Connecticut Minimum Wage Increase

So, as you may or may not have heard, the Connecticut House has overridden one of Governor Rell's vetoes, regarding a law to raise the Connecticut minimum wage from $7.65 an hour to $8.00 an hour, taking effect on January 1, 2009. The vote was razor-thin, as 102-39 voted to override, and 101 were needed.

Now I'm not claiming to know much about economics. I don't know if this minimum wage increase is going to help the economy rebound by helping employees, as its proponents claim, or if it will hurt small business owners, as Rell and others claimed. I won't take sides on the economic theory side of the issue.

On the human side of the issue, I am very glad that this law was passed. From a personal perspective, of course I would be, because I'm a teenager earning less than $8.00 an hour, so this will increase my income next year. But on a grander scale, I think that this increase will help a lot of people. And no, I don't mean the teenagers working summer jobs so that they can have fun during the school year. I'm talking about the working poor of Connecticut. According to some state sites, there are about 65,000 people in Connecticut who earn less than $7.65 an hour. Adding to this the amount of people who earn less than $8.00 an hour, and will be helped by the increase, there are a substantial number of people earning minimum wage to try and make ends meet. Imagine trying to support a family, or even yourself on $7.65 an hour. We did the math in my English class last year, and even supporting yourself is difficult.

Whether or not it will help the economy as a whole, I am glad that this law was overridden by the House, as it will help a lot of individuals. However, please not that this has not yet been passed, as it still must be overridden by the Senate. But the Courant predicts that it will be, and I trust that their knowledge of our state Senators' voting tendencies is sufficient to assume that this will be passed into law.

http://www.ctemploymentlawblog.com/2008/06/articles/legislative-issues/update-conn-house-overrides-veto-in-minimum-wage/
http://www.cga.ct.gov/2008/rpt/2008-R-0285.htm

Republicans Ready To Fight

I will be the first to admit that I have been one of Senator Obama's greatest supporters throughout his entire struggle with Senator Clinton and the ongoing war of words with Senator McCain. But with that being said, I will also be the first to acknowledge that a candidate has made a mistake. Lately, it appears Obama has been waffling on core liberal issues and values. Maybe I have just been watching too much CNN, but seeing as the Senator's blog has been littered with negative commentary the past few weeks, I do not believe I am the only one who sees it.

For example, the Iraq war. One of Obama's key principles has been that if elected, he will have all American soldiers pulled out within the first 16 months of his presidency. We have heard it thousands of times. But lately, all of this has been called into question. Senator John McCain said that Obama's remarks on Iraq "have left a significant question as to exactly what he intends." But, despite the growing concerns, Obama denied any suggestion that he was shying away from his proposed 16-month phased withdrawal of all combat troops from Iraq, calling it "pure speculation" and adding that his "position has not changed."

We all know that whenever a Democratic nominee makes a seemingly innocuous comment on a key issue, the Republican hounds come out in full force. Instantly, the Republican National Committee sent out a chain email stating that Obama was attempting to back out of his own policy of withdrawing troops within 16 months. But ex-presidential nominee John Kerry, who himself know a little something about the Republican Machine (anyone remember Swiftboat?), was there to back up Senator Obama:

The Republicans, and John McCain specifically, are trying desperately to get away from the reality of John McCain's position, which is that he has a plan for staying in Iraq and Barack Obama has a plan for getting out of Iraq...[Obama's position] has not changed whatsoever in his fundamental determination to end the war.

In the end, I have come to the realization that I overreacted. At some point, Obama would have to change from the saint that he was once viewed as to a true politician, and this has been a difficult transformation for me. But even if Obama does add a few months to his 16 month withdrawal, anything is better than McCain's plan for 16 years or 16 decades or even 16 lifetimes. 

The Anticlimax

When Barack Obama became the presumptive nominee back about a month ago, you could feel the excitement in the Democratic party and its supporters. It was one hell of a race between Hillary and Barack, but it had finally come to an end. That was the starting point of the battle between John McCain and Barack Obama – a race, mind you, which was supposed to be unique.

However, sitting here about a month later, I'm wondering what's so different. Yes, Barack is black, that's definitely something incredible, but I'm talking about the issues. Taxes, the economy, war plans, haven't we already heard this before? What I'm trying to get at is so far, this race between Obama and McCain has been the ultimate anticlimax. What do you think?

