David Harsanyi Has A Proposal To "Weed Out Ignorant Voters" - But Would It Be Constitutional?

In his article in yesterday's Denver Post ('Weed Out The Ignorant Voters', p. 15A), David Harsanyi makes an impassioned plea to "weed out" ignorant and irresponsible voters. I will let Harsanyi make his case in his own words then look at his solution:

"Never have so many people with so little knowledge made so many consequential decisions for the rest of us.

A person need only survey the inanity of the ongoing presidential race to comprehend that the most pressing problem facing the nation isn't Big Business, Big Labor, Big Media or even Big Money in politics.

It's you, the American voter. And by weeding out millions of irresponsible voters who can't be bothered to learn the rudimentary workings of the Constitution or their preferred candidate's proposals or even their history, we may be able to mitigate the recklessness of the electorate."

Harsanyi goes on to rule out such nonsense as "checking the box for the candidate whose campaign ads you like best", or the one you'd most like to have a brewskie with. Those don't count because they are the emotional province of the political moron. No, what is needed is a solid knowledge test to see if people casting ballots are truly qualified to do so. (Bearing in mind the enormous consequences of elections, and how they can impact millions of people's lives.)

As a first approach in determining whether a person meets minimal qualifications for participating in a democracy, Harsanyi recommends the prospective voter pass a basic civics test  - the same one administered to prospective citizens. This, by the way, is not the same as the old "poll tax" type test  given in the Jim Crow South to blacks. The latter were always given at the whim of the precinct captains and could be as long or as short as they wanted, and as complex and quixotic as they needed - to exclude African Americans,

NO, Harsanyi's version would for basic civics that any citizen worth his salt ought to know. It would be the same 10 or so questions each year though obviously the content would change for the questions because we can't have answers being memorized - as that destroys the whole purpose.

Example questions offered by Harsanyi:

1) If both the President and Vice President can no longer serve who becomes President?

This one is so critical it ought to be a disqualifier if anybody gets it wrong (The answer, of course, is the Speaker of the House).  Given the U.S. electoral system has a rigid line of succession there ought to be no argument that some questions are just too important to be missed.  Call them 'bomb out' questions - you "bomb out" and you can not vote in that general election. (You can in the next cycle  if you get the bomb out question correct and at least  7/10 overall, which seems to be the  Harsanyi  standard.)

2) There were 13 original colonies, name three.

Again, this is important but I wouldn't rank it at the criticality of (1).   (Though being unable to name at least one comes close to meeting the 'bomb out' standard for abject historical ignorance. But who knows, the bozos who believe Larry Schweikart is the last word on historical veracity might come close!)

3) What is one right or freedom from the First Amendment?

Again, easy peasy, and to me - anyone who can't recall or name "freedom of speech" doesn't merit having any!

4) What is freedom of religion?

This one also ought to be straightforward but given today's 'Know nothing', FAUX News and sloppy media culture I wouldn't be surprised if many got it wrong.

Other questions for the Voter Qualifying test I'd consider along with Harsanyi's :

-  Name three amendments from the Bill of Rights.

-  Is there such a thing as "state's rights? Explain

- What is meant by an unenumerated right?

-  Name your state's governor and two Senators, and the party of each.

 None of these ought to give anyone shock or hysteria.

Personally, if a citizen can't even name 3 out of 10 of the amendments of the bill of rights, s/he doesn't deserve to be called a citizen,  far less be allowed to cast ballots. (This issue also came up after 9/11 when Bush and Company were jettisoning civil liberties left, right and center (under the 'Patriot Act') and polls showed most Americans who clamored most  ardently for these "security" precautions couldn't even name 6 of the amendments of the bill of rights.)

State's rights also ought to be a disqualifier if anyone gets it wrong especially in state elections. Any imbecile ought to know only flesh and blood HUMANS have rights, such as embodied in the Bill. Of Rights. States, by contrast, have prerogatives which are made and enforced by contract.

