us tackle the many challenges we face as a state and a nation. If I am confirmed, I am confident Michael will serve the people of Colorado well as our next United States Senator."

Ken Salazar

United States Senator

"Michael Bennet brings intense personal commitment, intellectual rigor and innovation to any challenge. In addition to his diverse experience in law, the private sector, government and public education, Michael's strong character and dedication to public service will serve Colorado well in the U.S. Senate."

John Hickenlooper

Mayor, Denver

"I called Michael Bennet to offer my warmest congratulations on his appointment to the United States Senate. Michael has been a friend for many years, and I wish him great success representing our state in Washington."

Speaker of the House Andrew Romanoff

"Michael Bennet provided the visionary leadership that has allowed the Denver Public School district to make incredible progress. I know that Colorado will be greatly served by his compassion, his competence and his tireless advocacy. Michael's dedication and ability to bring people together will be assets as we face trying times in America. Michael Bennet is the right choice at this critical moment in our state's history."

Theresa Pena

President, Denver Public School Board

"Michael Bennet is a solid choice for Colorado. He has been a leader in school reform and has shown a strong commitment to Colorado's children. I look forward to working with the new Senator and building a partnership that will move our state forward."

Mark Udall

U.S. Senator-elect

"I am thrilled Michael Bennet will be our next U.S. Senator. He brings a wealth of knowledge from both the public and private sectors and has a proven ability of dealing with complex issues. Colorado needs that kind of new leadership in Washington."

Lt. Gov. Barbara O'Brien

"Michael Bennet's appointment to the U.S. Senate signifies a new generation of leaders in Washington, D.C.  I know Michael will serve Colorado with the energy and tenacity that he has displayed on behalf of public school families during his tenure as DPS Superintendent."

Peter Groff

President, Colorado State Senate

"Michael Bennet is the right choice for Colorado. Families across the state are facing tough times, and it will take a proven leader to stand up on their behalf in Washington, D.C. Michael has unique experiences, an innovative approach to problem-solving, and the skills to bring people together to find real solutions. I am very pleased that we will have a partner like Michael in Washington, DC."

Terrance Carroll

Speaker-Designee, Colorado State House of Representatives

"Michael Bennet has demonstrated his expertise in a range of public and private leadership positions. His willingness to stretch beyond the familiar, coupled with his efforts to open Denver Public Schools to new ideas and fresh thinking, convinces me that he will represent Colorado extremely well in the United States Senate."

Dwight D. Jones

Commissioner of Education, State of Colorado

"I think the world of Michael and think that he's done a great job as superintendent of DPS. Perhaps most important, he has practical financial experience in both the public and private sectors, and this is desperately needed in Washington, D.C."

Bruce Benson

President, University of Colorado

"Not only is Michael Bennet one of the brightest and most insightful individuals I have known, he also is one of the most effective.  That is a rare combination.  Results matter to Michael.  He is thoughtful and weighs the pros and cons before he acts. His accomplishments as an attorney and businessman were in no small part due to his balance and common sense. He is a good listener and has a great talent for bringing people together around common goals in order to reach a successful outcome for all of the interested parties; but he knows his own values and never strays from them."

Cannon Y.  "Cy" Harvey

President, The Anschutz Company

"Michael Bennet is a proven and passionate leader who has worked tirelessly throughout his life to bring new perspectives to a variety of issues. As we try to find solutions to our struggling economy, we need people with Michael's background and experience to help usher in a new way of thinking and a new age in politics. I am very pleased that Gov. Ritter made this choice, as I believe it's what is right for Colorado."

Walter Isenberg

Chairman, Colorado Concern

President/CEO, Sage Hospitality

"Gov. Ritter made a fine choice by selecting Michael Bennet. Michael will make a great Senator because he brings tremendous business and administrative experience to the table and he's got the right set of eyes to determine what the real issues are."

Roy Romer

Former Governor, State of Colorado

Former Superintendent, Los Angeles Unified School District

"I believe Michael Bennet will represent Colorado in an A-plus way. I have had the good fortune of working with Michael in two different capacities: first as Chief of Staff for Mayor Hickenlooper and second as Superintendent of Denver Public Schools when I co-chaired the 'A+ Citizens Committee.' In both positions, Michael demonstrated the ability to listen to all points of view, sort out diverse opinions and arrive at a policy decision that is in the citizens' best interest. He has the sound judgment and genuine ability to represent the people of Colorado for years to come. Gov. Ritter made a great choice from a list of great people."

Wellington Webb

Former Mayor, Denver

"It is indeed a momentous occasion when a 'once in a lifetime leader' is among us. From the beginning of our search for a new leader for DPS some four years ago, I was absolutely certain that Michael Bennet was the very leader our troubled district needed. I never wavered from that belief and have never been discouraged by the decision. Michael Bennet is a person whose vision encompasses the whole: past, present and beyond. I hurt when I think of losing Michael for DPS, but I rejoice in the same certainty I have had for several years now: that his vision and gifts of reason and truth will lead this state and this nation to a better place for all."

