TOYOSABURO KOREMATSU v. UNITED STATES, 323 U.S. 214 (1944)
TOYOSABURO KOREMATSU v. UNITED STATES, 323 U.S. 214 (1944)
History’s lessons …
The Patient Scholar
Reflections on Learning and Teaching
Wed, 27 Oct 2004
OnTheIssues.org
OnTheIssues.org is an interesting web site that may be of use to voters trying to see where candidates stand of various, well, issues …
The site also provides an ideological quiz of sorts by which you can evaluate either the candidate, or yourself … (now, what was I? Bleeding heart liberal? Reactionary conservative? Oh, the labels, the labels!)
Mon, 25 Oct 2004
Us vs. them
Where has all the civil (in any sense of the term) discourse gone? “We’ve become a nation of Us and Them.”
Frequently asked questions for Utah administrative rulemaking agencies
On the off chance that any of my rulemaking colleagues have found this blog, I am reporting the existence of a frequently asked questions list (FAQ) for rulewriters.
The FAQ can be found here:
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) for Rulewriting Agencies
Much of the information rulewriters need can be found here. Need to know how to save a rule in RTF? It’s in the FAQ. Need to know if you have to use Microsith Word to prepare ruletext? That’s in the FAQ too.
It’s a great resource, but certainly not perfect. Any suggestions for an addition to the FAQ should be forwarded to Ken Hansen; Ken’s (relatively obfuscated to frustrate email address harvesting bots) email address is: khansen at (utah dot gov).
Sun, 24 Oct 2004
Electionline.org
Electionline.org is a web site providing a fair amount of information about election reform throughout the United States. Of particular interest is the Resource Library as well as the Interactive Map.
Sat, 23 Oct 2004
Debates and other thoughts
FactCheck.org is an admirable tool for those wishing to track truth indiscretions on the part of national candidates. I wish we had something similar for local races here in Utah.
Last night, I listened to a rebroadcast of a debate between John Swallow (Republican challenger)and Jim Matheson (Democratic incumbent in Utah’s second congressional district) on KUER. I didn’t catch it all, but I caught enough to make me wish that there were a truth meter I could simply switch on to get the whole story.
Mr. Swallow has been waging an aggressive campaign against Mr. Matheson. His aggressiveness has led him to make certain statements that are either willful misrepresentations of the truth, or that are representative of an inability (or unwillingness) to make fine distinctions in meaning, or that are representative of a desire to hold his opponent to a past statement, even though by his opponent’s admission that past statement no longer represents a current stand.
The case in point is Mr. Swallow’s continued assertion the Mr. Matheson is pro-choice, a stand that would, if it were true, put Mr. Matheson at odds with (probably) the majority of the voters in his district. This assertion is based upon a vote taken by Mr. Matheson in 2002, regarding a partial-birth abortion ban that did not include an exception for the health of the mother (see this article at the Salt Lake Tribune). The perception of Mr. Swallow’s comments are that Mr. Matheson is pro-choice. Whether this is his intent or not, I can’t say. What we can see from what Mr. Swallow is doing is that he is concentrating on one or two votes, out of a number of votes, on abortion, and he is not providing the full context.
Mr. Swallow and his campaign wish to hold Mr. Matheson accountable for his votes, as well they should. Not giving all of the information, simply providing that information which is convenient for Mr. Swallow’s campaign, is not fair.
Thu, 14 Oct 2004
Why should I go to graduate school?
The question of whether to pursue a graduate degree is a difficult one. Many people do very well for themselves without a graduate degree. Many others credit their graduate work with providing them opportunities they would probably never have had otherwise.
When I first decided to pursue a doctorate, my committee chair asked me why I wanted to do it. “To teach” was my first reply. She reminded me that I could certainly teach at the community college level with my master’s degree. “To make a difference” I returned. She pointed out that people make a difference all the time by working for advocacy organizations, and don’t need a doctorate to do that. She was trying to get me to think very hard about why I wanted the degree.
If you are thinking about pursuing graduate work, you really need to know why you want to pursue the degree. The reason for this is that graduate school is a long, hard road that extracts (or can) the life from you if you are not passionate about what you are doing. There must be, at least for me, a purpose to the graduate degree, an end to which the degree is a means. The degree for the degree’s sake is not the best reason to pursue it, and may not get you through the program.
Thu, 07 Oct 2004
Evaluation of Sean Hannity at the Center for American Progress
Sean Hannity is an influential man, a noted spokesperson for the political right. Sometimes though, in the interest of fairness, we shouldn’t just take Mr. Hannity’s word on what he says:
The Document Sean Hannity Doesn’t Want You To Read
I am a little inclined to look for criticisms of conservative media figures; that’s the way I lean. But if I come across similar criticisms of liberal figures, I’ll post links to them as well. If you come across any, let me know.
