Israeli Response Purely a Matter of Self-Defense

How should Israel respond when Hamas fires 2,100 rockets into Israel from Gaza? How should Israel react when Hamas refuses cease-fire offers? Is Israel justified in bombing or shelling the rocket launchers? Rocket launching sites?

Buildings where the rockets are stored?

According to the Israeli Defense Force Blog, "Over 5 million Israelis are currently living under threat of rocket attacks. Even worse, "More than half a million Israelis have less than 60 seconds to find shelter after a rocket is launched from Gaza into Israel. Most rockets launched from Gaza into Israel are capable of reaching Israel's biggest cities, including Tel Aviv and Jerusalem."

But what if Hamas sets up its rocket launchers next to hospitals? Stores its rocket inventories in schools? What if it places and fires its rockets from densely populated civilian areas? From among women and children? Is Israel barred from retaliating because women and children are likely to be killed?

Two recent reports from the U.N. Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) -- hardly a pro-Israeli organization -- should make clear to every American the Hamas propaganda tactic of using Palestinian women and children as human shields.

On July 17, its site reported under the heading "Agency demands full respect for the sanctity of its premises in Gaza":

"Yesterday, in the course of the regular inspection of its premises, UNRWA discovered approximately 20 rockets hidden in a vacant school in the Gaza Strip. UNRWA strongly condemns the group or groups responsible for placing the weapons in one of its installations. This is a flagrant violation of the inviolability of its premises under international law. This incident, which is the first (U.N. documented) of its kind in Gaza, endangered civilians including staff and put at risk UNRWA's vital mission to assist and protect Palestine refugees in Gaza. ...

"Palestinian civilians in Gaza rely on UNRWA to provide humanitarian assistance and shelter. At all times, and especially during escalations of violence, the sanctity and integrity of UN installations must be respected."

Then, on July 22, 2 UNRWA reported in "UNRWA condemns placement of rockets, for a second time, in one of its schools. Agency demands full respect for the sanctity of its premises in Gaza":

"Today, in the course of the regular inspection of its premises, UNRWA discovered rockets hidden in a vacant school in the Gaza Strip. As soon as the rockets were discovered, UNRWA staff were withdrawn from the premises, and so we are unable to confirm the precise number of rockets.

The school is situated between two other UNRWA schools that currently each accommodate 1,500 internally displaced persons."

In a July 24 op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, retired U.S. Marine Corps Commandant, Gen. James T. Conway wrote, "Earlier this month Hamas spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri appeared on Al-Aqsa TV and encouraged Gaza residents to act as human shields. They appear to have heeded the call: Israeli Defense Forces combat video has shown Palestinians rushing to rooftops after receiving warnings from Israel -- via phone calls, text messages and unarmed 'knock-knock' projectiles striking a target building -- that a missile attack is imminent.

"Since the beginning of ground operations into Gaza, the IDF has uncovered approximately 30 ... tunnels leading into Israel, in addition to the more than two dozen discovered prior to Operation Protective Edge. Hamas operatives have been intercepted emerging from such tunnels in Israel carrying tranquilizers and handcuffs, apparently hoping to replicate the successful 2006 kidnapping of IDF soldier ... for whom Israel exchanged 1,000 Palestinian prisoners in 2011."

To me, this isn't complicated. Israel has a right to act in self defense. As long as Hamas opts to make war from behind women and children, Israel has a right to do what is reasonable and necessary to protect its people from the Hamas' rocket and tunnel attacks -- even if Palestinian women and children are killed in the process of Israeli self-defense.

Hamas can stop this "collateral damage" very easily and quickly. It can end the rocket attacks, or it can move the rockets away from civilian areas -- away from schools and hospitals. And it can stop building tunnels into Israel. As long as Hamas tries to kill Israelis using women and children a "human shields," it bears 100 percent of the blame.

American news organizations which blame Israel every time a Palestinian child is killed, are intentionally portraying Israel in a pejorative light. Writing simply that "1,000 Palestinians have been killed" suggests that Israel is responsible for indiscriminately killing women and children. But if Israel was being "indiscriminate" instead of "surgical" the deaths should by now number in the tens of thousands. Gaza is small (141 square miles) and densely populated (1.8 million). If the Israelis are really trying to kill women and children, they are not very good at it.

