Barack - Let Me Help You With Math

Because you're obviously having trouble.

Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) has proposed another round of economic stimulus checks, this one amounting to $1000 for each family in the U.S.

Let's ignore for the moment that he's literally trying to buy your vote. At least when other candidates try to buy your vote they disguise it with plans "to increase Medicare benefits", or "lower your taxes", or "help your children go to college". He's actually telling you flat out that he'll send you a check for getting him elected.

Where's he going to get the money for this? Taxing windfall profits from oil companies, of course.

So, let me get this right. You think gas prices are too high, so you're going to raise taxes on the people you feel are overcharging for their product?

Leaving the idiocy of that aside for the moment, let's just concentrate on his numbers.

There are about 120 million households in the United States. To send $1000 stimulus checks to each and every one of them would cost $120 billion dollars, not including the cost to print them, put them in envelopes, mail them, process the deposits, etc.

Last year, the US oil industry's profits were in the neighborhood of $90 billion. That's net profit, after taxes.

So, forget about windfall profits, you want to tax them at 100% on their profits and an additional $30 billion dollars.  In Obama's defense, presumably he's not expecting the oil companies to come up with all of this money at once.

If they get two whole years to come up with the money, it's a 67% tax on their profits, in addition to the taxes they're already paying.

For three years, it looks a little better, 33%, That is as long as you don't think about what taxes they're already paying. This site says that Exxon alone will pay $40 billion in taxes this year.

Now, the other thing to remember here is that whenever a politician starts talking to you about taxing corporations, you know that at least one of the following three things is true:

1. They're lying.
2. They're stupid.
3. They think you're stupid.

Possibly (probably?) all three.

This point can not be emphasized enough.  Corporations don't pay taxes!

Never have. Never will.

Taxes paid by corporations are passed on to three groups: employees, shareholders, and consumers. So, what's going to happen when there's a huge increase in the tax rate for oil companies?  Wages for workers at the oil companies will go down (or at least remain stagnant), gas prices will go up, and your 401(k) (assuming it owns oil stocks) will go down.

In short, big oil won't be paying the tax, you will.

In addition, here's a beautiful quote from a recent Treasury Department research paper on corporate taxes.

Furthermore, given the possibility that the corporate income tax creates a variety of distortions, the economic burden of the tax exceeds the amount of revenue raised by the tax.

In other words, corporate taxes can result in a net loss of revenue!

So, not only is he going to hurt the employees, shareholders, and consumers, he's going to hit you with a double whammy because the tax may result in a net loss of revenue, and not be able to fund the stimulus checks at all.

Which means you'll end up footing that bill too.

So, to sum up, the stimulus checks based on the "windfall profits tax" will:

1. Increase the price of gasoline
2. Lower "real wages" for oil employees
3. Cost shareholders money
4. Increase your taxes to pay for the stimulus checks that the "windfall profits tax" didn't pay for.

Ok, #4 isn't guaranteed, but is possible. The first three are guaranteed.

Who exactly comes out a winner from this? Other than Obama, I mean.

The Vote Reaper

This may be the best YouTube video I have ever seen.  Thanks to parker for pointing it out to me.

I'm sure that I will be accused of racism, since there are two black men in the video.

The Candidates and the Nineteenth Amendment

This is the fourteenth post in an ongoing series regarding the major Presidential candidates and their views on civil liberties.

This post is about Senator John McCain's (R-AZ) and Senator Barack Obama's (D-IL) views pertaining to the Nineteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

I skipped a few amendments here, so I should explain why.

The Sixteenth Amendment deals with the federal government's ability to levy an income tax. I think many Libertarians might like to see this amendment repealed, but that's not going to happen unless it's replaced with something else, so discussion of the Sixteenth Amendment seems to be a waste of time. Certainly neither candidate has ever indicated any desire to repeal the Sixteenth Amendment. I will, however, discuss taxes in a separate post.