Wed, 06 Oct 2004
Utah’s Voter Information Guide
Utah’s voter information guide is now available. Prepared by the Elections Division of the Lt. Governor’s Office in conjunction with the Office of Legislative Research and General Counsel, the guide is a valuable tool. Voters will particularly appreciate the presentation of proposed amendments to the state constitution and to the Utah Code, with analysis, as well as statements in support and in opposition.
Visit the Elections Division web site, pass your mouse over “Voter Information”, and then select “Voter Information Pamphlet” from the pop-up menu.
Tue, 05 Oct 2004
Checking the facts
Campaigns are rife with hyperbolic rhetoric and an occaisonal arms’-length relationship with the truth. Two excellent resources to check up on questions of national scope:
Full faith and credit clause, Defense of Marriage Act, and the Utah Constitution
I have often maintained that the proposed constitutional amendment in Utah, as well as the national Defense of Marriage Act could be challenged on constitutional grounds under the full faith and credit clause in Article IV. There is an exception to the full faith and credit clause of which I was unaware.
There is a “public policy” exception, wherein the courts will give deference to the public policy of one state when it conflicts with that of another state, and a litigant wishes the public policy of the other state to be recognized. This exception has been applied in other cases involving marriage (for example for polygamy). (see Full faith and credit clause at Wikipedia.org.)
Nevertheless, the Court has changed course before, and the notion of a non-political Court is, whether for good or ill, an illusion at best. The Court pays close attention to the people and the people’s will, and it may only be a matter of time before the people’s will is such that a change in the public policy exception occurs, at least in the case of gay marriage. In gay marriage, there is no clearly vulnerable population at risk, as there is in polygamy. Nor is there a clear public policy issue as there is in the case of consanguinity. The public policy exception won’t carry as much weight in such a situation.
Another constitutional challenge may exist. Some churches are allowing the celebration of same-sex unions. For example, the Episcopal Diocese of Utah has announced plans to allow priests to bless gay unions (see Utah Episcopalians Bless Same-Sex Unions). As churches begin to recognize and allow same-sex unions, the issue becomes one of religious freedom, pitting the First Amendment and the full faith and credit clause against the public policy exception.
Appointed or elected?
From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology (trans. by Gerth and Mills. Oxford University Press, 1958.)
“Once firmly organized, the parties can turn a formally free election into the mere acclamation of a candidate designated by the party chief.”
I cannot help but think of the 2004 gubernatorial election in Utah where a popular candidate, faithful to the party, was turned out on her ear by a “firmly organized,” patriarchal party.
Sun, 03 Oct 2004
To vote or not to vote
In class we have just finished discussing the Declaration of Independence. In this seminal declaration of not only independence, but American political philosophy, Jefferson makes several bold assertions, perhaps the most important of which is that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed.
This of course raises the question of the source of government’s unjust powers, which I will leave for another day. I wish to discuss the derivation of government’s just powers.
My class is comprised of mostly twentysomething students. Our discussion of the Declaration, and of this remarkable statement regarding government’s power, did not move them as much as I would have thought. You see, when I read Jefferson, I am moved; there are stirrings within my heart as the power of his language and his ideas resonate within me. I believe Jefferson; I believe that governments are instituted among men to secure the blessings of liberty; I believe that government’s purpose, its just purpose, is to facilitate the securing of inalienable rights, not just for those in government, but for all citizens of the nation—or the state, county, or city for that matter.
But I don’t detect the same stirring in my students. I don’t see them get excited about Jefferson, or about Madison, or about any of the founders. And I think I know why. I think there are two reasons.
First, there has not been one candidate for office in this state (for statewide office, or for congressional district) or one candidate for the presidency that has been capable of showing by action a commitment to the principles of the Declaration. There is much lip service, but no service.
Do you remember Jefferson’s closing words? He writes:
And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.
Where is the demonstration of pledging lives, fortunes, or sacred honor? Kerry’s and Bush’s fortunes seem pledged to the acquisition of an office, but Jefferson pledged his (or so we assume, and must assume) to the support of the Declaration and the principles enunciated therein. In my more cynical moments, I say there is no honor in politics. And so my students observe those in office, or those running for office, and they say to themselves “It is not about the people, it is not about inalienable rights, it is about the naked and consuming quest for power.”
Second, I think that the youth of today have been taught not to question the actions of those in authority to closely; related to that, I think they have been taught that government is too powerful to change, at least by individuals. As I outlined to them the most remarkable of the rights that Jefferson claims, the right to revolution, I could not encourage one person to suggest that this was either a good or a bad thing. The usual response to it was “Oh, the government would never let you get away with that.” Which of course is the point, though they did not see it, or perhaps wished not to see it. If government refuses to allow the right of revolution, the right to change the system, then the government has broken faith with the principles of the Declaration.
For these two reasons, I suspect, my twentysomethings—and even some of the more mature members of my class—wonder at the utility of voting, wonder at the value of participating. But how can I blame them? What choice is before them? And so I must concede the existence of a right not to vote, though I do so with great reluctance.
