Voting Rights and the iPod Generation

Jonah Goldberg at the NRO on voting rights.

My question is, even if we really wanted to, could we do it? *commence research*

On the subject, I found an interesting article from NJ. Apparently, Article II, Section 1, Paragraph 6 of the New Jersey State Constitution used to state that "no idiot or insane person shall enjoy the right of suffrage." On Nov. 6, 2007, it was amended to say: "No person who has been adjudicated by a court of competent jurisdiction to lack the capacity to understand the act of voting shall enjoy the right of suffrage." So, at least in NJ, Jonah's proposal could be acceptable; he makes the argument that those lacking 'basic civil literacy' lack the capacity to understand the act of voting (because if they did they would accord it proper respect, and not 'cheap[en]' it, I'm guessing).

To me, the difference between the two sentences is really a cosmetic change; while the derogatory terms 'idiot' and 'insane' are removed, the point remains that a court can decide someone is not competent to vote, and thus disallow them from doing so.

So, two follow-up points/questions: 1. the practical basis and 2. the Constitutional case.

1. The text of the NJ Constitution says 'No person who has been adjudicated by a court....' My interpretation of that (based on my understanding of competency hearings in general), is that each individual and each case is addressed on an independent basis to determine the specific competency of that individual, and it must be done in a court and ruled upon by a judge- failing a political literacy test, while possibly identifying an uneducated individual, will not carry the legal weight to deny voter competency. This would seem to preclude against declaring an entire group of people incompetent, since I highly doubt that Jonah or any one else wants to spend the rest of their life suing for competency rulings on every one who fails such a test.

2. The original text of the Constitution does not address the voting rights of citizens, only that they have the right, through state Electors, to chose their representatives. How the state Electors are chosen, however, is left up to the individual states. However:

But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States....

Now, admittedly, this statement comes from a section on apportionment of Representatives. But it does clearly state the 'right to vote'. Furthermore, US citizens cannot be denied the right to vote on basis of race, color, previous condition of servitude (15th Amendment), sex (19th Amendment), age over 18 (26th Amendment). Conditions under which a citizen may have their voting rights denied: participation in rebellion or other crime (14th Amendment).

I might be incorrect, but I believe the purpose of the 24th Amendment is to prevent economic status from being used as a bar to voting (the inability to pay a tax). The specific text is this:

The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reasons of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.

So, you can't be denied the right to vote because you are: a different race, a different color, a former slave, a woman, the wrong age, or poor. You can be denied the right to vote because you tried the overthrow the government (I guess you wouldn't be voting for them anyway) or you committed a crime. I'm not entirely certain how we get away with preventing criminals from voting, but my guess is it goes something like this: because they reflect poorly on US citizenship and their evident disregard for the laws of the US which protect us hint that, if allowed to vote, they might vote in such a way to do away with those protective measures, or allow such behavior as would be detrimental to society. Which I think is ridiculous because it assumes that laws in this country are automatically beneficial (let alone Constitutional- all I can think about in this case is the civil disobedience in the 1960s- we want to deny these people the right to vote, after passing Amendments and laws so that they could?!). But I guess that a parallel argument could be made for uneducated voters.

I am neither a lawyer nor a legal scholar, so I could be missing something on the right of criminals to vote, but either way, not allowing people to vote because you think they are stupid (while not at all contradictory to the spirit of the Constitution- the Founders were afraid of mob rule, hence creating a republic, not a democracy), does go against the letter of the Constitution. Two final, and fairly important quotes:
The 14th Amendment:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.Voting might not have been an original right, but I would say it definitely counts as a privilege. And furthermore:

The 9th Amendment:

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

Just because we don't have an Amendment saying uneducated people can't vote doesn't mean we can deny their right to do so.



(Hat tip: Kathryn Jean Lopez by way of Andrew Sullivan)

Happy Thanksgiving!

Politics and pardons for $200, Alex.

The dinner discussion you might want to avoid.

Me? I just thank goodness.

This year I'm thankful for professors, specifically my American Law and Civil Society seminar prof (really never thought I'd use that material ever again) and my religious ethics prof. These are the two profs probably contributed the most to my intellectual development (academic development would be a longer list), and probably most responsible for me being where I am today. And I'm especially thankful that I was able to get back into contact with both of them recently, and tell them what an impact they have had.

'Til the other side of the turkey torpor.

Noun vs Verb

I some how missed this op-ed by Peggy Noonan.

I'm not sure exactly where I fall in her categories. I can be ardently interventionist, particularly on matters of the Responsibility to Protect. However, I don't believe that democracy can be imposed, and even if it could be, that we have a right to do so. I believe we have a responsibility to help our fellow humans, but that duty is usually best fulfilled by helping them help themselves.

Some instances, such as humanitarian crisis, or genocide, require direct action and aid. Others, such as combating dictatorship or lack of civil or economic liberties, does not necessarily require such active intervention. Sanctions, perhaps, or diplomatic repercussions (bilateral, multilateral or international (UN)), as well as support of dissidents and activists, are important. Especially diplomatic measures- what sort of signal does it sent that we say we support civil liberties and human rights, but then have normal relations with governments that suppress their own people? I'm not saying we should never work with China or Pakistan or Saudia Arabia- that would be naive, irresponsible, and possibly insane- but that doesn't mean that just because they are 'our' dictators we should give them a free pass.

I guess the best summary for my attitude is if we're going to talk the talk, we should walk the walk. And I sincerely hope we keep both talking and walking.

Federalist Paper No. 5

Jay recaps the general argument of the first set of Federalist Papers in paragraph two: ‘that weakness and divisions at home [will] invite dangers from abroad; and that nothing [will] tend more to secure us from them than union, strength, and good government within ourselves.’ In this last in the series on the Dangers from Foreign Force and Influences, Jay invokes the union of England and Scotland (part of what makes it the United Kingdom), the example with which the former colonists were ‘in general the best acquainted.’ He begins with Queen Anne’s appeal to the Scottish Parliament in 1706 to accept the proposed union. The predicted benefits:

An entire and perfect union… will secure… religion, liberty, and property; remove the animosities amongst [Scottish clans and regions], and the jealousies and differences betwixt [the] two kingdoms. It must increase… strength, riches, and trade; and by this union the whole island, being joined… will be ENABLED TO RESIST ALL ITS ENEMIES.

In contrast, Jay reminds the reader of the island’s history before the union: divided into three nations, ‘almost constantly embroiled in quarrels and wars with one another.’ Despite their shared interests and common cause, at least with respect to the ‘continent’- Europe-, instead, mutual jealousies, often nursed by their very enemies in Europe, kept the island divided.

He then returns specifically to America. He asks directly: if America is divided into three or four different nations (confederations; we’ve already tried and failed at 13 individual states), won’t the result be the same as in Britain? Although he couches it in terms of ‘envy’, what Jay is really describing in the fifth through seventh paragraphs is the possibility of unstable balance of power, resulting in an arms or trade race, but importantly, ‘formidable only to each other.’ Not exactly a future worthy of a country that defeated Britain.

Jay also addresses the possible counter-argument, that the confederacies will form defense unions. He challenges the reader to name such a time when the independent states combined in an alliance and united their forces against a foreign enemy. This line actually confuses me. Wasn’t that what they did with the Revolutionary War? Perhaps Britain wasn’t a foreign enemy, because it was the colonizing power?*

He also raises the point that should the confederacies go to war with each other, they may be tempted to reach out to foreign nations for assistance, but these powers, once received, could then turn on their American allies to conquer, as the Romans did millennia before.

Jay debates the subject of the Dangers from Foreign Force and Influence through four consecutive Papers. His work sometimes tiptoes this side of specious, being more convinced of his own rightness than in presenting a fully fledged argument, but, especially in the latter Papers, with their wealth of historical examples, he does present a strong argument.

This is also the last of Jay until Paper No. 64, when he returns to discuss the Powers of the Senate. Next, we’ll explore the problem of Dissensions between the States, and reintroduce Alexander Hamilton.

* A friend offers this interpretation: "I think he is asking, rhetorically, when Britain and Spain, which had formerly been divided (Britain consisted of Scotland, Wales, etc., and before that England was just the name of land mass that contained the kingdoms of Mercia, Wessex, Northumbria, etc., and before it was united Spain contained Aragon and other kingdoms) opted to form the loose kind of confederation that anti-Federalists preferred. The answer, he implies, is that they did not. They formed strong unions that allowed them to repel foreign invaders."

So, basically a restatement of his previous points, with more historical evidence.

But How Can We Remember You If You Won't Let Us Forget?

So it seems that Guy Fawkes is not going away any time soon. As most everyone knows by now, on Nov. 5, libertarian GOP candidate Ron Paul's supporters launched a money-bomb fundraising campaign, inspired by the image of Fawkes from the 2005 movie V for Vendetta. As Jacob T. Levy (who I just discovered) explains here, this is more than a little weird, and heavily ironic.

I was never a fan of V, mostly because I don't accept that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter: the definition of terrorism as use of force/violence either against or to cause terror in a civilian/non-combatant population in order to influence state policies is well established, and condemned as a crime by most major moral traditions. Like murder, terrorism is by definition wrong.

Ironically, the premise of the comic makes sense, and, in spite* of the torture, it raises excellent questions about the role of governments, the meaning of patriotism, and the protection of liberty. But all of that is lost on an American audience, and so we end up with a libertarian using a terrorist as a campaign gimmick.

And in light of all of this, I'm doubly glad Washington banned Guy Fawkes Day celebrations- both in protest to the actions of the British monarchy, and also because the alternative seems to be honoring a terrorist.


(Hat tip: Andrew Sullivan)

*There can never truthfully be an 'in spite of' with regards to terrorism- once it enters the picture, all moral legitimacy is lost

Guy Fawkes, American Exceptionalism and Good PR

I wrote in the Federalist Paper No. 3 entry that Americans have long characterized ourselves as 'exceptional' and repeatedly rejected the practices and politics of Europe. Yesterday (Nov. 5) was Guy Fawkes Day, a holiday in Britain celebrating the foiling of a Catholic plot to blow up Parliament in 1605. However, Fawkes' torturing, and the anti-Catholic propaganda employed by the monarchy eventually tarnished the holiday, leading George Washington to ban its celebration in the US. All very noble, democratic, rights of man, etc., right? Perhaps not.

The Corner at the National Review discusses the reality of the situation: Washington wanted the friendship of the Canadians (hmm, especially since we wanted the British out of the neighborhood- dangers of foreign force and influence possibly?) and since the Quebecois were all Catholic, celebrating 'Anti-Pope Day' might not have been very politic.

So again, its not necessarily that American leaders can be any less realist than Europeans, its just that they're expected not to be- although, really, I'd say they're victims of their own success. A brilliant professor of mine once said that words create reality: if we say that we are idealist and above realpolitick, then we will be, even when we're not. Contradictory and confusing? Of course, but that's human nature for you.

(I stole the picture and got the links from AndrewSullivan.com. I hope he doesn't mind)

Election Day

Today is Election Day! Don't forget to vote!

Federalist Paper No. 4

In retrospect, Jay’s emphasis in No. 3 on just and unjust wars really was about not giving other nations just cause against America, through foolish actions on the part of individual states or citizens. Jay’s first line in No. 4 is clearer: ‘[the] just causes of war given to other nations’ (my emphasis).

Still, the second paragraph reaffirms my argument that Jay rejects- at least in the public formation of policy- the practices of realpolitik, and war as politics by other means. He doesn’t ignore that realism is a compelling theory of international relations, with powerful players, but he does diminish its legitimacy, calling the practice ‘disgraceful’ to human nature. I do think Jay- all the Founders, really- is trying to move America in a more idealistic direction, by redefining national interest to coincide more firmly with international interest. It’s a barely nascent line of thinking, but one that prevails throughout American political literature, and illustrated by history.

Returning to the Paper.
Jay warns Americans that not only do they need to protect themselves against causing unjust war, but also aggressors in unjust wars. If you remember, in No. 3, Jay fixed the causes of just war as primarily rising from the violation of treaties or direct violence- attack. Under this definition, those who would seek to use force to secure other goals would not have just cause.

Jay gives specific examples, drawn primarily from the pursuit of trade advantages. He mentions rivalries over fisheries (Britain and France) and navigation and shipping (most of the powers of Europe), particularly in shipping to China and India. Now, most people today would suggest using trade sanctions, quotas, subsidies and other mechanisms of economic soft power to diminish America’s advantage. Indeed, mercantilism was a well-understood economic policy, but it was seen more as a means to grow a nation’s wealth (and therefore military potential), rather than project power over other nations. However, and I could definitely be wrong about this; American history wasn’t my preferred topic of study in school; military power was still the primary tool of foreign influence. I’m pretty sure that is what Jay fears here, in part because of his early references to war, and also because he mentions Spain blocking the Mississippi and Britain the St. Lawrence, both of which could only be done and maintained- and defeated- by military might.