Perhaps they need lessons from Russia's president. Comrade Putin and his henchman in the Ukraine were able to kill 298 civilian passengers aboard a Malaysian airliner in less than two minutes!

Posted Online:  Aug. 08, 2014, 11:00 pm - Quad-Cities Online
by John Donald O'Shea

Copyright 2014
John Donald O'Shea

When Citizens Lose Respect for Courts, Revolutions Follow

A sizable majority of the American people have lost virtually all respect for Congress. Every day more and more Americans are losing faith with a president whose administration seemingly lies about everything from Benghazi, to the IRS scandal, to unemployment statistics.

Only one branch of the federal government retains the respect of the American people: the judiciary. And now the president and his supporters are doing their best to undermine that support by misstating the U.S. Supreme Court's holding for crass partisan advantage.

Whether you agree with the court's holding or not, it is dangerous, either intentionally or through carelessness, to misstate what the court has said. When its holdings are misstated, the court is most often portrayed in a pejorative light. That is why I have written a number of op eds quoting the court at length, to show readers what the court has actually said, and to show the care with which their opinions are crafted.

In this op ed, I discuss the Hobby Lobby decision allowing two closely held corporations to refuse to pay for four out of 20 forms of contraception that they consider to be abortifacients --— drugs that terminate conception after conception (not before). I do so because I believe you need to see exactly what the court said, and how carefully they said it. I do so because too many people who should know better are undermining respect for the court by misstating what the court said.

"Fifty years ago, Norman Hahn started a wood-working business in his garage ... This company, Conestoga Wood Specialties, .... now has 950 employees ... the Hahns believe that 'human life begins at conception.' It is therefore 'against (their) moral conviction to be involved in the termination of human life' after conception, which they believe is a 'sin against God to which they are held accountable.' The Hahns have accordingly excluded from the group health-insurance plan they offer to their employees certain contraceptive methods [four out of 20] that they consider to be abortifacients.

"The Hahns and Conestoga sued the United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) ... under Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) ... seeking to enjoin application of ACA's contraceptive mandate insofar as it requires them to provide health-insurance coverage for four FDA approved contraceptives that may operate after the fertilization of an egg. These include two forms of emergency contraception commonly called "morning after" pills and two types of intrauterine devices.

"Forty-five years ago, David Green started an arts-and-crafts store that has grown into a nationwide chain called Hobby Lobby. ... the Greens believe that life begins at conception and that it would violate their religion to facilitate access to contraceptive drugs or devices that operate after that point. ... They specifically object to the same four contraceptive methods as the Hahns .... They have no objection to the other 16 FDA-approved methods of birth control. ...

"We must decide in these cases whether the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA) ... permits HHS to demand that three closely held corporations provide health-insurance coverage for methods of contraception that violate the sincerely held religious beliefs of the companies' owners. We hold that the regulations that impose this obligation violate RFRA, which prohibits the Federal Government from taking any action that substantially burdens the exercise of religion unless that action constitutes the least restrictive means of serving a compelling government interest.

"In holding that the HHS mandate is unlawful, we reject HHS's argument that the owners of the companies forfeited all RFRA protection when they decided to organize their businesses as corporations rather than sole proprietorships or general partnerships. The plain terms of RFRA make it perfectly clear that Congress did not discriminate in this way against men and women who wish to run their businesses as for-profit corporations in the manner required by their religious beliefs.

"Since RFRA applies in these cases, we must decide whether the challenged HHS regulations (1) substantially burden the exercise of religion, and we hold that they do. The owners of the businesses have religious objections to abortion, and according to their religious beliefs the four contraceptive methods at issue are abortifacients. If the owners comply with the HHS mandate, they believe they will be facilitating abortions, and if they do not comply, they will pay a very heavy price -- as much as $1.3 million per day, or about $475 million per year, in the case of one of the companies. If these consequences do not amount to a substantial burden, it is hard to see what would.

"Under RFRA, a Government action that imposes a substantial burden on religious exercise must (2) serve a compelling government interest, and we assume that the HHS regulations satisfy this requirement. But in order for the HHS mandate to be sustained, it must also constitute (3) the least restrictive means of serving that interest, and the mandate plainly fails that test. There are other ways in which Congress or HHS could equally ensure that every woman has cost-free access to the particular contraceptives at issue here and, indeed, to all FDA-approved contraceptives.

"In fact, HHS has already devised and implemented a system that seeks to respect the religious liberty of religious nonprofit corporations while ensuring that the employees of these entities have precisely the same access to all FDA-approved contraceptives as employees of companies whose owners have no religious objections to providing such coverage. The employees of these religious nonprofit corporations still have access to insurance coverage without cost sharing for all FDA-approved contraceptives; and according to HHS, this system imposes no net economic burden on the insurance companies that are required to provide or secure the coverage.
"HHS has provided no reason why the same system cannot be made available when the owners of for-profit corporations have similar religious objections.

"The effect of the HHS-created accommodation on the women employed by Hobby Lobby and the other companies involved in these cases would be precisely zero. Under that accommodation, these women would still be entitled to all (20) FDA-approved contraceptives without cost sharing."

Not withstanding the loss of respect for the president and Congress, our system bumbles on. When citizens, however, lose respect for their judicial system, revolutions follow.

Posted Online:  July 18, 2014, 11:00 pm - Quad-Cities Online
by John Donald O'Shea

Copyright 2014
John Donald O'Shea

Who Should Decide Delicate Public Policy Issues?

The 2014 U.S. Supreme Court holding in Schuette v BAMN was an affirmative action case. It was not a same-sex marriage case. But as you read the excerpts below, ask yourself why what the court said in the context of affirmative action, would not be equally applicable in a same-sex marriage case?

The issue to be resolved in Schuette was "whether an amendment to the Constitution of the State of Michigan, approved and enacted by its voters, was invalid under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution?" The first section of that Michigan amendment provided:

"The University of Michigan, Michigan State University, ... and any other public college or university, community college, or school district shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting."

In further framing the issue, the court said, "The question here concerns not the permissibility of race-conscious admissions policies under the Constitution but whether, and in what manner, voters in the States may choose to prohibit the consideration of racial preferences in governmental decisions, in particular with respect to school admissions."

In sustaining the Michigan Constitutional provision, here's what the Supreme Court said:

"By approving Proposal 2 and thereby adding [it] to their State Constitution, the Michigan voters exercised their privilege to enact laws as a basic exercise of their democratic power.

"The freedom secured by the Constitution consists, in one of its essential dimensions, of the right of the individual not to be injured by the unlawful exercise of governmental power.

"Yet freedom does not stop with individual rights. Our constitutional system embraces, too, the right of citizens to debate so they can learn and decide and then, through the political process, act in concert to try to shape the course of their own times and the course of a nation that must strive always to make freedom ever greater and more secure.

"Here Michigan voters acted in concert and statewide to seek consensus and adopt a policy on a difficult subject against a historical background of race in America that has been a source of tragedy and persisting injustice.

"Were the Court to rule that the question addressed by Michigan voters is too sensitive or complex to be within the grasp of the electorate; or that the policies at issue remain too delicate to be resolved save by university officials or faculties, acting at some remove from immediate public scrutiny and control; or that these matters are so arcane that the electorate's power must be limited because the people cannot prudently exercise that power even after a full debate, that holding would be an unprecedented restriction on the exercise of a fundamental right held not just by one person but by all in common. It is the right to speak and debate and learn and then, as a matter of political will, to act through a lawful electoral process.

"The respondents in this case insist that a difficult question of public policy must be taken from the reach of the voters, and thus removed from the realm of public discussion, dialogue, and debate in an election campaign. Quite in addition to the serious First Amendment implications of that position with respect to any particular election, it is inconsistent with the underlying premises of a responsible, functioning democracy. One of those premises is that a democracy has the capacity -- and the duty -- to learn from its past mistakes; to discover and confront persisting biases; and by respectful, rationale deliberation to rise above those flaws and injustices. That process is impeded, not advanced, by court decrees based on the proposition that the public cannot have the requisite repose to discuss certain issues. It is demeaning to the democratic process to presume that the voters are not capable of deciding an issue of this sensitivity on decent and rational grounds. The process of public discourse and political debate should not be foreclosed even if there is a risk that during a public campaign there will be those, on both sides, who seek to use racial division and discord to their own political advantage. An informed public can, and must, rise above this. The idea of democracy is that it can, and must, mature. Freedom embraces the right, indeed the duty, to engage in a rational, civic discourse in order to determine how best to form a consensus to shape the destiny of the Nation and its people.

"These First Amendment dynamics would be disserved if this Court were to say that the question here at issue is beyond the capacity of the voters to debate and then to determine.

"This case is not about how the debate about racial preferences should be resolved. It is about who may resolve it. There is no authority in the Constitution of the United States or in this Court's precedents for the Judiciary to set aside Michigan laws that commit this policy determination to the voters."

But the court did warn that the right of the voters do deal with delicate racial issues was not absolute.

"These precepts are not inconsistent with the well established principle that when hurt or injury is inflicted on racial minorities by the encouragement or command of laws or other state action, the Constitution requires redress by the courts."

So, unless traditional marriage laws and constitutional provisions are found to "encourage or command" that hurt or injury be inflicted on those who would opt for same sex marriage, it is my guess that when the question reaches the U. S. Supreme Court, that that court will find that no federal question is involved, and that the matter is to be left to the judgment of the people of the several states.

This case also indicates to me that at least five justices have learned the folly of the judicial hubris, involved (40 years of unending division) in placing delicate issues of public policy, such as abortion, beyond the power of adjustment by the people and the state legislatures.

Posted Online:  July 10, 2014 at 11:00 pm - Quad-Cities Online
by John Donald O'Shea

Copyright 2014
John Donald O'Shea

How Town Meeting Prayers, and Marriage Are Related

On June 22, I concluded my summary of the U.S. Supreme Court's holding in Town of Greece v. Galloway by saying, "I think the reasoning in this case could be of great importance in other areas of constitutional law. My thoughts on the importance of the case will follow."

So, here they are.

The right of a man to marry a woman, and vice versa, nowhere appears in the U.S. Constitution. Nevertheless, it has been an undoubted right of all adult men and women living in America -- both before and since the adoption of the U. S. Constitution.

And it wasn't a right of just one group of colonists. All male and female colonists, whether English, French, Spanish, Dutch, Swedish, etc., enjoyed the right whether they resided in English, French or Spanish colonies. Indeed, even the native peoples, Iroquois, Huron, Sioux, etc., enjoyed the right. For that reason, the right to marry seems to be one of those rights retained by the people and reserved to the people or states by the Ninth and 10th amendments.

-- "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." -- Amendment IX

-- "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people" -- Amendment X

And while the right to marry is nowhere mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, neither does the Constitution give Congress or the federal government any power to regulate marriage. In the powers of Congress enumerated in Article I, Section 8, there is nothing whatsoever about "marriage."

Historically, marriage in America has been between one man and one woman. The U. S. Supreme court holding Reynolds v. U. S. (1878) makes that patently clear:

"Polygamy has always been odious among the northern and western nations of Europe, and, until the establishment of the Mormon Church, was almost exclusively a feature of the life of Asiatic and of African people. ...

" ... from the earliest history of England, polygamy has been treated as an offence against society. After the establishment of the ecclesiastical courts, and until the time of James I., it was punished through the instrumentality of those tribunals ...

"By the statute of 1 James I. (c. 11), the offence, if committed in England or Wales, was made punishable in the civil courts, and the penalty was death. As this statute was limited in its operation to England and Wales, it was at a very early period re-enacted, generally with some modifications, in all the colonies.

"In connection with the case we are now considering, it is a significant fact that on the 8th of December, 1788, after the passage of the "act establishing religious freedom," and after the convention of Virginia had recommended as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States the declaration in a bill of rights that 'all men have an equal, natural, and unalienable right to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience,' the legislature of that State substantially enacted the statute of James I., death penalty included."

The argument can be made that a 14th Amendment (1868) "equal protection" argument was not advanced in Reynolds v. U.S. But it can also be argued that it wasn't made because nobody seriously believed that the 14th Amendment was enacted to guarantee polygamous marriages equal rights with marriages between one man and one woman.

Town of Greece v. Galloway (2014) was not a case about marriage. Rather, it concerned the constitutionality of opening a town meeting with a prayer. But look at what the court said:

"The First Congress made it an early item of business to appoint and pay official chaplains, and both the House and Senate have maintained the office virtually uninterrupted since that time. ...

"When Marsh was decided, in 1983, legislative prayer had persisted in the Nebraska Legislature for more than a century, and the majority of the other States also had the same, consistent practice. ...

"In light of the unambiguous and unbroken history of more than 200 years, there can be no doubt that the practice of opening legislative sessions with a prayer has become part of the fabric of our society."

Now, change a few words and you can see what the court could easily say if it opts to hold that non-traditional marriages do not get the same constitutional protection as traditional marriages:

"In light of the unambiguous and unbroken American history of more than 500 years, there can be no doubt that marriage is between one man and one woman, and that that practice has become part of the fabric of our society."

The point is simply this: For 500 years, nobody who came to America believed as a matter of law that marriage was anything other than a union between one man and one woman, except perhaps the Mormons.

But if marriage is reserved to the people and the states, then the decision to expand or not to expand the meaning of marriage resides with states and not with the federal government.

And that leads me to consider another new U.S. Supreme Court holding, Schuette v. BAMN, which may also have significant bearing on the non-traditional marriage question. So get ready for one more op-ed.

Posted Online:  June 30, 2014 at 2:20 pm - Quad-Cities Online
by John Donald O'Shea

Copyright 2014
John Donald O'Shea

Congress Heard Prayer before Backing "Establishment Clause"

On May 5, the U. S. Supreme Court decided Town of Greece v. Galloway.
In the case, Galloway sued Greece, claiming that the town, by opening its monthly meeting with a prayer, created an unconstitutional "establishment of religion."

The town did not prescribe or approve the prayers to be said. A town employee simply called ministers listed in a directory, until one volunteered (without pay) to say the opening prayer.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the majority, held that the town's practice was permissible and did not constitute an unconstitutional First Amendment violation. The court relied on its 1983 precedent in Marsh v. Chambers.

"In Marsh ... the Court found no First Amendment violation in the Nebraska Legislature's practice of opening its sessions with a prayer delivered by a chaplain paid from state funds."
The court then explained its holding in Marsh.

"Marsh is sometimes described as 'carving out an exception' to the Court's Establishment Clause jurisprudence, because it sustained legislative prayer without subjecting the practice to any of the formal 'tests' that have traditionally structured' this inquiry. ... The Court in Marsh found those tests unnecessary because history supported the conclusion that legislative invocations are compatible with the Establishment Clause. The First Congress made it an early item of business to appoint and pay official chaplains, and both the House and Senate have maintained the office virtually uninterrupted since that time. ...

"When Marsh was decided, in 1983, legislative prayer had persisted in the Nebraska Legislature for more than a century, and the majority of the other States also had the same, consistent practice. ... Although no information has been cited by the parties to indicate how many local legislative bodies open their meetings with prayer, this practice too has historical precedent ... 'In light of the unambiguous and unbroken history of more than 200 years, there can be no doubt that the practice of opening legislative sessions with a prayer has become part of the fabric of our society.'"

In short, the legislative opening prayer was sustained because the very Congress that had just passed the First Amendment during that same session began the practice of opening its sessions with an opening prayer said by a paid chaplain.

Obviously, if they felt that the practice amounted to an improper "establishment of religion," they wouldn't have done it.

"That the First Congress provided for the appointment of chaplains only days after approving language for the First Amendment demonstrates that the Framers considered legislative prayer a benign acknowledgment of religion's role in society."

But while the Greece court sustained the legislative prayer practice, it did add a caveat:

"Yet Marsh must not be understood as permitting a practice that would amount to a constitutional violation if not for its historical foundation. The case teaches instead that the Establishment Clause must be interpreted "by reference to historical practices and understandings."

On the other hand, the court instructed that the "content of the prayer (opening legislative sessions) is not of concern to judges," provided "there is no indication that the prayer opportunity has been exploited to proselytize or advance any one, or to disparage any other, faith or belief."

The court further explained, and rejected the plaintiff's argument that public prayers must be "non-sectarian."

"Our Government is prohibited from prescribing prayers to be recited in our public institutions in order to promote a preferred system of belief or code of moral behavior (Engel v. Vitale). It would be but a few steps removed from that prohibition for legislatures to require chaplain to redact the religious content from their message in order to make it acceptable for the public sphere. Government may not mandate a civic religion that stifles any but the most generic reference to the sacred any more than it may prescribe a religious orthodoxy.... 'The suggestion that government may establish an official or civic religion as a means of avoiding the establishment of a religion with more specific creeds strikes us as a contradiction that cannot be accepted.'

"The government may not seek to define permissible categories of religious speech. Once it invites prayer into the public sphere, government must permit a prayer-giver to address his or her own God or gods as conscience dictates, unfettered by what an administrator or judge considers to be nonsectarian."

The court then gave guidance as to what has been historically typical legislative prayer.

"It is thus possible to discern in the prayers offered to Congress a commonality of theme and tone. While these prayers vary in their degree of religiosity, they often seek peace for the Nation, wisdom for its lawmakers, and justice for its people, values that count as universal and that are embodied not only in religious traditions, but in our founding documents and laws."

Rejecting the notion that some citizens might find such prayer offensive, or compulsive, the court said, "Our tradition assumes that adult citizens, firm in their own beliefs, can tolerate and perhaps appreciate a ceremonial prayer delivered by a person of a different faith."

Finally, the court indicated it would look to see that the entire body of the prayers offered -- rather than a single prayer -- was consistent with how legislative prayers have been done traditionally.

"Absent a pattern of prayers that over time denigrate, proselytize, or betray an impermissible government purpose, a challenge based solely on the content of a prayer will not likely establish a constitutional violation. Marsh, indeed, requires an inquiry into the prayer opportunity as a whole, rather than into the contents of a single prayer."

Space limitations prevent me from doing more than summarizing the opinion. But I think the reasoning in this case could be of great importance in other areas of constitutional law.My thoughts on the importance of the case will follow.

Posted Online:  June 21, 2014, 11:00 pm - Quad-Cities Online
by John Donald O'Shea

Copyright 2014
John Donald O'Shea

Illinois Democrats: "Raise Taxes or the Sky Will Fall"

My father had a rule born of the Great Depression: "Pay cash; don't buy on time; and don't pay interest."

Dad didn't buy "things" (our home excepted) unless he had cash to pay for them.

Illinois' Democrat politicians have a "better idea". They buy whatever strikes their passing fancy, even though the state is flat broke. Then to pay, they raise taxes, or borrow and pay interest.

They, for example, want to build President Obama's library. Presidential libraries are ordinarily built with private funds. But their "better idea" is to pay for it with taxpayer dollars they don't have.

This "better idea," like other "better ideas," comes along at a time when Illinois can't pay its bills on time and has a multi-billion dollar pension problem.

Illinois ended 2013 with $7.6 billion in unpaid bills. (Not withstanding the fact that in January 2011 Democrats -- without the support of a single Republican lawmaker -- raised the state income tax on individuals from 3 percent to 5 percent, and the corporate income taxes from 7.3 percent to 9.5 percent.)

Couple that with the fact that "the state's four main state pension funds have an unfunded liability of roughly $100 billion.

Here's a sample of Democrat logic. U.S. Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., describes taxpayer dollars he wants spent on the Obama presidential library as "seed money."

"It's going to have a long-term positive economic impact. ... This library will pay back in terms of visitors to our state, more business, more jobs and people paying taxes. ... Whether $100 million is the right dollar amount, I don't know ...."

