Back of the Envelope

Tired of all the talk about the Federal Marriage Amendment? So am I. Let's talk about webcomics instead.

Sluggy Freelance -- Torg gets help from an unlikely ally, while Sam flees the sun, and Arminius and Kent go back to the farm.

Day by Day -- Dave Barry's Kerry story gets a mention. Yay! Followed by still more Kerry bashing. Yay!

It's Walky! -- Sal tries to instruct Walky on the futility of bowing to fate. Or is that resisting fate?

College Roomies from Hell! -- Dave rules! Exorcism by eye lasers is just cool. It's too bad his survival looks so unlikely. Plus the long awaited scene switch takes us back to Diana, Paul, Marsha, and April.

General Protection Fault -- No more nudity, but Trudy has an encounter with the Gamester and some familiar time-traveling characters.

Schlock Mercenary -- Uh oh, Jeevee betrays Tagon and it looks like Xinchub is on his way. Just when you think you've got all the double-crossing figured out, it gets worse.

This news item came out before I had a blog. Here's the key information:

Teams of American specialists, deployed in Pakistan's most sensitive military sites, have formulated launch codes to prevent the unauthorised use of nuclear missiles.
...
America's involvement in compiling missile codes raises the possibility that it might be able to prevent Pakistan from launching its nuclear weapons.

(From the Telegraph via Instapundit.) I don't know if it's true. It has the sound of a rumor, quoting a leader of the Islamist party and an oblique few words from a former US ambassador, saying that Gen Kidwai (who's apparently in charge of Pakistan's arsenal) "has been working very quietly, very slowly with us". Certainly, if this is the case, we shouldn't be finding out about it. We don't want people to know that we're changing Pakistan's launch codes so they need our permission to launch their nuclear weapons. Then again, if it is true, the only downside from the US perspective is that it's gone public. Hopefully, we have lots more stuff like this going on, some of which the public will never find out about.

One reason that the Islamic world views us hostilely is that they believe that our culture is thoroughly dissolute. Considering that their view of our culture comes almost entirely from Hollywood and television, that's not surprising. (The great irony, of course, is that those who most raise the ire of the Islamic world, and who most need to be defended against the violence that results, are among the least willing to support that defense.) Early on, Osama bin Laden's main objective was complete isolation of the Middle East from the West, cutting off the corrupting influence of the West.

It's not surprising that Islam views homosexuality as wrong (so does Christianity and Judaism). However, for the vast majority of the Middle East, homosexuality is not just sinful, it is vile and punishable by death. Imagine, then, their perspective on something like homosexual marriage, and the country that would permit it. A Federal Marriage Amendment, from their view, would show that the US is willing to draw the line somewhere, and share their moral beliefs at least to some degree.

The US should not decide its internal policy according to the views of the rest of the world. Frankly, our policies have succeeded better than those of the Middle East (obviously), or even Europe. However, it's interesting to note the ripples that flow from our decisions. (Old Europe would hate it, obviously, but I'll admit I'm not particularly concerned about that.)

Old Post: I mentioned that this might already be Bush's game plan below.

It looks like I'm not the only one arguing that the amendment should put the gay marriage issue directly before the state legislatures and forbid the courts from gainsaying them. A brief sampling:

Baseball Crank makes his case for "an amendment that would do nothing more than leave exclusively to each state's legislature the question of what kind of marriages or civil unions to approve."

The Wall Street Journal shares its opinion: "We think this entire issue should be decided in the states, by the people through their elected legislators. And if the voters want to alter the definition of marriage as a new social consensus develops, that should be their democratic right."

James Taranto of Best of the Web says

We'd say he [Bush] left the door open to our proposed amendment, which would prevent federal judges from imposing same-sex marriage on the country while leaving states free to enact it if they wish.

If he walks through that door, John Kerry will be in an uncomfortable position. Kerry claims to support "states' rights" on marriage, but he voted against the Defense of Marriage Act, a statute aimed at protecting precisely those rights. If the debate were over a states' rights amendment, he would be forced to choose between his stated position and his most extreme supporters.

