There have been several diaries and a lot of discussion recently on the ballot initiative that is going to be voted on in California in June.  The actual ballot initiative can be found here.

The key text in this initiative comes in the proposed Section 6902(b):

An elector shall be elected in each congressional district if the candidate to whom that elector has pledged to vote received a plurality of the popular vote cast in that congressional district. The two at-large electors shall be elected if the candidates to whom those electors have pledged to vote received a plurality of the popular vote cast in the state.

If you'll follow me over the fold, we'll see just why this is illegal.

Go to here

Unrec this.

The Senate will be debating H.R. 1585 - The Defense Authorization Bill.
Open thread commentator said cots had been brought in.
Harry Reid vows to go 30 hours for this session.

You can watch on C-Span2

We've had a series of "the insert scary adjective here ignorance of Kossacks about X" diaries today, so I feel I should call attention to something we're all overlooking: dem terrists!

I don't know why you all can't understand it.  These people want to kill us.  They hate us because we destroyed their countries because we have freedoms.  In this country, the people are free to speak freely in designated free speech zones, to practice their religion as they see fit as long as its not a non-Christian religion in the Senate chamber, and to read the free press which is owned by corporations who only care about the bottom line.  Freedom is on the march too ...

Over the past few months Kagro X (and I'm sure others) have been working to increase awareness of the inherent contempt power that Congress possesses.  This is one of the few powers Congress has that is not subject to checks by the other branches of government.  As such, it is also one of the few weapons we have left to uncover the truth.  What follows is a discussion of the use of inherent contempt for Harriet Miers' refusal to testify.  This scenario begins after the House has moved on inherent contempt.

And it begins right after the fold ...

There has been considerable outrage here and across the blogs (and nation) over yesterday's commutation.  Many have addressed the questions of whether it was right, morally, ethically, and politically.  Today I would like to address whether it was right legally.

Disclaimer: IANAL

It is possible that Bush may find himself guilty of the same crime that Libby was convicted of:  Obstruction of Justice.  The crime of Obstruction of Justice is defined in the 18 USC 1512. Specifcally, the following section is of interest:  (After the fold)

This is a response to the diary here.  I agree with Jbearlaw's anger.  I can also see why so many are quick to condemn him for what are, admittedly, inflammatory remarks.  I believe that her earlier statementss were misguided.  The Constitution is always worth it.  Whether now is the right time or whether just announcing impeachment articles against Bush on Monday is a good idea, those are completely different questions.

I believe that Pelosi's response confuses the strategic and tactical aspects of politics.  The strategy is to minimize further damage caused by the Bush regime, and to reverse what we can of the damage that has already been done.  Where Democrats disagree is on the tactics used to do that.  Tactics that don't serve the strategic goals are worthless, or perhaps even damaging.  Simultaneously, strategic goals that are unattainable by tactical means are vapid too.  What so many of us seem to be forgetting is that Pelosi herself has no tactical options available ...

Amendment XXVIII - Citizen's Right to Vote

Section 1:  All citizens of the United States of America are hereby guaranteed the right to vote in federal elections.  Citizens are also guaranteed that on the national level, their vote will be worth the same amount as any other citizen's vote, otherwise known as one person, one vote.

Section 2:  Any and all election procedures that prohibit reasonable exercise of this right, or that add unreasonable burden on the citizen to register to vote, are deemed unlawful under this article and subject to prosecution as a felony.

Section 3:  The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legistlation.

Italics are updates

This is the result of about an hour of thinking this morning. It is an economic model which I feel represents the current situation of American, western, and world-wide economies. Using a pyramid, and a few fundamental assumptions, we can model an economy with ease.

Disclaimer: I have no formal economics background. I'm just a guy with moderate intelligence and way too much time on his hands.

More below the fold ...

Quote "Ukraine Liberal Tells Supporters to Protest All Night" Quote "Ukrainian opposition leader Viktor Yushchenko on Monday urged tens of thousands of supporters to defy authorities and protest through the night in central Kiev over a presidential election they dubbed fraudulent." How come we didn't do that?

One issue that could be integrated in the Democratic 2006 platform is voting rights for DC, PR, Guam, etc.  It could be used to portray us as fair and as equalizers, and if done right, shouldn't be very controversial.

We could (in the form of Constitutional Amendment) give DC 2 representatives in Congress and give overseas territories either 5 or 10 representatives.  The 2 representatives from DC would temporarily increase the House to 437 members, and (using 10) the overseas territories would increase that to 447 members.  At the next reapportionment in 2010, the number would be either reduced to 445 or increased to 450.