And he's not alone. Illinois House Speaker Mike Madigan, D-Chicago, and Chicago Democrat Mayor Rahm Emanuel have been leading the charge to spend taxpayer dollars for the library. Indeed, an Illinois House Committee led by Democrats wanted to appropriate $100 millions for it.

There is of course one flaw in the argument: once built, presidential libraries generally lose money. Therefore, once built, they are normally sloughed off to the U. S. National Archives -- which continues to operate them at a loss.

By comparison, "friends" of presidents Bush and Clinton raised over $200 million in private dollars to fund their libraries. George Washington's library at Mount Vernon operates on private donations.

In addition to this "better idea," Democrats have some others. Spend $520,0000 to fly 91 prairie chickens into Illinois at a cost of $1,166 per prairie chicken, and spend billions for "high speed rail" (e.g., buy 35 locomotives at $5 million)!

On May 31, Illinois Senate Democrats approved a $35.7 billion budget, in which expenses exceed revenues by $4.4 billion or 12.3 percent. To make it balance, Democrats want to extend the 5 percent Illinois personal income tax, and the 9.5 percent corporate income taxes -- not withstanding their promises that the tax increases would be "temporary." The alternative would be -- horror of horrors! -- to actually cut spending by $4.4 billion or by 12.3 percent.

So you can bet that in the lame-duck session -- right after the 2014 General Election -- Democrats will welsh on their 2011 promise to let the personal income tax revert from 5 percent to 3.75 percent, and the corporate income tax revert from 9.5 percent to 7.75 percent in 2015. Recall, that it was in the 2011 lame-duck session that the Democrats raised the income taxes to their present levels. (Why during the lame-duck session? Because that's when "retiring" politicians can pass anything, fully knowing they will not have to answer for their votes while they are collecting their pensions.)

We are already -- predictably -- being told that a $4.4 billion or 12.3 percent spending cut will be catastrophic! Programs will be devastated. Historic sites will be closed. State agencies will be left in limbo.

The sky will fall!

There are two methods of budgeting. Governments generally use baseline budgeting, or a variation thereof. Real people -- like you and I -- use zero based budgeting.

Baseline budgeting uses current spending levels as the baseline for establishing future funding requirements and assumes future budgets will equal the current budget plus upward adjustments for inflation and population growth.

Zero based budgeting requires that all spending must be rejustified each year or it will be eliminated from the budget -- regardless of previous spending levels!

Illinois families don't have the option of using baseline budgeting to run their homes. They can't spend 12.3 percent more then they have. If they expect a 2015 income of $31,300 per year, spending $35,700 is a recipe for bankruptcy -- unless they have savings they can dip into.

Illinois has reached the point were it can't be Santa Claus to everybody. The only rational approach is for the state to thoroughly analyze every one of its programs.Then, set aside the necessary money for the most important program. Next, do the same for the second. Then, do the same for the third, and so on.

When the $31.3 billion runs out, quit spending. No sane man believes that there isn't 12.3 percent waste, duplication and/or cronyism in Illinois' $35.7 billion budget.


Posted Online:  June 12, 2014, 11:00 pm - Quad-Cities Online
by John Donald O'Shea

Copyright 2014
John Donald O'Shea

Don't Trust Humans to Redistrict Illinois

               "Gerrymander, Joy of Joys, Safe house seats for all our boys!
                        "Gerrymander, we're awfully fond of you, voo, voo, de, doh!"
                                  - To tune of "Rubber Duckie," 
                                          Rock Island County ARC Gridiron Show (1991)

The present system of redistricting Illinois congressional districts and Illinois state legislative districts is cynical political humbug.

What passes for fair-minded redistricting in our state is a counterfeit, inconsistent with the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution which provides "No State shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

In 1964, the U. S. Supreme Court in Reynolds v. Sims, held that state legislative districts had to be roughly equal in population. The case rose when voters from Jefferson County, Ala., challenged the redistricting of their state legislature. At the time, Alabama state senators were elected from senatorial districts grossly unequal in population.

One district had 14 times the population of another!

Eight justices voted to strike down the Alabama senate district scheme. Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote that it violated the U. S. Constitutional requirement of "one person, one vote."