John Hawkins of Right Wing News has that if we can't get an amendment defining marriage, then we may be able to get a compromise one:

That would be an Amendment to the full faith and credit clause to insure that the legislators of each state, not the courts, would make the decision on gay marriage and that their rulings would not impact other states. I think that kind of Amendment would have a much better chance of being passed because it would expose anyone who opposed it as zealots who want activist judges to impose their agenda on the rest of the nation.

And I've already mentioned Ramesh Ponnoru, who said, "I favor a constitutional amendment that would block both the federal and the state courts from instituting same-sex marriage, civil unions, or from leaving marriage eligibility alone but extending some of its benefits to the unmarried."

With all these minds coming to the same conclusion (some of them actually, you know, influential, unlike mine), I'm thinking it may actually happen this way. I wish I could take credit for this idea, but hey, they published first, and influenced me in the process. It's a brilliant political move, and could very well give us the amendment. The trick is to get enough Democratic Congressmen to express support for a "moderate" approach in opposition to the "far Right, religiously motivated" amendment, before pulling the rug out from under them. Once enough of them say it should be up to the states, then none of them can protest an amendment which ensures that it's up to the states. Put it in terms of a democratic decision decided by the state legislatures, and the faux-populist Democrats will have trouble coming up with an argument that doesn't sound like it comes straight from a lobbyist's mouth. They can splutter all they want about bigotry, but what they're really arguing is that the American people are inherently bigoted, so they can't be trusted to write their own laws. As for approval by the states--there's no way they wouldn't sign on to this. First, it solidifies the power of state legislatures, and I can't see legislators refusing that. Second, thirty-eight states have already passed laws or state constitutional amendments forbidding gay marriage. Third, the Massachusetts legislature will leap at the chance to give their bossy Supreme Court a black eye, so there's one more.

The only danger I can see is if I'm wrong about Bush and the Republicans in Congress. Are they willing to compromise for an amendment that will pass, as opposed to one that won't? Can they get it past the Democrats who will try to hole it up in committee, deride it as bigoted, and do everything in their power to keep it from a fair hearing and a fair vote? Once it's up for a vote, I think most Democrats will vote for this, because it's identical to their stated position, and they'll face the wrath of the voters if they don't.

Update: David Frum goes into reasons why a state by state solution wouldn't work. I may say more on this once I've had a chance to think about it.

New Post: Orrin Hatch supports this solution, above.

Old Post: I posted on this before below.

Joe Carter at the Evangelical Outpost proposes something very similar to what I've proposed:

The compromise I propose is that if same-sex marriages are to be allowed they should be virtually indissoluble and would be excluded from "no-fault" divorce statutes. Divorce would be allowed only in extreme circumstances such as adultery, a felony conviction leading to imprisonment, desertion for over a year, or physical abuse.

Of course, what I proposed was different in that I thought we could get rid of "no-fault" divorce for everyone while creating gay marriage, rather than applying the stringent rules just to gay marriage.

I've been thinking about the Massachusetts Supreme Court's Goodridge decision which says that the Massachusetts legislature must pass the laws in order to legalize gay marriage. My specific thought is "Huh?" Even Glenn Reynolds says, "Though I'm in favor of gay marriage, the Massachusetts opinion is just unpersuasive. There's astonishingly little in the way of actual legal analysis there, and that hurts them." I figure that if the Massachusetts supreme court cannot be bothered to write an actual legal opinion, why should the Massachusetts legislature be bothered to write an actual law? For that matter, they could say, "The Massachusetts Supreme Court has no authority to tell the legislature what laws to write. If they try to do it again, we'll impeach the lot of them." I'm not sure whether the Massachusetts state constitution would allow them to do that, but I like the precedent that would set. It would do a lot to curtail the overreaching of the courts.

Old Post: My last post on this topic was here.

