Horse 3369 - I Could Never Be A Lawyer

Last week I was reminded yet again why after having worked for the Commonwealth Law Courts, both in the accounts department and as a Court Recorder, why the impulse to break free of the public gallery and stand at the bar never materialised with me. Obviously as someone whose job is very much shaped by arithmetic and the law, the whole kosmos of rules and logic resonates with me (in spite of how irrational and stupid I am). When it comes to that whole other world of law which looks not at legalities and constitutions and the letter of the law but at that kosmos of things we call people, we no longer look at what is sensible but what is insane, mad, irrational, stupid, obnoxious, and daft. Instead we look at things like crime and torts and injury and hurt and damage.

The case which we were given by a legal firm, is on the face of it very similar to other Family Law cases. We have a small construction firm which employs nine people and some subcontractors, which we have been asked to value. That is so far, straightforward. The reason why we were asked to value this small construction firm, has to do with that other side of human nature, which is  insane, mad, irrational, stupid, obnoxious, and daft, but blended with simple human evil. 

The story laid out which was adjacent to the Family Law case which we were looking at, has to do with a Husband whom we shall call H, who is openly violent to his wife W. The Family Law case which we have to deal with has collapsed from one which was going to look at what was an equitable solution to the dissolution of the marriage, to one where W actively needs to sue H for damages. Those damages include physical violence resulting in semi-serious injury; which is likely 99.999999% the reason why W had to run away with the children.

H's case as far as I can make out, H's defence involves claiming that he had W's consent before proceeding on a course of assault and battery. Speaking as Billy Brown from Sydney Town, that theoretical reasonable person, I just don't see how this argument holds any more water than the HMAS Colander. Rub my nose in the dirt and call me stinky but I have no idea why, or even how someone would consent to suffering assault and battery unless there was some really strange and abnormally abnormal things going on inside their brain. 

Battery which is different to assault, is when the defendant must have intended the consequence of the contact with the plaintiff. Someone who pulls the trigger of a gun if they think it is unloaded, might be negligent but there might be an absence of intent. They might very well want to cause a threat but actually be too unthinking to think through the consequence of a bullet which they do not know about, striking the injured plaintiff. Here you have negligence but not requisite intention in order to be liable for a tort of battery.

Admittedly in most cases, it is very very obvious to all that someone intends to do harm. If I come at you with an axe and threaten to chop your legs down, then it should be obvious to all and everyone that I intended to make contact with the injured person; even Blind Freddy can see that. If I come at you with an axe and threaten to chop your legs down, then it is really really difficult for me to argue that I am not aware of the consequences of coming at you with an axe, and likely impossible to make the argument that I had your consent, to stick.

So this is why in this case, I see not possible circumstances given the nature and frequency of H's striking of W that there can be anything other than clear and obvious intention to make contact and to cause harm. Sure, he may feel remorse for having done such a thing for a time buy domestic violence has a nasty habit of being cyclical; due to the root cause in more than 99% of cases, that the husband is a bastard.

In most cases, that it can simply be inferred from the If I strike someone with an axe, except in the most unusual circumstances, that I intend to cause harm to someone. Likewise, if I strike someone, unless I have completely lost all sense, then it should also be obvious that that I intend to cause harm to someone. Who is going to consent to that?

The concept of consent in tort law is pretty simple. Consent is agreement or permission expressed through affirmative, voluntary words or actions that are mutually understandable to all parties involved, to engage in a specific act at a specific time. Likewise, consent can be withdrawn at any time, as long as it is clearly communicated. Get it? Got it? Good.

H's defence is that W consented to being struck. Let me rephrase that. Even after multiple occasions, even after W has reported multiple incidents to the police, and then finally run away with the children, the defence that H is relying upon, is that W consented to being struck. I think that it is as obvious as the day is long, that this a bald faced lie. I think that W's actions conclusively prove that to be the case and yet the defence that H is relying upon, is that W consented to being struck. 

Under normal circumstances if you are guilty of a crime, then if I was a trial lawyer, I would expect you to plead "not guilty" because the onus of proof rests with the prosecution to prove all of the elements of guilt. However, in a situation which involves domestic violence where it is obvious to all and sundry, then while I would expect you to plead "not guilty", where the proof that can be produced is so ready at hand, then pleading "not guilty" looks very silly. 

Here is why I would never go and practice law. It's not that I do not want to see justice done. It is not that I do not want to see the world made better. Rather, that someone has to prepare the legal case for people like H. The legal system that we live with is that people are entitled to an adequate defence at law. I have no idea how people when knowing that their client is as guilty as the day is long, as able to square that circle in their minds. Maybe they are not able to? I do not know. Maybe some people's sense of justice is able to compartmentalise the fact that this is a job, and that they still need to do a good job for bad people because it is the right thing to do. I do not think that I have the moral hardware to do that. That sounds to me like paradigm shifting without the clutch and money shotting one's morals. Nevertheless, someone has to do it.

If you are a lawyer, then I respect your profession because in many circumstances you have the job of defending the very guilty, and the sometimes evil, to the best of your ability. Having to deal with the insane, mad, irrational, stupid, obnoxious, and daft as the raw materials of the job is something that I simply could not do; and why I chose numbers instead.

Horse 3368 - The Mascot For The 2032 Brisbane Olympics Should Be...

Ludo Studios, the creators of the TV Series "Bluey" on ABC1, posted this picture to their official Facebook page at the weekend:

Now because I want to play with everything forever, my mind immediately pondered that Bluey should be the official Olympic Mascot for the 2032 Olympic Games in Brisbane.

Then I paused.

Well no actually.

While there are indeed various petitions online to make Bluey for the 2032 Olympic Games in Brisbane, I think that there is potential fo something even grander than that. I do not think that just Bluey Bluey should be the mascot but rather...

The number of mascots at the 2032 Olympic Games in Brisbane should be 40.

I shall explain why.

Mascots for sporting tournaments tend to be the kind of thing which exists for a time and then is easily forgotten. Mascots for sporting tournaments exist in no context other than that time and place which they were created for and have no ability to be translated to anything else. Perhaps the exception to this was the series of daily newspaper comic strips in which Zakumi who was the mascot for the 2010 FIFA World Cup played with his friends for a time ran in various South African newspapers. Zakumi lasted for a slightly longer time the just the duration of the World Cup, however that is the exception rather than the rule. Sadly, the reason why mascots are easily forgotten is that they have no bigger world than the time and space they were created for.

Bluey is different.

Bluey already exists in a very big world, with loads of friends, and already very much has a sense of place. With the possible exceptions of Batman who lives in Gotham City, or various anime where suburban Tokyo is the default setting of just about everything, there are not really that many comic characters who are that obviously linked to that kind of sense of place. Yes there are cartoon characters who live in a fully fleshed out world but not even The Simpsons who live in Springfield, are linked to anywhere in the real world. In fact the location of Springfield and which state it is in, is a point of canon which is specifically unknown. In contrast, if there was a series made in 2054, where Bluey and Bingo are grown up and with children of their own, that future series would still likely be set in Brisbane. The word Queensland is specifically name called and the skyline is very very Brisbane. 

Although this looks like a fait accompli as to why Bluey in principle should be should be the official Olympic Mascot for the 2032 Olympic Games in Brisbane, that is that Bluey is so very obviously linked to the city, it kind of hints at the reason why mascots get left behind in the time and place which they were created. That is, they have to do all the work themselves.

Previous mascots for Olympics, end up have to do every sport and be good at it. Immediately you have unrealistic expectation on the mascots. Kobe at Barcelona in 1992 and Izzy at Atlanta in 1996, had the stage all to themselves and while this did mean that they could swim, run, dunk a basketball, throw a javelin, et cetera, they were very lonely. Not even Sydney which started the trend with three mascots (Syd, Millie and Olly (and unofficially Fatso)), really did much to break the mould which had been cast.

Bluey is different.

The thing about having a very large ensemble cast, in a very big world, with loads of friends, and already very much has a sense of place, is that if done correctly, no one character needs to do all the work themselves. Instead of having that one mascot who does every single sport, the  very large ensemble cast can collectively play all the sports. Characters like Footix, Zakumi or Nutmeg who were all football mascots, only had to play one sport.  Where as someone like Vinicious at the 2016 Olympic Games in Rio de Janeiro has a series of two-minute shorts, the fact that he still had to do everything, left him up kind of sterile.