Lucia Guzman

Former School Board Member, Denver Public Schools

"Michael Bennet brings to the office a brilliant mind, a caring heart and an exceptional commitment to public service. Gov. Ritter has made an excellent choice that is in the best interest of the people of Colorado."

Rosemary Rodriguez

Chair, U.S. Election Assistance Commission

Former President, Denver City Council

"Michael Bennet combines attributes of intelligence and collegiality that will serve him very well in the U.S. Senate. Gov. Ritter has made an excellent appointment at a time when the Congress faces extraordinary issues of economic restructuring, war and peace, foreign policy repair, and military reform. The Governor has wisely put the national interest ahead of politics.  Michael will be able to fulfill his complex duties immediately and I am confident will impress the people of Colorado more than sufficiently to be elected in 2010 if he chooses to run."

Gary Hart

United States Senator (Ret.)

"As Gov. Bill Ritter's enlightened appointment, Michael Bennet will encourage the change and momentum that the US Senate needs, while bringing to Coloradans a wide-ranging and charming intellect Michael's proven problem-solving capacity will be welcome across the State - he is more than up to the challenges he will face, and he will be a force for reform and our future for many years to come."

Tim Wirth

United States Senator (Ret.)

"Governor Ritter made a good decision.  Michael Bennet will make an excellent U.S. Senator and Colorado will grow to love him! He's smart, strategic, inclusive and is genuine in his concern for all of people of Colorado."

Michael B. Hancock
Denver City Councilman, District 11

"I look forward to working with Michael on the many important issues facing rural Colorado, including protecting our water, natural resources and agricultural base and improving access to health care."

Former U.S. Representative, Ray Kogovsek of Pueblo

Legislators under the dome in Denver are anxiously watching those in Washington, as the Federal government scrambles to prepare a stimulus package in time for Obama's inauguration. Faced with the need to cut another $600 million from their already lean budget, the Assembly is hoping that an infrastructure bill would bring enough money to Colorado to expand Colorado's economic growth and opportunities.

At a press conference today, the Colorado Democrats listed the economy as their top priority for the new legislative session. Even when discussing other key issues such as health care and education, they did so with an eye to the impact on job creation.
Sen. President Groff said that unfortunately there were no sacred cows when it came to the impending cuts, and he expressed regret that at a time when people were likely to be turning to the government for help, it may be necessary to trim programs that would really help them. Nevertheless, the Democrats were optimistic that they could send the Governor new bills that would bring more of Colorado into what incoming House Speaker Terrance Carroll called the "circle of opportunity."

The ripple effect from Federal dollars could be substantial, each billion invested may create as many as 40,000 new jobs. But will that money make it's way to Colorado? If the criteria is on "shovel ready" projects, Sen. Groff said that we could see a lot of it coming our way, but that if the criteria was "needs based" then he thought Michigan, Florida, and California might receive it instead. Either way, the Federal money would be a catalyst and not the solution to our long term problems. For our roadways, Rep. Carroll hinted that legislative leaders, the Governor, and "outside groups" were working to create a "new sustainable revenue source."

Schaffer and Weismann, the Senate and House Majority Leaders, explained that their jobs would be to keep the focus of their caucus on the key priorities, but admitted that many side issues would be folded in. Weismann offered the example, "I'll be back with my death penalty bill." The press questions often explored the side issues, such as liquor sales in supermarkets and payday loans, but the leadership kept framing the answers around the topic of economics, a place where they (perhaps overly optimistically) felt that they had enough of a shared stake with the Republican members that the session can proceed with little partisan rancor. Republican legislators nearby seemed to not share the belief that economic issues are quite so collegial.

Betty Boyd, Sen. President Pro-Tem, spoke to the issue of education, and talked about programs designed to provide workers for high-tech jobs such as a partnered high-school/associates degree program. She also spoke of potential programs to mandate family leave days when employees with children need to attend parent teacher conferences. When the leadership was asked about C.U. President Benson's request that the school be "set free" to raise tuition rates, Sen. Groff suggested that, "They do need some flexibility to stay viable," but then said that there would need to be conversations about what obligations the schools would still be required to fulfil to the state if they were granted more independence.

One questioner asked if Colorado could stem job losses by revisiting our oil and gas rules, and Rep. Carroll said oil industry's claims about the rules were "disingenuous on its face" and a "red herring argument" and pointed to the general drop in oil prices and the lag in the implementation time line as evidence that the rules had nothing like the effect that the corporations were claiming.

Ultimately there are still four branches of Colorado government, the Governor, the Assembly, the Court, and TABOR. By design, what the legislators will be able to do will be shackled by the budget and by what Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid decide to do with United States' credit cards. But the legislative session convenes early this year on January 9th, and the Democrats are already getting ready, because as Sen. Boyd said in the hallway leaving the conference, "Life goes on while were waiting for Washington to act."

