VoteKansas.org

The Senate this week will be a political powder keg. At least three contentious votes have been scheduled.

First, the Senate will revisit SJ Res. 1, the Federal Marriage Amendment. Of course, this resolution will not come close to passage, but it will provide the Senate the opportunity to debate the measure.

Also scheduled are votes on the repeal of the death tax and the creation of race-based governing. I expect those two votes to be cast close together. Unfortunately, pro-death tax liberals in the Senate look to have the numbers needed to filibuster the elimination of an unfair federal tax on small businesses and families.

Adding insult to injury, proponents of race-based governing at this point have a leg up on Senators who revere the Constitution and oppose this nonsense. The Senate vote on this matter is not on final passage. It is a vote on a motion to proceed to the bill. If, as feared, that vote is approved, the Senate could be on the Native Hawaiian bill for the better part of next week. That being said, if I am the Senate Majority Leader I would want to get this embarrasing anti-constitutional bill off the floor as soon as possible so as not to compound the PR damage.

Also on the horizon in the Senate -- possibly next week -- is a vote on a flag burning amendment.

To be certain, there are many highly charged political votes upcoming. But it does not look as though conservatives will be winning many of them. I hope I am wrong. 

Mary Katharine Ham today asks the simple question; "Did anybody ask the Hawaiians?"

In her column Mary Katharine talks to grassroots Hawaiians who are agitating for a voter referendum on the Akaka bill which would create the first ever race-based government here in the United States. These Hawaiians know that if the people of Hawaii are given a vote on this issue they will dispatch this nonsense with ease.

From my column last week:

A poll commissioned by the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii showed that by a 2 to 1 margin respondents were against Congress approving the Akaka bill. The poll also showed Hawaiians overwhelmingly want to vote on the measure in a referendum before Congress considers the bill. But the push for a Hawaiian referendum on the Akaka bill is stymied by a Hawaiian law that says any such referendum must be generated by the state legislature.

Grassroots opponents of the Akaka bill in Hawaii say this state law prevents the majority of Hawaiians from making their voice heard on the issue because large institutions backing Akaka have too much influence over members of the state legislature. As such, the fight will have to be fought on the floor of the United States Senate where Akaka has much more support than he does in his own state.

That floor fight will take place in the Senate this week. It's time for Senators to stop paying attention to back room dealing and collegial back slapping and pay attention to the Constitution.

UPDATE: John Fund writes:

Despite all this, the Akaka bill is at least an even bet to win a Senate majority this week. Democrats, who long ago bought into racial spoils politics, are largely on board. The Bush administration has chosen to remain neutral. Linda Lingle, who in 2002 became Hawaii's first Republican governor in 40 years, is convinced the bill is will help her party win over Hawaiian voters. She has been remarkably successful in convincing some GOP senators, such as Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Norm Coleman of Minnesota, that the bill is benign. The Office of Hawaiian Affairs, a quasi-state agency, has spent lavishly on a snow job for senators, including its hiring of the top lobbying firm of Patton Boggs.

But the Akaka bill is not just another special-interest boondoggle. It too important not to have senators give it the most exacting scrutiny. Creating a race-based government in Hawaii would create a dangerous precedent that could lead to ethnic balkanization on the mainland too.

Robert Novak says next week's Senate vote on the Akaka bill won't even be close:

Paid conservative lobbyists have helped grease the way for passage in the Senate this week of the long-pending bill, opposed by the Bush administration, that would give Native Hawaiians the same status as mainland Indian tribes.

A report boosting the bill was written by two Bush administration alumni: former Assistant Attorney General Viet Dinh and former White House aide H. Christopher Bartolomucci. Also lobbying for the measure have been Chuck Cooper, an assistant attorney general in the Reagan administration, and Ben Ginsberg, a longtime lawyer representing the Republican Party. All have been hired by the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, a quasi-government entity.

The bill is expected to glide through the Senate, with foes unable to collect the 41 votes needed for a filibuster. But prospects in the House are uncertain.

