The EU

Google says the EU requires a notice of cookie use (by Google) and says they have posted a notice. I don't see it. If cookies bother you, go elsewhere. If the EU bothers you, emigrate. If you live outside the EU, don't go there.

Monday, August 8, 2016

Reform at the Democratic National Committee


For John, BLUF:  Just to add to your pessimism about the Big Parties.  Nothing to see here; just move along.




Here is a pessimistic view by Professor Robert Reich.
The shake-up at the Democratic National Committee after an embarrassing breach of its email system continued Tuesday with the departure of three senior officials.

But purging the DNC of top officials won’t remedy the DNC’s problems. Those problems aren’t attributable to individuals who didn’t do their jobs. To the contrary, those individuals probably fulfilled their responsibilities exactly as those jobs were intended to be done. The DNC’s problems are structural.

.  .  .

What’s needed is structural reform. The DNC has to turn itself – and the Democratic Party – into a grass-roots membership organization, with local and state chapters that play a meaningful role in selecting and supporting candidates.

I am guessing that means no more "superdelegates".  For a while in this Election Season, early in the Primaries, there were Democrats, like WCAP's Sam Polton, going around saying it was just like the Republicans, but it is not.  Superdelegates are the way the DNC maintains control of the process, so as to avoid getting the "wrong person" nominated.  The Republicans have no such safety break.

Regards  —  Cliff

Distracted Driving


For John, BLUF:  Not just coffee.  Consumption of anything.  Nothing to see here; just move along.



From an 8 August article by Mr Steph Solis, in USA Today.

New Jersey already draws ire for not letting drivers pump their own gas.  But the state might ban them from having a cup of coffee behind the wheel too.
That thing about pumping gas may be restricted to highways like the Turnpike and the Garden State Parkway.  I pumped gas myself somewhere in North Jersey last week.  But, it was at a gas station with no C-Store.

The problem is, unless there is a big uproar over this, it would just be a trap for unsuspecting motorists.  How do out of state drivers deal with this?  They drive around New Jersey, through Pennsylvania. Or they vacation closer to home.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Wednesday, August 3, 2016

Candidate Succession


For John, BLUF:  More than you want to know, before you need to know it.  Nothing to see here; just move along.




This overall paper from the Congressional Research Service, Mr Thomas H Neale, author, talks to the question of what happens if we have incapacitation of the President or Vice President or both.  This is from 27 September 2004, but things don't change very fast in this area.

The part interesting at this point is what if it is a candidate, between the nominating conventions and the Inauguration. That portion of the report, Candidates, starts on page 11 of the PDF found at the link. But, here are the words:

Succession During Presidential Campaigns and Transitions. The related issue of succession during presidential campaigns and during the transition period between elections and the inauguration has been the subject of renewed interest since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.  The salient elements of this issue come into play only during elections when an incumbent President is retiring, or has been defeated, and the prospect of a transition between administrations looms, but uncertainties about succession arrangements during such a period have been cause for concern among some observers. Procedures governing these eventualities depend on when a vacancy would occur.

Between Nomination and Election.  This first contingency would occur if there were a vacancy in a major party ticket before the presidential election.  This possibility has been traditionally covered by political party rules, with both the Democrats and Republicans providing for replacement by their national committees.  For example, in 1972, the Democratic Party filled a vacancy when vice presidential nominee Senator Thomas Eagleton resigned at the end of July, and the Democratic National Committee met on August 8 of that year to nominate R. Sargent Shriver as the new vice presidential candidate.

Between the Election and the Meeting of the Electors.  The second would occur in the event of a vacancy after the election, but before the electors meet to cast their votes in December.  This contingency has been the subject of speculation and debate.  Some commentators suggest that, the political parties, employing their rules providing for the filling of presidential and vice presidential vacancies, would designate a substitute nominee. The electors, who are predominantly party loyalists, would presumably vote for the substitute nominee.  Given the unprecedented nature of such a situation, however, confusion, controversy, and a breakdown of party discipline among the members of the electoral college might also arise, leading to further disarray in what would already have become a problematical situation.

Between the Electoral College Vote and the Electoral Vote Count by Congress.  A third contingency would occur if there were a vacancy in a presidential ticket during the period between the time when the electoral votes are cast (Monday after the second Wednesday in December) and when Congress counts and certifies the votes (January 6).  The succession process for this contingency turns on when candidates who have received a majority of the electoral votes become President-elect and Vice President-elect.  Some commentators doubt whether an official President- and Vice President-elect exist prior to the electoral votes being counted and announced by Congress on January 6, maintaining that this is a problematic contingency lacking clear constitutional or statutory direction.  Others assert that once a majority of electoral votes has been cast for one ticket, then the recipients of these votes become the President- and Vice President-elect, notwithstanding the fact that the votes are not counted and certified until the following January 6.  If so, then the succession procedures of the 20th Amendment, noted earlier in this report, would apply as soon as the electoral votes were cast; namely, if the President-elect dies, then the Vice President-elect becomes the President-elect.  This point of view receives strong support from the language of the House committee report accompanying the 20th Amendment.  Addressing the question of when there is a President elect, the report states:

It will be noted that the committee uses the term “President elect” in its generally accepted sense, as meaning the person who has received the majority of electoral votes, or the person who has been chosen by the House of Representatives in the event that the election is thrown into the House.  It is immaterial whether or not the votes have been counted, for the person becomes the President elect as soon as the votes are cast.
Between the Electoral Vote Count and Inauguration.  As noted previously, the 20th Amendment covers succession in the case of the President-elect, providing thatincaseofhisdeath,theVicePresident-electbecomesPresident-elect.  Further, a Vice President-elect succeeding under these circumstances and subsequently inaugurated President would nominate a Vice President under provisions of the 25th Amendment.  A major concern that has risen about this period since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, centers the order of succession under the Succession Act of 1947.  What might happen in the event of a mass terrorist attack during or shortly after the presidential inaugural?  While there would be a President, Vice President, Speaker, and President Pro Tempore during this period, who would step forward in the event an attack removed these officials? This question takes on additional importance since the Cabinet, an important element in the order of succession, is generally in a state of transition at this time. The previous administration’s officers have generally resigned, while the incoming administration’s designees are usually in the midst of the confirmation process.  It is not impossible to envision a situation in which not a single cabinet officer will have been confirmed by the Senate under these circumstances, thus raising the prospect of a de facto decapitation of the executive branch.  This concern has led to several proposals in the 108th Congress.
UPDATE:  And here is Intrepid Reporter Rob Eno (and former LRCC Member), today, on the issue from a GOP point of view.

Regards  —  Cliff

Equal Time for Equal Suffering


For John, BLUF:  The final test may be in November.  Nothing to see here; just move along.




This is from the Blog The Resurgent, by Mr Erick Ericsson, today.

It is about the hypocrisy of the Democrats when you look at the Khan Family vs Mrs Pat Smith.

And, it is about the First Amendment.

Oh, and as for the Mainstream Media, it is 50 to 1 in reporting.

Hat tip to the Rob Eno, on Facebook.

Regards  —  Cliff

Unfit


For John, BLUF:  The Rhetoric is getting too hot, too fast.  Nothing to see here; just move along.



President Obama on Tuesday said Mr. Trump was “unfit to serve as president”.

So, what, in President Obama's mind, does that mean?

Pick an Option, or Suggest One
 
pollcode.com free polls

The "coup" idea is not new.  On 20 July, in The LA Times, Mr James Kirchick had "If Trump Wins, a Military Coup 'Isn't Impossible'".

And for scholarly papers, here is Law Professor Glenn Harlan Reynolds (University of Tennessee) and "Of Coups and the Constitution".

Abstract:
Military coups d'etat are a relatively common means of government turnover in many countries, but not in the United States.  This paper looks at a number of factors in the United States' Constitution and political culture that make military coups less likely, as well as at some changes in both that may reduce the degree of protection.  It also offers some suggestions on how to ensure that Americas coup-resistance remains strong.
Regards  —  Cliff

Tuesday, August 2, 2016

Looking Past Mr Trump to 2020


For John, BLUF:  This is a what if essay, looking at the case where Ms Clinton wins in 2016.  Nothing to see here; just move along.




From the Blog Site of Mr Brad Templeton, who is apparently a Canadian, we have a look into the future.
Social media are jam packed with analysis of the rise of Donald Trump these days.  Most of us in what we would view as the intellectual and educated community are asking not just why Trump is a success, but as Trevor Noah asked, “Why is this even a contest?”  Clinton may not be, as the Democrats claim, the most qualified person ever to run, but she’s certainly decently qualified, and Trump is almost the only candidate with no public service experience ever to run.  Even his supporters readily agree he’s a bit of a buffoon, that he says tons of crazy things, and probably doesn’t believe most of the things he says.  (The fact that he doesn’t actually mean many of the crazy things has become the primary justification of those who support him.)

But it is a contest, and while it looks like Clinton will probably win it is also disturbing to me to note that in polls broken down by race and sex, Trump is actually ahead of Clinton by a decent margin among my two groups — whites and males.  (Polls have been varying a lot in the weeks of the conventions.)  Whites and males have their biases and privileges, of course, but they are very large and diverse groups, and again, to the coastal intellectual view, this shouldn’t even be a contest.  (It’s also my view as a foreigner of libertarian leanings and no association with either party.)

I would challenge Mr Templeton's assertion that Ms Clint is "certainly decently qualified".  She is not.  But, that isn't the point of this short essay.  Here is the point:
But what if he were smarter? What if a more calculating candidate, now that this new body of voters has been discovered, knew better what to say and what not to say?  What if there were a candidate who applied advanced political techniques, testing and polling new positions, rather than just throwing pasta at the wall to see what sticks and depending on an imagined invulnerability to get away with it?

If Clinton continues her lead and wins, then this candidate is coming in 2024 or even 2020. If the trend described above that works against the incumbent party continues, that candidate will have a head start against Clinton or her Democratic successor and a strong chance at victory.

There were the Tea Parties and no one listened.  Now there is Mr Trump and Senator Sanders and likely no one is listening.  So, what does 2020 or 2024 have to offer if the disenchanted are not "brought back into the fold", if they still feel disenchanted?

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Monday, August 1, 2016

As Goes Wall Street


For John, BLUF:  I wonder what Senator Warren thinks of this?  Nothing to see here; just move along.



The full headline is "Wall Street for Hillary?:  Clinton has $48.5M in hedge fund backing, compared to Trump".

What is it with The Donald, that Wall Street is pulling against him?  Do they see him, secretly, as the Second Coming of Senator E Warren?

Hedge fund owners and employees have so far this election cycle contributed nearly $48.5 million for Hillary Clinton, compared to about $19,000 for Donald Trump, an indication that Wall Street is clearly backing the Democratic presidential nominee.

The total amount of such campaign contributions in 2016 is $122.7 million, twice as much as in the 2012 election cycle, according to a recent federal report analyzed by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics.

With the Democratic and Republican parties’ conventions over Thursday and the general election officially just a few days old, it’s no surprise that pro-Clinton groups have received more hedge fund money.

If you don't like it, blame Fox News. Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff