Polygamy 7/14/15

Being of the school that hears the word polygamy and forthwith tires, imagining a competitive household in which it is revealed that under pressure at least one adult participant is nuts, I have never engaged in a discussion of multiple spousing.  And as a lawyer, I have never understood how an argument for polygamy as constitutionally protected could be made.  After all, there is no equal protection argument to be had.  But Kennedy’s loosy-goosy “due process” argument in the SSM case has perhaps opened a door a crack that could have remained slammed shut.  Certainly, Justice Roberts thought so.

So when I stumbled across this article in The Economist, I read it with interest and decided to share it here.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2015/07/marriage-and-civil-rights?spc=scode&spv=xm&ah=9d7f7ab945510a56fa6d37c30b6f1709

I was struck by the author’s notion that it is libertarians who are actually pushing polygamy, and apparently liberals who oppose it.  I thought everybody opposed polygamy except some folks in Utah who have TV reality shows.

I felt vindicated by his citations of studies of the damage one can expect from polygamy, because they seem evident to me.

Nevertheless, I wonder what it will mean to say there is no right to polygamy, while never prosecuting cases and failing to remove children absent reported repeated physical abuse.  See:

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/23993440/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/t/women-children-leave-polygamist-ranch/#.VaUFIJNVK1E

Frankly, that case was awful.  But that is what it has taken to enforce laws against polygamy in America.

Given three choices – recognizing polygamy, or banning polygamy with enforcement, or without enforcement – what do you think?

 

Rich State Poor State 2014 7/10/15

State

Dollars (millions)

Ratio to GSP

Revenue

Spending

Net

Revenue

Spending

Net

Alabama

23,789

61,806

-38,016

11.9%

31.0%

-19.1%

Alaska

5,449

7,502

-2,052

9.5%

13.1%

-3.6%

Arizona

40,530

58,723

-18,193

14.3%

20.7%

-6.4%

Arkansas

30,729

20,447

10,282

25.3%

16.8%

8.5%

California

369,193

236,560

132,633

16.0%

10.2%

5.7%

Colorado

52,003

35,559

16,444

17.0%

11.6%

5.4%

Connecticut

57,697

64,994

-7,296

22.8%

25.7%

-2.9%

Delaware

19,040

6,105

12,935

30.3%

9.7%

20.6%

District of Columbia

26,433

26,551

-118

22.9%

23.0%

-0.1%

Florida

154,353

150,037

4,316

18.4%

17.9%

0.5%

Georgia

79,566

55,473

24,093

16.7%

11.6%

5.1%

Hawaii

7,723

10,706

-2,983

10.0%

13.8%

-3.9%

Idaho

9,224

10,924

-1,700

14.4%

17.1%

-2.7%

Illinois

148,332

70,118

78,215

19.9%

9.4%

10.5%

Indiana

54,607

106,579

-51,973

17.2%

33.5%

-16.4%

Iowa

22,309

19,434

2,875

13.1%

11.4%

1.7%

Kansas

25,897

14,729

11,168

17.6%

10.0%

7.6%

Kentucky

30,128

71,522

-41,394

16.0%

37.9%

-21.9%

Louisiana

43,023

29,411

13,612

17.1%

11.7%

5.4%

Maine

6,902

10,525

-3,624

12.4%

18.8%

-6.5%

Maryland

59,614

62,445

-2,831

17.1%

17.9%

-0.8%

Massachusetts

100,161

68,024

32,137

21.8%

14.8%

7.0%

Michigan

71,184

69,061

2,123

15.8%

15.3%

0.5%

Minnesota

96,227

59,213

37,014

30.4%

18.7%

11.7%

Mississippi

11,011

21,879

-10,867

10.5%

20.9%

-10.4%

Missouri

61,512

44,587

16,925

21.6%

15.7%

5.9%

Montana

5,338

7,248

-1,910

12.1%

16.4%

-4.3%

Nebraska

23,885

11,335

12,550

21.3%

10.1%

11.2%

Nevada

16,579

14,629

1,949

12.6%

11.1%

1.5%

New Hampshire

11,044

8,513

2,531

15.4%

11.9%

3.5%

New Jersey

134,870

55,998

78,872

24.6%

10.2%

14.4%

New Mexico

8,758

21,212

-12,454

9.4%

22.8%

-13.4%

New York

250,618

145,994

104,624

17.8%

10.4%

7.4%

North Carolina

72,472

59,945

12,527

15.0%

12.4%

2.6%

North Dakota

7,585

56,969

-49,384

13.8%

103.3%

-89.6%

Ohio

129,901

73,441

56,460

22.3%

12.6%

9.7%

Oklahoma

32,611

25,341

7,270

17.8%

13.8%

4.0%

Oregon

28,409

28,482

-72

13.2%

13.2%

0.0%

Pennsylvania

126,374

182,015

-55,640

19.1%

27.5%

-8.4%

Rhode Island

13,888

8,373

5,514

25.3%

15.2%

10.0%

South Carolina

22,242

73,069

-50,827

11.7%

38.4%

-26.7%

South Dakota

6,734

6,033

700

14.7%

13.2%

1.5%

Tennessee

56,937

72,691

-15,755

18.9%

24.2%

-5.2%

Texas

265,336

147,338

117,998

16.1%

8.9%

7.2%

Utah

18,389

13,459

4,930

13.0%

9.5%

3.5%

Vermont

4,325

4,688

-363

14.6%

15.8%

-1.2%

Virginia

75,049

92,321

-17,272

16.2%

19.9%

-3.7%

Washington

67,813

51,083

16,730

15.9%

12.0%

3.9%

West Virginia

6,885

14,611

-7,726

9.1%

19.4%

-10.3%

Wisconsin

49,592

78,632

-29,040

16.9%

26.8%

-9.9%

Wyoming

4,892

3,560

1,331

11.1%

8.1%

3.0%

Total

3,047,160

2,649,893

397,267

17.6%

15.3%

2.3%

Continental Congress Votes for Independence 7/2/15

On this day in 1776, the Second Continental Congress, assembled in Philadelphia, formally adopts Richard Henry Lee’s resolution for independence from Great Britain. The vote is unanimous, with only New York abstaining.

The resolution had originally been presented to Congress on June 7, but it soon became clear that New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland and South Carolina were as yet unwilling to declare independence, though they would likely be ready to vote in favor of a break with England in due course. Thus, Congress agreed to delay the vote on Lee’s Resolution until July 1. In the intervening period, Congress appointed a committee to draft a formal declaration of independence. Its members were John Adams of Massachusetts, Benjamin Franklin of Pennsylvania, Roger Sherman of Connecticut, Robert R. Livingston of New York and Thomas Jefferson of Virginia. Thomas Jefferson, well-known to be the best writer of the group, was selected to be the primary author of the document, which was presented to Congress for review on June 28, 1776.

On July 1, 1776, debate on the Lee Resolution resumed as planned, with a majority of the delegates favoring the resolution. Congress thought it of the utmost importance that independence be unanimously proclaimed. To ensure this, they delayed the final vote until July 2, when 12 colonial delegations voted in favor of it, with the New York delegates abstaining, unsure of how their constituents would wish them to vote. John Adams wrote that July 2 would be celebrated as the most memorable event in the history of America. Instead, the day has been largely forgotten in favor of July 4, when Jefferson’s edited Declaration of Independence was adopted.

Hancock’s words have been added as the quotation of the day.

Thought Experiment 5/26/15

If our federal tax system had a voluntary box for contributions above income tax due, and if the box allowed for contributions to be earmarked for any of eight major federal budget “needs”:
1]  debt reduction
2]  defense and national security
3]  medicaid
4]  highway, dam, and port maintenance
5]  national parks
6] VA
7] ag subsidies
8] health subsidies through ACA
9] Returned Directly to the State Treasury of Your Choice__________________________
10] Existing specific federal budget item of your choice_______
Would you check off for any?  $50?  $500?  $5000?
Which functions do you think would draw the most contributions?
Which the least?
Assuming the earmarks would be honored, would Congress immediately offset the predicted earmarks in the following year’s budget?  Would that be good, in that voters would have changed budget priorities to directly suit themselves, or bad, in that Congress would just waste the money?
Would it make a difference to you if the contribution were tax deductible in the following year?  I exclude the possibility of it becoming a tax credit as that would defeat this mind experiment. But see below.

In the alternate mind experiment, in which one can choose to contribute one’s tax payment to selected budget items, which items do you think would be funded?

—–

I will post this at PL.  The reactions there should be – uh- different.

UK Election Next Week: “Economist” endorses Cameron 5/1/15

About Labour, this: Mr Miliband is fond of comparing his progressivism to that of Teddy Roosevelt, America’s trustbusting president. But the comparison is false. Rather than using the state to boost competition, Mr Miliband wants a heavier state hand in markets—which betrays an ill-founded faith in the ingenuity and wisdom of government. Even a brief, limited intervention can cast a lasting pall over investment and enterprise—witness the 75% income-tax rate of France’s president, François Hollande. The danger is all the greater because a Labour government looks fated to depend on the SNP, which leans strongly to the left.   http://tinyurl.com/nwqjron

OPEN THREAD 4/6/15

Wiscy has a 53% chance against the Dukies, according to Nate Silver.