Having loads of characters, lends itself to a unique idea. As this one picture suggests, you could have a different character for every single sport, such as:

Bluey - Swimming

Bandit - Tennis

Chili - Field Hockey

Big Belt - Weightlifting

Muffin - Gymnastics

Honey - Archery

The Terriers - Fencing

Winston - Wrestling

Bingo - Running

... et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

This also solves the related problem of the Pictogram. Pictograms were introduced at Tokyo in 1964 because the organisers knew that as Japanese has three scripts, none of which look familiar to most visitors who come from countries who use Extended-Latin scripts, that they needed to come up with something that would communicate things in a hurry without needing to read. Since then they have been played with, from the ultra-efficient Pictograms at Munich in 1972, to the borderline ridiculous at Mexico City in 1968 and Paris in 2024 where form has completely obliterated function. By linking a different character for every different sport, not only do you remove the sterility which exists by one character having to do everything but it does that deeper task of linking story to place.

Further to this, by linking character to story to place, and having a very large ensemble cast, in a very big world, with loads of friends, this would enable the whole design language of the games to tell a bigger and better story; namely that everyone can have a go. The series Bluey with its very large ensemble cast already has a range of characters who all look different and diverse but who share a unified design language. That would also lend itself to the slogan of the Olympics without having to think about it: "Everyone can have a go”.

The only real precedent for this was Astroboy who kind of became the mascot of Tokyo in 1964, or perhaps possible Charlie Brown and Snoopy who lent their names to the Apollo 10 spacecraft. Yes Bluey is a proprietary property which as all kinds of licencing arrangements in place but that’s a problem for legal people to work out. 

Horse 3367 - The Badness Of The US Constitution - Article 1 (continued)

SECTION. 8

Clause 1

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

- 

This single clause of all the operative clauses of the United States' Constitution is among the most contentious and at the centre of a lot of very bitter court cases. This is because human nature is such that the amount that people want to pay for things, including the upkeep of the nation, is zero. They will even invent the lie that taxation is theft to justify why they do not want to pay (which morally sounds like trying to justify freeloading).

The introduction of Federal Income Tax proved so controversial, even though this clause seems pretty plenary in its scope to me, was enough to prompt the Sixteenth Amendment; which doesn't really functionally do anything to expand the scope of the words "Power To lay and collect Taxes" at all. 

What I find very weaselly about this is that although this clause empowers the Congress to "provide for the common Defence and general Welfare" it does not impose this as a duty to do so. This is why public education did not arrive en masse until well into the nineteenth century in some parts of the country, and why supposedly the richest and greatest country in the world is so utter poxy and bereft of moral fibre that it can't even provide basic health care to 13% of the population. It's perfectly capable and frequently does find the money to bomb the cuss out of brown people but can't even be bothered to lift a finger to help out its own citizenry. What a poxy little country.

Clause 2

To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

- 

This wee clause cuts right to the heart of what the telos of money is. A United States Dollar, drawn on the credit of the United States and borrowed by the Department of Treasury from the Federal Reserve, is in principle a small debt which exists for the purpose of doing one unit of work; to be later retired upon the destruction of that same Dollar upon payment of taxation. What is an money? Avalanches about: business continues below. Commence arguing.

The new system of government (invented mostly by Hamilton) would always have to agree to and inherit the debts accrued by the Continental Congress and the States, for running the business of the War of Independence. Upon the establishment of the first Federal Reserve system, the United States Of America (that is, the new corporation sole established by this very Constitution) took on the collective debt of $75,000,000. Just like Britain and France, the United States Of America was broke and had to rely on the fidus of the American people that the new United States Dollar as created as a result of this clause, would be good for the full faith and credit of the United States. It was. For a very brief period in 1831, the United States Of America actually was debt free. Since then, which includes the collapse of several Federal Reserve systems, the United States has reaccumulated debt like a drunkard at a Gin and Wine Party, because the people who have all the money do not want to pay.

Clause 3

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

-

The popular story about why the United States was started, contains elements of truth. The slogan "No Taxation Without Representation" while fun, contains the very big blind spot that most men didn't get the franchise until the states were forced to drop property ownership requirements over the next half-century, and most women didn't get the franchise until the passage of the 19th Amendment. The thing that actually caused the outrage had to do with business people being forced to pay a tax of ninepence in the pound, for the value of tea imported to the United States, as well as taxes imposed upon intoxicating liquors. 9d./£1 = 3.75% which doesn't seem like a lot. What makes this a particularly hot topic is that the "tax" wasn't really a tax but practically a payment to the East India Company who ran a monopoly on trade.

The new United States Government wanted in on that sweet sweet taxation money; so what is really fun is that by 1794, there was a landed tax on the value of tea imported to the United States at 5c/$1 or 1s./£1 which at 5% is higher than the tax that people complained about; plus with continuance of the fact that most people who actually did the fighting in the War Of Independence, that is the Privates, the Engineers, the Gunners, et cetera, still didn't get the franchise in their lifetime. It was still "Taxation Without Representation" but at least it was Taxation Without Representation to Americans, which is a good thing, yeah?

Also take note of the part of this clause "and with the Indian Tribes". As the United States has a "Republican" form of government and as the treaty process with Native Americans is so very complex as to be asterisks all the way down, and as the fact that United States had not Manifest Destined its way across the continent and killed people left right and centre (yet), the question as to what to do with Native Americans was drop-punted into the next century and then the Civil War got in the way so it was drop-punted into the next century and then the Civil Rights Movement still didn't really resolve the problem so it was drop-punted into the next century and here we are.

As for the question of how much the Federal Government can actually regulate Commerce among the several States, is one which is stupidly unresolved in all directions and any multi-state business which needs to contend with different state taxes and different wages even across counties, realises that this clause is wildly ineffective at doing anything.

Clause 4

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

- 

The question of "who is a citizen?" and "who is entitled to the rights therein?" are questions that were of immediate import to the new nation. What I find insidious is that there was still doubts over whether or not native peoples were citizens and therefore entitled to citizenship or not, in spite of the fact that the United States was Manifest Destinying its way through native peoples' homes and lands. The idea that there should be uniform Rules surrounding Naturalization and who is and is not a citizen and that the Federal Government should the one to decide this as a matter of fact, seems as obvious as the day is long to me.

Exactly what Naturalization and Bankruptcy have to do with each other is beyond me. I have no idea what this is supposed to mean at all.

Clause 5

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

-

In the late eighteenth century the most common coin in circulation in the United States for big values, was not the Sovereign but the Spanish 8 Real coin. The de facto exchange rate between the Spanish Real and the British Pound was 32:1 which meant that the Spanish 8 Real was effectively worth Five Shillings. As this was also a relative big coin, it like all big coins were popularly called a Dollar, after the "Thaler" which was a similar big coin in use in the remnants of the Holy Roman Empire and in the haphazard Italian and German states and city states.

After America adopted the Constitution and went to establish its own mint, the French Revolution kicked off in 1789 and probably because there was a sense of friendship and goodwill with all things French, as France adopted a decimal currency, the United States basically took its existing principle coin (the Dollar) and broke it into 10 dimes abd 100 centimes (and 1000 mils). Thus the United States not quite two and a half centuries after inception, is still using a thing derived from a hybrid British Pound and Spanish 8 Real.

While I am here and this whole thing is very clearly me ranting about stuff like a Village Idiot on the floor of the Congress of Morons, I may as well voice my complaint about two coins. Firstly, the Cent coin: it costs more than one cent to make and because it's a pain in the posterior, it also costs more for people to have to deal with it. In fact, the United States Cent's only efficient use, is as washers and spacers in place of hardware, and in trumpet muzzles as buckshot. The United States Cent fails at its only job which is to facilitate commerce.

Secondly, the United States Dollar Coin is very superior to the United States Dollar Note in every single aspect, including durability and the fact that when a Dollar Coin gets  old and beat up, it still gets accepted in vending machines, whereas beat up Dollar Notes do not. The United States used to have Dollar Coins and I bet that it the machinery was set up to accept those, they would still take coins from more than 200 years ago but won't take a Note from eight weeks ago.

Clause 6

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

-

Yeah, don't do it. It's dangerous. Stay safe.

Clause 7

To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

-

When the United States wants to do socialism, it does so in a very big way; so much so that this tiny little clause is the basis of the biggest and most expensive socialist project in the history of the world. That is, the Eisenhower System Of Defence Highways.

When Dwight D Eisenhower, who would eventually go on to become General, then Supreme Allied Commander, and then finally President, was but a private in the US Army, he was sent out on a survey mission with the Army Corps of Engineers to drive a series of trucks across the United States in the early 1920s. The quality of the roads were so bad that this journey took weeks. The Army Corps of Engineers made their report back to the federal government and then it was filed away.

If you then fast forward thirty years to when Eisenhower rose upwards and upwards, when he eventually became President, he appointed Charles Erwin Wilson who was the ex-CEO of General Motors corporation. If ever there was proof of the military-industrial-complex, isn't it a coincidence that the ex-CEO of General Motors and a President who had seen the efficiency of the autobahn system in the Third Reich, suddenly found the funds to build the interstate system? Isn't it a coincidence that the ex-CEO of General Motors should suddenly find himself at the centre of government and have authorised the building of lots and lots of massive public roads to the tune of what would eventually cost $450bn? What a coincidence! 

Clause 8

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

- 

I find it interesting that even before the invention of the modern novel, before the invention of so much of the built world as a result of the sciences, that the United States Constitution seems strangely prescient about copyright and patent laws. Granted that the United States was itself an invention of the Age of Enlightenment but this seems to have more to do with how someone spins a profit than anything else. 

If you read through the notes of the Constitutional Conventions, this is one of the few examples where famous philanderer and bounder Benjamin Franklin, had his mitts all over the place. This clause assumes that the benefits of the invention of things as a result of science and arts is not a collective good for the benefit of all and that the inventor should have right to extract royalties from their invention. To what degree and how long those royalties should extend for, has been a very long running debate (sometimes under the watchful eye of the mouse).

Clause 9

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

-

You know that popular sentiment that there is a separation of powers, well this clause kind of makes a mockery of that.

While the Supreme Court lives outside the Congress, the inferior tribunals are very much constituted by the Congress. Also, the executive functions of the court system, are vested in the Department of Justice; which is the domain of the office of the President. The idea that there are checks and balances here, is materially a lie. Except for the Supreme Court, Congress if they wanted to, could constitute and run all the inferior courts pretty well much by diktat.  

Clause 10

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

-

YAAARGH. Here be pirates, ye land-lubbers. Shiver me timbers and bezack me jik-jaks. Piracy on the High Seas is all good and proper but what exactly are "Offenses against the Law of Nations"? Remember, this is after the Treaty of Westphalia but well before things like the League of Nations and the United Nations. Exactly what "the Law of Nations" is, was a mystery almost as soon as it was committed to paper. 

Clause 11

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

- 

This is subtle and strange. Although the President is the head of the armed forces by virtue of being the head of executive government, the President does not have the power to declare war and really only has powers granted by other legislation to enact 'police action' for a limited period of time. The power to declare war, and enter into treaties et cetera is vested in the Congress.

In practice all that this means is that the Congress passes legislation when appropriate to Authorise The Use Of Military Force (AUMF) and these AUMFs end up being open ended horrorshows. The unpleasantnesses in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq (twice) and Afghanistan, and minor kerfuffles in places like Malaya, Kosovo, and Libya et cetera, were not wars and did not remotely look like wars, did they?

Presumably Congress wanted to limit the power of the President because they had just been through a revolution in which the King of England was personally blamed for the use of force. Likely this is the result of works like Thomas Paine's "Common Sense" pamphlet and the text of the Declaration of Independence which was quite popular but materially a lie. Granted that the King was the ultimate bearer of the use of force but that was always the case. The actual use of British force was more diffuse and the actual prosecutors of war were Lord North's executive government.

Having said that even in the twenty-first century, it is quite frankly strange and bizarre that the head of state is not the progenitor of declarations of war because as we saw this century, it is parliaments and the Congress who ultimately push for that use of force. This in conjunction with the operational clauses that mean that two-thirds of the Congress can override the President, mean that if popular feeling runs hot then the President can not act as that last stop; including when they should do.

Clauses 12 to 16

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

-

I shall take all of these together as they are the same subject but granular. 

Of course it makes sense that the Congress as the branch of government empowered to make war should have the power and right to make laws regarding same. Of course it makes sense that as the first duty of government is the defence of the realm, that the government empowered to that end should have the ability to do so. However what is schizophonic about these particular clauses is the conditions and spirit under which they were created.

One of the complaints in the Declaration of Independence was that the King commanded and quartered standing armies within the American colonies. These clauses, in the face of those complaints (and in fact justly so), now empower Congress to raise and support and maintain standing armies within those same American colonies (now states). The arguments behind these clauses which people went ballistic over and indeed even within the anti-Federalist factions which would only agree to ratifying the United States Constitution at all if there was another Bill of Rights tacked on the end, was that there should not be a standing army at all and that the defence of the nation should be formed on an ad-hoc basis when necessary. Even then, this would have been madness.

What I find so very very evil about the consequence of how these clauses have been interpreted by the Supreme Court, is that when it when it mentions things like “organizing, arming, and disciplining” and “training” because they are then followed by the object of “the Militia”, the opinion of the Supreme Court as stated in Heller v DC (2009) is that they only apply in relation to “the Militia” and not to an individual. The functional reading of any kind of attempt to introduce any kind of gun control is “YIPPY-O KI-AY, PARENTAL-CUSSER” and then openly accepting the deaths of 50 times per capita due to firearms as my country, as the acceptable price of so-called freedom. Not even the deaths of primary school children, or assassination attempts on Presidential candidates (or even the deaths of four Presidents) is enough to move the needle in any direction.  

Clause 17

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards and other needful Buildings;

-

This is ultimately the clause which gives rise to the creation of the capital District of Columbia, which is part of no state but looks very much like one in every single respect except for the fact that it is hideously disenfranchised. 

The District of Columbia gets one member of the House Of Representatives, who gets zero say on legislation. They get no members at all in the Senate. They get three votes in the Electoral College, which comes about because they get representation in the election of a President as if they were a state. Being the House member for the District of Columbia is on par with being the Vice President because they have no power, but still get paid a salary for essentially doing nothing.

Based upon some reading, I have come to the conclusion that the argument about where to put the Seat of the Government and the Capitol was the subject of bitter debates because while the states wanted it closeby, they did not want to have to cede the territory to place it. What we have now is a weird half square thing cut out from the state of Maryland; which as far as I can tell is advantageous to everyone except Maryland.

Clause 18

-And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

- 

Quite frankly, all of Section 8 could have been replaced with this clause and the words "in all cases whatsoever"; which would have established plenary powers to the Federal Government. I am sure that just like Australia, or Canada, or Germany, or any other country with a state/province/canton system that melds into a Federation, that they would have naturally fallen into a set of useful arrangements.

Horse 3366 - JD Vance And The Cat Ladies

Back in July 2021 when JD Vance was running as a hopeful for the position of United States Senator from Ohio, like any good Republican who needs to bend the knee and show loyalty and fealty to his handlers, he went on Tucker Carlson's show on Fox News. In a case of "there's always a tweet" or "there's always a clip", yet again we find an example where someone has said something where they have been utterly sincere, in which their character is on display.

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/SSGKiUBrfAU

Now admittedly politics is a dirty game and in a dirty game, mud will thrown. However even the dirty games like American Football, the two kinds of Rugby, Australian Rules Football, Gaelic Football, and just Football, there are Laws and "the spirit of the game" which is mentioned. Mr Vance has done what we would call playing the player and not the ball, and while that seems to be accepted in the game of politics, it is still a dirty tactic. Having said that, he won the position of United States Senator from Ohio in 2022, which proves that dirty tactics work.

I am not all that surprised that this kind of comment should be found in someone like Mr Vance's past, and especially coming from someone who was endorsed by the very militant Christian CINO-right because these are the kinds of people who see women as lesser and subservient to men, and who think that a woman's place is no more than to be a mother to their children. 

Please note, I do not in any way wish to disparage motherhood. Choosing to raise children is arguably one of the most selfless and difficult jobs on the face of the planet; which demands so very much more from women than men. Have you seen children? Children start out as messy and noisy and when they get bigger, they begin to start talking back and get messy in different ways. The fact that you do have women who choose to give and give and give and give of themselves, magnitudes beyond what we would expect of any worker in any paid position, is noble and quite frankly incredible; which is why the CINO-right are so hideously insidious in their disparaging of that as well. If the full economic cost of motherhood was actually paid by the men who think that they aught to lord it over the world, then they would be as bankrupt as they are morally.

It's also quite frankly insulting to the scripture which the CINO-right likely never reads. Who is it that mostly causes the idiocy and stupidity within the text of the Bible? It's men. When you do get women in leadership positions, they are generally competent and brilliant at their job. Also, the often cited section from Proverbs 31 illustrates a woman who is a business titan, who is smart, who is savvy, who is able to argue her own, and who is gloriously competent.

This is why JD Vance's comments are small, petty, and stupid. Kamala Harris might be the inheritor of the probable leadership position of a political party which is generally impotent and small minded, but it is exactly the same kind of impotence and small mindedness which characterises his own. Yes the Democrats have spent most of the past 12 years playing stupid identity politics but the Republican Party have also spent most of the past 12 years playing stupid identity politics, with a different set of hats and masks. 

Rather than attack what Ms Harris did as Attorney General of California, or her track record on legislation, he chose to do this. Why? 

