Saturday, February 28, 2004

 

Outdated update on FMA (Musgrave amendment)

Carl Levin hasn't posted a view recently. However, if he felt obliged to be consistent (hah) he would be against the FMA given his rejection of a proposed pro gay marriage amendment

July 21, 2003
Dear Ms. Blough,

Thank you for contacting me about the proposed Constitutional amendment relating to marriage. I appreciate hearing your views on the subject.

This issue was addressed through the Defense of Marriage Act (P.L.104-199), which was signed into law by President Clinton on September 21, 1996. I voted for this law because I support the continuation of the legal definition of marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

In the history of our country, only 27 Constitutional amendments have been ratified, the first 10 of which were ratified as the Bill of Rights in 1791. Since then, despite the introduction of more than 11,000 Constitutional amendments in Congress and over 200 years of social, political and economic progress, the constitution has been amended only 17 additional times. James Madison, one of architects of the Constitution, wrote that constitutional amendments should be reserved for "great and extraordinary occasions." It does not require a constitutional amendment to afford legal protection to a civil union between persons of the same sex, an action which I favor.

Thanks again for writing.

Sincerely
Carl Levin

From
http://bunker.defcode.com/index.php?p=17&c=1

posted by Robert permalink and comments1:37 AM

Friday, February 27, 2004

 

Update on count on DOA Musgrave Amendment

Mikulski goes from cop out to Against

Maryland Sen. Barbara A. Mikulski (D), facing a re-election battle this year, said in a written statement: "A constitutional amendment is not about helping families. . . . It is an election-year ploy to divide and conquer. With our country at war in Iraq, we do not need a cultural war here at home."

Warner (R-VA) seems to be more or less maybe against

Warner, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, was cool toward Bush's proposal in a written statement: "Congress must proceed with great caution . . . any time it considers amending the Constitution." Virginia's senior senator has not stated an opinion on civil unions, his spokesman said.

and amazingly

George Allen Jr (R-VA) seems to be wavering

Allen is heading the GOP's Senate campaign effort this year, with Republicans running in several swing states in which the amendment may be unpopular.

Allen declined this week to be interviewed on the topic. But in a written statement about the president's declaration that the Massachusetts ruling requires immediate action, the senator said he was not convinced that an amendment is timely.

"I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. We must treat everyone during this important debate with dignity and respect while continuing to hold to our principles," Allen said. He said he would support an amendment only "if necessary, to protect the important institution of marriage."

listed as undecided I guess.

all from
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A10508-2004Feb26.html

posted by Robert permalink and comments9:08 PM

 

My addition to the count on the DOA Musgrave amendment

The amendment appears to be dead. Josh Chafetz has counted 41 senators against (34 needed to block)

http://www.oxblog.blogspot.com/2004_02_22_oxblog_archive.html#107772059078594254

I add
Sarbanes against (up to 42)

Her counterpart, Sen. Paul S. Sarbanes (D-Md.), who also scored a 100 percent pro-gay voting record, released a statement to the Blade that he is opposed to proposed Constitutional amendments when a statutory approach would adequately serve the interests being advanced.?

From
http://www.washblade.com/2003/11-21/news/localnews/mostlymum.cfm

Mikulski cop out (up to 7)

Sen. Barbara A. Mikulski (D-Md.), who has a 100 percent pro-gay record in the 107th session of Congress, has declined to say where she stands.

Also from
http://www.washblade.com/2003/11-21/news/localnews/mostlymum.cfm

Byrd seems to be against (although the quote might be distorted by removal of context)

But state lawmakers aren't completely ready to embrace altering the Constitution.

The Defense of Marriage Act, approved by Congress in 1996, "addressed this issue at the federal level," Tom Gavin, a spokesman for Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., said.


from



http://www.dailymail.com/news/News/2004022552/display_story.php3?sid=2004022552&format=prn


Also there is at least a hint from a dead google link that Inouye is against


TheHawaiiChannel - KITV 4 News - Hawaii Congressional Delegation ... - [ Traduci questa pagina ]
... Inouye was particularly critical of Bush's stance on marriage ... the Union address that
he'd support a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage if the ...

So up to 42 maybe 44.




Clearly Chafetz' list is very cautious. Chafetz does not count Akaka and Inouye as against. They voted against the much milder defence of marriage act which, among other things, didn't mess with the constitution.