Doesn’t mean any single game would be close, of course, and Duke beat Wiscy by ten or twelve early in the year (I forget the exact score).

 

The Economist explains the outlined Iran deal here:

http://tinyurl.com/lu9sbbx

 

Latest Alzheimers research news is here:

http://tinyurl.com/l9ojy7t

 

NoVA, did you know that you can watch NHL games on your computer at CBC.com?

 

I am going off the cable at the end of the month.  Going to use Roku with some subscription services.  Has anyone here already cut the cord to ATT, ComCast, Cox, TWC, Dish, DirecTV?  Tell, please.

 

 

I WAS WRONG – Netanyahu won

THE Israeli prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, has once again confounded the pollsters. In 1996, opinion surveys predicted he would lose against the then Labour prime minister, Shimon Peres. The exit polls had him trailing. But when the final count came in, Nr Netanyahu had won a famous victory. He repeated a similar feat in the election on March 17th. He had been trailing behind his main challenger, Yitzhak Herzog, the leader of Zionist Union, for much of the campaign. The exit polls had him drawing level. And as the count came in he pulled ahead to score a clear victory, of 30 seats for Likud to 24 for Zionist Union, that will secure him a fourth term. “Bibi! Bibi! Bibi!” shouted his followers as the lead widened

For a time Likud voters seemed to reproach Mr Netanyahu for focusing almost entirely on the Iranian nuclear threat, instead of addressing the rising cost of living, particularly in housing. His  comeback was built on relentless negative final week of campaigning. Mr Netanyahu warned right-wing Israelis that dark international forces – at one point he identified Scandinavian countries as culprits – were plotting to bring down his government. He recanted on his commitment in 2009 to creating a Palestinian state. On election day itself, as citizens were casting their votes, he sounded the alarm over Arab citizens, who were supposedly voting in droves and would usher in a “far-left government”.

Cynical as they may appear, the fear tactics worked. Israelis who planned to vote for other right-wing parties rallied to Likud. Even before the success was clear, Mr Netanyahu declared that “against all odds, a great victory for Likud” had been secured. Mr Herzog, known as “Bougie”, called Mr Netanyahu to congratulate him.

The composition of the government will be decided by the game of post-election bargaining to form a coalition. When the result seemed more evenly matched, President Reuven Rivlin had said he favoured a governnment of national unity between Likud and Zioonist Union. But that seems unlikely given the scale of Mr Netanyahu’s victory.

With nearly all the vote counted, the group of right-wing and religious parties supporting Mr Netanyahu (Likud, Habayit Hayehudi, Yisrael Beiteinu, Shas and United Torah Judaism) had 57 seats – close to 61 seeats needed for a majority in the Knesset. The opposing centre-left bloc that would never support him (Zionist Union, Yesh Atid, Meretz and the Joint List) had 53 seats.

The swing vote is held by Moshe Kahlon, a former Likud minister whose new Kulanu Party received about ten seats. Mr Kahlon’s politics on the Palestinian question are right-wing but he has opposed Mr Netanyahu’s economic policies, and he had made a point of not accepting the prime minister’s offer to become finance minister. Given that gap between Likud and Zionist Union it is hard to imagine him defecting to Zionist Union.

Even if he were to do so, Mr Herzog would still find it nearly impossible to form a majority. The Arab-dominated Joint List, which will be the third-largest party, opposes Mr Netanyahu but Mr Herzog could not form a coalition with them without losing centrist Zionist parties. The ultra-Orthodox parties would not join a coalition that included the resolutely secular Yesh Atid.

Mr Netanyahu has repeatedly ruled out the option of a unity government this option during the campaign. His first telephone call was to Naftali Bennett, leader of the right-wing Habayit Hayehudi, with whom he pledged to work towards forming a right-leaning government.

Preliminary Injunction Against DAPA – USDC SD TX

Some excerpts from the 123 bloody paged opinion:
This case examines complex issues relating to immigration which necessarily involve questions of federalism, separation of powers, and the ability and advisability, if any, of the Judiciary to hear and resolve such a dispute.

Regardless of the fact that the Executive Branch has made public statements to the contrary, there are no executive orders or other presidential proclamations or communique that exist regarding DAPA. The DAPA Memorandum issued by Secretary Johnson is the focus in this suit.