Aristocracy n

Definition: Government by the best individuals or by a small privileged class.

Though I'm not home in Denver right now (I'm in an airport heading there right now), I'm guessing there are many who are fairly to quite mystified by Colorado Gov. Bill Ritter's (D) selection of Michael Bennet for U.S. Senate. It makes no political or policy sense whatsoever. Indeed, the only thing that rationally explains this individual appointment (as well as the New York appointment and many of Obama's economic/national security cabinet appointments) is the fact that we are living in a Golden Age of American Political Aristocracy.
In terms of politics (ie. ability to get reelected in 2010, ability to lift the statewide ticket in 2010, etc.), Bennet makes no sense for reasons that are undeniable: He's A) never run for any office in his life B) never run for - or even held by appointment - a statewide office in Colorado and C) lived in the state of Colorado for barely a decade.

Had any one of these factors not been true - had he, say, lived in Colorado for barely a decade but held office, or say, lived in Colorado all his life building up strong connections in the community - there might be some shred of an argument that he is a good political choice in comparison to other candidates like Ed Perlmutter, Andrew Romanoff, Joan Fitz-Gerald, Diana DeGette or John Hickenlooper. But they are all true. I mean, Bennet is even from Denver - so you can't even make the argument that he's some sort of smart geographic choice designed to appeal to the rest of the state, again - especially when compared to the other Denver-ites (Romanoff, DeGette, Hickenlooper, etc.) who could have been named.

Policy-wise, Bennet has some education experience as head of Denver Public Schools, but his record there is, ahem, mixed, and more importantly, it is incredibly thin when put up against people like Romanoff (the Speaker of the House), Perlmutter (a congressman and former Senate president) and even Hickenlooper (Denver's mayor). Additionally, the policy area he does have significant experience with - education - is a relativcely minor issue at the federal level (for instance, federal funding comprises only about 9 percent of public education - despite the fanfare about No Child Left Behind, states and localities still make the big decisions on public education). It's not that education at the federal level is totally unimportant, it's just comparatively minor. In terms of the really huge issues the Senate will deal with - Iraq, health care, trade, economic stimulus, labor law reform - Bennet is a complete and total blank slate. We know almost nothing about him.

So as I said to start, the only thing that rationally explains his appointment is the emboldened power of political aristocracy (and, by extension, money) that is sweeping the country. By aristocracy, I mean all of the factors of aristocracy implied in its dictionary definition's focus on priviledge. That means not just familial lineage - but also money, inside connections and academic/economic advantage.

Bennet, as MSNBC reports, comes from political and academic aristocracy:

Bennet was born in New Delhi, India in 1964. The circumstance of the exotic locale was that his father, Douglas Bennet, was serving as an aide to Chester Bowles, then the U.S. ambassador to India and previously foreign policy aide to President Kennedy.

Bennet grew up in Washington, DC and attended the exclusive all-boys St. Alban's school. He went on to graduate from Wesleyan University, and in between undergraduate school and law school he served as a body man to Ohio governor Dick Celeste. After graduating from Yale Law in 1993, he served in the Clinton administration as counsel to Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick, a position that included writing speeches for Attorney General Janet Reno. (emphasis added)

Like a seasoned operative in this Golden Age of Aristocracy, Bennet promptly parlayed all of that into a big-money job for right-wing billionaire Philip Anschutz:

He worked for six years prior to his tenure at the City of Denver as Managing Director for the Anschutz Investment Company in Denver, where he had direct responsibility for the investment of over $500 million. He led the reorganizations of four distressed companies including Forcenergy (which later merged with Denver-based Forest Oil), Regal Cinemas, United Artists and Edwards Theaters, which together required the restructuring of over $3 billion in debt.  Bennet also managed, on behalf of Anschutz, the consolidation of the three theater chains into Regal Entertainment Group, the largest motion picture exhibitor in the world.

Considering his lack of legislative record, lack of experience in any elected or statewide office, and considerable ties to the biggest of big money, it's logical to be concerned about how a Senator Bennet will vote on issues. Off the top of my head, I'm wondering, for instance, whether someone with this kind of resume is going to be in favor of tougher financial industry regulations?*

But I think there should be an even deeper concern about what Bennet's appointment says about the political age we're living in.

Colorado has no dearth of very, very qualified people to be U.S. Senator (especially considering that being a U.S. Senator is one of the easiest jobs in the United States - your major responsibility is to vote yes or no and then be told how awesome you are by the 50 taxpayer-funded sycophants who comprise your personal staff - a lot easier than the average factory job). More specifically, we have a lot of people who have worked very hard passing good public policy and building the grassroots of the Democratic Party for years here (many who are named on the list of aforementioned potential candidates). Looking at this bench, and then selecting a person with almost none of those qualities confirms that what gets rewarded in politics today is not legislative accomplishments nor even political ones - what counts is money, inside connections, Ivy League pedigree and a Beltway-padded resume.