I've wondered why, when Bush announced his support for a Federal Marriage Amendment, that he did not propose a particular wording for it. One possibility is that, since the president has no real role to play in the amendment process, he's simply stating his support for it and letting Congress decide how to do it. There is another possibility, and that assumes that he really wants the amendment to happen. By stating his support but not proposing an amendment, he's giving the media and his political opponents time to react and stake out their positions. Most Democrats are, predictably enough, stating that they oppose gay marriage (it's not too popular with the general public), but that it's a matter for states to decide, and shouldn't be put into an amendment. However, if they stake out that position, then there are certain ways the amendment could be worded, such as the one I presented below, that would be in line with their position, and their platforms would be pulled out from under them. In essence, Bush is getting them to voice support for an amendment they haven't seen by letting them voice opposition to the amendments they have seen. It's similar to what he did in his State of the Union, "Key provisions of the Patriot Act are set to expire next year. (Applause from Democrats.) The terrorist threat will not expire on that schedule. (Applause from Republicans.)" If he gives them enough rope, they'll hang themselves. The assumption here is that he's serious about preventing the introduction of gay marriage by fiat, and is more interested in passing an amendment than playing politics with it. A compromise amendment will be much less satisfactory to his base, but it has a much greater chance of happening.

New Post: I'm not the only one who thinks this is a good idea. Above.

I haven't said anything about Mel Gibson's movie, The Passion, yet, and I don't intend to say anything until I've at least seen the movie. I will be doing that eventually, but I don't know when. Meanwhile, Doc Rampage has some thoughts on the anti-semitism charge here and here.

Like I said, no comment, although it's hard to imagine it being anti-semitic when most of the characters, good and bad, are Jewish. All right, maybe that was just a little comment.

Old Post: My original comments are below.

In the previous post I said, "You know, if this were not in direct defiance to California's laws, I wouldn't be so bothered by this. At least it's an elected official doing this, and San Francisco being San Francisco, I doubt he's acting against the public will." Captain Ed explains why this is the wrong attitude (in a post that clearly has nothing to do with mine, by the way): "Legislatures make law, not the executive or the judiciary; the executive enforces law. Saying that the legal process is satisfied when any old elected official creates a law is to argue for the abolition of Congress." I'd defend my position, but it's not really defensible. I didn't really think it through, beyond relief that at least someone reasonably representative of the people was involved in the decision this time. I could probably argue that I was technically in the right, since my whole argument was that this was outside of his authority. And hey, I was just conceding a point before I went on the attack anyway. But that would be weaselly.

I've noticed something interesting among generally pro-Bush bloggers. Whenever he does something they agree with, he is principled and making the right decision (John Hawkins on gay marriage, Citizen Smash on immigration reform). Whenever, he's doing something they disagree with, it's pure political pandering (John Hawkins on immigration reform, Neal Boortz on the Federal Marriage Amendment). I'm curious about this. There's good evidence that Bush's principles make him for reforming immigration and against gay marriage (that whole Evangelical Christian thing). Is it really more important that we perceive Bush as being on our side than seeing him as principled? Perhaps Shannon Love was right, and it's all about having a president who agrees with us, in principle, on everything, even if he occasionally has to act differently for political reasons.

Of course, this isn't a problem for the anti-Bush bloggers, since from their perspective Bush has no principles and is always pandering for votes. In my personal opinion, Bush does have principles, but there are strong principles and weak principles. Strong principles include the defense of America, the right of the people to decide their laws rather than the courts, and the spread of democracy. Weak principles include balanced budgets and free trade. He's shown considerable willingness to take political risks based on the strong principles. Weak principles are more like good ideas, which can be compromised on.

Old Post: My last post on the Federal Marriage Amendment is here.

One of the arguments against gay marriage is that by redefining marriage you weaken the institution. Those in favor of gay marriage argue that gay marriage won't do any more harm to the institution of marriage than heterosexual divorce has already done. To which the response is that since marriage is already in such bad shape, why in the world whould you want to deliver the coup de grace?

I have two reasons to oppose gay marriage:

1. Religious: In the Bible, God clearly defines marriage as the union between a man and a woman, so that's what it is. You may call something else "marriage," but that doesn't make it one. That doesn't prevent the state from calling something else marriage (and indeed they do), but this is only a legal definition, and doesn't make it so in God's eyes or mine.

2. Process: It is up to the state legislatures to decide how to define legal marriage (this does not affect the spiritual truth one way or another), not the courts or city mayors. Since aside from the spiritual aspect, the social aspect of marriage is the main effect, it is important that the legal definition of marriage follow the social definition, and thus be decided by the elected representatives.

To be honest, the survival of marriage argument never did much for me. Orthodox churches will continue to define marriage by the Biblical definition, they will continue to encourage marriage within their congregations, and they will continue to marry only those who meet the religious definition. That doesn't mean that marriage can't be damaged in society as a whole, just that it can't be killed as long as Americans are a religious people.

Still, the idea is to strengthen, not weaken, marriage, and I think the most damaging thing to marriage today is no-fault divorce. It's hard to imagine that the existence of gay marriage will do more harm than that. I'll give you a couple of guesses as to who gave us no-fault divorce. Hint: it wasn't the religious or social conservatives. It was largely the same people and groups who are now pushing for gay marriage. A cynic might think they were trying to harm marriage or something, but assuming that's not the case, and that the gays who want to marry have a vested interest in making marriage a stronger institution, I have a proposal: If you'll help me repeal no-fault divorce, I'll help you get gay marriage. We'll put them both in the same bill before the state legislatures. Yes, from my perspective, changing the legal definition doesn't really make it marriage, but sure, you can call it that, and in the process we'll be cementing the marriages which meet the definition.

New Post: Thoughts on President Bush's tactics here.

I was wondering whether it might be worthwhile to register a domain name for my blog, so I checked to see whether www.backoftheenvelope.com was available. Kind of ironic, isn't it?

Old Post: This seems silly, but it is policy. Look below for the previous post on this.

The blogosphere is afire with this topic. There are quite a few libertarian blogs out there who are generally in favor of Bush's policies when it comes to the war on terror, but are quite upset about this. I'm not saying too much before I see the text. I am personally against gay marriage for religious reasons. However, I believe that it is the responsibility of the state legislatures (not the state courts) to define this issue, and if Vermont decides to create gay marriage, fine. The trouble is the full faith and credit clause in the Constitution:

Article IV

Section 1. Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.

The second sentence should allow Congress to make an exception in the case of marriage, which it has in the Defense of Marriage Act. The problem is that sooner or later the DOMA will come up before the Supreme Court, and it will likely strike it down, if past decisions are any indication. So I can see a need for an Amendment, it's just not clear what it should be. My preference would be to curtail the power of the courts, which I think is the root problem here. As that is apparently too broad for most people, I guess we'll see something addressed to marriage. I might as well offer my suggestion, just in case W drops by this blog:

Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any State, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any couple or group aside from the union of one man and one woman unless explicitly defined otherwise in state law. No state shall be required to recognize the marital status or legal incidents thereof conferred by any other state aside from the union of one man and one woman.

This is adapted from one of the proposed amendments, and makes it clear that gay marriage would have to be explicitly enacted in state law, and no court can say otherwise. This is close to what Ramesh Ponnuru proposes.

New Post: More on gay marriage here.

Old Post: A discussion of an alternative to the FMA starts here.

Well, it looks like the president didn't take my advice and address the root cause of the problem. Instead, he's supporting a Federal Marriage Amendment:

Today, I call upon the Congress to promptly pass and to send to the states for ratification an amendment to our Constitution defining and protecting marriage as a union of a man and woman as husband and wife.

The amendment should fully protect marriage, while leaving the state legislatures free to make their own choices in defining legal arrangements other than marriage.

He hasn't said what exact wording he would want yet, at least that I could find. I'd like to see that before I comment too much. My preference would be something that prevented the courts from imposing gay marriage while still allowing the legislature to implement it if the people wanted, but from his statement above, it looks like he wants the actual definition of marriage within the amendment.

The irony is that gay and lesbian activists, attempting to circumvent popular will by seeking court action rather than the legislative process, may have managed to block their own path. Overturning a constitutional amendment will be a much more difficult undertaking than convincing a state legislature to redefine marriage to their liking.

Update: It looks like Captain's Quarters has a similar view.

New Post: More here.

Old Post: My original Syria conspiracy theory is here.

There's lots of news coming out of Syria recently. On the bright side, it looks like they're interested in restarting negotiations with Israel. I'd cite that as evidence for my conspiracy theory, but I'd also have to deal with the counter-evidence that they seem to be providing aid to the terrorist forces in Iraq. So maybe my theory isn't so accurate after all. Or maybe it's more complicated than I thought. A true conspiracy theorist could work these bits of counter-evidence in.

In any case, conspiracy or not, there's evidence that there's a growing pro-democracy movement in Syria in this story:

More than half a million Syrians demanded political and economic reform in a petition to be handed to President Bashar Assad, a human rights group said Saturday.

Some 600,000 citizens, including intellectuals, lawyers and human rights activists, have already signed the document, the Committees for the Defense of Democratic Liberties and Human Rights in Syria said.

The group said it hoped for a million signatures by March. Syria has a population of around 18 million.

One million is a significant fraction (5.5%) when the population is 18 million. Even 600,000 (3.3%) is nothing to be sneezed at. That that many people are unafraid to put their names on a petition indicates a real possibility of positive reform.

(Thanks to Instapundit and Winds of Change for the links)

It's always dangerous to talk about black issues when you're not black (as I'm not). However, I do think there are interesting forces at play here, and I think I can address them objectively. I'll do my best.

The black vote is one of the bedrock supporters of the Democratic party. Over 90% of it went to Al Gore in the 2000 election. This is not good for the Republicans, who have for the most part given up on winning these votes, nor is it good for the black community, who are taken for granted by the Democrats. It is assumed by some politicians in both parties that the black community is concerned only about "black" issues, and will tolerate any other policies important to the Democratic web of special issues. I don't believe that this is the case, and there are a number of reasons to believe that this important vote is in play this year.

Reasons why the black vote may be in play
War on Terror -- The War on Terror affects everyone, and this includes the black community, whose view of this struggle is probably closer to President Bush's than John Kerry's.

Military -- Blacks are a larger percentage of the military than of society as a whole. The military has a great deal of respect for Bush, a worldview which appreciates the necessity for the use of force, and a better knowledge of the facts on the ground in Afghanistan and Iraq. This doesn't make every one of them a Republican, but they are more amenable to Bush himself. They still don't make up a huge portion of the black community, but considering the public's awareness and respect for the military right now, they have significant influence on their communities.

Vouchers -- Many in the black community in Washington, DC, have come out in support of vouchers. The national Democrats, who are beholden to the teachers' unions, are strongly against them.

Gay Marriage -- Black churches in Boston, MA, are opposing gay marriage (thanks to Donald Sensing for the link), and it looks like this may be a dividing line between them and the Democratic candidate. Kerry is now supporting it. Bush is looking for a way to prevent gay marriage from being imposed by judicial fiat.

Religion -- Bush is an openly religious evangelical Christian. This makes him closer to most of the black community in spiritual matters than Kerry could hope to be.

Bush's Politics -- Bush is a moderate, who has been slow to take a stance on hot button civil rights issues, such as affirmative action, even when we conservatives wish he would. This does provide an opening here, however.

Bush's Administration -- Bush's administration contains a number of high-profile, moderate African-Americans, most noticeably Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice.

Actions to put the black vote in play
Bush isn't going to be getting the NAACP endorsement anytime soon. He may, however, be able to make an end-run around the national organizations which believe they can deliver the black vote to the Democrats.