Counting Akaka gets to 45. Looks like, if it ever came to a vote (unlikely) the amendment might not get a simple majority.

posted by Robert permalink and comments5:39 AM

 

The Amateur Lawyer

I am still thinking about the proposed amendment

"Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any state, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups."

Now I wonder if the second sentence implies state constitutions can not be construed as implying that All of the legal incidents of marriage be conferred upon unmarried couples. If so, the second sentence would add little to the first.


The Massachusetts supreme judicial court might just say that all, but one, of the incidents had to be conferred on request to same gender couples who wished to form a civil union. Say all except the requirement to file tax returns jointly or as married filing separately. That would discriminate against opposite gender couples, but the court could say that opposite gendered couples too must be allowed to enter into civil unions and that currently married couples must be allowed a taxpayer funded no fault divorce.

I suppose the second sentence would mean that no law can require that any of the legal incidents of marriage be extended to unmarried couples or groups. Now that would add quite a bit to the first sentence. Many laws refer to "next of kin" which means spouse if there is one and otherwise someone else. Laws referring to next of kin extend some of the legal incidents of marriage to groups other than a married couple (right to make health related decisions for an unconscious patient, inheritance in the absence of a will etc etc). Would they all be unconstitutional ? Does that mean (in the vanishingly unlikely case that the amendment is passed and ratified) that whenever a single person dies without a will, the money goes to the government. Let's welcome the inheritance tax back, but this time it would be only for the non rich not only for the very rich.

Another legal incident of marriage is the right to refuse to reveal conversations letters etc. Such a right is also applied to the unmarried couple of a defendant and his lawyer. Would the amendment make attorney client confidentiality unconstitutional ?


I don't know and I don't want to find out.

One thing is clear; the word "construed" adds nothing and removes nothing. It might give some people the impression that the second sentence is aimed at judicial activism and not at legislation as such, but that is silly. Even if you know judicial activism when you see it, you can't define it and certainly not with the single word construed.

posted by Robert permalink and comments4:38 AM

Wednesday, February 25, 2004

 

Very good point from atrios . Now it is absurd for me to link to Atrios.

Recall the Musgrave proposal

Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any state, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.

Atrios argues that
"...the truth is, of course, that the amendment actually outlaws all new marriages."

Indeed, there is no exception in the amendment that states "unless this unmarried couple are a man and a women who are currently not married to anyone else and are engaged to be married". I'm not sure it would be unconstitutional to issue marriage licences, but if some official decided not to recognise a marriage he would not be violating any constitutional law.

Let's say San Francisco (for example) decides to treat same gender and different gender couples, who were not married when the amendment was ratified and claim to be married, in exactly the same way. Currently that would be a violation of California law, which establishes rights for married couples and conditions for legal marriage. Those laws would clearly be unconstitutional. "Unmarried couples" means "unmarried couples" and allows no exception for a man and a women who are currently single and agree to marry.

OK that would be extreme for San Francisco or even Provincetown ? How about some weirdo local (or state) government 100 years from now ?

posted by Robert permalink and comments3:03 PM

 

Very interesting results from ABC News/Washington Post Poll Feb 18-22 via http://www.pollingreport.com.

"Would you support amending the U.S. Constitution to make it illegal for homosexual couples to get married anywhere in the U.S., or should each state make its own laws on homosexual marriage?" Options rotated

Amend Constitution State Laws No Opinion
ALL 46 45 9
Republicans 58 36 6
Democrats 44 48 8
Independents 35 56 9

unusually independents are to the left of democrats on this one.
Now the difference could be just plain sampling error. My back of the envelope calculation says the standard error due to sampling alone of the difference dem-independent is about 4%, that is about equal to half the difference (actually to be honest top of my head I didn't even use an envelope).

However, if this is true (and it could be given age distributions of independents and attitudes) Bush's endorsement of an amendment would be a political mistake. The election is decided by independents and if they are against the amendment his unscrupulous strategy is also dumb.

Also, I guess, support for an amendment will decline when people begin discussing the text as in "legal incidents thereof" and realise that amending the constitution is very dangerous.

(tech note standard error due to sampling assuming all really about 50 50 yes so the variance of answer yes for each respondent is 0.25 (really less as some say don't know), Dem Rep indep about 1/3 1/3 1/3 so dem and indep samples probably around 300 to 350 (guess 300) so var number dems says yes is about 75. The var of fraction of dems say yes around 1/1200. Var of dif dem-indep = sum of variances = 1/600. Standard error of dif a little over 1/25 = 4%. )

posted by Robert permalink and comments2:46 PM

Monday, February 23, 2004

 

Household survey vs payroll survey

As everyone knows under Bush employment has shrunk shockingly according to the payroll survey and grown (slowly) according to the household survey. I just learned from Brad Delong that there was an even larger shift in the difference between the two measures during the late 1990s. The difference went from 5% of working age population to 3 % and has since widened back to 4%. What is going on ?