The Seventeenth Amendment should also be repealed according to many Libertarians, and I tend to agree. It allows for U.S. Senators to be elected by the general public rather than appointed by the state legislatures. On the surface, this seems like a good idea, but it's probably led to more growth of the size of the federal government than any other event. Why? Because the original intent was not for Senators to represent the people (there's a reason the House of Representatives is called the "People's House"), but the states. Since the states themselves no longer have any representation in the federal government, this has led to unchecked usurpation of powers that should be delegated to the states by the federal government. No one but crabby libertarians and talk show hosts talk about repealing the Seventeenth Amendment, however, and certainly two sitting Senators would not, so again, discussion of the Seventeenth Amendment seems to be a waste of time.

The Eighteenth Amendment established prohibition of "intoxicating liquors" and has already been repealed by the Twenty-First Amendment.

Now, with that preamble out of the way, we can look at the Nineteenth Amendment. It's another famous one, so you remember it, right?

Here's the text:

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Women's right to vote. Got it.

Another short one.

First, Obama.

There's nothing in Barack Obama's speeches or writings that leads me to believe he has any intention of limiting Nineteenth Amendment guarantees.

Now to McCain.

There is a limited movement to repeal the Nineteenth Amendment. Yes, I'm not making this up. I'm not going to link to any of their sites, but you can look it up in your favorite search engine.

Why do I bring this up in the McCain section? Does he belong to the movement? No, and I'm certain that he has no intention of limiting Nineteenth Amendment guarantees.

But, if you look at these "Repeal the Nineteenth Amendment" sites, you will see McCain's name mentioned. In general they appear to be McCain supporters. Take from that what you will.

Grades:

Obama: B

McCain: B

Nineteenth Amendment: No Advantage

Results so far:

	Obama	McCain
First Amendment*	F	D-
Second Amendment	D-	C-
Third Amendment	B	B
Fourth Amendment	D+	D+
Fifth Amendment	D+	B-
Sixth Amendment	B	B
Seventh Amendment	C	C
Eighth Amendment	C	B
Eleventh Amendment	B+	B-
Thirteenth Amendment	D+	B+
Fourteenth Amendment	D+	C+
Fifteenth Amendment	B	B
Nineteenth Amendment	B	B

* Obama's First Amendment grade lowered as documented in this post.

UPDATE: Obama's First Amendment grade lowered to F as documented in this post.

The Candidates and the Fifteenth Amendment

This is the thirteenth post in an ongoing series regarding the major Presidential candidates and their views on civil liberties.

This post is about Senator John McCain's (R-AZ) and Senator Barack Obama's (D-IL) views pertaining to the Fifteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

The Fifteenth is less well-known than the Thirteenth, but we know all remember it has something to do with slavery, because that's what we were taught in school.

Well, here's the text.

Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Well, this one is going to be short.

I can't find anything that's fact-based on either Barack Obama or John McCain suggesting that they might want to limit Fifteenth Amendment guarantees. (There is a lot of hyperbole about McCain and the Fifteenth Amendment out there. I've waded through some of it, and can't find any real facts, just rants).

Grades:

Obama: B

McCain: B

Fifteenth Amendment: No Advantage

Results so far:

	Obama	McCain
First Amendment*	F	D-
Second Amendment	D-	C-
Third Amendment	B	B
Fourth Amendment	D+	D+
Fifth Amendment	D+	B-
Sixth Amendment	B	B
Seventh Amendment	C	C
Eighth Amendment	C	B
Eleventh Amendment	B+	B-
Thirteenth Amendment	D+	B+
Fourteenth Amendment	D+	C+
Fifteenth Amendment	B	B

* Obama's First Amendment grade lowered as documented in this post.

UPDATE: Obama's First Amendment grade lowered to F as documented in this post.