Public Speaking -- Black churches often invite Democratic politicians to speak. They're unlikely to invite Bush to speak to them, but if Bush were to ask for an opportunity, I think a lot of them would grant it. These talks would be good for Bush, as this is the sort of audience whose spiritual outlook he can strongly relate with. It is important not to use these talks to attack the Democratic candidates, and most certainly not Democrats in general (most of the audience have voted Democratic all their lives). He would need to talk positively about his vision for America and how it benefits them. This also gives him a chance to talk about his own spiritual life. The main purpose of these talks would be to give these communities a chance to get to know him as he is, not as the caricature which the Democrats are making him out to be.

Small Group Sessions -- Bush does well meeting with small groups of people, and meeting with black community leaders, interacting with them and discussing their concerns, would give them both a chance to know one another.

Policy -- As I've already pointed out, Bush is on the right side of many of the policy issues important to black voters. What about affirmative action? That's the ones that Republicans are, by definition, against, and blacks are, by definition, for, right? There may be some middle ground. Even conservatives can admit that affirmative action served a useful purpose (even if they think it was an unconstitutional way to bring it about). Even liberals will say that it should not continue forever (even if they don't really mean it). Extending affirmative action too far is patronizing to the beneficiaries, minimizing their accomplishments, and creating bitterness for those who are slighted by it, whether that slight is real or perceived, ultimately exacerbating racial tensions. At some point it will have to end, and it is reasonable to ask what criteria we can use to tell it is time. There may be a means to enact a sunset provision, hinted at but not required by O'Conner's Michigan decision.

Result
It is unrealistic to expect Bush to win 60% of the black vote. The stated goal of the Bush campaign is 15%. I think it may be possible to get higher, perhaps as high as 25%. The ultimate goal is to get black voters to seriously consider the Republican party as friendly to their community, rather than viewing it with distrust and supporting the Democrats as a bloc.

New Posts: More on Black churches and gay marriage here. More on how Kerry is his own worst enemy in winning the Black vote here.

I'm afraid that I won't be posting it inline, but I wanted to point out a Sluggy Freelance comic on UN weapons inspectors, circa October 2002. Look at the whole week's worth of comics if you want context. If you need more context than that, you need to read the whole archives.

Old Post: My most recent mention of Dave Barry's Kerry DYKWIA story is here.

It looks like Dave Barry's Kerry story, which I dug up, is getting a lot of play on the Internet, including in a comic from Chris Muir's Day by Day. It makes me feel all warm inside.




Day By Day© by Chris Muir. Used with permission.


Update: I revised the post a bit to give clearer credit to Chris Muir.

You know, if this were not in direct defiance to California's laws, I wouldn't be so bothered by this. At least it's an elected official doing this, and San Francisco being San Francisco, I doubt he's acting against the public will. There is the problem of full faith and credit, and I'm not certain whether it applies to cities rather than just states. I think in order for a city to issue state-recognized documents, they need the permission of the state, so that part is problematic. Anyway, the state law clearly makes the whole thing illegal, so this isn't surprising (thanks to Donald Sensing for the link):

Many of the more than 3,000 same-sex couples who obtained marriage licenses from the city said getting married was among the most joyous events in their lives. But because of legal uncertainty and political controversy, the certificates don't appear to be worth much more than sentimental value at this point.

I'm sorry, I just don't have much sympathy for them. Unless they were terribly naive, they knew this was against California's laws. Heck, the news program they heard about this from probably told them that in the next sentence. They decided to risk the legal uncertainties, probably more to make a statement than because they were expecting it to stick. If the gamble fails, well then, it was their choice to put up the stakes.

New Post: Some unrelated thoughts by Captain Ed force me to rethink my leading concession above.

I wasn't planning on saying anything more tonight, but when I read this, I felt my gorge rising. It first occurred to me that Kerry wasn't as smart as he thought he was when he claimed that it was good to see that the White House had finally tried diplomacy rather than force to get a deal with Gaddafi, as if the use of force in Iraq had no influence on Gaddafi's decision to give up his WMDs. Now I'm certain of it (thanks to Captain's Quarters for the link):

In a letter to Bush, Kerry wrote: "As you well know, Vietnam was a very difficult and painful period in our nation's history, and the struggle for our veterans continues. So, it has been hard to believe that you would choose to reopen these wounds for your personal political gain. But, that is what you have chosen to do."