Clearly, the same (if not more) can be said of the imminent nomination of Caroline Kennedy to the U.S. Senate in New York - a state which, by virtue of its sheer size, has even more super-qualified candidates, and yet a state which will likely see its senate seat given away to the daughter of a famous politician (by no less than the heir to a local political dynasty!) based almost solely on her last name. And here's the real kicker - whether in Colorado or New York - the subversion of meritocracy and manufacturing of aristocracy counts more today than it has at any time in contemporary history.

Yes, politics is always a battle between meritocratic idealism (ie. good ideas, grassroots work, etc.) and aristocracy (ie. money, insiderism, aristocracy, privilege, etc.). Yes political aristocracy has always existed, even in meritocratic eras. And yes, there are desirable merits to various facets of aristocracy (for example, we should want well-educated people in government). But there have only been a few infamous historical moments where aristocracy has totally, completely and publicly supplanted the desirable non-aristocratic factors of meritocracy to the point where no one's even trying to hide it anymore. One of those infamous moments was the Gilded Age, when billionaires publicly tried to buy U.S. Senate seats. Sadly, the other infamous moment is right now.

What's confusing, of course, is that we just experienced a presidential election that saw the first African American elected to the White House - an election that seemed to reaffirm the meritocratic myth that "anyone can be president" as long as they are qualified. Somehow, we are being simultaneously taught that lesson while also being taught the opposite about U.S. Senate seats.

But, then, Barack Obama's White House appointments over the last few weeks underscore that - his individual election aside - this remains the Golden Age of American Political Aristocracy. In appointing primarily center-right Washington insiders, he makes the Bennet and Kennedy appointments seem mundane - even predictable. When even the first African American president in American history says insider connections, Establishment seals of approval and proximity to money/power - ie. the credentials of Political Aristocracy - should dictate upward mobility, then run-of-the-mill governors from Colorado to New York are probably going to signal the very same thing.

The problem, of course, is the psychological effect on the rest of the country. All of these moves say to America that there is a real bipartisan Ruling Class in this country, and that that Ruling Class is more adept than ever in tightening its grip over the rest of the nation. That's nothing new - most Americans have long known the political system is rigged. But what is new is that the Ruling Class's re-confirmation of its power and control is happening so brazenly and so soon after an election that thematically promised something different.

In the short term, that may only depress the activist class that had momentarily reengaged in politics based on its (all together now!) hope in those promises of change. Prioritizing aristocracy over meritocracy says to everyone from state legislators to campaign volunteers that the way to get ahead in politics is not to spend lots of time, for instance, building your local party or building a grassroots organization, but instead to simply be lucky enough to have been pulled out of the most privileged crotch as a newborn.

But there could also be a long-term effect - especially if the dominance of aristocracy in our government is expressed by either legislative inaction, or legislation designed to protect the aristocracy (the latter which would be unsurprising from aristocratic policymakers). The depressing reality of politics typically perpetuates the constant low-grade disillusionment we've all gotten used to. But when overt in-your-face reminders of that depressing reality (like the Obama Cabinet picks or the Bennet and Kennedy appointments) are dropped into the mass public's frothing stew of economic angst and ginned up "hope," once-surmountable disillusionment can metastasize into demoralization and then into backlash - and specifically, the government-is-evil kind that Ronald Reagan once rode to victory soon after a Democratic landslide.

I'm not, of course, predicting that for 2010 or 2012 - at least not yet. There's the distinct possibility that in spite of the Golden Age of Aristocracy, the government will be forced to take some basic actions to fix major problems afflicting the non-aristocracy. But if you think there's no mass psychological effect of professional politicians - whether Ritter, Paterson, Obama or anyone else - essentially celebrating insiderism, money and aristocracy, there are whole American history books which suggest otherwise.

* I just want to be clear - none of this means that Bennet will end up being a poor political or policy choice. He may end up being a great candidate for reelection and a great senator on policy. My point is simply that knowing what we know right now, on both political and policy grounds, he doesn't even come close to the qualifications of the other potential candidates - that, in short, his appointment is fundamentally about aristocracy.  

The Denver Post and Rocky Mountain News are both reporting anonymously-sourced stories indicating Governor Ritter has picked his man to replace Senator Ken Salazar: Denver Public Schools Superintendent Michael Bennet.

When Salazar is confirmed as Secretary of the Interior in the Obama administration later in January, Ritter will pick the replacement.

More on Bennet: Before assuming the DPS post, Bennet was Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper's Chief of Staff. At DPS, he's developed a school performance system that has become a national model. He's especially known for his budget acumen, both at DPS and under Hickenlooper: last year was the first year DPS didn't have to cut its budget (Bennet actually took his post in the wake of DPS cutting over $83 million over five years), and this year there is $18 million in new funding in classrooms. While helping Hickenlooper run Denver, Bennet balanced a chronically imbalanced budget.