Obama Hits Back at McCain - Makes Himself Look Even More Foolish

Senator John McCain (R-AZ) and the GOP have recently had a field day chuckling over recent comments by Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) regarding tire pressure. Here's what Obama originally had to say:

There are things you can do individually, though, to save energy. ... Making sure your tires are properly inflated - simple thing. But we could save all the oil that they're talking about getting off drilling - if everybody was just inflating their tires? And getting regular tune-ups? You'd actually save just as much.

And McCain has chuckled about this and his campaign has even handed out tire gauges marked "Obama's Energy Plan". He's had this to say:

We need oil drilling and we need it now offshore and we need it now. He has consistently opposed it. He has opposed nuclear power. He has opposed reprocessing. He has opposed storage. And the only thing I’ve heard him say is that we should inflate our tires. So he has no plan for addressing the energy challenges that we face.

Today, Obama decided he'd had enough and fired back, making the left-wing blogosphere incredibly happy.

Two points: One, they know they are lying about what my energy plan is, but the other thing is they are making fun of a step that every expert says would absolutely reduce our oil consumption by 3 to 4 percent.

It’s like these guys take pride in being ignorant.

Two points:

One, they're not lying, but mocking you.  This is the way big league campaigns work.  If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.

Two, sorry Senator, but the numbers just don't add up, and continuing to assert that they do, makes it look like you're the one taking pride in being ignorant.

Jim Geraghty has done the math. 

This article from U.S. News and World Report says the average worker commutes 33 miles between work and home each day and that the average car gets about 24 miles per gallon. Thus, the average worker is using 1.375 gallons per day.

Let’s be generous and say a properly inflated tire gives a full extra three miles per gallon. So a commuter who had previously insufficiently inflated tires starts using 1.22 gallons per day. They’re saving .153 gallons per day.

This 2003 press release puts the number of commuters in America at a little over 129 million. So we have one third of those commuters – 43 million – saving .153 gallons per day, or almost 6.58 million gallons.

6.58 million gallons per day.  That's a lot.  No doubt about it, Obama.  We definitely need to check our tire pressure, but even McCain has admitted that's a good idea. But, let's look at what you keep saying:

But we could save all the oil that they're talking about getting off drilling - if everybody was just inflating their tires? And getting regular tune-ups? You'd actually save just as much.

So, 6.58 million gallons per day is all we can expect to get from all that drilling?

Nope.

But this 2006 report from the federal Minerals Management Service puts the recoverable oil from the Outer Continental Shelf at just under 86 billion barrels of oil; one barrel of crude oil yields approximately 19.6 gallons of finished motor gasoline.

So it would indeed be nice if Americans pumped up their tires sufficiently, and we started seeing some of that 4.9 million to 6.5 million gallons saved per day. But why it has to be an either/or in regards to the 1.6 trillion gallons of gasoline in the OCS (not even getting into ANWR), as Obama insists, is not clear.

Let's pause a moment and let that number sink in.  1.6 trillion gallons of gasoline. But, how much could we retrieve per day?  Maybe he's right after all. Well, even this article on Slate says 3 million barrels per day.  And I've seen estimates much higher.  That equates to 58.8 million gallons per day.  I have a degree in mathematics, true, but I don't think you have to have one to see that 58.8 million is much greater than 6.58 million.

Sorry, Barack, you lose.  Would you like a copy of our home game?

The Candidates and the Fourteenth Amendment

This is the twelfth post in an ongoing series regarding the major Presidential candidates and their views on civil liberties.

This post is about Senator John McCain's (R-AZ) and Senator Barack Obama's (D-IL) views pertaining to the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

The Fourteenth is less well-known than the Thirteenth, but we know all remember it has something to do with slavery, because that's what we were taught in school.

Well, here's the text:

Section 1. 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.

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section 3. No one shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Whew. That's a lot. Fortunately, for the purposes of a civil rights discussion, we only need to look at Section 1, which basically says that everyone born here is a citizen, and that states can't deprive them of any rights guaranteed by the Constitution, specifically Fifth Amendment rights, and that the laws must apply equally to all citizens.

So, let's look at Barack Obama first.

One of the common catch phrases of the right these days when discussing illegal immigration is "anchor babies", which refers to children born in the U.S. from parents who are here illegally. There's quite a movement to have the Constitution amended to qualify that Fourteenth Amendment in such a way to make these children not be automatically granted citizenship. So, if a candidate were opposed to citizenship for these "anchor babies" that would certainly be infringing upon Fourteenth Amendment guarantees.

Fortunately for Barack Obama, I can't find that he has made any such statements.

However, he does regularly infringe upon certain Fourteenth Amendment guarantees.

Affirmative action.

Any objective observer would notice immediately that affirmative action, by it's very nature, runs afoul of the Fourteenth Amendment, by making it acceptable to bestow extra privileges upon a person or group due to race, gender, age, sexual orientation, etc.

Some have claimed that recent statements by Barack Obama represent a cooling towards affirmative action, or that he has yet to be definitive about his feelings about it.

However, such views conflict with the facts.

Stephanopoulos: You've been a strong supporter of affirmative action.

Obama: Yes.

Later on in the interview, he does admit that he hopes that at some unnamed date in the future, affirmative action becomes unnecessary.

Obama: I would like to think that if we make good decisions and we invest in early childhood education, improved K through 12, if we have done what needs to be done to ensure that kids who are qualified to go to college can afford it, that affirmative action becomes a diminishing tool for us to achieve racial equality in this society.

However, that belief merely underscores the fact that he believes it's still necessary now.

Now, on to John McCain.

As with Obama, I can't find anything that suggests that he's opposed to citizenship for "anchor babies". In fact, he has shown off his legendary temper when asked about it.

As for affirmative action, historically he's been for it, with limitations.

McCain supports the following principles regarding affirmative action and discrimination:

The federal government should continue affirmative action programs only if such programs do not include quotas

The Federal Government should consider affirmative action programs if ordered by a court to rectify specific programs.

But, recently has announced support for an Arizona initiative to ban affirmative action in that state. (One wonders why Arizona would need to pass a law that confirms the Fourteenth Amendment, but I digress.)

Interestingly, Barack Obama called this a flip-flop. Does that mean that it will be a flip-flop for Obama when that nebulous date comes when Obama decides that it's no longer necessary too?

So, to the grades:

Obama: D+. As a long time supporter of affirmative action, it's difficult to imagine giving him a higher grade than this.

McCain: C+. This would be higher if he'd been more consistent in his anti-affirmative action views. If he sticks to this, his grade will improve over time (but not until after the 2008 election). Without his "flip-flop" here, he'd be looking at a C- at best.

Since I'm attempting to grade the candidates on how well they support civil liberties, I've tried to be as objective as possible on all my grades. I have rated candidates higher because they've supported civil liberties, even if it was a civil liberty that I personally disagreed with. I've graded them lower when they've opposed civil liberties that I disagree with.

I have a problem being objective on this one and I admit it. Racism is one of the few things that I am an absolutist about. Racism is racism is racism is racism. You can call it affirmative action if that helps you sleep better at night, but that doesn't change what it is.

So, if you think my grades on this one are lower than they should be, you are entitled to your opinion. I feel, if anything, I'm being kinder to both than they truly deserve.

Fourteenth Amendment: Advantage McCain

Results so far:

	Obama	McCain
First Amendment*	F	D-
Second Amendment	D-	C-
Third Amendment	B	B
Fourth Amendment	D+	D+
Fifth Amendment	D+	B-
Sixth Amendment	B	B
Seventh Amendment	C	C
Eighth Amendment	C	B
Eleventh Amendment	B+	B-
Thirteenth Amendment	D+	B+
Fourteenth Amendment	D+	C+

* Obama's First Amendment grade lowered as documented in this post.

UPDATE: Obama's First Amendment grade lowered to F as documented in this post.