Instant Runoff Voting

I'd like to take a minute to tell you all about what I think is a great idea: Instant Runoff Voting, or IRV. It's a type of electoral reform, and to sum it up, everyone ranks the candidates by their preference, instead of only voting for one. If no candidate gets a majority, the candidate with the least number of votes is eliminated. But people who voted for them are not forgotten: whoever they ranked as their number two pick gets their vote. This continues until a candidate gets the majority.

Why do I like this idea so much? To give you a bit of background on me, I am a big fan both of electoral reform and of third parties. And using IRV for the presidential election would be a victory for both of those. The main idea is that you can vote your conscience without any fear of losing your voice. I'm constantly torn between supporting 3rd party candidates that I like a lot, such as Ralph Nader (Nader just as an example... people who know me know that I greatly prefer Kucinich), or the mainstream candidate that I like more than the other, which is Barack Obama. So if IRV were in place, I could vote for Nader, and put Obama as my number 2 pick. That way, if Nader doesn't win, then my vote will still go to a candidate that I would like to see in office.

Now, people may say that this idea is useless because third parties never win. But if this were in place, maybe third parties in the USA would become a bigger force than they are (not necessarily electing presidents, but perhaps mayors and governors). People will be empowered to vote for who they really believe in, without fear of being discounted by the broken electoral system. And I'm not saying that I think Nader, or Barr, or any non-major party candidate could win the 2008 election, even with IRV in place. But I think that they would definitely get a larger amount of votes, and that is what is important to me. People should be able to express that they like a candidate, and really believe in her or his ideas, rather than holding their nose and voting for whoever they dislike the least. It will at least let people know that there are alternatives to the Democrats and Republicans, and that there are lots of people who support them. If we had IRV, I don't think NAder would win, but I think he would have a lot more than 6% of the vote.

Some resources to learn about IRV:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting#Counting_the_votes
http://www.fairvote.org/irv/
http://instantrunoff.com/

An Unavoidable Conclusion

Recently The Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision that the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution protects the individual's rights to own a firearm for protection or gaming purposes. This was the first time that the court ever officially interpreted the 2nd Amendment to mean that. For years and years we have assumed that that's what it meant, and in practice, it has, but now the Court has made it official.

When this came to the Court, there was really no other decision that could have been made, despite the 4 opposing votes. If the Court had ruled that the 2nd Amendment didn't protect the right for an individual to own a gun, things would have been absolutely chaotic. Suddenly, every gun law or statute in the country comes into question. What would the government do about those who already had guns? There's the possibility that despite the Court's ruling, Congress would refuse to implement any legislation to deal with the problem, thus creating a Constitutional crisis that not even the Court could solve, since they would be part of the problem. The Court HAD to make the decision they did, if not for any other reason than to keep their position as the defining authority of the Constitution within the United States.

There will always be the question of whether this case should have come to the Supreme Court at all. The case was based on a Washington D.C. statute that banned guns within the city. Obviously when they granted the case certiorari, the Supreme Court decided that it was important enough for people to own guns that it is a constitutional issue, which in many respects, it was. The D.C. gun ban seemed to go against the 2nd Amendment, and so the Court was well within their jurisdiction to decide the case.

What I find funny is that Conservative Justices like Antonin Scalia will preach about "original intent" and strictly following the words of the Constitution, unless they are trying to protect something else that they believe in. If they were to follow strict constructionalism all the time, they wouldn't be able to strike down the D.C. gun ban, because the Constitution definitely doesn't clearly say that individuals can own guns. They also would have never intervened in 2000's Bush v. Gore case, but since it was something that they believed in, they changed their tone for that case, just as they did for this one. That's the only thing I have wrong with this decision. If the conservative wing is going to protect the original intent of the framers when making decisions, they should do it full time, not just when it's convinient for their causes.

A little consistency never killed anyone. A lack of it might kill hundreds in D.C. when guns are let into the city in upcoming months.

Alex Severin- Election 2008 and The Supreme Court

Many times during the course of the last year, I have been so caught up in the constant party bickering, the back and forth jabs, and the speculative, “Fox News Style” rumors, that I have completely disregarded what this election means for the future of the Supreme Court.

As many may know, in 2005, President Bush nominated 53-year-old John Roberts to serve as Chief Justice on the Supreme Court. On September 29, 2005, Chief Justice Roberts assumed office. While most of the justices are in there sixties, seventies, and even eighties (with the exception of Justice Samuel Alito, who was also nominated by President Bush), the President nominated a younger justice in hope that he would command a conservative court for decades to come. Quite intelligent, don’t you think?