He also served in Bill Clinton's Department of Justice, edited the Yale Law Review, and in the private sector has managed hundreds of millions of dollars.

If true (and there's supposed to be an official announcement on Saturday), it will certainly be an out-of-the-box outside-the-box choice by Ritter [LOL]. An intriguing selection, and -- as Gov. Ritter undoubtedly knows -- effective public servants who aren't politically polarizing are immensely attractive to Colorado voters in general. Especially one with a record as a budget hawk.

Update: The New Yorker on Bennet and the DPS system.  

Happy Friday and Welcome to the first Friday Constitutional of the New Year! This is the ninth in the Dog's continuing series on the Constitution of the United States. This series grew from the shameful realization that the Dog had never read the entire Constitution. In order to remedy this and, perhaps, provide the same service to others in the Netroots community, the Dog has been going through part of the Constitution and commenting on the meaning of that part each week. If you are interested in the previous eight in this series, you can find them at these links:
Friday Constitutional 1 - Preamble, Article One, Sections 1 and 2
Friday Constitutional 2 - Article One, Sections 3 and 4
Friday Constitutional 3 - Article One, Sections 5 and 6
Friday Constitutional 4 - Article One; Sections 7 and 8
Friday Constitutional 5 - Article One, Sections 9 And 10
Friday Constitutional 6 - Article Two, Section One, Clauses 1-3
Friday Constitutional 7 - Article Two, Sections 1-4
Friday Constitutional 8 - Article Three, Sections 1-3

This week we will cover Article Four Relationships Between The States.

Article Four

Section One:

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

This section basically says that what is considered legal in one State must be considered legal in others States. However the second sentence gives the Congress the power to say exactly how that will work. As a practical matter this is how the pernicious (and Orwellian named) Defense of Marriage Act was able pass Constitutional muster. Since the Congress can tell States how their laws will or won't be honored by other States the provision that allows States not to recognize the legal rights of gay citizens in States that do not recognize those rights.

Section Two:

Clause One:

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

This clause is really important (not that there are a lot of clauses that are not important) in that it binds the country together by saying that the rights of a citizen in one state shall be the rights of a citizen in all states.

This clause was expanded on by the 14th Amendment. We will cover that Amendment completely in another diary, but the Section One is the pertinent for this clause. It reads:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

This Section details the way that you are considered a citizen. It is what makes being born here the critical factor. It also is, to the Dog's mind, where we will finally achieve full equality for gay citizens. It states that no State can deny a citizen equal protection under the law. That is critical as there are many States that do this for many citizens.

Clause Two:

Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on Demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime.

This is the extradition clause and like all clauses in this Article it is designed to make the country one by preventing people from playing the States against each other. The Dog bets this is the piece of law that was used to justify the Dread Scott decision. Note that it says persons and not citizens. If it had been limited to citizens, then there might have been a different outcome of that case. Or maybe not, it seems that the Chief Justice at the time was a big supporter of the right to own slaves.

In any case it allows for the extradition of any person that commits a crime from a State to which they have fled back to the State in which the crime was allegedly committed.

Clause Three:

No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.

Well, the Dog was wrong, this is where the legal reasoning for Dread Scott comes from. It is clearly a clause designed to protect the "rights"  (sorry for the scare quotes, but the Dog can not accept that the ownership of humans is ever a valid right) of slave owners and those that held people in indentured servitude. It is designed to specifically require the return of those that escaped from their slavery if the "owner" claimed them.

The good news is that this complete clause was abolished by the 13th Amendment in 1865.

Section Three:

Clause One:

New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.

This clause sets out that no new States may be formed in ways that might unfavorably impact existing States. This clause was designed to prevent the forcible fracturing of States by small groups of malcontents.  

For instance, the Dog grew up in Michigan and for a long time there was a movement in the Upper Peninsula for that region to become its own State. It would have not only required the consent of the Michigan Legislature (never, ever going to happen) and the Congress for this to happen.

Clause Two:

The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.

This is a pretty sweeping clause. It grants the Congress the power to make any rules or regulations it likes regarding the property and territory that is owned by the Federal Government. So, in the case of the District of Columbia, it seems that Congress could make any law it liked, and it would be completely constitutional. If they banned plaid shirts, because they felt it was needed, then you would not be able to ware them in DC.

The clause also states that nothing in the Constitution itself can be used to dispute the claims of the States or the United States on any property! Is this an example of the Framers horse trading? It seems very counter to most of the rest of the Constitution to have a single clause that might negate all other Articles and Clauses for any purpose.  

Section Four:

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

This section is the one that makes sure we are Republic and not a direct democracy. It pledges to the States that they will be represented in Government (subject to other provisions like proportionality). It also pledges that if one State were to attack another, the Federal Government would step in, at the request of the State. That is kind of interesting to the Dog, as if say Colorado and Wyoming were to declare war on each other, but neither asked the Federal Government to step in, would that mean that it could not?  