Paris Hilton's Energy Plan

The McCain view on her plan:

It sounds like Paris Hilton supports John McCain’s ‘all of the above’ approach to America’s energy crisis - -including both alternatives and drilling. In reality, Paris Hilton may have a more substantive energy policy than Barack Obama,

Like a lot of things in life, we laugh because it's funny, and we laugh because it's true. - The Great Robert DeNiro as Al Capone

The Candidates and the Thirteenth Amendment

This is the eleventh post in an ongoing series regarding the major Presidential candidates and their views on civil liberties.

This post is about Senator John McCain's (R-AZ) and Senator Barack Obama's (D-IL) views pertaining to the Thirteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Twelfth Amendment deals with how members of the electoral college should vote for President and Vice-President, and can be ignored in this discussion, I think.

The Thirteenth is another famous one. Here's the text:

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime where of the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2. Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Surprisingly, there's quite a bit to discuss pertaining to this amendment.

Starting as usual, with Mr. Obama.

Barack Obama believes that student should perform community service.

The plan Obama outlined in Colorado Springs called for getting middle and high school students to perform 50 hours of community service a year and 100 hours a year for college students.

He said the goals would be achieved by making federal assistance conditional on school districts developing service programs.

Barack Obama's record on securing the border is not that stellar. NumberUSA gives him a C. Why does this matter? As Glenn Beck first put it and the New York Times has followed up, illegal immigration amounts to "modern day slavery".

One, a Guatemalan named Elmer L. who said he was 16 when he started working on the plant’s killing floors, said he worked 17-hour shifts, six days a week. In an affidavit, he said he was constantly tired and did not have time to do anything but work and sleep. “I was very sad,” he said, “and I felt like I was a slave.”

Obama even is against the types of raids that "freed" Elmer.

I think it's fair to say that the draft amounts to "involuntary servitude", and while many Democrats support it, I can't find that Obama has ever claimed to do so.

Now to McCain.

McCain has strongly encouraged public service throughout his career. However, he has taken care to make a point that people should be doing so out of patriotism, or love of country, not because they're required to do so.

Patriotism is a love and a duty, a love of country expressed in good citizenship.

Patriotism and the citizenship it requires should motivate the conduct of public officials, but it also thrives in the communal spaces where government is absent, anywhere Americans come together to govern their lives and their communities —- in families, churches, synagogues, museums, symphonies, the Little League, the Boy Scouts, the Girl Scouts, the Salvation Army or the VFW. They are the habits and institutions that preserve democracy.

Despite criticism from the Right, McCain's record on securing the border is far better than Obama's. NumbersUSA gives him a B+.

McCain has been vague on immigration raids, saying that they're a "symptom of the problem" and "won't be necessary after his reforms".

McCain has often stated that he's against reinstating the draft, despite the MoveOn.Org ad to the contrary.

Grades?

Obama: D+. I'm tempted to make this even lower, but he doesn't appear to be for the draft, and one could argue that his service program isn't totally involuntary. One could also argue that putting the illegal immigration topic in a discussion of the Thirteenth Amendment is a stretch.

McCain: B+. There's some reason to claim that this could be even higher, especially if you want to discount his stances on illegal immigrants.

Thirteenth Amendment: Advantage McCain

Results so far:

	Obama	McCain
First Amendment*	F	D-
Second Amendment	D-	C-
Third Amendment	B	B
Fourth Amendment	D+	D+
Fifth Amendment	D+	B-
Sixth Amendment	B	B
Seventh Amendment	C	C
Eighth Amendment	C	B
Eleventh Amendment	B+	B-
Thirteenth Amendment	D+	B+

* Obama's First Amendment grade lowered as documented in this post.

UPDATE: Obama's First Amendment grade lowered to F as documented in this post.

The Candidates and the Eleventh Amendment

This is the tenth post in an ongoing series regarding the major Presidential candidates and their views on civil liberties.