An "unenumerated right" may well be the most important of all because it includes all rights not specifically listed in the Constitution. Yet many Americans even today,-  thanks to propaganda, PR and BS -  think it means state's rights.  (Confusing it with the tenth amendment of the Bill of Rights, i.e. "powers not delegated to the federal government are delegated to the states or to the people".  Meaning of course, the powers are in the form of prerogatives for the states, and rights for the people.)

Lastly, if you can't even name your state's two Senators and governor you have more business playing tiddly winks than voting.

At the end of his proposed questions, Harsanyi writes:

"I have tempered confidence that at least a majority of the voting public could pass such a test - though I couldn't say the same for a majority of the presidential candidates. Certainly this should be a breeze for citizens who are so intensely involved in the process they feel compelled to plaster bumper stickers on their cars and attend rallies of their favorite candidates."

I totally concur.

In the next breath Harsanyi wonders if he's being "too optimistic", citing the case several years back when Newsweek asked a thousand voters to take the official citizenship test. In that scenario, "nearly 30 percent of voters couldn't name the Vice -President. More than 60 percent did not know the length of U.S. Senators' terms in office, and 43 percent couldn't state that the first 10 amendments to the Constitution are known as the Bill of Rights."

To say this result is appalling is an understatement.

Harsanyi then cites an Annenberg Public Policy Center finding that only 36 percent of Americans could name all three branches of the U.S. government. Are you kidding me?

Harsanyi's, final point is one I totally support but likely we will never see it manifest, because in this country ignorance is considered bliss and the laws too often protect the ignorant:

"It literally takes seconds to learn about the fundamentals of our republic and the positions of candidates.  If you forsake the power of information you have no standing to tell the rest of us how to live our lives. Don't vote!"

I also agree when he avers:

"I refuse to believe that working class or underprivileged citizens are any less capable of understanding the meaning of the Constitution or the contours of governance than the supercilious 1 -percenters."

Speaking of the Constitution,  what does it have to say about the right to vote and whether having prospective voters prove they're qualified is disallowed?  Amendment XV, which was ratified by the states in 1870 in Section 1, declares: ."The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude."

Note carefully the wording in the last sentence. It does not say anything about use of a basic civics test to determine qualification.

Never mind. The absolute right to vote will mistakenly be seen as god-given to every 'Murican - no matter how ignorant, brainwashed or unquaified the voter may be.

To the detriment of the rest of us, as Harsanyi puts it so well.

Obama's Grades At The 6-Year Mark

Obama after his election in 2008. All things were possible then including straight A's

Time now to assess President Barack Obama's grades at the crucial 6-year mark. These assessments are based on examining his performance and decisions on multiple fronts, from peace diplomacy, to national security, defense of civil liberties, speech craft, environment, transparency, and executive leadership. Brief explanations will be given after each mark, and a lengthier one will follow the lone 'F' earned, for transparency. These objective assessments are more important than ever after watching some of the clips on Chris Hayes' 'All In' last night, featuring right wing crazies at public meetings with Rick Santorum yelping hysterically about Obama "gone crazy" and "destroying our country". Of course, any such jabber disqualifies these knuckle draggers from having any opinion worth consideration!

Now the marks:

Speech craft:   A minus

Based not only on his 'State of the Union' speeches but others given at various venues in the past six years.


Economy: A

Unemployment now down to 5.5 % and stock market at all time highs. What more can be said?


National Security:   A minus

Obama has done everything one can rationally expect on multiple threat fronts, from ISIS, to Iran. Only the crazies are dissatisfied with his approaches and want more wars- expending blood and treasure we cannot afford.

Environment:  B minus

His veto of the Keystone XL pipeline has gained many kudos from enviros, but this still hasn't damped disappointment with his support of fracking, intentions to do offshore drilling (off the east coast) and the export of low grade fossil fuels elsewhere (cf. The Denver Post, 'U.S. Exports Pollution, Offsets Advances' Dec. 9, p. 15A)

Peace Diplomacy:  B

Good, and again would be better if it hadn't been for the fact that he needed Russian help to ensure we didn't get into a Syrian debacle two years ago. Never mind, he seems to have found a backbone against neocon pressure for wars, for now. We need him to be especially alert he doesn't make any missteps by courting the neocons and assisting them against Russia in the Ukraine.


Executive Leadership:  B

While Obama began as a tepid leader, he's now become a "ball buster" with his executive orders and actions, including on immigration, health care and the environment. It gives the repukes fits but it warms the cockles of liberal hearts!


Defense of civil liberties: D

Let's see: his refusal to oust CIA head John Brennan after the CIA was busted for spying on the Senate, his pursuit and prosecution of whistle blowers under the 1917 "Espionage Act", his refusal to come to the defense of Edward Snowden when he exposed the NSA's awful overreach in the mass snatching of data - violating the Fourth Amendment. The only reason he avoided an 'F' is that he did (eventually) propose a review board for the NSA programs.


Transparency: F

Obama promised full transparency on his election and then promptly dropped the ball....or never wanted it in the first place. His going after gov't whistleblowers has already been noted, but the real wake up call for me was the failure to deliver archival records  (mainly from the CIA) on the JFK assassination in the 50th anniversary year of that event, e.g.
http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2012/06/national-archives-to-jfk-file-seekers.html

Those of us in the JFK assassination research community were severely disappointed given how many doors had already been opened under President Clinton's watch (when the JFK Records Act was passed.). By comparison it was a giant step backward under Obama.   We suspected that the CIA had notified Obama that they didn't want their 1960s "tradecraft" exposed, but really...seriously, that wouldn't be used any more anyway, including techniques such as: splicing the head of a patsy onto another's body (with a rifle), poison pens to kill witnesses, aerial imaging photography, i.e. frame by frame projection of a film to the rear of a glass screen with minute traces of paint added, then re-shot - which would have been used to alter specific frames in the Zapruder film.

In truth, the only reason NOT to disclose this antiquated tradecraft would have been to protect those actually involved in the conspiracy to kill JFK. After all, if the pertinent documents were released exposing it, then all and sundry would know it COULD be done and those knotheads that howl about "tin foil" hats and an implicit chuckle factor would be put down once and for all.

But while some may believe this National Archives' misstep to be unique, it's actually turned out to be part of a pattern. According to an article in yesterday's Denver Post ('Administration Sets Record For Withholding Documents', p. 11A):

"The Obama Administration set a record again for censoring government files or outright denying access to them last year under the U.S. Freedom of Information Act, according to a new analysis of federal data by the Associated Press."

The article also noted:

- The gov't took longer to turn over files when it provided any

- More regularly stated it couldn't find any documents at all

-Refused a record number of times to turn over files quickly that might be newsworthy

- Acknowledged in nearly 1 of 3 cases the initial decision to withhold or censor records was illegal

Worse yet, the backlog of unanswered requests grew by nearly 55% by year's end.  This despite citizens, journalists, businesses and others having made nearly 714, 231 requests for information.

While some may respond with rolling eyes and smug smiles at the seriousness with which files are pursued by some citizens, they really do not get it. They don't get that alert citizens have a responsibility to hold their government (and President) to account. And if they fail to do that - irrespective of whether the issue is the assassination of a past President, drone kills, or NSA secret programs - they don't merit being called citizens.

Obama, fortunately, still has time to pick up the two low grades, but like a student far behind in Calculus or Physics, it will take a lot of sincere effort and plain old hard work.  I for one am confident he can do it - assuming he really wants to!

'"Constitutionalists"? How About TEA BAGGERS?

 

 Brother! Seems some angry "Constitutionalists" (with too much time on their hands) saw my post yesterday and it has their panties in a twist. They claim that I represent the "Anti-constitutionalists", and am really trying to subvert that  document, and hey - I also can't "think for myself". Really? Then how come I have vigorously defended the Constitution on numerous  occasions, while extolling Ed Snowden's defense of our civil liberties, e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/07/too-many-americans-dont-deserve-liberty.html

 

The self-declared Constitutionalist (I call him a Tea Bagger, or member of the Tea Party) writes:

 

 "They have never been forced to seek out an inner strength, a personal treasure, which guides them to a greater purpose. Everything they think they believe in has been conditioned into them. Their uniqueness is suppressed, and their characters shallow. They have never loved an idea, or a principle"

 

Well, I dispute that, given that when I joined the Peace Corps, and served FOUR years in a backwater place, living in a shanty home - I most certainly summoned "inner strength" and saw the "personal treasure" in helping others.  As for believing and having it "conditioned" in me, I doubt it. If that were the case I'd not have been opposed to all our wars of choice (like Vietnam, Iraq etc.) as well as actually writing a book to expose the assassination of John Kennedy as a bona fide conspiracy. As far as "never loving an idea" - what bollocks! Of course, if I practice - as in the examples above - of criticizing my government I de facto must love the idea of freedom of speech as well as personal liberty. But these sort of arguments are typical for these "Constitutionalists" who claim to be the only ones to revere the Constitution and assert it is "cast in stone".

 

But this merely discloses their level of education.

 

True to form, we hear much talk from these zealots about the “original intent” of the Founders in writing the Constitution but very little evidence that these latter day, wannabe purists actually know what any single part means. For example, the Whacko Right and Tea Party (they insist they are "independents' but they're nothing of the sort), based mainly in the Federalist society and other bastions, insists the Constitution was designed to limit government – the reach thereof- and also any innovative government programs which they deem have no basis in the original parchment.

 

But dare to ask them about the “unenumerated rights of citizens" declared under the Ninth Amendment of the Bill of Rights (referred to as those rights 'not denied or disparaged' by the enumerated rights) and their faces all turn as blank as their minds. No wonder! The whole concept of rights that can exist without being actually mentioned is something beyond their ken, or conception!

 

Evidently, then, they have never really read the Constitution as carefully as they believe! In fact, as Prof. Garry Wills has pointed out, the unenumerated rights are all those rights not already specifically declared or described in the existing document. The Founders thereby realized and understood there could exist rights in the future they hadn’t conceived of at the time of the Constitutional Convention, and so allowed those (then) undefined rights to become realized later. In other words, the rights allotted citizens are not limited to the rights actually and specifically delineated, i.e. in the Bill of Rights.

 

Many Federalists actually believe the unenumerated Rights refer to “State’s Rights” but this is false. The States have NO rights, only flesh and blood citizens can possess Rights, as the selfsame authors (e.g. James Madison, Alexander Hamilton etc.) noted in The Federalist Papers - which one would have thought the Federalist Society would be acquainted with. Indeed, in Amendment X, the reference is specifically made to powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution - nor prohibited by it to the States- are reserved to the States respectively...). Thus, the States have prerogatives and powers, but citizens have rights. This is a critical distinction that most tea baggers lack clue one about, even as they pound their chests as being the only "true" adherents to the Constitution.

Another Teepee myth is the Constitution was created to protect states from federal power, but this is bollocks. The fact is, in The Federalist Papers James Madison himself compared the federal government system to the Solar system. Just as the planets (analogous to states) could not exist as part of that system without the centralized force of gravitational pull of the Sun, so also the federal system could not exist without the centralized pull of the federal government – leading the diversity of states to be one cohesive entity as government. Thus we do find the Constitution includes limits but mostly limits on STATE governments.

If the Constitution was intended to limit the federal government power it certainly doesn’t say so. In Article I, Section 8 – the longest segment of the document, we see an extended declaration of congressional power. (The States are mainly afforded their power in the articles of confederation). In addition, it ends by clearly delegating to Congress the ability “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 any Department thereof."

Another canard promoted by Tea Party idiots (based upon assorted signs at their rallies), is that of proclaiming "No taxation!" In fact, the REAL issue at the Boston Tea Party was: No taxation without representation!. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say 'No taxes', period! Again, Sec. 8 of Article I clearly states:

"The Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises to pay Debts and provide for the common defense and General Welfare of the United States"

In terms of Obama's Affordable Care Act, wingnuts and Tea baggers have argued that the decision to buy health insurance must be a private one, and hence one can opt out or not. The government can't dictate such a purchase, even if it would bring down premiums for all. Thus, a young and healthy worker may simply decide the costs are not for her so she decides not to buy .But what if she then gets into a major auto or motorcycle accident and requires serious surgery? Without health insurance this means landing in an ER where the costs are much greater. Most of these costs are passed on to the regular insurance holders for whom it can be regarded as a kind of extra tax on them in higher premiums.

Multiplied millions of times this would represent a significant additional (and unintended) tax upon all the regular insurance buyers! In other words, it would be totally unacceptable. Thus, in the case above, the private decision to opt out has major impacts on the overall plan and purchases - so can't be tolerated. In other words, doing nothing - buying nothing, can be a private decision with huge deleterious public consequences! Now, is the Affordable Care Act somewhat cynical? Yes, I agree, and according to one University of Pennsylvania Law Review article: Making healthy young adults pay billions of dollars in premiums into the national health care market is the only way to fund universal health care coverage without raising substantial new taxes.

While my preference, if I were in charge, would be to raise new taxes, then let people opt out if they chose (after paying their taxes!)But again, being cynical or a law embodying it, is not proscribed by the Constitution. The most crucial aspect to grasp for any Constitutional insight(especially for students), is that it was written as a flexible set of rules which could be amended (as it has been) and not a dead hand authority restricting options, choices or novel inputs to adjust to the changing times. As I said, it's not a bible, nor should the Founders' words be treated as some kind of inerrant text (look at the provisions for black-slave citizens, to regard them as only 3/5 of white!).

The Second Amendment and right to bear arms is another case in point, which the Tea bagger crowd clearly sees fit to ignore when it suits their purpose. They insist the amendment gives them the "right to bear arms" but it does no such thing. The 2nd amendment in fact assured an equipped MILITIA (because no standing army existed when this section was written).  Thus, you were regarded as part of a state or local militia and that conferred the right! (And btw, they were allotted muskets with bayonets, not AR15s, Bushmaster .223s or Glocks!) Convenient then how these guys rag on the Constitution being "engraved in stone" but then alter it at THEIR whim!
 

Our aim then needs to be to rescue the concept of a living Constitution from being a whipping boy of the Wingnuts and tea bagger extremists. A Constitution by itself, after all, guarantees nothing. (Bolshevik Russia and Nazi Germany had constitutions). In effect, if there is no genuine spirit of liberty in the hearts and minds of citizens, then their nation's Constitution can be no more than just a "piece of paper" - as George W. Bush once memorably put it, when he enlisted a derelict judiciary to justify his (1978) FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) excesses. One thing everyone must understand is that Constitutions by themselves - including ours- don't protect our spirit of liberty, it is our spirit of liberty and the grasp of what it requires, which protects the Constitution. This is something that the Constitution idolaters, who claim to study this document so fervently and obsessively, have yet to learn.

In this sense, the Progressive opposition to Tea Party pseudo-Constitutional fetishism is correct, and their argument that if the Teepees had their way they'd repeal the whole of the 20th century is also. (They'd likely still regard blacks as 3/5 of a person too!)  It is time then to seize the document and prevent it from being corrupted by Tea Bagger hogwash if it means anything to us!

 

Sadly, once more, we see that these tropes and canards about the Constitution show that American Right wingers lack not only critical thinking skills but insight and education into the document they hold so dear.