He further wrote, "Legislators represent people, not trees or acres. Legislators are elected by voters, not farms or cities or economic interests."

Reynolds v. Sims was not a gerrymandering case. It did not involve drawing congressional districts roughly equal in population but manipulating their boundaries so as to include or exclude Republicans or Democrats, in order to give one party an a electoral advantage.The most extreme example of that would be to create a meandering district that included only persons registered in the Democratic primary, and excluding all persons registered in the the Republican primary -- that is, a district with only Democrats.

The language in the Reynolds v. Sims majority opinion, however, clearly states that "gerrymandering" can be unconstitutional.

"The right to vote can neither be denied outright ... nor destroyed by alteration of ballots ... nor diluted by ballot box stuffing. Obviously included within the right to choose, secured by the Constitution, is the right of qualified voters within a state to cast their ballots and have them counted. ... Racially based gerrymandering, and the conducting of white primaries, both of which result in denying to some citizens their right to vote, have been held to be constitutionally impermissible. And history has seen a continuing expansion of the scope of the right of suffrage in this country. The right to vote freely for the candidate of one's choice is of the essence of a democratic society, and any restrictions on that right strike at the heart of representative government. And the right of suffrage can be denied by a debasement or dilution of the weight of a citizen's vote just as effectively as by wholly prohibiting the free exercise of the franchise."

When districts are intentionally gerrymandered to create districts in which Democrats or Republicans almost are guaranteed victory, the members of the other party have their votes debased. But although the problem may be obvious, the solution may not be.

In the early years when I was on the bench, once a year all Illinois judges were required to attend the Illinois Judicial Conference Educational Seminar. At a luncheon during one such session, the issue of appointing judges (rather than electing them) was discussed by the speaker, an Illinois Supreme Court justice.

The justice expressed skepticism with the argument that "allowing the governor to appoint judges would keep judicial appointments from being political." Instead, he suggested a better way: "Have the appointments made by the Illinois Supreme Court." When the laughter subsided, he finished his remarks, having persuaded nobody.

Recently, the Yes for Independent Maps Coalition has been working to collect about a half a million signatures to get a proposed constitutional amendment on the November ballot that would take redistricting of Illinois legislative districts (not Congressional districts) out of the hands of the legislature.

They correctly believe that Illinois history demonstrates that legislative redistricting equals gerrymandering.

As outlined by the coalition, if approved, any Illinois citizen could apply to join the legislative redistricting commission. A nonpartisan applicant review panel, appointed by the auditor general, would eliminate applicants with conflicts of interest, such as lobbyists or public officials. (Excluding anybody, of course, raises a new set of constitutional questions.)

A lottery then would be used to select commissioners to create a group of two Democrats, two Republicans and three unaffiliated with either party, all proportionally representing Illinois' five judicial districts. The four top legislative leaders in Illinois would each appoint one commissioner from the remaining pool. Commission meetings and records would be open to the public.

The problem I have with this solution to fix Illinois legislative redistricting is that to the extent that there is a human element involved, a remedy is hardly guaranteed. People in politics maneuver, and even finagle to gain partisan advantage.

I would opt for the simplest of all solutions. Create districts as nearly rectangular as possible (taking account of the fact Illinois is not square, but rather is bounded by wandering rivers, etc.) Require these districts be as equal in population as possible. Take account of no other factors. Leave race, creed, color, ethnicity, municipal subdivision boundaries, etc. out of the determination.

Have the district lines drawn by computers, with no directions in the program other than

1. Make them as rectangular as possible, and

2. As nearly equal in population as possible.

If a district is drawn to favor whites, it disfavors everybody else. If it is drawn to favor Latinos, it disfavors Irish guys.

At a minimum, my plan would certainly bar any congressional or legislative district that look like our present 17th Congressional District -- the epitome of a Gerrymander, or perhaps a crocodile, with its mouth open, perched on its keister!

Posted Online:  June 5, 2014, 11:00 pm - Quad-Cities Online
by John Donald O'Shea

Copyright 2014
John Donald O'Shea