Secretary Johnson supported the implementation of DAPA with two main justifications.  …limited resources …humanitarian concerns.

As Defendants concede, a direct and genuine injury to a State?s own proprietary interests may give rise to standing. Doc. No. 38 at 23; see also, e. g, Clinton v. City of N. Y., 524 US. 417, 430-31 (1998) (negative effects on the borrowing power, financial strength, and fiscal planning of a government entity are sufficient injuries to establish standing); Sch. Dist. of City of Pontiac, 584 F.3d 253, 261 (6th Cir. 2009) (school districts had standing based on their allegation that they must spend state and local funds to comply with federal law). Defendants in this case argue, however, that the projected costs to Plaintiffs drivers license programs are self-inflicted because the DHS Directive does not directly require states to provide any state benefits to deferred action recipients, and because states can adjust their benefit programs to avoid incurring these costs. Doc. No. 38 at 21-22. This assertion,
however, evaluates the DHS Directive in a vacuum. Further, this claim is, at best, disingenuous.  Although the terms of DAPA do not compel states to provide any benefits to deferred action recipients, it is clear that the DHS Directive will nonetheless affect state programs. Specifically,
in the wake of the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Arizona Dream Act Coalition v. Brewer, it is apparent that the federal government will compel compliance by all states regarding the issuance of drivers licenses to recipients of deferred action. 757 F.3d 1053 (9th Cir. 2014).

Also, it is not a defense to the Plaintiffs’ assertion of standing to argue that it is not the DAPA program causing the harm, but rather the Justice Department’s enforcement of the program.

…standing under Massachusetts v. E.P.A….

If the Court were to grant the requested relief, it would not change the presence of these individuals in this country, nor would it relieve the States of their obligations to pay for any associated costs. Thus, an injunction against DAPA would not redress the damages described above.

Three important factors separate those cases from the present one…Because of this announced policy of non-enforcement, the Plaintiffs’ claims are completely different from those based on mere ineffective enforcement. This
is abdication by any meaningful measure…Conversely, in the present case, Texas has shown that it will suffer millions of dollars in direct damages caused by the implementation of DAPA…Finally, … the above-cited cases pre-date the REAL ID Act of 2005.

To establish the second element necessary for abdication standing, the States assert that the Government has abandoned its duty to enforce the law. This assertion cannot be disputed…standing under a theory of abdication requires only that the Government declines to enforce the law. Here, it has.

… it is clear that Plaintiffs satisfy the standing requirements as prescribed by the APA.

Having concluded that at least one Plaintiff, the State of Texas, has standing, the Court now addresses the merits of the States’ claims regarding the DAPA program.

Absent abdication, decisions to not take enforcement action are rarely reviewable under the APA.

As there is no statute that authorizes the DHS to implement the DAPA program, there is certainly no statute that precludes judicial review under Section 701(a).

the Court finds that, in this case, to the extent that the DAPA Directive can be characterized as “non~enforcement”, it is actually affirmative action rather than inaction.  …the very statutes under which Defendants claim discretionary authority actually compel the opposite result. In particular, detailed and mandatory commands within the INA provisions applicable to Defendants’ action in this case circumscribe discretion.
After 123 pages of discussing “standing” under 3 theories and reviewability under APA, the trial court granted the Preliminary Injunction.
I do wonder about the discretion – abdication distinction.  I also wonder if a “non-enforcement” directive so sweeping and so rigidly constructed can avoid the strictures of APA.  I initially thought that DAPA and DACA before it were within the limits of executive authority and I still do as a constitutional matter, in a vacuum,  but as an Administrative Procedure Act violation, I can see this as an overreach based on the facts as recited in the Opinion.  Scott has pointed to the theory of abdication without calling it that, and I had not realized how iron bound the denial of individual discretion in DAPA was until I read all the footnotes in this case.  JNC – if you wade through the 123 pages I think you will be struck by the court’s stream of consciousness attempt to address the matter[s].

Remembering the Bris* of Jesus of Nazareth

*circumcision

Courtesy of Wikipedia:

New Year’s Day is observed on January 1, the first day of the year on the modern Gregorian calendar as well as the Julian calendar. As a date in the Gregorian calendar of Christendom, New Year’s Day liturgically marked the Feast of the Circumcision of Christ, and is still observed as such in the Anglican Church and Lutheran Church.

 

The new quotation was Emerson’s response to singling out New Year’s Day.

 

Happy New Year, all.

Visualizing US Air Traffic