Since the household survey counts the self employed, a natural guess is that changes in the gap are due to changes in the number of self employed. In the household survey people are asked if they are self employed. Subtracting such people from household survey employment explains a small part of each of the changes in the gap (less than a third of it).

In comments to Brad I thought about the underground economy

Then I had a crazy idea. The idea is that the widening really is due to increase in the number of self employed but they don't report themselves as self employed. In the household survey, one member of the household answers for all leading to fairly high error rates. In particular, I thought about outsourcing services but not to Bangalore to self employed contractors. What if employees are being replaced by cheaper contractors (or laid off and turned into contractors). Would such people who ahve only the disadvantages of self employment call themselves self employed ? Would their spouses consider them self employed ? Hmmmm.

Then there is a reasonable argument made in another comment by Barry Ritholtz
who cites a study by the Fed. The point is that th e payroll survey counts jobs not workers so, if someone has two jobs, they are counted twice. This means that the change in the gap could be do to changes in the number of moonlighters. This certainly fits the cyclical pattern.

Finally, of course, there is the Fed's current view that population growth has been over estimated. This would mean that the payroll survey gives an accurate estimate of the decline of employment and the household survey gives an accurate estimate of the decline in the ratio of employment to the working age population.

posted by Robert permalink and comments12:22 AM

 

Veepstakes

I just suggested to my dad that, if Kerry is the Democratic nominee he should and might choose Max Cleland as his running mate. Cleland is centrist (maybe conservative) from the South. In a debate with Cheney he won't have to mention that he, unlike Cheney, served in Vietnam. The VP candidate has to do the dirty work of attacking the opposing presidential candidate and Cleland is mad as hell. I don't think that Kerry can over do the reluctant warriors vs chickenhawks theme. Finally veterans have reason to be angry at the Bush administration and Cleland will appeal to them.

Against ? I don't know. Cleland could over do the attacks as Dole did in 1976 & there are other attractive candidates.

Now on the other side, will Bush dump Cheney. I think this would clearly be a good move politically. Cheney has all of Bush's faults (but uncuriousity/dumbness) in spades. Since he has had heart attacks the claim that he is bowing out for health reasons is credible.

I doubt that Bush will dump Cheney. First Bush never seems to fire anyone for making mistakes (only for pointing out correctly that he is making mistakes). Second Cheney clearly has immense influence over Bush. Bush famously does not read newspapers and might have to be told how much of a liability Cheney is and who would dare take on Cheney ? I'm not sure Rove could be confident that Cheney not he would be dumped and no one else is close. I think that Bush would have to figure it out for himself and I doubt that it is likely.

So assuming Bush dumps Cheney who does he choose to replace him ? I know this sounds odd but one possibility is Colin Powell (now you know I'm crazy). I have long thought that, when Republicans get good and desperate, they will try the African American VP gambit, and there is a reasonable chance that they might feel desperate. I always imagined that the candidate would be Powell. Now one reason this sounds crazy is that he has been consistently ignored as Secretary of State and is rated unlikely to be with a possible Bush II in any capacity. Now recall Bush nominated him for State when he was still fighting Gore on the recount. I don't think he ever considered Powell for other than political reasons and I don't see the relevance of what he would do once re-elected for what he would do to get re-elected.

Another two reasons that it sounds crazy is that Powell has (twice?) refused the spot, and I would guess that he dislikes Bush. However, Powell no longer has an attractive alternative to the vice presidency now that he has sacrificed his credibility to be a good soldier.

I think it is possible.

On the African American gambit another possibility is Rice. She clearly gets along with Bush. Also nominating a Black women would totally confuse everyone. I expect that she will be severely hurt by the 9/11 commission. Basically, I think she lost her chance at the vice presidency and put her current position in danger when she said no one imagined that terrorists would use an airliner as a missile after 9/11 and a month and a half after the briefing on exactly that point.

Still given how Bush operates Rice probably has a better chance than Powell and neither is anywhere nearly as likely as Cheney.

posted by Robert permalink and comments12:02 AM