Well done National Review:

Send-a-brick.com, a group dedicated to securing the borders has been sending bricks to Senate offices to prove a point during the immigration debate. As the above pic of a Mel Martinez staffer illustrates, they seem to be doing a good job. Pretty soon the Martinez office will have their very own brick patio.

UPDATE: A friend on the hill tells me that the Senate Superintendent's office has collected over 1800 bricks from Senators' offices. Here is an email the Superintendent's office sent to Senators: 

John at Powerline explains:

Procedurally, the Times says that any member of the House can introduce a "blue-slip resolution" to return the defective bill to the Senate. While the account is unclear, it sounds as if the bill's return is automatic if a Congressman objects

Majority Leader Bill Frist says there is an easy fix: attach the Senate bill to a revenue measure that has already passed the House. That would work, but Harry Reid refuses to go along. He says the constitutional objection is "technical in nature" and should simply be ignored. So, as we suspected, John McCain isn't the only Senator who views the Constitution as optional.

Speaking of unconstitutional congressional acts, there is this and this.  

Michael Barone provides his usual thoughtful analysis here regarding the Mike Pence immigration reform plan. Pence's plan provides border security and a private sector administered guest worker program sans legalization:

Private worker placement agencies that we could call "Ellis Island Centers" will be licensed by the federal government to match willing guest workers with jobs in America that employers cannot fill with American workers. U.S. employers will engage the private agencies and request guest workers. In a matter of days, the private agencies will match guest workers with jobs, perform a health screening, fingerprint them and provide the appropriate information to the FBI and Homeland Security so that a background check can be performed, and provide the guest worker with a visa granted by the State Department. The visa will be issued only outside of the United States.

Pence's proposal has no legalization provisions.

Interestingly, House Judiciary Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner, who will dominate the House members in conference committee, says he is absolutely against any legalization proposal, but would consider a guest worker plan. This suggests that the Pence/Krieble proposal, or something like it, could emerge from conference committee.

Barone goes on to express some discomfort with the idea of guest worker programs that do not lead to citizenship: 

The United States has always held out the prospect of citizenship to legal immigrants, with the single exception of the 1943-64 Bracero Program (which granted temporary legal status to migratory Mexican farm laborers), and that prospect has helped to stimulate assimilation.

But he concedes that there are "some good arguments for guest workers" and that there are some attractive provisions in Pence's plan:

I like the way that Pence/Krieble uses private sector contractors. Government, alas, is not very good at using information technology, and CIS (formerly INS) has been one of the least effective government bureaucracies.

Read more here. 

The Dallas Morning News editorial board rains on the Democrats' parade:

Cool heads among the party's strategists recognize that basing a strategy on voter disgust with the GOP is pretty shaky. Democrats need to give voters something to vote for, instead of merely someone to vote against.

The same polls indicating voter rejection of the GOP also indicate that voters aren't sure what the Democrats stand for. That gives Republicans an opportunity to define the opposition for voters – and only a fool would downplay the power of Rovian wizardry on that front.

So far, indications are that Democrats will run on small-bore issues, such as raising the minimum wage, revising the Medicare prescription drug bill and taking back tax breaks for the oil giants. Absent broader and deeper themes, especially on the overwhelming matters of Iraq and the war on terrorism, the Democrats' timidity probably will hurt them. The public is hungry for firm leadership in a time of crisis, not tactical nickel-and-diming.

Democrats also lack a telegenic spokesperson capable of convincingly pitching the party to Red America. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi is a brittle San Francisco liberal who panicked party operatives when she suggested that a Democratic House would pursue impeaching President Bush (she has since recanted). Harry Reid, the Democratic Senate chief, has the milquetoast demeanor of a parson. Party chairman Howard Dean is ... Howard Dean. And the Democrats' only leading presidential hopeful, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, is as likely to play in Peoria as Tom DeLay is to blow away Berkeley.

As bad as the Republicans situation currently is, they still are not the Democrats. There is indeed an opportunity here for R's. 