Because it works.

I cite JD Vance as proof. He won the position of United States Senator from Ohio in the very election cycle where this video is from. 

It plays well in sandlot politics. Rather than play the very big game of attacking her on record of policy, or the even bigger game of laying out his own vision and policy on how to get there, Mr Vance chose the smallest game. This is like Babe Ruth trying to wail on twelve year old kids in the empty lot but finding that he actually up against Barry Bonds. (Okay, I admit that I have very little idea about the cultural overlay of baseball.)

If you take this at face value, what business is it of Mr Vance that Ms Harris does not have children anyway? There might be some very good reasons why someone does not have children. There might be some medical reason, which although they may want children, is preventing them from having them. They might have tried and can't. Or they may have wanted to and the pressures of life made it difficult and that time passed them by.

They may also, and this might surprise Mr Vance, not choose to have any. Some people just might never have the motivation to have children. Some people just know that they should not have children. Is Mr Vance trying to disparage Ms Harris by inferring that because she doesn't have children that she is unfit to lead the nation? I am sorry but I do not see how that logically follows. Never mind the fact that civic philos and familial philos are different, matters inside one's personal and intimate relationships such as eros are also quite different from civic philos. Logically, Mr Vance's comment is a non sequitur and therefore incompetent. 

Is Mr Vance trying to draw a line of equivalence which suggests that Ms Harris is incapable of love? I do not have children and this has been directed at me personally. Let's assume for a second that this is in fact true, then what? Would Mr Vance force someone to have children, who he has judged as being incapable of love? What kind of a sick twisted mind would suggest such a thing? To condemn a child to a life where they are unloved? Why would you wish that on someone? 

Some people might even choose to do something else, like give themselves over to a life of public service. In that respect, the fact that you would have someone who chose not to have children and chose to serve their community, their state and their nation, has done something which Mr Vance has chosen to disparage.

To that point where he says that childless people have no the stake in the future of the country. This has all kinds of implications. Should we give six year old children the vote, since they have the biggest stake in the future of the country? Should we remove the franchise from old people, since their stake in the future of the country is actually quite limited? Exactly what does he think about service personnel who dies while fighting for the future of the country? If they died without children, was their sacrifice worthless by that metric? What would he say to George Washington who also never had any children? 

I hope that he is consistent and decides to personally spit in the face of all military personnel, all police, all fire fighters, all medical staff, and every other public officer that he meets because he may as well have told each and every one of them that he thinks that a life of public service is worthless. If this is true, then why is he running for the office of Vice-President?

Perhaps what is worse about this, in trying to disparage Kamala Harris for being a childless woman who is running for office because this might offend his pretend religious beliefs as a CINO, is that he is quite prepared to overlook the fact that the person whom he will be running alongside and be servant to, was impeached from improper payments to a porn actress from a political fund, and who has been held up in court as a rapist. How very little do you have to think of women, where that kind of thing is not only acceptable, but clearly a plank of belief which holds up a core of values.

I also think it interesting that Mr Vance should specifically go after Kamala Harris, Pete Buttigieg, and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Why specifically those three? Again, we hearken back to the game of playing stupid identity politics and what he didn't say but wished he could: "It was better in the days when women weren't in politics and didn't have the vote"? or "It was better in the days when we could stone gay people"? 

He might not be able to say these things for fear of calling down a yell-down war-hellride but many in his electoral base are thinking that (some even say such things). There is a reasonably vocal section among Republican Party supporters who have been successfully captured within churches, who quite like the idea of a Christofascist Ethnostate, or at very least believe in a small vending machine god whereby if you put prayers in you get blessings out. Obvious codified dog-whistling is obvious sometimes.

And since everything is about me, then would JD Vance think that I should not have the vote because I do not have children? I wonder what he would make of my political positions that public education and university education should be free, that there shouldn't be private health care and that all health care and hospital services should be free at the point of delivery? What would he say to someone who thinks that the most important word in the US Constitution is in fact that very first one "We" and that all of the very big projects of civil society can only be fought for, and only be built, as collective projects?

And lastly, if we take the most petty and incidental part of this argument, what is exactly wrong with being a cat lady anyway? Does Mr Vance have cats? Does he hate cats? If he had cats then he would know that they are sometimes irrational, sometimes demanding, sometimes aloof sometimes insane creatures, wrapped up within 10 to 20 pounds of floof and murder spikes. People have cats because they like cats. People are allowed to like what they like. People have cats, likely already know that the irrational, demanding, aloof, and insane, beings whom you share your house with, answer mostly to no-one. If anyone is most qualified to be President Of The United States, then it is someone who knows how to deal with irrational, demanding, aloof, and insane, beings and loves them anyway. Arguably someone who has cats is over-qualified to be President Of The United States because they have dealt with this in miniature.

Horse 3365 - The Badness Of The US Constitution - Article 1 (continued)

SECTION. 7

Clause 1

All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.

-

On the face of it, having bills to raise revenue (that is taxation bills and bond and borrowing bills) originating in the House of Representatives, seems like a good idea. However, Section 6 Clause 2 which is immediately before this, stipulates that someone can not hold two Civil Offices under the Authority of the United States at the same time. While in theory, the idea that there is a separation of duties and powers is a good idea, in practice this is stupid. What this means is that the Secretary To The Treasury, can not and does not sit in Congress; nor introduces bills to Congress. 

In Westminster Parliaments, the equivalent to the Secretary To The Treasury which is usually the Treasurer or the Chancellor or the Exchequer, is inside the parliament and is not only on the floor but is directly answerable to the members of parliament. What this means is that you have direct accountability and direct questioning of the person in charge of the purse strings of the nation. In the United States, this simply does not happen.

The Secretary To The Treasury lives outside the Congress and so is never questioned by Congress. Likewise, the members of Congress who originate the various money bills, are never directly restrained or bound by the Treasury from which they pass laws to draw appropriations from. The separation of powers here is perpetually a functional failure as the Congress frequently fails to pass budget bills; either to do with matters of taxation from within itself which the House wants and the Senate refuses to pass, or spending bills which the Senate or President want to pass but which the House refuses to agree to. 

The second part of this clause, affirms that in the United States as in Australia, the legislative powers of the houses except in a few matters to do with the public purse are identical. This is either a good thing as it means that the Senate is equal in power; or a bad thing as it means that the Senate is equal in power but with that same power concentrated in fewer hands.

Clause 2

Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by Yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively, If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.

-

I find most of this clause redundant. Basically as in any bicameral parliament in the world, if legislation passes both houses and is sent to the head of state and they agree, then the bill becomes law. What is really strange here is that this clause allows two thirds of both houses to run roughshod over the President. Ordinarily this isn't a bad thing as it says that the legislature collectively has similar powers to the President but if you remember, that same requirement of two thirds majority in order to veto the President would functionally be the same two thirds majority in order to impeach and remove the President from office. 

Clause 3

Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the Same shall take Effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the Rules and Limitations prescribed in the Case of a Bill.

-

Of itself this clause sounds like it should be redundant however, when it comes to such things as signing and ratifying treaties (such as peace treaties or human rights treaties), or in matters of declarations of war and approval of longer term police action, this is the mechanic by which the Congress agrees to something. There is a counter question as to whether or not this also applies to the amendment process; which itself is arcane.

Horse 3364 - No, Sky News. Kamala Harris Is Not An "Illegitimate Candidate"

I am convinced that Sky News Australia does not exist for any Australian audience whatsoever. My suspicion is that Sky News Australia is actually run as a sub-branch of the News Corp offices in the United States and that they take orders from head office, to act as a spokesborg for head office; which is sufficiently different enough in terms of branding and accent, that the average slack-jawed, open-mouthed, smooth-brained joe from Jonesville, Jefferson, will be convinced that they are watching exotica which confirms their beliefs (which they have just had fed to them) and that because the rest of the world thinks this, that they must be right.

While standing in line at the bank to deposit some cheques today (yes, that is still a thing which happens in 2024), we had Blonde Lady #2 and Cranky Man #9 (in a red tie), complain that Joe Biden withdrawing from the 2024 Presidential Election and by default leaving Kamala Harris as the assumed presumptive prospective nominee for the Democratic Party, somehow makes her an "illegitimate candidate". This is directly in spite of her literally being on the nomination ticket and the ballot papers and which is a direct fulfilment of her expected role which would happen in the case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation. In as many words in the 25th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America "the Vice President shall become President". This though is not the for office of the President but merely the nomination therein.

All this begs the question: does Sky News Australia think that their audience are stupid? Yes. They do. And just to prove the point, they also treat their audience as stupid. Just like the rest of News Corporation, that think because they know, and repeatedly prove that not only are their audience stupid but they can be moulded and shaped to think literally anything not matter how brainless, is true.