This post is about Senator John McCain's (R-AZ) and Senator Barack Obama's (D-IL) views pertaining to the Eleventh Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Regular readers were no doubt expecting this post to deal with the Ninth Amendment, but I have decided to deal with the Ninth and Tenth Amendments last.

Except for those two, we've finished the Bill of Rights, so now we're definitely beyond the knowledge of most Americans. What's the text of the Eleventh Amendment?

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.

Some might say this is both a "federalist" and an "anti-Federalist" amendment, since defines sovereign immunity from federal courts on the one hand while limiting the sovereignty of the states on the other. However, it does protect one important right, the right of citizens of one state to sue another state.

As an aside, it also says that Federal Courts have no jurisdiction in any suits between persons and states (giving back to the Federalists after taking away in the other part). Some people claim that this means that the U.S. Supreme Court had no jurisdiction in Bumediene v. Bush, a case we've noted many times in reference to granting rights to Guantanamo detainees. Of course, one could also argue that the Eleventh Amendment would prohibit the U.S. Supreme Court's involvement in many cases, including Bush v. Gore. This part of the Amendment is confusing to scholars and justices alike and appears to contradict, rather than clarify, Article III of the Constitution.

As usual, we'll start with Barack Obama.

There's only one thing I can find pertaining to Barack Obama and the Eleventh Amendment and that is his Senate co-sponsorship of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA). Critics claim that since it allows Federal civil damage actions against States, that it violates the Eleventh Amendment. Interesting. How do we judge this? It grants civil liberties, yet opposes the constitution? Since we are looking at this from a "libertarian perspective", it seems relevant to say that (from that perspective) ENDA is right and the Eleventh Amendment is wrong.

And now to John McCain.

Once again, there's little here to go on, however McCain opposed ENDA.

That's all I've got and it's not much.

Grades:

Obama: B+. He starts with a B, since there is so little to go on here, but moves up a tick due to support of ENDA.

McCain: B-. He starts with a B, since there is so little to go on here, but moves down a tick due to opposition of ENDA.

Eleventh Amendment: Advantage Obama

Results so far:

	Obama	McCain
First Amendment*	F	D-
Second Amendment	D-	C-
Third Amendment	B	B
Fourth Amendment	D+	D+
Fifth Amendment	D+	B-
Sixth Amendment	B	B
Seventh Amendment	C	C
Eighth Amendment	C	B
Eleventh Amendment	B+	B-

* Obama's First Amendment grade lowered as documented in this post.

UPDATE: Obama's First Amendment grade lowered to F as documented in this post.

The Candidates and the Eighth Amendment

This is the ninth post in an ongoing series regarding the major Presidential candidates and their views on civil liberties.

This post is about Senator John McCain's (R-AZ) and Senator Barack Obama's (D-IL) views pertaining to the Eighth Amendment of the Bill of Rights. This amendment follows up on the Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh Amendment protections regarding courts of law and details protections dealing with punishments and incarcerations.

Here's the text:

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Unlike many others, this one is nice and short and to the point. However, what constitutes "excessive"? What constitutes "cruel and unusual"? Without giving specifics, our founders left that (unintentionally, I believe) for the courts to decide.

So, before we can begin, we should look at defining some of these terms. Many of all political persuasions regard capital punishment as "cruel and unusual", and there's no doubt that one civil liberty is being revoked by capital punishment, the right to live. However, in over two centuries of cases, the U.S. Supreme Court has continually regarded this belief as inaccurate. Also, given that capital punishment is specifically mentioned in the Fifth Amendment, it's hard to believe that the founding fathers felt that capital punishment would constitute cruel and unusual.

It seems safe to say that torture would be classified as "cruel and unusual".

But, what about "excessive" fines and/or bail? How shall we define that? I don't know the answer to that. The only thing I can say as an absolute is that if you're in favor of "no limits" on fines and/or bail, then that seems to be allowing "excessive" ones as well.

Armed with our definitions, let's look at the candidates.

As usual, we'll start with Barack Obama.