Regarding Dennis Hastert's argument against the FBI Jefferson raid, John Fund writes in today's WSJ Opinion Journal Political Diary:

But the nuances of that argument have been lost in the general public ridicule of what average voters view as an attempt to put members of Congress above the law. Mr. Hastert took some heat during a closed-door session with Republican members last Thursday over his siding with opponents of the FBI raid. Meanwhile, Rep. Ginny Brown-Waite, a Florida Republican, has gone so far as to announce she will introduce a resolution criticizing the Hastert-Pelosi effort to shield congressional offices from law enforcement actions.

It's sad when an argument that has merit is shouted down because it is politically stupid. But, I agree with Fund. The argument is lost...

RSC Chairman Mike Pence has an executive summary of his plan for immigration reform up on his blog. According to Pence, his plan would:

2. Make the decision, once and for all, to deny amnesty to people whose first act in the United States was a violation of the law.

3. Put in place a guest worker program, without amnesty, that will efficiently provide American employers with willing guest workers who come to America legally.

4. Enforce tough employer sanctions that ensure a full partnership between American business and the American government in the enforcement of our laws on immigration and guest workers.

From my column this morning:

If Democratic Sen. Daniel Akaka of Hawaii gets his way, the Senate next week will pass S. 147, a bill that would for the first time create a race-based system of governing in the United States.

Akaka’s bill, the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act, would erect a new governmental structure to have jurisdiction over American citizens who have “one drop” of Native Hawaiian blood. As many as 400,000 American citizens across the nation would be subject to this new governing body.

Surely, a United States Senate composed of 55 Republicans and at least a handful of right-thinking Democrats could stop this nonsense in its tracks -- or better yet, not even allow such an atrocity to come to the floor for a vote.

Also, today from the Washington Times:

Hawaiian Sen. Daniel Akaka's seven-year project, the "Native Hawaiian Governmental Reorganization Act" often called simply the Akaka bill, has been labeled many things -- from manifest destiny in reverse to unhinged multiculturalism -- but what it really is is an attempt to legalize and codify what the Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional in 2000: a race-based government.

Newt Gingrich is defending his position against the FBI raid on William Jefferson's congressional office:

I have been pretty up front in defending Congress's right to jealously guard its turf against Executive branch encroachments (for my reasoning -- which focuses on protocol and future precedent more so than the constitution -- see my latest post and follow links backwards).

So now that following Congressional rules and honoring the intent of the Constitution are all the rage, it seems appropriate to extend the discussion into another area -- an area in which I am nothing but critical of Congress.

House Rule XIII, Section 3(d)(1), requires that all committee reports contain "a statement citing the specific powers granted to Congress in the Constitution to enact the law proposed by the bill or joint resolution."

But while Congressional leadership is intent upon guarding institutional prerogatives and the the Constitution in regards to the Jefferson FBI raid, they seem much less intent on following this simple House rule.

Indeed, all too often committee reports either have no constitutional authority statement, an incomplete constitutional authority statement (i.e. one that does not cite the specific constitutional power, as House rules require), or an inaccurate constitutional authority statement (e.g. citing the "necessary and proper" clause--Article I, Section 8, Clause 18--without citing the appropriate "foregoing power" that such a citation requires). Or some just cite the commerce clause dubiously.

Here is a perfect example: House Report #109-421 (Resources Committee) accompanying the NEOTROPICAL MIGRATORY BIRD CONSERVATION IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 2006 says "Article I, section 8 of the Constitution of the United States grants Congress the authority to enact this bill."

Along similar lines, House Report #109-341, Part 1 (Resources Committee)  accompanying the SALT CEDAR AND RUSSIAN OLIVE CONTROL DEMONSTRATION ACT, also cites the same section of the constitution.

Well, take a look at Article 1 Section 8 and try to decipher which specific section of authrorizes this. That is a pretty broad explanation.

Or how about this one, House Report #109-181 accompanying the 527 REFORM ACT OF 2005, says "Article 1, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution grants Congress the authority to make laws governing the time, place and manner of holding Federal elections."

Article 1 Section 4 does indeed grant Congress "the authority to make laws governing the time, place and manner of holding Federal elections." But no where in that section of the Constitution do I see Congress given the power to regulate the free speech of its political opponents.

