You Have the Right to Remain Silent

Thanks to countless television shows and movies, I think you'd be hard pressed to find someone in America that doesn't know about the Miranda Warnings. Keeping those rights in mind, watch the video below (Hat tip: Blue Collar Muse).



This is not a partisan issue. The previous administration put the TSA in place under the guise of safeguarding America. The intrusion on freedom and privacy concerned me then, and it concerns me now. Review history, and you'll discover that it does not take long for governments to move from intrusive to oppressive. There are ample number of examples on the left and the right.

It is easy to look back at how the Nazi's round up Jews during World War II and wonder how all of those millions of people allowed themselves to be loaded up into cattle cars and taken to their deaths. Yet, look at how quickly we've given up the right to move freely around the country. It's been less than 10 years, and already the nation has grown accustomed to moving through cattle lines for processing and being detained for questioning.

The Nazi's did not start filing people into ovens from Day One. There were steps that were taken to acclimate the public over a number of years. They were taken in the name of national interest.

The continued and ever growing encroachment on our personal freedoms coupled with the global economic crisis and escalation of the threats by North Korea and in the Middle East are a combination that historically have set the stage for increased government control and oppression.

Am I being overly alarmist? I don't think so. As George Santayana so aptly wrote, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

Today, I turn 40. I would like to enjoy for the next forty years of my life the same freedoms I have enjoyed during the first forty. But, more importantly, I'd like my children and their children's children to enjoy those freedoms. For that to happen, we must ALL safeguard those freedoms regardless of political persuasion. We are no longer at the precipice of a slippery slope. We are now sliding down it.

Here We Go Again

There is a right way and a wrong way to do things. When it comes to passing laws, that right way is to introduce a bill at the legislative level and let those for and against a particular bill make their case. Then, if the bill gets passed, it is up to the Governor to sign or veto it. Pretty simple to understand, right?

Then someone please explain to me why Governor Richardson and his appointees continue to struggle with this relatively easy concept?

In the absence of state legislation, New Mexico officials will continue to try to work with other Western Climate Initiative members to flesh out details of the cap-and-trade system they still hope to pursue, said Sarah Cottrell, Gov. Bill Richardson's energy and environment adviser.

The state will also look at other steps that can be taken administratively, without the need for legislation, Cottrell said.

This administration, more than any other, has repeatedly tried to undermine the legislative process when they have been unhappy with the outcome of a particular bill. The bill in question HB653: Mandates Green House Gas Reductions, was widely considered "a Governor's bill" which makes this maneuver even worse.

This is not the first time this administrative slight of hand has occurred, and I've given an example before of why this should give everyone pause regardless of whether you support or oppose the bill in question. That example is worth repeating again here:

Before the environmentalists among you leave comments that support the Governor's mandate over the constitutional process we still have for making laws. Let me put this in another context for you. Let's take an issue like abortion that pretty evenly divides the population. Should a pro-life Governor be able to appoint a regulatory body to regulate abortion?

How supportive would those who are pro-choice react if this body some evening at midnight decided to ban abortion throughout the state? Would you be okay with the pro-life Governor's edict that:

“The Ban Abortions Program is a key part of our state’s effort to reduce the murder of the unborn to avoid the worst effects of a misguided planet,” said Governor Conservative. “Today’s decision by the Life Improvement Board means New Mexico can implement the most stringent standards for protecting the sanctity of life in the country. New Mexico is again taking action, when Washington won’t.”

Like I said, it's a slippery slope.

It's still a slippery slope.

Personal Character Trumps Ethics Legislation

You cannot legislate ethical behavior. I know. I'm beginning to sound like a broken record on this subject. But, it's true. You might recall that Governor Bill Richardson, our Governor who is currently under federal investigation for the rampant pay-to-play practices of his administration, convened an ethics task force some time ago to come up with recommendations on how to create an ethical government. Yeah, the irony here is overwhelming.

You might also recall that as part of the "solution package" for making government more ethical there was a recommendation to put legislators on the payroll. Maybe, you even remember the rationale provided by one former Governor:

Carruthers said the panel may discuss something he has long favored - a stipend for lawmakers, who are unpaid although they get expense reimbursement.

When legislators are uncompensated, "there's always one or two that might feel it necessary to take some compensation in another way,'' said Carruthers, who is dean of business at New Mexico State University.