Having said that, it has to be said that the election for arguably the most powerful officer in the world, is itself undemocratic. Not only that, the whole process itself is undemocratic. Not only that, the whole process itself was designed from the outset to be undemocratic. 

As part of my ongoing survey of the United States Constitution I shall go through Article II which outlines the Electoral College and the system used to elect the President so you can read that then but all you need to know here is that when people vote for the President, they are not actually voting for the President but for Electors who then vote for the President. People like James Madison thought that democracy is a dangerous idea because people's passions run hot and as such, there should be some expert class who would be in charge of deciding who would take the job at the very top. This sentiment grew there were at least a few people at the Constitutional Conventions who absolutely hated the idea that the people should be able to vote for the President and the whole system defined in Article II, is expressly designed to keep the people out. It wasn't until 1828, that nominally all white men even had the right to vote across the several states of the Union.

What has happened this week, is not for the election of the President though but rather, the nomination of a position in a private organisation which has been set up to put its candidates into political office. In that respect, the idea that the general public should have any say at all, especially when you consider that they vast majority of people are neither members, nor subscribers, nor have any financial interest at all in the running of the political parties, is downright bizarre and strange. Can you imagine the board of BHP opening up its elections for the Chief Executive Officer, to public nomination and voting? Of course you can't because that's absurd. Neither does it really make any logical sense why what is essentially a series of private corporations should even have elections for what is in reality positions for what is still inside their own private internal machinery. Why then do people think that they should have any say at all for who the nomination in a private organisation is for President? 

The very idea that there should be open primaries at all is actually kind of new. In 1968 there were riots at the Democratic National Convention, mostly to do with the United States' ongoing involvement in the Vietnam War and the Convention which followed, nominated Hubert Humphrey and Edmund Muskie as the nominees for President and Vice-President, despite the fact that Hubert Humphrey had not won a single primary. In was really only in response to the 1968 electoral embarrassment of the Democratic Party and the election of Richard Nixon as President, that the Democratic Party decided to slightly open the door just a little further to allow the general public in. Having said that, the DNC still very much has its thumb on the scales as the rank and file members and the general caucus of the elected members across various legislatures have an extra bonus say, through the mechanism which are known as 'super-delegates'. 

That same 1968 Presidential election is notable as an analogue to 2004 in that prior to the Democratic National Convention, the sitting President Lyndon Baines Johnson, withdrew from the nomination process because he could very much see the writing on the wall and that the war in Vietnam was pretty well much unwinnable. I do not know how LBJ would have fared in the 1968 General Election but if the Humphrey/Muskie ticket is anything to go by, it would have likely also been electoral wipeout.

This is why I found the call from Sky News Australia that Kamala Harris is an "illegitimate candidate" to be so bonkers crazy. Not only is this an internal private nomination process for a private organisation, which has its own set of replaceable rules, but Harris was literally on the ballot paper and has been the Vice-President since 2020. This is literally the process which should be followed if the President withdraws his candidacy. Not only not only that but the Republican Party, which Sky News Australia is actively playing high-school cheerleader for (yay, sports!), has a similar process for nominating is candidate. Not only not only not only that but Sky News Australia has been actively yelling for Joe Biden to withdraw his candidacy and/or resign. They have got their wish. What more do they want? 

Including that this is a private process, including that they normal rules are being followed and including when they get their way, they can still spork utter drivel into the minds of American audiences who they think will be convinced because that they are watching exotica which confirms their beliefs. Does Sky News Australia think that their audience are stupid? Yes, they do!

Horse 3363 - Joe Steps Aside; Insanity Steps Up

The announcement came through while we were all asleep in Sydney that Joseph R Biden has withdrawn his bid to be the nominee for the Democratic Party and with it, will not contest the 2024 Presidential Election. By default, Kamala Harris will be the Democratic Party's nominee and will probably name Pete Buttigieg as her running mate at the Democratic National Convention. 

The Republican Party’s immediate tactic was to say that Biden standing down for reelection invalidates the will of voters; which is despite that not only was there no other serious opponent on the ballot, but in 34 States of the Union, there actually was no-one else on the ballot. I do not know how you invalidate the will of voters by saying that the voters' choice has been taken away when there was no choice to begin with. Of course this does bring into question the whole idea of having a nominee chosen by convention but when you bear in mind that these are private companies, the fact that you have open primaries in the first place is itself buckwild. I can not think of any other private organisation which allows the general public to vote on its internal matters. Also remember, that the open primary system which exists, only came about because of a series of riots at the Democratic National Convention in 1968.

Still, it was Biden that made the choice to step aside. Nobody else actually pushed him out. Granted that the electorate was becoming either increasingly worried or simply just plain apathetic about Biden running again but trying to cast this as invalidating the will of voters, just ignores reality itself; which is something that Donald Trump is quite adept at.

Joe Biden is right to withdraw, now the oxygen swings back to the Democrats. But I hope Kamala Harris is prepared for the racist, misogynist shit storm heading her way. I hope decent Americans see it for the hate filled desperation that it is.

I have mostly kept my mouth shut about the 2024 Presidential Election because quite frankly what we are looking at is a slow moving track wreck at 3mph; which is kind of the Crash at Crush in Texas, combined with the East Palestine train derailment in Ohio. Whatever happens, parts and pieces are going to fly everywhere, there will be explosions and fire of maybe both a metaphorical and literal sense, and one of four people will be President. 

The problem is that the response to Barack Obama becoming President in 2008, was for the Republican Party to drift aimlessly to the right, which is why they ended up appointing a showman and a shyster who will literally say anything to win the vote. As the Global Financial Crisis wrecked its way through the United States' economy in late 2008 to 2009, this meant that the Obama administration essentially fell into the very boring role of being nothing more than administrators; which is excellent if you are the opposition because you can go off on any extreme tangent knowing full well that there is not accountability.

The then response to Donald Trump becoming President in 2016, was for the Democratic Party to flamboyantly dance its way to the functionally libertarian right, which is how they ended up in a place where drivel gibberish identity politics have now taken place of actually doing anything useful for anyone. If you are more concerned with what pronouns are appropriate than actually improving people's lives, then of course you should expect people who are expecting you to do the job of government and watch you failing to do it to jump to the other side where you have a functionally fascist making equally vapid promises, but at least they are promises.

Instead what we have seem is that the 2024 race to the Presidency is this kind of slow motion death march where Joe Biden was being chased by Dodderance while Donald Trump is being chased by Cholesterol. Dodderance & Cholesterol Partners sounds like the worst legal firm in the world and it should do, as Grimaldi Reaper is so bored by this whole thing that he can not be bothered to do the job himself. 

The one thing that we can say about Joe Biden is that when/if he does complete first term in office, he can hang a shingle over his door as a fine Catholic, in having successfully outlawed abortion for the Pope. No Pope will be able to have an abortion in the United States. Tick that box off the list. While we are here, the whole waving the word "Abortion" like it is a magic word in American politics, just seems completely bonkers hatstand to me. On hand you have Donald Trump, who has been found in a court to be a rapist and who looks like he has no qualms whatsoever with abortion (and has likely paid for multiple abortions) and he happens to be in the position as the default pro-life candidate. On the other hand you have Joe Biden, who as a Catholic and likely lifelong misogynist, is clearly horrified at the very idea of abortion itself, and he happens to be in the position as the default pro-choice candidate. Meanwhile the electorate runs about like brainless sheep with flamethrowers, running from side to side, and they wonder why their own candidate is so lukewarm on the subject.

If in the meantime before January 2025, Joe Biden dies in office, then Kamala Harris takes over as per the Twenty-fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution anyway. The thing about Kamala Harris as the former Attorney General of California is not that she would be bad at the job but that she would be extremely competent. That might not be a good thing. As Attorney General of California, she had a higher than usual rate of wrongful conviction cases and would then use the technicalities of the law to keep wrongfully convicted people behind bars rather than allow them new trials. As Prosecutor supreme for the State of California, she is proof that the law is actually a Petrie dish upon which you grow cops. In that respect, her level of nerfariousness is not the same of Biden's by virtue of not having racked up the numbers.

I am convinced at this point that given sections of the Republican Party which want to implement Project 2025 and dismantle so much of the apparatus of government in favour of placing it directly into the hand of the Office Of The President, that this Republican Party wants to goosestep its way to the functionally fascist right after being adrift without purpose. Even if Trump becomes president again, we've already seen that he does not formulate policy because he is simply not interested. A Trump/Vance administration where Grimaldi Reaper finally does catch up to Mr Trump, would likely place semi-dictatorial power into the hands of a very isolationist Vance.

On the other hand, cop-brained Kamala Harris as President would have Pete Buttigieg as Veep; the latter whose only job will be to smile and wave and just play dumb while Harris uses the machinery of the State Department to go after the Democrats' own set of targets. Either way, we lose.

Horse 3362 - The Badness Of The US Constitution - Article 1 (continued)

SECTION. 4

Clause 1

The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.

-

This is one of those places where I have to say that the United States' general system of government, is bonkers-broken-mental. Presumably when the several states were coming together to invent the Union, they had similar sort of public philos for each other as the several states in Australia did. That is, they would have just as easily murdered each other in cold blood and laughed about it, purely for fun, as easily as they would have come together for the collective project of forging a new nation.

The United States is staunchly a union of several states with what is called a 'republican form of government'. This has been taken to mean in a host of cases at law, that the several states are sovereign in their legal framework except in cases where the Supremacy Clause of this Constitution acts. With respect to holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, the decentralised nature of United States election processes are such that there is not an election for the President but 51 elections (because the District of Columbia sends delegates to the Electoral College as if it were a state). 51 elections should in theory be incredibly difficult to hack but as there is practically zero oversight and practically zero expertise at running elections in any other states, what we get are inadvertently easy to manipulate elections coupled with no oversight on those several states restricting and denying the franchise to their own citizens. Remember, there is no explicit right to vote in the United States and states can and do have the power to deny the franchise and frequently do on the basis of race even if they pretend otherwise.

Clause 2

The Congress shall assemble at least once in every Year, and such Meeting shall be [on the first Monday in December,]* unless they shall by Law appoint a different Day.

-

Parliament in England had been up until 1649, summoned on a haphazard basis, on the whims, fads, and fancies, of the Monarch. There was a wee little dispute in the middle of the 17th Century, in which Puritan factions finally had had enough of what they saw was the toleration of the King to various religious practices and degeneracy of the King in being profligate in his spending. This was ultimately the root cause of the English Civil War and upon the restoration of the Crown, after the very Puritan republic proved to be worse than the King whom they decapitated, Parliament decided to impose further and further restrictions on the scope of the power of the Crown.

There were many Parliament Acts (that is, an act of Parliament which defines how parliaments should act and make acts of Parliament) over the next four centuries but the one which is important here is the Parliament Act of 1660. The 1660 act set forth that parliament sit at least once every two years. By the time that the American colonies had developed relatively robust forms of self administration (if not direct self government), most of them had at least Biennial Acts which made local parliaments and congresses sit once every two years.

By the time that 1788 rolled around, the several American states all clubbed together to cut this down even further to once in every Year, and I can only assume that the reason for the stipulation of setting the date as the first Monday in December, has to do with budgetary and appropriation concerns. Remember, the first duty of the state is the defence of that state and the first act that said state needs to do in order to ensure that happens, is to pay people to do so.

SECTION. 5.

Clause 1

Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members, and a Majority of each shall constitute a Quorum to do Business; but a smaller Number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the Attendance of absent Members, in such Manner, and under such Penalties as each House may provide.

-

Here we have some of the mechanics of how the houses are two operate. They have oversight of who can be a member. They need a Quorum to do Business. They have the right to whip members into attendance.

On this latter point, we recently had quite a fun demonstration of what happens in practice when it is impractical to demand the Attendance of absent Members. During the height of the COVID-19 pandemic (before it had become endemic) and when people in the United States were dying from it at a very considerable rate, the Congress ran skeleton proceedings. It was interesting to watch C-SPAN to see the House and Senate hold micro-meetings of in some cases three people, purely because the rules of the houses demanded it. Those micro-meetings would open the day's proceedings, declare that there was no business, maybe speak a few words of salutation and greeting to the people, and then close the meeting. The majority of those present was two. 

Clause 2

Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.

-

With the amount of visceral hatred that exists in the United States, I find it weird that even with the First Amendment right to free speech, that the House and Senate are as civilised as they are. Here in Australia, parliaments are rowdy places; with the NSW Legislative Assembly even gaining the nickname of "The Bearpit" because it is so very very nasty and rowdy. As far as Federal Parliament goes, there is a right which stems from the 1688 Bill Of Rights Act that proceedings in parliament aught not to be questioned and by extension it means that anything that is said on the floor of parliaments, however barbaric and however otherwise illegal (such as things that as are seditious, open calls to violence, defamatory, or the divulging of official secrets, et cetera) is free and unrestricted due to parliamentary privilege. However there is a difference between an absolute right to free speech on the floor of the parliament and behaviour which the house thinks is not cricket. Federally the infamous Standing Order 91A is invoked when members need to be sent to the sinbin and/or naughty step.

The United States similarly has had warrant to punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, because of reasons of starting pillow fights, punch-ups, attacking each other with canes, and in the Senate making someone clean out their desk after it was discovered that there had been apples kept in the desk and forgotten for years. Curiously though, carving one's name into the desk is not only allowed but actively encouraged as tradition in the United States Senate. 

Clause 3

Each House shall keep a Journal of its Proceedings, and from time to time publish the same, excepting such Parts as may in their Judgment require Secrecy; and the Yeas and Nays of the Members of either House on any question shall, at the Desire of one fifth of those Present, be entered on the Journal.

- 

Of course it makes sense that a legislative house should keep a journal of business, however the United States had to invent this procedure for itself; as the journals of the House of Commons and the House of Lords, were sketchy and unreliable. It wasn't until Thomas Curson Hansard took over the printing of parliamentary proceedings in 1829 that anything remotely looking like a proper journal was kept in England. 

The United States at inception, being thirteen several states who kind of semi-hated each other, wanted a neutral record of proceedings which is sensible. The fact that they require one fifth of the members to approve that the proceedings be entered on the Journal, is maddening. Such a thing would not fly today. If you have an elected body of representatives whose job it is to pass legislation, then the principles of open government must surely demand that all proceedings be entered on the Journal by default. Mechanically this clause is always in practice met by a resolution which accepts the record to be entered, and there are even some interesting notes about what constitutes a day and what not, but the fact that you would accuse the British Government of holding opaque sessions of parliament and then design a system which replicates that same degree of opacity (except at the Desire of one fifth of those Present) is crazy-making.

Clause 4

Neither House, during the Session of Congress, shall, without the Consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other Place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting.

- 

Probably in theory, the fastest that a given piece of legislation could pass through the entire of legislative government, is less than half an hour. I am allowing ten minutes in the House, then ten minutes in the Senate, and sufficient faffing about time such that the legislation could be ferried from house to house and then to the President for assent. 

The reason why you would want to do this is obvious. The first duty of government is the defence of the realm and when you consider that only the Congress actually has the power to make war, then having the two houses present in the event that such a resolution and/or declaration needs to be made, is sensible. Speculative fiction (and I include such pieces of media as "The Bedsitting Room", "Threads", "Fallout", et cetera) has often touched upon the idea that a nuclear war still might be all over within that half an hour which I have imagined. Granted that in 1788 the framers of the Constitution could not have imagined such raw naked power, but they were familiar with firearm warfare. Therefore the physical proximity of the two houses is vital; quite literally. 

I note that in Australia, we liked this so much, that the two houses face each other and although it is not physically possible for the Speaker of the House and the President of the Senate to see each other, Black Rod and the Sergeant-At-Arms can do. Legislation in Australia can be run across a hallway if need be. When the United States Constitution was being written, the Capitol building had not even been dreamt of; so this clause likely imagines two separate buildings, or the two houses occupying the same rooms in turn.

SECTION. 6

Clause 1

The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States. They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.

-

The first part of this clause, which states that the members of Congress be paid for doing work, seems logical enough but there was an absolute shemozzle and indeed fisticuffs in the convention when this was suggested. Some people though that they Constitution should name a fixed amount. Some thought that the level of remuneration be tied to that of the civil service. Still others like Benjamin Franklin, who even at the time was being painted as a hemi-demi-semi-god and a brilliant man and a bounder and a cad all at once, thought that that the members of Congress should not be paid at all; and that the service that they were doing for the country aught to be enough. 

The second part of this clause, which states that the members of Congress be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the respective Houses, is kind of based upon the existing 1688 Bill Of Rights concept that the speech inside parliament aught not to be questioned, but this stops well short of protecting the right to free speech within the Congress. 

Section 6 Clause 1 does not bestow the right of parliamentary privilege inside the Congress and although the First Amendment which got tacked on later attempts to extend the right to all places, it actually fails to do so. The right to free speech in the United States is such that Congress can not pass laws restricting it, but it is not so absolute to extend parliamentary privilege to the members of Congress on the floor. This is where I wonder if this particular element of the 1688 Bill Of Rights still actually applies in the United States, as part of the corpus a legislation which was received upon the forging of the new nation. Just a plain text reading of this, still looks like that the members of Congress can be sued for what they say upon the floor of Congress. That is kind of dangerous.