Finally, the House Committee on Appropriations proudly displays Article 1, Section 9, Clause 1 on its homepage, "No money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law."

Well, fine. But why does the Appropriations Committee NEVER cite constitutional authority for specific items that they appropriate for. Are appropriations for swimming pools, Halls of Fame or Alaskan flying fish constitutional?

So what's a conservative to do? Here is a start: support legislation like Rep. John Shadegg's. Last year Shadegg introduced HR 2458, the Enumerated Powers Act. This bill would require "each Act of Congress to contain a concise and definite statement of the constitutional authority relied upon for the enactment of each portion of that Act. Declares that failure to comply with this requirement shall give rise to a point of order in either House of Congress."

That sounds reasonable.

Boddington at Red State points readers to a good piece in The Hill that explains a recent House vote and how it relates to the 1994 Contract with America:

Rep. Zach Wamp (R-Tenn.), who voted for the budget in 1995 when he was a freshman but voted against it this month, said times have changed.

“It’s a different day,” he said, explaining that the attacks of Sept. 11 and other events have revealed a national energy crisis. He said that he has been preaching energy independence for years and that the budget policies from 1995 would have gone “backwards on energy independence.”

Today's Wall Street Journal Editorial argues that the Department of Justice overstepped its authority by raiding Rep. William Jefferson's office in the dead of night.

Both Republican and Democratic leaders in the House have protested, prompting media clucking that Members aren't "above the law." Having spent years trying to get Congress to live by the laws it imposes on the rest of us, we couldn't agree more. However, Congress is uniquely protected in one vital sense--in its act of legislating, under the Speech and Debate Clause of the Constitution. In the most obvious case, this protects Members as they consider legislation on the House or Senate floor. This also arguably includes papers and other material in Member offices that are related to legislating.

As I have found, this is a very unpopular position.

UPDATE: On Meet the Press this weekend, National Review's Kate O'Bierne seemed slightly out of step with the NRO editorial board. Here is the relevant clip from MTP:

But just because the Justice Department has a legal right under a, under a legal search warrant, doesn’t mean they should either do it or that they did it in the right way. There actually are legitimate separation of powers arguments, I think. And, in fact, the legislative branch is susceptible to being intimidated by the executive branch. The members had no interest in appearing to be defending an accused felon in their midst. They knew the public relations was terrible on the objections they raised, but they felt so strongly about the principle of it. And members who are uneasy about the public relations of seeming to be protecting an accused felon in their midst really reacted so negatively to a leak from the Justice Department against Speaker Hastert a couple of days later, falsely claiming that he was the target of an investigation, part of the Abramoff scandal, that they really rallied to the speaker on those grounds. And it was reminded to them that the same people capable of leaking in retaliation are rummaging through congressional offices.

MR. RUSSERT: How much anger, frustration is there amongst House, Senate Republicans with the Bush White house?

MS. O’BEIRNE: There’s a backdrop of frustration. So some saw this as maybe the latest example of showing a lack of regard for legislative prerogatives. I mean, it is an administration that has jealously guarded its own prerogatives, it’s own executive privileges. You think they would have been more sensitive to a co-equal branch’s view of its prerogatives.

This is a much different, more measured tone than that of the NRO editorial that concluded:

Last week the Senate passed their version of immigration reform. The amnesty-containing bill contained hundreds and hundreds of pages of text which apparently went mostly unread. How else could you explain senators voting for legislation containing provisions like the ones highlighted by Wes Pruden today in the Washington Times:

Under the Senate bill, if an illegal alien applies for amnesty, the U.S. government cannot use any of the information for any other purpose. If an applicant in a burst of brutal honesty admits that he is Osama bin Laden's cousin, or a member of al Qaeda, the government cannot use this information for national-security purposes. If a federal agent, in a burst of patriotism, sends the information on to the FBI or Homeland Security, anyway, he is subject to a $10,000 fine (five times what the alien has to pay to get amnesty). Employers of illegals get a pardon for all taxes that went uncollected in the past.

Over the coming weeks and months, expect many more revelations like this to come out as people have time to go over the bill in more detail.