Now, I completely disagree with Governor Carruthers that giving unethical people a salary is going to make them walk the straight and narrow. In fact, if we think of all of the people who have been thrown in jail, or who are under investigation, for unethical and illegal behavior, we will find that most of them were pulling down a rather nice salary at the time.

With that said, it does look like Governor Carruthers was dead on when he stated, "there's always one or two that might feel it necessary to take some compensation in another way." Take Senate Judiciary Chairman Cisco McSorley for example:

Essentially, Cisco McSorley, D-Albuquerque, is taking the per diem and other reimbursements he is entitled to from the state for travel as a lawmaker, then also reimbursing himself for additional travel expenses out of his campaign fund.

But, wait, it gets better...

McSorley, according to the Journal, “said he has done nothing wrong and that he doesn’t consider the per diem he receives from the state to be an allowance for lodging, meals and incidental expenses.

“That is supposed to be trying to make up for what I lost at home” while away from work, the Journal quoted McSorley as saying.

You've got to be kidding me. Senator McSorley is Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, and he is a lawyer. Which leaves us only two possible conclusions with regard to his statement that per diem is intended to replace lost wages:

1. he is inept.
   
   OR
   
   
2. he is unethical.
   

How do we limit it to just these two possibilities? Simple. Let's look at number one first. The New Mexico Constitution is crystal clear on the purpose of per diem, and how it is to be calculated:

Sec. 10. [Compensation of members.]

Each member of the legislature shall receive:

A. per diem at the internal revenue service per diem rate for the city of Santa Fe for each day's attendance during each session of the legislature and the internal revenue service standard mileage rate for each mile traveled in going to and returning from the seat of government by the usual traveled route, once each session as defined by Article 4, Section 5 of this constitution;

B. per diem expense and mileage at the same rates as provided in Subsection A of this section for service at meetings required by legislative committees established by the legislature to meet in the interim between sessions; and

The same section of our state constitution is equally clear when it comes to additional types of compensation our legislators entitled to receive for providing legislative services:

C. no other compensation, perquisite or allowance. (As amended November 7, 1944, September 15, 1953, November 2, 1971, November 2, 1982 and November 5, 1996.)

That's right "no other compensation, perquisite or allowance" is permitted. Since paying legislators a salary has come up several times during Senator McSorley's tenure, it is can only be assumed that he is inept if he is unaware of these prohibitions. Alternately, if he is aware of these constitutional limitations, then that leaves us to conclude that he has been acting, at best, unethically.

So, which is it?

I Believe Plates

I just need to preface this post with a little reminder... I'm Jewish. Why is that important? Well, it provides perspective. I simply don't understand this nonsense about suing the state of South Carolina to keep people from having "I Believe" plates on their cars:

"I do believe these 'I Believe' plates will not see the light of day because the courts, I'm confident, will see through this," said the Rev. Barry Lynn, the group's executive director.

The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court for South Carolina, asks a judge to stop the state from making the plates and rule that the law allowing them violates the First Amendment.

Seriously, I don't get what all the hoopla is about. "State law allows private groups to create specialty plates as long as they first collect either a $4,000 deposit or 400 prepaid orders." So, someone can create plates for their favorite University team, charitable organization or anything else for that matter, but people go bonkers if they want to advertise their faith?

Let's get real here. People are already advertising their beliefs on the their vehicles. Heck, it seems like every fifth car in New Mexico has a little fish on their trunk (with and without legs). Is anyone offended? I'm not.

Allowing people to express their beliefs is yet another thing that makes this country great.

There is absolutely nothing stopping another religious entity from creating their own customized plates, so live and live is what I say. Plus, if we're paying for those dang plates anyway, shouldn't we be able to customize them as we see fit?

A Man Who Knows About Monarchies

Governor Bill Richardson and Clinton strategist James Carville appear to have had an entertaining little debate on Larry King. This is by far my favorite part of the exchange (subscription):

Richardson told King that he believes Clinton was too negative during her quest to win Pennsylvania.

There's a sense of "clinging to the throne," Richardson said, clearly referring to the Clinton camp. "You know, we're America, we're not Monaco."

This coming from a man who has made a habit of tossing aside the New Mexico Constitution when it suits his needs. I hope during the next legislative session our legislators take time to remind the Governor that "You know, we're America, we're not Monaco." After all, they don't call him King Bill for nothing.