Kerry was reacting to criticism earlier in the day from a leading Georgia Republican who, speaking for Bush's re-election campaign, predicted trouble for Kerry in the state's primary.

Sen. Saxby Chambliss said during a conference call arranged by the Bush campaign that Kerry has a "32-year history of voting to cut defense programs and cut defense systems."

First, can someone please show me where President Bush said anything at all? Second, can someone please show me where Chambliss said anything about Vietnam? Third, who has attacked whose Vietnam service? You know, it's not as if Kerry returned from Vietnam yesterday. It might just be that his voting record for the last thirty years is more revealing of his position on national defense than his service in Vietnam. If Kerry wants to pretend that the last 30 years of his life did not happen [Better make that 34, you don't want to include that Congressional testimony. -ed.], then, well, he is no smarter than he claims Bush is. Not for believing it has no bearing on his national defense positions, because I'm sure he's not stupid enough to believe that, but for believing the American people will buy his argument that it doesn't.

In the debates, I would love to see Bush ask Kerry, "Senator, are you saying that your votes in the Senate do not reflect your positions on national defense?" Or, "Senator, which do you believe is more revealing of our national defense positions, our actions thirty years ago, or our actions since September 11th, 2001? I won two wars, what did you do?" Or, "Senator, if you wish to run this campaign based on our actions in the 1970s, then I'll gladly comply. Let's start with your 1971 Congressional testimony. Here, I have a clip..."

Update: Sometimes, when I look back on what I wrote the night before, I wish I had slept on it. I don't like calling anyone an idiot, even Democratic presidential candidates who make me want to tear my hair out when they talk. I've toned the post down. Some.

Update: I couldn't resist. I added a bit more sarcasm to my hypothetical debate.

Old Post: This is a continuation of the discussion here.

Doc Rampage lists his answers to my objections. He makes some good points, although I don't think his response to the political question of the Brown test is as strong as he thinks. Yes, it is probably possible to make a case that the Brown decision is solid on Constitutional grounds even with this amendment in place, but politically that matters less than the public perception, and I think that those who will oppose this amendment can raise serious enough doubts about what the Brown ruling would have been if the justices had been constrained by this amendment that it will have a hard time passing.

He also says he's uncomfortable discussing this matter too much where real experts on the law such as Glenn Reynolds and Eugene Volokh can comment on our ignorance. Heh, I thought that was the point. To get them to comment, that is.

This may become a regular feature, especially on Sundays where there's not much to talk about and I feel pretty lazy anyway. In any case, here's a list of my posts which I don't regret writing:

Federal Marriage Amendment Alternative -- My first post discussing an amendment aimed directly at judicial activism, which sparked my first interblog debate.

Conspiracy Theory -- What if Syria really does have Iraq's WMDs? What if Bush already knows this?

A few questions for Mr. Kerry -- Questions I'd like to ask Kerry about his 1971 Congressional testimony.

Christianity and the Nanny State -- My thoughts on Joe Carter's thoughts on Matthew Yglesias's thoughts on a Christian libertarian's thoughts on... Christian libertarianism.

Why name your blog "Back of the Envelope," anyway? -- What's in a name?

Do You Know Who I Am? -- The post that started a Cornerlanche. Dave Barry on Kerry's elitism.

Bush's Immigration Plan -- My thoughts on the matter. Hint: Ambivalent, but I don't think it's mercenary pandering.

Ideological Purity and the War on Terror -- I have little patience for conservatives who feel that Bush's moderate politics are reason enough to stay home in November.

Why Iraq? -- The reasons I think Iraq was not just a necessary step, but the necessary next step, in the war on terror.

Kerry minus thirty years -- I rant and rave about Kerry's inability to discuss any part of his record which occurred after he returned from Vietnam.