We'll stop here for this week. Next week we will cover the last three Articles (they are kind of short) of the Constitution. So, this is what the founding document says about how the States must interact, what do you think citizens?

The floor is yours.

 

Happy New Year.  We're turning over a new leaf or something.  Here's what going on around the state:

• Susan Greene is annoyed most senate appointment contenders aren't answering every question the press throws at them.
• It didn't take long for Bruce Benson ideology to show.  He wants the University system to be more free to set tuition rates.  A republican on the budget committee reveals what that really means: "Rep. Don Marostica says the state's public institutions should be privatized and set free from legislative rules." (emphasis mine)
• Mario Solis-Marich has a great article in Huffington Post arguing for Polly Baca as Ritter's Senate pick.
• In a very short announcement, Mark Udall will be on the Senate Armed Services and Energy and Natural Resources committees.
• Like everyone else, the Secretary of State is expecting a fight over amendment 54:As you may be aware, Amendment 54 regarding campaign contributions from certain government contractors was passed into law at the November 4, 2008 General Election.  This amendment is scheduled to take effect on December 31, 2008; however, there is a possibility that a challenge will be filed in which the plaintiffs may seek an injunction to enjoin enforcement of these new provisions.
• No, Squarestate does not run on Zune hardware.  Our hickup the other day was due to the name server we used to use.  Onward and upward.  (okay that's not exactly news from around the state)

How's everyone been?  Like many it seems, I caught a cold a few days ago, but I was at least well enough to make potato pancakes yesterday.  Yum!

Now discuss.

Today, the NY Times has a major piece about the spate of murders allegedly committed by soldiers returning to Fort Carson from Iraq.  

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01...

These horrific crimes are a direct result of failure of Bush's policies in Iraq.

General Eric Shinseki is famous for publicly contradicting Bush administration officials' overly optimistic predictions about the war in Iraq. In 2003, then serving as the Army's chief of staff, he told Congress that it would take several hundred thousand U.S. troops to secure Iraq. The Bush administration's failure to heed Shinseki's warnings led to a decimation of the U.S. military - underequipped forces, an over-reliance on the National Guard and Reserves, a dangerous stop-loss policy, and an increasing number troops coming home with mental and physical problems.

Everything the General said would happen has come to pass.

Many of us in the veterans movement fear that we are seeing a return to post-Vietnam patterns of GI violence that will only continue to spread.

What Colorado Springs is beginning to experience may be the tip of the iceberg.  

This is the personal, human cost of badly planned war of choice that is going to be with us for decades.  

Roland Burris was appointed by Blagojevich as one of only a handful of African American Senators today, and the only one currently serving.

But the Senate leadership is saying no.

The Israeli Army has a youtube channel.

Take a look at your tax dollars at work before you go back to clipping coupons.

The truth is out there.  But the corporate media is driven, not by the founding fathers' vision of what an informed citizenry should have access to, by the profit motive only.

What can be said when there are over one hundred and forty thousand American troops in Iraq bu the media is "tired" of covering this war because it is a ratings drag?

BarbinMD writes:

Good news from Iraq. Or more accurately, there will be less news, with the big three TV network's decision to "wind down" their operations and no longer assign full-time correspondents to Iraq. Because after all:

   "The war has gone on longer than a lot of news organizations' ability or appetite to cover it," said Jane Arraf, a former Baghdad bureau chief for CNN...

If the war is out of sight then it will be out of the national consciousness, but is that what should happen?

Does that mean that the "Scoop" Jackson wing of the Democratic Party will be in control?  This would mean that there will be American troops in Iraq long after the 2009 or 2010 or 2011 "deadline" has passed for our troops to come home which is what Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney want in order for them to feel vindicated.

The perfidy of the corporate press is plain to see.  Maybe this is why the internet and our access to news sources beyond ABC, FOX, NBC, CBS, CNN is vital for this nation.

Back to work. You weasels are lucky to have jobs. Stop your whining.

Now watch the shop for a bit. I have to go to the bank and cash my bailout check.

Ed Casso wants 9-11 as a state holiday:
"To me, if it's not the most important day in American history, it's the second or third most important," said Casso, a Democrat.

Bigger than the signing of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, or the Emancipation Proclamation?

Bigger than Pearl Harbor, D-Day, or the dropping of the Atomic Bomb?

Bigger than the ratification of women's voting, the start of prohibition, or the end of prohibition?

Bigger than the Watergate break in, the Kennedy assassination, or the landing of the first man on the moon?

Casso has been told the cost could run from $2 million to $3 million. Operations such as corrections and public safety would have to pay overtime on those days, for example.

One of the common arguments against any regulation is that it will send biz elsewhere. These days Conservatives don't just try to apply this where it makes sense, but even in places where there is no competition possible.

Wall St. Journal
DENVER -- Colorado's Oil and Gas Conservation Commission is asserting control over the state's booming energy industry with its approval of the most far-reaching drilling restrictions in the nation.

Regulations laid out this month in a 177-page document immediately drew fire from the industry and from some lawmakers, who say the restrictions will drive energy companies out of the state at a time when Colorado needs more high-paying oil and gas jobs.

Suuuuuuure. If we don't give away all our resources, and let Exxon pollute Colorado, they will move and drink up that plentiful oil elsewhere.  They think that if they refuse to give up their trillion dollar profits, nobody will come in willing to only take hundreds of billions in profits.

The oil companies are so used to having monopolies on supply, that they think they must also have monopolies on demand. It's Colorado's oil, and we make the terms on its extraction. If they don't like it they can go away, and crawl back in desperation later when their other wells have run dry and we have raised our prices. I don't remember them ever cutting me a deal after the oil gets out of my State and into their hands.

Of course, what they will do is just continue to buy off legislators, but that's another rant.

Good morning, and this is the end.  Welcome to Saturday Morning Garden Blogging.

Denver has finally crept out of the deep freeze.  On Monday the low was above zero; on Wednesday the high made it above freezing.  Christmas day was a balmy-by-comparison 48?.

Alas, the Arctic-blast cold of the previous two weeks had already done the deed on most of the remaining green in the front yard.  This intrepid little Johnny Jump Up in the front yard tried valiantly to bloom but ended up with a couple of frozen flowers.

The long-term weather forecast is for "seasonal" temperatures, meaning no big blasts of cold or snow are expected through mid-January.  However, historically January is Denver's coldest month, so "seasonal" means lows will be in the teens most nights, and highs will be in the 40s.

But we also may get some blasts of the Chinook winds which can warm the metro area up into the 60s.

In Orange
The passion flower vines are also showing cold damage.  I was surprised last year to find out just how cold it had to be before the hardy passion flowers - a plant of tropical original - showed their exposure to cold.  It takes a sustained period of single-digit lows before they bite the bullet.  And, even at that, the vines and leaves snugged up against the top of the front porch are still vibrantly green.

Christmas here at Casa de Frankenoid was, as usual, and orgy of consumption with, of course, unanticipated problems.  The anticipated problem was the absence of the X-Box, which had been sent off for repairs on December 13 (it's on its way back now); Da Boys did not get to play Rock Band 2 Christmas morning.

The unanticipated problem was that the Dance Dance Revolution game for the Wii also turned out to be unusable: the package was missing the game disc.  It went back to the store yesterday for a replacement.

After Da Boys hauled their haul upstairs, I discovered that one of the pooties had gifted us with a mouse corpse which, with all the boy stomping around had been smushed quite flat into the rug.  Luckily whichever pootie it was had already opened the gift, so there were no mousie guts and gore left to leak into the carpet.  Such thoughtful pooties!

With just me, the Mister and Da Boys here, we had a quiet day, largely spent watching the new DVDs - and thumbing through the seed catalogs that have arrived.  The sun is setting almost ten minutes later than it was earlier in the month, and by the end of January I'll know, just by the angle of the sun, that we are starting to climb out of winter.

That's what's happening here.  What's going on in your gardens?

Happy Friday and welcome to the Dog's seemingly never ending series on the Constitution! In this series the Dog is going through the entire United States Constitution clause by clause and talking about what he sees as the meaning and intent for each. As you surely know this kind of interpretation is something that folks spend a career on. The Dog is not one of those people, so if you see something that is flatly wrong, well, correct the old hound and we can all learn something!

If you are coming in at the middle of this series, you can find and read (if you are really that bored) all of the previous Friday Constitutionals at the links below:

Friday Constitutional 1 - Preamble, Article One, Sections 1 and 2
Friday Constitutional 2 - Article One, Sections 3 and 4
Friday Constitutional 3 - Article One, Sections 5 and 6
Friday Constitutional 4 - Article One; Sections 7 and 8
Friday Constitutional 5 - Article One, Sections 9 And 10
Friday Constitutional 6 - Article Two, Section One, Clauses 1-3
Friday Constitutional 7 - Article Two, Sections 1-4
This week we are starting on Article Three and the Judiciary Branch.

Article Three:

Section One:

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

Clause one sets out that there will only be one Supreme Court (or else it would not be supreme eh?) and that all judicial power at the Federal level will be placed there. It also allows for the Congress to create lower Federal courts. It allows the Congress to establish as many or few as it deems fit. That is kind of interesting, as it would be the Congress that decides the level of access to Federal Courts by setting the number of these Courts.

It also states that as long Justices behaves themselves; they will be on the Court. This little section is where the lifetime appointment comes from. We might get in deep water here but the general understanding of this part is that Justices were appointed for life in order to give them freedom from political pressure. This has not always worked (see the Roberts Court for a good example) but the idea is a good one.