Governor Richardson Violates State Constitution

I know what you're thinking, this isn't news. Governor Richardson's tenure, when visiting the state, has been chock full of state constitution violations, but this is the most recent:

Gov. Bill Richardson's administration probably violated the state constitution when it asked the state's two largest universities to pick up part of the salaries for three high-level appointees this year, according to the Attorney General's Office.

Some other recent example of the Governor's disregard for the laws of the land include:

1. Richardson appointed regulatory body supplants legislature and creates law.
2. Richardson threatens to cut legislature out of the process
3. Richardson has a pattern of overstepping authority.

Well, at least it looks AG King is going to enforce the law of the land as opposed to rewrite it like his predecessor.

Beware Regulation Gone Wild

Uh oh, they're at it again. Governor Richardson's appointees are doing his bidding and ignoring the fact that in New Mexico it is the legislature, not appointed regulatory bodies serving at the pleasure of the Governor, that are supposed to create laws:

New Mexico became the first Intermountain state to implement the Clean Car program today after the Environmental Improvement Board voted late last night to approve the regulations that address climate change by reducing greenhouse gas emissions from cars.

The program, which will become effective Jan. 1, 2008, requires car manufacturers to sell and lease vehicles that meet the standards beginning with model year 2011. The program only applies to new vehicles and will not affect new or used cars sold before that model year.

“The Clean Cars Program is a key part of our state’s effort to reduce global warming emissions to the levels necessary to avoid the worst effects of a warming planet,” said Governor Richardson. “Today’s decision by the Environmental Improvement Board means New Mexico can implement the cleanest standards for vehicle emissions in the country. New Mexico is again taking action, when Washington won’t.”

And there you have it, the Governor's reason for brushing aside the lawmaking process is so that he can have that all important sound bite for his doomed presidential campaign: "New Mexico is again taking action, when Washington won't."

Maybe that has something to do with the fact that the rest of the country is still run like a Democracy?

Regardless of where you stand on the issue of emission standards, you should be troubled by a regulatory body acting in a way that completely eliminates the legislative process. This is a very dangerous slope. The people on this body are not accountable to anyone in New Mexico other than the Governor - and he hasn't spent any significant time in New Mexico in months.

There is no deliberation involved here. There is simply one man dictating the law of the land, and single-handedly changing that law at the witching hour with little to no public input. This is just wrong. You have a Democratic Governor with a Democratic controlled legislature. If this is what is in the best interest of New Mexico, then he should put it on the Legislative agenda for the session and get it passed legally.

Before the environmentalists among you leave comments that support the Governor's mandate over the constitutional process we still have for making laws. Let me put this in another context for you. Let's take an issue like abortion that pretty evenly divides the population. Should a pro-life Governor be able to appoint a regulatory body to regulate abortion?

How supportive would those who are pro-choice react if this body some evening at midnight decided to ban abortion throughout the state? Would you be okay with the pro-life Governor's edict that:

“The Ban Abortions Program is a key part of our state’s effort to reduce the murder of the unborn to avoid the worst effects of a misguided planet,” said Governor Conservative. “Today’s decision by the Life Improvement Board means New Mexico can implement the most stringent standards for protecting the sanctity of life in the country. New Mexico is again taking action, when Washington won’t.”

Like I said, it's a slippery slope.

A Paycheck By Any Other Name

A paycheck is a paycheck. You can call it something else (subscription), but it is still a paycheck:

The measures would give each New Mexico lawmaker $16,000 a year for legislative expenses, establish an independent ethics commission that could recommend disciplinary action, and place limits on gifts and campaign contributions to state public officials and political candidates.

It is ironic that ethics legislation would begin by doing something that is contrary to the state constitution:

Sec. 10. [Compensation of members.]

Each member of the legislature shall receive:

A. per diem at the internal revenue service per diem rate for the city of Santa Fe for each day's attendance during each session of the legislature and the internal revenue service standard mileage rate for each mile traveled in going to and returning from the seat of government by the usual traveled route, once each session as defined by Article 4, Section 5 of this constitution;

B. per diem expense and mileage at the same rates as provided in Subsection A of this section for service at meetings required by legislative committees established by the legislature to meet in the interim between sessions; and

C. no other compensation, perquisite or allowance. (As amended November 7, 1944, September 15, 1953, November 2, 1971, November 2, 1982 and November 5, 1996.)

And here I thought only the people could vote on changes to the constitution. Oh well, I guess once the legislature decided that big retirement bonuses were ok, it was only a matter of time before they pushed for paychecks.