The only thing I can find regarding excessive fines and/or bail is his support for the trial lawyers in civil cases. Since the Eighth Amendment is not specific as to whether it's discussing criminal or civil trials, I have to conclude that it applies to both. So, he appears to be opposed to "tort reform" and limiting the size of civil lawsuits.

Regarding, cruel and unusual punishment, he did come out opposed to the Supreme Court's ruling in Kennedy v. Louisiana, which stated that child rapists may not be executed in cases where the victim survives. While this has brought out angry criticism from the left, and many point to the Eighth Amendment, it fails the smell test for me. If the founders had wanted to deny capital punishment, they would've spelled it out.

In 2006, he opposed S. 3930, which approved US torture of detainees. However, this appears to be his only statement on the subject.

That's all I've got. So, let's look at John McCain.

I'm in a similar position regarding excessive fines and/or bail with McCain. In contrast, he has usually supported "tort reform", but not always.

He also opposed the decision in Kennedy v. Louisiana, but again, I question the relevance.

And he's been an outspoken critic of torture during his entire Senate career, with few compromises (not none) on this stance.

So, what do we have? Limited exposure from either camp, except for McCain on torture. But, there's enough there to drop both grades a little.

Grades:

Obama: C. I can't give him any higher because of his few statements, and his stances on "tort reform"

McCain: B. Without his flip earlier this year with regard to torture and the CIA, this would've been a B+. He gets high marks (generally) on limiting fines and on torture. His transgressions here are enough to keep his grade down somewhat.

Eighth Amendment: Advantage McCain

Results so far:

	Obama	McCain
First Amendment*	F	D-
Second Amendment	D-	C-
Third Amendment	B	B
Fourth Amendment	D+	D+
Fifth Amendment	D+	B-
Sixth Amendment	B	B
Seventh Amendment	C	C
Eighth Amendment	C	B

* Obama's First Amendment grade lowered as documented in this post.

UPDATE: Obama's First Amendment grade lowered to F as documented in this post.

Re-grading the Candidates

This is the eighth post in an ongoing series regarding the major Presidential candidates and their views on civil liberties. This space should've been taken by a discussion on the Eighth Amendment, but I've realized I need to address an issue.

Some comments have been sent to me regarding how I handle lack of statements by either candidate. Since I have gone with the idea that "no news is good news", I have given them an A+ when that happens. But, that's not really fair.

For example, if candidate A makes numerous speeches confirming his support for Amendment Y, and candidate B says nothing at all about Amendment Y, it's hardly fair to give them each the same grade. Actually, I came to this realization on my own at about the same time, while doing research on the Eighth Amendment.

It was suggested that I give the candidates an "Incomplete" grade on these issues, but I don't think I can do that. At the end, I plan on summarizing my results and giving a "final grade", and incompletes will make that difficult.

My reasoning for giving them an A+ when this happens is because of my belief that in general, our government these days is more interested than taking our rights away from us than it is in protecting them. I still stand by that belief, so here's my solution. Instead of giving an A+ for no statements, I'm going to give a B. That way I can reward positive statements with a higher grade, and still be able to come up with a final grade. This is, of course, subjective.

As a result, I have had to go back and issue new grades in many of my posts. For summary purposes, I will include a table of current grades. This table will appear in all new posts on this topic.

Results so far:

	Obama	McCain
First Amendment	C-	D-
Second Amendment	D-	C-
Third Amendment	B	B
Fourth Amendment	D+	D+
Fifth Amendment	D+	B-
Sixth Amendment	B	B
Seventh Amendment	C	C

Congrats to Mr. Obama

I would be remiss if I didn't note that Senator Barack Obama (D-IL), has said that he would support expanding offshore drilling if it would enable a compromise with Republicans to get an energy bill passed. Sorry, I won't link or even quote the article because it comes from AP. But, I'm sure you can find it.

Anyway, this is encouraging news from Mr. Obama. Meaningless, unless he can convince Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA-06) or Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) to go along, but encouraging.