Clause 2

No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been encreased during such time; and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office.

-

I love pecuniary interest clauses. They basically say: don't have a government job while in the government because you will have a conflict of interest. One finger in the pie is fine. Two fingers in the pie is out. If everyone has fingers in the pie then it spoils the pie for everyone. 

Horse 3361 - The Badness Of The US Constitution - Article 1 (continued)

SECTION. 3

Clause 1

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, [chosen by the Legislature there- of,]* for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.

-

In the early days of the United States, the idea of having equal representation for each of the states seemed like an inherently good idea; in many respects, it still is. The fact that you have equal representation for each of the states means that the states with bigger populations and are therefore entitled to more Members of the House, can not jam through legislation which might seem harmful or adverse to the smaller states. In this respect, it is excellent.

In practice though, the fact that there are only two Senators from each State, means that the mechanics of elections are such that you are only ever likely to see members from an in-party or an out-party being elected, owing to the vagrancies of Duverger's Law. The Senate is not quite made up of single member constituencies but it might as well be. 

The other massive problem with having only two Senators from each State, and which is so obvious that even Blind Freddy from Kentucky can see this, is that the Senators themselves end up being absurdly powerful when compared to the Members of the House. There are 435 Members of the House. There are only 100 Senators. This means that purely from a legislative perspective, each of the Members of the House carry less than 23% of the power than each of the Senators do. This actually ends up working completely counter to the aim of the Senate; which I assume was to over-egg the pudding in favour of smaller states so that they could not be railroaded. With the current enmeshed mechanical party system, what this means is that parties can and do act like cross-state compacts; which undoes the point of the Senate so that it becomes not a house of review but a house of power based on anti-representation.

Australia improved this by expanding the number of Senators and implementing Proportional Representation. If Australia's nexus provisions had been applied to the United States Senate, then the number of Senators would be either 200 or 250; with the numbers of members in the house broadly remaining the same or expanding to c.500.

Clause 2

Immediately after they shall be assembled in Consequence of the first Election, they shall be divided as equally as may be into three Classes. The Seats of the Senators of the first Class shall be vacated at the Expiration of the second Year, of the second Class at the Expiration of the fourth Year, and of the third Class at the Expiration of the sixth Year, so that one third may be chosen every second Year; [and if Vacancies happen by Resignation, or otherwise, during the Recess of the Legislature of any State, the Executive thereof may make temporary Appointments until the next Meeting of the Legislature, which shall then fill such Vacancies.]*

-

The best Prime Minister that the United Kingdom never had, Tony Benn, liked to ask five questions of powerful people:

1. What power have you got? 

2. Where did you get it from?

3. In whose interests do you exercise it?

4. To whom are you accountable?

5. And how can we get rid of you?

Especially if you can not answer that last question, then you do not live in a democracy.

It must be said that six years for a term length, is a long time. In comparison with the House, that is three times as long and in comparison with the President, that is one and a half times as long. I suspect that this is Hamilton's invention and he imagined the Senate as a place where the various States sent their brightest and finest legal minds, as evidenced by the now removed part of Clause 1 [chosen by the Legislature there- of,]. My suspicion is that Hamilton had the best of intentions but was very very naïve.

In practice it means that the power of recall is quite hard as once installed, the only way to address Tony Benn's Fifth Question "How can we get rid of you?" happens either at the ballot box once every six years, or by the power of impeachment which may as well happen on the Sixth of Never (which is a very long time). 

Clause 3

No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.

-

They want someone who has had some degree of life experience, which is noble but again naïve. Life experience is in no way a good analog to assess character.

Clause 4

The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided.

-

The Vice President of the United States is either the best job in the world as it affords a salary with practically no responsibility, or the worst job in the world as it affords a salary with practically no responsibility and no power. The Vice President's only Constitutional role is to be a tie-breaker, or a mediator and chairperson of someone else's legal war, and the inheritor of the most powerful position in the United States but only it the worst or the weird should happen.

The Vice President's role here is to sit in the meetings of the Senate as President; which seems like an awful awful job and then their only meaningful interaction is to act as the final vote in the event of a deadlock. As the United States Congress was invented before the invention of party politics, perhaps Hamilton thought that this was a noble. However, it didn't take very long for party politics to raise its head (Washington even tells off the Congress about it during his farewell address); which means that the Vice President is just another cog in the party machine and only becomes operative in periods of hyper-exact-partisan knife fighting.

Clause 5

The Senate shall chuse their other Officers, and also a President pro tempore, in the Absence of the Vice President, or when he shall exercise the Office of President of the United States

-

This looks identical to the similar Clause relating to the House of Representatives. See that section.

Clause 6

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

-

Whereas the House has the power to arraign and invent the charges of impeachment from office, it is the Senate which actually has the power to try and decide whether or not to remove someone from office. This is an overtly political process and seems like it would be open to deliberate manipulation by a hostile House and Senate if they had the numbers in factions which could accord together. 

The bar of two thirds of the Members present is probably deliberately set very high, as to ensure that what is very obviously a political process, doesn't become an overtly political process even though it totally is. The level of offence caused by the person being impeached and then tried and tested has to be so severe that it offends a super-majority of Senators. Given what we've seen in my lifetime where the levels of offence given and taken have been turned beyond even 11 to 12 (and possibly 13), and the level of partisanship has also been raised beyond the point of sanity, then perhaps this super-majority requirement is inadvertently sensible.

Clause 7

Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

- 

This clause is the concession that the Impeachment, Trial, and Testing process for the removal from Office as very obviously a political process, remains purely a political process. The United States likes to tell itself the myth that there is a separation of powers (even though there are overlaps all over the shop), but at least here the actual process of criminal law has been left to the realm of the judiciary. 

Horse 3360 - Evil Acts Should Not Be Heralded As "Iconic"

Unless you have been living under a rock, you will have heard of the news that at a rally in Pennsylvania, there was an assassination attempt upon Presidential Candidate Donald Trump. After having seen the live and raw feed from Fox News, initially I thought that this was an attempt with small arms fire like a pellet gun but having seen reports that this was from further away than what I would have expected, the grain size of the bullets and the fact that someone behind him was killed, we have to conclude that this was by rifle fire of a much higher powered device.

The gunman, who I will refuse to name because he deserves no glory whatsoever, was within five minutes found on the roof of a nearby building and then killed by secret service detachment. This in itself is expected because they have eliminated a very clear and present danger who not only did intend to but did exact death on someone, but a little bit problematic in that with the gunman dead, we will never actually find out any reasons for his motivation for doing so.

As expected, in plain sight, the media immediately attempted to use this for political capital; because having been presented with such an obvious gift, the media could immediately pin this on their political enemies before the truth could even be known. Especially if you are the rightwing trashmedia, you can push out all kinds of lies and blame your enemies because you can immediately claim that speculation is not truth. 

However the truth that has transpired has immediately defied all of the narratives which the rightwing trashmedia was hoping to deploy. What we know about the attempter killer is that he was a registered Republican voter, an NRA member, likely attended a mainline Christian church, and was white. As far as the rightwing trashmedia's expected narrative goes, this is the worst of all possible worlds. They can not blame black people. They can not blame latino people. They can not blame an illegal immigrant. They can not blame a liberal. They also can not lie back on their favourite stupid little god and say that the right to bear arms was a good thing there, because that would then immediately concede the point that they like the idea that this knave should have the ability to carry a gun. 

Perhaps the weirdest set of comments came from Sky News Australia's commentatorati imp Rita Pahani. 

Iconic?

What sort of messed up ghoul do you have to be to make this comment? The fact that Donald Trump got shot at is awful. I hardly think that 'iconic' is the word here. Admittedly she might immediately admit that this was in the heat of the moment and that it might have been in bad taste but given the sheer bulk of her reportage which actively laughs and sneers at her political enemies as though she was running a clownshow, this was not a mistake.

Of course she'd blame "the left". This frequent race-baiting conscienceless crumbmaiden will spout any kind of verbal sewage in the name of driving revenue. 

Granted, I do not like Donald Trump, or his political persuasion, or his refusal to follow the law, or his insane narcissism, or most of his policies, or the fact that he has ruined any kind of sensible judicial outcomes in the United States for conceivably the rest of my lifetime, but none of that justifies killing him. To see someone die is awful. To wish someone to die is evil. To wish that your own talisman suffers harm and actually revel in a weird sadistic joy from it is bizarre and strange. I though that the celebrations on the streets in the United States when Saddam Hussain and Osama Bin Laden were both killed, was gauche and ghastly. I likely would have though that hearing news of Adolf Hitler dying would have been something of a relief but in no way does that warrant joy.