The Dogs Dad was an attorney and he felt that this is one area of the Constitution that should be changed. He strongly felt that because of the lifetime appointments and he increase in life span that the Law was moving far slower than the rest of our society. His solution was to change the lifetime to a single 20 year term, with a generous pension and the revocation of the retired Justices ability to practice or teach law.  He felt that the last would be required, since the idea is to get newer legal minds onto the bench and clear away the older ossified opinions. The Dog thinks this is great idea, but also thinks that it is too abstract for most folks to care about enough to get an Amendment passed.

This clause, as others do, prevents any kind of monetary pressure to be put on the Justices or Federal Judges by reducing their compensation in retaliation for rulings.

Section Two:

Clause One:

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State;-between Citizens of different States,--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects

This clause sets out the boundaries of the Judicial Branches power. It allows the High Court to have jurisdiction over all Federal laws, the Constitution and Treaties, as well as the officers elected, appointed and commissioned by the United States.

It also sets out that the Supreme Court has jurisdiction over disputes between the States and between States and Federal Government. In it's original form (above) it also allows Federal Courts to hear suits of citizens against States they do not live in. This was changed by the 11th Amendment which reads:

The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.

This Amendment was ratified in February 1795.

Clause Two:

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

This clause says that if a case involves an Ambassador, Secretary of a Department or where a State is a party (either plaintiff or defendant) that the case should be heard originally by the Supreme Court.

It then goes on to say that in all other cases the Supreme Court is the appeals Court not just for the Law but for Fact, except where the Congress has legislated it to be different. The Dog is not sure what laws have been put in place (any readers that are lawyers might help here) but it is pretty clear that nearly every case is heard and reviewed by the lower Federal Courts before it reaches the Supreme Court these days.

Clause Three:

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

It might be tempting to kind of down play Clause Three, but to the Dog it is one of the most important there is. This is where you right to a trail by jury is laid out. Note that the only exception is Impeachment, the rules for which are covered in the Sections on the Legislative Branch.

Trial by jury was something the Framers felt was critical. The abuses of English law often stemmed from the fact that Judges were the sole arbiters of the Law and were often on the side of the local lords or the King. For a group of men that worried about the ability of a powerful King to take property or to change the rules at a whim this was a major problem. Their solution was to put citizens into the loop and reduce the power of individual judges.

The Dog's Dad was a huge believer in juries. He did not worry much about education level or political views of jurors that he would pick, as he felt that there is a wisdom that comes from people of good will earnestly looking at the fact and making the best decision they could. It was not that they could not be wrong from time to time, but it was that in the aggregate they would be correct more often than a single, legally educated, judge would be.

Section Three:

Clause One:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

This clause is very specific in what constitutes treason in the United States. It was written for the same reasoning as the trail by jury clause. If all it takes is the Government to declare you a traitor and execute you, then you can never be safe to speak out against the actions of the Government.

Note the Aid and Comfort part. These words have been used, recklessly, by the Conservatives to discredit anyone that objected to their actions in the so called War on Terror. It is a sign of our times that very few people called them on their very near accusation of treason. But it is the earlier part "adhering to their Enemies" that keeps this from being a flat accusation of treason.

The standard of proof is fairly high, with two separate and eyewitnesses to the overt act being required to convict or a confession in open court, not one that was obtained earlier and read into the record. It seems that the Framers were worried about torture, where any kind of statement at all can be obtained.

Clause Two:

The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

What this clause does is prevent the crime of treason from being passed on to the entire family of the convicted traitor. This is a left over concern from the Aristocracy, when political power was passed down from father to son. By declaring Corruption of Blood a monarch could strip a lord and his entire family of that political power. While the Framers were sure that there would be no Lords in the new United States, they wanted to be sure that the actions of one person could only have consequences for that person, not his family.

There it is the entire Section that details the Judicial Branch. Obviously there have been a lot of laws that have shaped the system that we see today, but it is kind of unnerving the level of power that this branch originally had.

So, citizens, what do you think? The floor is yours.

The Hill is blowing the lid off the shocking story that high ranking Democrats donate to political campaigns that favor Democrats.
Cabinet appointees donated heavily to Obama
President-elect Obama's Cabinet appointees and advisers contributed more than $53,000 to his presidential campaign, according to research by The Hill.

Several Cabinet appointees contributed the maximum of $4,600 allowed for an individual donor.

What?? They didn't donate to McCain? The Corrupt Bastards!

Meanwhile...
Other Cabinet choices, however, made no contribution to any presidential candidates. Sen. Ken Salazar (D-Colo.), designated to become secretary of the Interior, did not contribute anything to Obama's campaign. Salazar endorsed Obama in December 2007.

Salazar was one of five cabinet members who gave nothing but their service to get the job. Blagojevich disapproves.

Where is the central front in your war on Christmas?