Who Turned Out the Lights?

By now, you've no doubt read that Republicans staged a little "guerilla Congress" event on Friday, refusing to leave the floor after Democrats voted to adjourn for a five week vacation. Ostensibly this is to encourage President George W. Bush (R-USA) or House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA-06) to call the House back into a special session to do something about the high cost of energy.

The GOP talk-a-thon started before noon and stretched on for five hours and 45 minutes. For awhile, the Republicans got the bright lights turned back on and got the sound system operating. They dragged big flip charts to make their points about energy.

At 4:30 p.m., the visitors gallery closed on schedule. But the GOP lawmakers continued talking to an audience of members, staffers, interns and some visitors brought on the floor by members.

Apparently, Republicans plan on continuing this today.

"In an urgent memo sent to GOP Members and staff Saturday (“A Call to Action on American Energy”), Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH-08) and Whip Roy Blunt (R-MO-07) hailed Friday’s action, and encouraged House Republicans to return to the Capitol beginning Monday morning to help keep the historic effort going," said a press release just released by Minority Leader Boehner's office.
“It’s not a request we make lightly. But the American people are suffering,” Boehner and Blunt said in the memo. “The consequences of continued congressional inaction on gas prices are unacceptable. We’ve called on the Speaker to call Congress back into an emergency session this month and schedule a vote on the American Energy Act. We must continue to make a stand until the Speaker complies.”

I applaud the Republicans for doing this. It's a great way to remind voters who feel that "It's the price of gas, stupid" to know who's on the right side on this issue.

But, let's make no mistake. This is a campaign event, nothing more. They know that Pelosi isn't going to call the House into a special session, and that Bush is extremely unlikely to do so, as a lame duck in his final months of office.

They've had some issues making their point widely known though.

A small band of Republicans, protesting the decision to adjourn without an oil vote, started to speak from the well — even though the lights weren’t on, the microphones were turned off and most of their colleagues were scrambling to catch flights out of town.
An empty floor is one thing when TV cameras are there, but C-SPAN’s cameras, which typically broadcast every word uttered on the floors of both chambers, were not allowed to broadcast the revolt since the chamber was officially closed for business.

That's not completely true. C-SPAN broadcasts all the time when the chamber is closed for business.  Maybe there's more here than meets the eyes.  C-SPAN has issued a press release on the subject.

A number of media organizations have incorrectly referred to “C-SPAN cameras” being turned off and not providing televised coverage of the GOP House members’ post-adjournment protest on energy policy being held on the House floor on Friday afternoon.  Please note that cameras in the House chamber are under the control of the Speaker of the House and that all media organizations, including C-SPAN, wishing to cover events in the chamber must use the official House TV feed.  No private media cameras are permitted in the House (or Senate) chambers.

And here are a couple other quotes that help show the point I'm about to make.

Democratic aides were furious at the GOP stunt, and reporters were kicked out of the Speaker's Lobby, the space next to the House floor where they normally interview lawmakers.

"You're not covering this, are you?" complained one senior Democratic aide.

And:

The Capitol Police are now trying to kick reporters out of the press gallery above the floor, meaning we can't watch the Republicans anymore. But Minority Whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) is now in the gallery talking to reporters, so the cops have held off for a minute. Clearly, Democrats don't want Republicans getting any press for this episode.

This makes it sound like the Democratic leadership is trying to keep you from seeing and hearing what the Republicans have to say.  But that's impossible.  Speaker Pelosi supports the "Fairness Doctrine" and free speech, doesn't she?  I know I read that somewhere.

But Speaker Pelosi doesn't support free speech.  She supports the "Fairness Doctrine" as a method for controlling it. She wants to have the same control over the airwaves that she does over the cameras and microphones in the House, so you can see and hear what she wants you to see and hear.

Speaker Pelosi turned out the lights.  And if you give her a chance, she'll turn out the lights on talk radio too.