In such situations, with such inducements to war, the ‘best possible state of defense’ depends on the ‘government, the arms, and the resources of the country.’ And what form of government, what means of control of arms and resources, could best defend the country? Why, a unified national federation of course!

Jay’s arguments for unification:

1. Broader and deeper pool of resources- human, capital, natural, vegetable, animal, mineral. Not only the best leaders (Jay discussed peace/pre-war time leaders in No. 3, but focuses more on war time leaders here), but the best soldiers, and of course the necessary resources for war. (Paragraph 12)
2. Central authority for mobilizing, distributing and organizing resources- primarily military. (Paragraphs 12-16)
3. Central authority creating regulation- primarily for markets: trade, capital, credit, etc. Established, regulated, and stabilized markets strengthen the so-called “soft power” of a nation. (Mentioned in the last paragraph)

Pretty straightforward, with few surprises. These are the arguments I expected all along. But I’m definitely glad for where Jay took the last Paper.

One Paper left on the Dangers of Foreign Force and Influence: No. 5. Coming Shortly.

Pursuing the Global Common Good

One thing I love about being in DC is the opportunity to attend countless policy events. I try to attend a fair number, on a variety of subjects and so far I've been fairly lucky in their quality. One in particular stands out, not for its stunning brilliance, but rather for the opposite. I studied religion and ethics in international relations in college, so I was particularly excited about the Center for American Progress' event 'Pursuing the Global Common Good' to launch their report of the same name. Instead, I was sorely disappointed.

The event itself wasn't bad, just unoriginal and mediocre, prompting me to tell a friend later: 'If you've seen heard one lecture on morality in the practice of foreign policy goals, you've heard them all.' Still, I held out hope for the report. Some ideas and thoughts don't translate well into events; the report would present each position as it was intended. Sadly, length and thoughtfulness of presentation do nothing positive; rather the sense of a missed opportunity only heightens the disappointment.

Pursuing the Global Common Good is intended as a reader, particularly for those who respond to the call of religion moral teachings. While the report also explores secular moral reasoning, the central arguments stem primarily from the Abrahamic religions. Not surprising, considering the book is in part the work of the Faith and Progressive Policy Initiative at the CAP. Each essay examines an important international issue, treating it within the context of current affairs. The intent is to outline a multifaceted and holistic ethical foreign policy. In that vein, it suggests that there is a role for morality and ethics in the theory and practice of foreign policy, and by extension, a place for peoples of faith within the ranks of policy makers. As a libertarian, I have every interest in maintaining the separation of church and state. But this provision in the Constitution was not meant to exclude people of faith from the practice of statecraft, or even to force them to discount their moral views learned from religious instruction. Indeed, the Founding Fathers were religious men, and their belief that 'all men are created equal' (my emphasis) in God's image, with His Spirit, infuses the American system's logic of inalienable rights, even if Biblical teachings are not cited directly. Plus, since I was a religion minor, from a personal/academic standpoint, I was ready for a good debate. Unfortunately, PtGCG has serious substantive and analytical flaws. While I haven't addressed each essay, most of the specific sources of my disappointment are detailed below.

Introduction I have to say, I think the Introduction was my favorite chapter. Part of the reason I studied anthropology and religion as an IR major was that I am fascinated by concepts of identity (individual and communal) and the influences they have on policymaking. I was especially taken by the appearance of ubunto, a word I became familiar with while writing my thesis. I think it is a fascinating concept, and really enjoyed the author's effort to open it to debate for Western audiences. At some point, my attempt to write about the Introduction developed into an outline for an essay on communalism and liberalism (sample discussion questions: Is individualism inherently modern? Can communalism sometimes be modern?) In the interest of staying on point, I decided to set aside the ubunto piece. It's still in development, but I'll post when its done.

Pursuing the GCG (Title Essay) Each section is more like a set of bullet points. While I can't (and probably wouldn't) argue with any of the points specifically, in total they come across more as many good points set in an outline (not even necessarily in best order) to be written into a longer paper. Unfortunately, all we are presented with is the outline, and not the thesis. There is the requisite Darfur paragraph (not to in any way diminish the events in Darfur, but what about Niger a few years ago, or Somalia even now? Or the Congo, past, present, and possibly forever?- to name just a few. If we're going to be serious about stopping genocide and human rights violations, then lets' actually acknowledge all of them, not just the popular ones). I understand that one of the authors is a Ph.D student at Georgetown, but couldn't he have produced something more than an outline?

Forging a Response to Climate Change: Why Communities of Faith Are Essential
I will admit that I was thrilled to see a section entitled 'The Federal Response' in the essay on global warming; although this work is aimed at an American audience, perhaps, in recognition that this is an international issues, and falls under the jurisdiction of several international governmental organization, the authors meant the US response as one state in a larger (global) system?! Sadly, my hopes were dashed. The authors mean Presidential and Congressional policy responses. Which leads me to a temporary digression for a rant:

In a federation (such as the US), they are ALL 'federal' levels. What the authors meant to say was 'national', as in, 'of the nation.' I don't expect everyone to always get it right, but there are some who should really know better (here's looking at you Washington Post).

A Faithful Case for Intervention: Our Common Responsibility to Protect Humanity and Prevent Atrocities
In this essay, one section discusses the problem of ‘Protecting People under Threat.’ The author, Dr. Elizabeth Ferris, informs the reader that

most of the debate about the responsibility to protect has focused on the use of military force. The International Commission’s impressive work on the responsibility to protect includes many pages of possible actions that can be taken… but most attention has focused on when a military response should be initiated. Yet intervention can be seen on a continuum.

She goes on to list non-military interventions:

fact-finding missions, promises of new assistance or withdrawal of assistance, diplomatic demarches, disinvestment or economic sanctions, monitoring by human rights monitors, police action, deployment of military force, and many others.

And yes, she is correct; there are many ways and means of intervening internationally without resorting to ‘boots on the ground.’ And the authors of Responsibility to Protect do an excellent job of discussing those options. But I think that part of the reason for the focus on the military option is that countries are so loathe to use it. Diplomacy, disinvestment and sanctions are all well-used tools in the international community’s belt (read about the controversy over ‘smart’ sanctions here), with varied results, precisely because they are not military options. Most politicians look first to those options so that they can give the appearance (and occasionally actuality) of acting, without invoking the generally unpopular option of use of force. So, for those who are concerned with preventing genocide and other violations of human rights, more emphasis must be given to military solutions, in order to force a debate on a country’s true level of commitment. All options must be of course discussed, but there are situations in which the use of force is no longer an option, it is a necessity. Rwanda was such a case. Kosovo as well. Darfur has proven itself to also fall into this category. In fact, whenever the threat of genocide is real (whether or not the politicians actually label it as such), we must use force must to prevent it. Economic sanctions are not strong enough. For someone claiming to write a ‘Faithful Case for Intervention,’ I am surprised by Ferris’ failure to honestly discuss the arguments for military intervention. Instead, her superficial mention of the idea seems instead intended to dissuade the reader from supporting the use of force. I am disappointed by her treatment of the subject; I feel that it is almost dishonest. After all, St. Augustine essentially invented the notion of ‘just warfare’, under which the prevention of genocide morally, and legally (1948 International Convention against Genocide- mentioned a page earlier in Ferris’ article) falls.

I generally think that the emphasis of this report may have been a bit off. While keeping in mind that this aims to encourage communities of faith to produce global citizens, CAP is a secular organization, and it is from that perspective that many of its supporters arrive. This work should be a means to: 1. Persuade a secular audience to welcome faith-based actors in to foreign policy on the basis of their common goals and 2. Strengthen the arguments facing secular actors who may disregard (or are pushed away by) realist concerns but are attracted to moral appeals. PtGCG really does neither.

PtGCG is a truly promising abstract, but as a finished piece, it fails to deliver. I expect this quality from undergraduates (of which I was one not all that long ago), but not from graduate students and experienced practitioners. I really hope this is not the CAP's final work on the matter, because it is an important discussion to have in US politics. But we, the American people, deserve, and desperately need, a real debate, with all sides honestly and fully represented. One of my favorite lines from the West Wing is from 'Let Bartlet Be Barlet' in the first season: 'We're going to raise the level of public debate in this country and let that be our legacy'. Why does it take a television show to subscribe to that purpose?! Americans aren't stupid, or apathetic (just overwhelmed). But how can we expect to lead the "free world" if we don't actually discuss what that leadership entails?

Thats really more than I had ever intended to write about this report, so I think I'll stop. I will have to revisit some of the topics discussed here (the Introduction in particular) so those will appear in due time.