I do think that it is right and just to pray that Donald Trump heals. I also think that it is right and just to pray that Donald Trump withdraws from the Presidential race. I do not think that it is right and just to wish harm on him, or anyone else for that matter. 

I also do not think that this pustule should have had a gun in the first place. Just because there is a Constitutional right does not make that right good, just, fair, sensible, or even proper in a civil society.  I do not think that under any circumstance in civil society, that any citizen has the unilateral right to kill someone else, including in matters of self-defence. Moreover, I will also state that I think that anyone who argues this, is making an evil evil argument. Really the only actual justifiable reason why anyone should have a gun at all, is in defence of the nation. I think that if push came to shove, I could very easily point a gun at an enemy and kill them. The fact that I would be in uniform, and under the orders of someone and in fact the state itself, would absolve me from a lot of the moral responsibility of doing so. However it should very much be pointed marked, that the moral negation of what would otherwise be murder only happens because the authority to demand same, and more importantly the moral responsibility of same, lies with the executive of the nation. In no way, is this anything remotely like that at all.

Unfortunately now that the gunman is dead, we will have no ability to question him and find out what his motivation was. Clearly it was a stupid and ill-thought out one, but beyond his actions, we shall find nothing. The thing is that you can not even apply the theory that this was a lone wolf operating in a vacuum, given that the United States has more than three billion guns and given the fact that it has a murder by firearms ratio per capita of more than fifty times that of my country. Also given the events of January 6th, and the fact that more than 8% of United States' Presidents have been assassinated by gun fire, this runs very deep in the culture.

Had he been successful, yes the world would have been shocked, but given the level of veneration for Donald Trump by a cult following of people who have turned him into their god, he would have become a political martyr. Mr Trump now goes on to the Republican National Convention carrying the visible wounds of a life-threatening experience; which unfortunately has only galvanised support behind him. Instead of political martyr, many sections of the Republican now have a partly immortal god for whom their veneration can be amplified. As the United States sleepwalks and goosesteps ever closer to open fascism, I shudder to think what kind of horror would have been unleashed; now I can only help but shudder to what kind of horror will be unleashed now that this idiotic event now acts as mandate for whatever schemes that Mr Trump's handlers will put forward. Every single aspect of this, from every single angle, when viewed in every single light, just looks more and more and more awful and horrible.

Horse 3359 - The Badness Of The US Constitution - Article 1

Article. I.

SECTION. 1

All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

-

Excellent. This is good definitional legislation. 

So far, so good: this is identical to the Westminster system in that it has a bicameral parliament. 

SECTION. 2

Clause 1

The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.

-

Two clauses in and already we have definitional problems. Art 1, Sect 1, Clause 1, says that there shall be “Electors in each State” but not what those Electors are.

Admittedly I come from a different tradition of how legislation is read but even under Common Law principles, a word shall take the normal definition of that word when it appears and coloured by the context that it appears in. In this case though, those Common Law principles are still not enough to inform someone what the term in question is supposed to mean. 

Leaving that aside, the idea that the Members of the House of Representatives are chosen every second Year by the People, sounds like a good idea for small entities and may have even been sensible when the thirteen states in Congress were all there were, but when you have almost four times the number of states, the usefulness of this immediately grows out of its space. In fact by the 1890s, the framers of the Australian Constitution had already discovered in practice that two-year terms while seemingly a good idea because although one of the fundamental questions to ask people in power is "How can we get rid of you?" and two-year terms means that you can chuck people out of office reasonably often, what it does mean is that Members of the House are kind of in constant campaign mode.

To that point, the idea that you'd want Members of the House to be hindered from doing their job by the very mechanics of the job that they happen to be doing, seems to be a feature and not a bug by the framers of the US Constitution. The Continental Congress was so ineffective that it couldn't do very much at all; which is why it only lasted from 1775 until 1789. 

Clause 2

No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.

- 

Again, this is excellent.

What this says is that the House of Representatives shall have members who at very least have seen a little bit of the real world. Quite possibly and considering that this was written in 1788, a twenty-five year old person could very well be a veteran who had served in the Revolutionary War; they could be in their seventh or eighth year of service by this stage.

Also, the requirement that someone has been seven Years a Citizen of the United States is a good thing, as this means that such a person has had their lot hitched to the fortunes of the nation for quite some time. The requirement and the end of the clause that a prospective member be an Inhabitant of that State is also excellent. I do not know if such a thing as the 183-day residency test was a thing but what this does prevent is parachuting candidates in from across state borders. I imagine that in 1787 which was before the invention of any crystallised party system, that this was intended to try and make sure that a local member responded to local issues; which is pretty central to the ideal of representative government.

Clause 3 - Repealed

[Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.]

-

This part of Clause 3 was repealed as part of the cleanup of the Constitution as a result of the Civil War. This is the first of many clauses and amendments of the US Constitution which tacitly admits that the notion that 'all men are created equal' as stated in the Declaration of Independence was an open lie (in addition to the many other lies contained therein). The idea that you would count the number of people who are eligible to vote and the apportion the number of seats according to a proportion of how many voters there were, is sound, but this is tempered with the unstated fact that the framers of the Constitution actively saw first peoples and slaves as either irrelevant or chattel goods and less than human. '3/5ths of a Person' is the wrangling by the States who possessed many slaves, to bolster their votes in the House and the Electoral College, in fear of having people whom they didn't consider as worthy of the vote being discounted for representative purposes.

Clause 3 - Continued

The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New-York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five, and Georgia three.

- 

There are several consequences of this clause.

Firstly, that in order to make an Enumeration, there should be a census in place to make that possible.

Secondly, that such a census happen every ten years. However, there are no rules on how to conduct a census; nor does the Constitution itself mention any mechanism for funding said census.

Thirdly, that the Number of Representatives is dependent on the population (no less than 1 for every 30,000 people) and that whatever the circumstances, there should be at least one Representative per state. This was not important in 1787 but the framers knew that the states as they existed were all jammed up in the northeastern corner of the country and that Ladies Columbia, America, and Liberty, had a lot of destiny to manifest as they manifested the ever-living destiny out of the native peoples.

Thirdly continued - poor Rhode Island and Delaware. You only got one Representative each. I note that places like Wyoming and North Dakota which have massive amounts of space filled with squat-all, are still only entitle to one Representative at-large to day. 

Clause 4

When vacancies happen in the Representation from any State, the Executive Authority thereof shall issue Writs of Election to fill such Vacancies.

- 

This clause might be small in length but it looms large in consequence. What this clause does is places the role of elections back onto the States. Now of itself that might sound all right as the United States is less of a Federation and more of a looser Union of States than places like Australia, or Canada, but what this means in practice is that for every single election, both general and special, as they are conducted by the several States, there is no central oversight. 

The lack of central oversight in the running of elections means that there really isn't an election in for the Members and Senators in Congress, nor an election for the President but rather, fifty-two elections for the Members and Senators in Congress and fifty elections The ramifications for having fifty elections is that most of them are carried out by underfunded and rank amateur agencies. This is not helped by those same amateur election agencies running voting machines which are not exactly very secure. About the only concession to the security of elections in the United States is that because the system is really no system at all, it is really hard to hack fifty elections which are all chaotic in different ways.

Clause 5

The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

-

This makes sense that the members of the House of Representatives should choose it's own officers and also have the power to impeach same. In this respect, this is no different in principle to any other chamber in any Westminster system on the planet. Mostly Westminster parliaments have what are known as Standing Orders; particularly in the case of Australia, those Standing Orders are codified, which is something that the United States' House of Representatives must agree to at the beginning of every session.

Although Art 1, Sec 1, Clause 5 empowers the House of Representatives with the sole Power of Impeachment, it does not specify the object of that Impeachment. SCOTUS has long since declared that that Power of Impeachment extends to all offices of the US Government which are political appointments, which includes members of the House and Senate and the President and the Justices of the Supreme Court, but the material of this clause does not mention any of that at all.

What I find truly clumsy here, is that this is not an isolated example. The whole Constitution is like this. The whole realm of legal interpretation lives and dies upon the text contained thererin; where specificity is the soul of meaning. Otherwise (and this is where the United States suffers horribly) it is left to judges to 'interpret' the law. Of itself that sounds sensible but one of the scary ramifications of cases like Marbury v Madison (1803) where the courts took themselves the power to "say what the law is", is that the ten cent ordinary plain speaking English version of this is that the courts "make stuff up", and are subject to the whims and fads and fancies and fantasies of whomever is on the court at any given moment. That isn't a legal framework, that's a step away from patronage.