Overall, the Conservative wing of the court is significantly more cohesive than the liberal wing. As a result, oftentimes they are able to win that crucial swing vote from Anthony Kennedy and therefore carry many 5-4 decisions. With the impending departure of some of the older Liberals, including John Paul Stevens and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the next President will be in a position to either uphold the balance of the court by appointing two liberal leaning justices, or provide for a guaranteed conservative victory on nearly every vote of political importance.

Here is a breakdown of the Justices, with their age, and the President they were appointed by.

Clarence Thomas, 60, George H.W. Bush – Thomas is a very Conservative member of the court. An article that appeared in the New York Times recently showed that Thomas and Justice Scalia, another recognized conservative, voted together 100% of the time in 2007-2008. Thomas is in favor of capital punishment, upholds free speech a majority of the time, and has an favorable view of the Bush Administration.

Antonin Scalia, 72, Ronald Reagan– The rock of the conservative base. Scalia is one of the most outspoken members the Court has seen in recent times. He is in favor of judicial restraint, and isn't afraid to make that well known, appearing on 60 Minutes this past year to defend his role in the Court. He is the justice behind the majority ruling in 2000's firestorm case Bush v. Gore, which ended up deciding the election.

Samuel Alito, 58, George W. Bush– Appointed to the Supreme Court on January 31, 2006, Alito is considered a generally conservative juror, but not to the extent of Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia. During confirmation hearings, democrats characterized Alito as a mold of Scalia, but Alito states he “would act as an impartial referee.”

John Roberts 53, George W. Bush– The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, he is also the youngest member of the court and is generally allied with the conservative wing of the court. He voted against Guantanamo detainees having the right to go to federal court to challenge their detention and upheld that the individual right to own a gun for personal use is protected by the Second Amendment, along with the entire conservative wing.

Anthony Kennedy, 71, Ronald Reagan – At a certain point, Justice Kennedy was deemed so important to the Supreme Court that the Court was called “The Kennedy Court”, and even today he plays an extremely significant role. Although known as a swing voter, he tends to lean toward the conservative side, which gives the republicans a 5-4 advantage on every ruling. He voted with the conservatives on the issues of gun right but against the conservatives when it came to the rights of Guantanamo detainees.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg, 75, Bill Clinton – Ginsburg is considered to be one of the most liberal members of the court, and she is also one of two (along with Justice Stevens) justices who may need to be replaced in the next eight years.

John Paul Stevens, 88, Gerald Ford – Stevens was nominated by Republican Gerald Ford and is known as the leader of the Liberal movement in the Court. Stevens generally supports students’ right to free speech in public schools, voted for the use of the death penalty in the United States (except in certain situations and when dealing with juvenile offenders). Stevens is the other Justice who will not make it through the next presidential term. I believe recently, he has just been holding on until a democrat can take office to replace him.

David Souter, 68, George H.W. Bush – Souter is one of the most interesting cases in the Court right now. He was appointed by Republican President George Bush Sr., but primarily votes in a liberal fashion, although not always. He is seen as one of the more moderate on the court.

Steven Breyer, 69, Bill Clinton – Breyer is currently known as an intellectual leader of the liberal wing of the Supreme Court and is seen as a counter to the conservative justice Antonin Scalia. In the past he has voted in favor of abortion laws. In describing his interpretive philosophy, Breyer has sometimes noted his use of six interpretive tools: text, history, tradition, precedent, the purpose of a statute, and the consequences of competing interpretations.

This election is extremely important. With the imminent departure of Justices Ginsburg and Stevens, the new President will have at least one chance to sway the court in his party's direction. All we can do is wait and speculate. Isn’t that unfortunate?

Written By Alex Severin

Daily Congressional Roundup, July 1st

H.R. 5690- To remove the African National Congress from treatment as a terrorist organization

Status: Signed into Law by President Bush

Commentary: The U.S. Government keeps a terrorist watch list that includes organizations all over the world who have caused unrest in their home countries or fought against an active government. Inexcusably, the African National Congress, which was led by Nobel Peace Prize recipient Nelson Mandela, which fought against Apartheid in South Africa during the late 80's/early 90's was included on this list. Our government was wasting resources keeping track of a nobel peace prize winner as a possible terrorist threat. This really just shows how indescriminant the war on terror has become in our country. This bill was introduced to remove all former members of the ANC from the terrorist watch list, and it was passed easily by both houses of Congress this spring and signed into law by President Bush immediately yesterday, July 1st. It's good that this finally got straightened out, but it's sad that Congress had to waste time debating this and ultimately passing it. If you ever wonder why we have gridlock in government, it's because they are wasting time fixing things that never should have happened in the first place like this.