Birthright Citizenship Again

The Supreme Court has decided to rule on whether Trump can modify Birthright Citizenship through executive order. I have a bad feeling about this.

If a president can declare a portion of the Constitution null and void, or declare there are exceptions to it, then of what use is the Constitution? 

Yes, I understand the "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" arguments. But the phrase simply means under the authority of U.S. law. It therefore excludes foreign rulers, foreign diplomats, people on board foreign ships and foreign armies. At the time it also excluded the Native American tribes. 

Immigrants, both legal and illegal, are under the authority of U.S. law and therefore "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." That fact that US authorities can arrest and imprison an illegal alien for committing a crime demonstrates that. There has never been any doubt about the meaning of this phrase. There was no doubt about it when the Senate debated it, and no doubt about it when the court ruled in US v. Wong Kim Ark. 

If the court allows Trump, or any other president, to modify the meaning of the Constitution then the Constitution would be in serious need of defending.

This SCOTUS is already going to go down as the worst, most boot licking court in history but allowing an executive order to modify the meaning of the Constitution would be a violation of their oaths.

The Oklahoma University Essay

There is a bit of a bruhaha at OH over a student writing a paper about an article on gender where she cited the Bible. She was given a 0 out of 25. She filed a discrimination complaint with the school and the governor's office (!?).

The result is the instructor has been placed on administrative leave. I have seen some references saying that they were trans but I'm not sure how true that is.

I read the paper. My major problem with it is that it makes multiple assertions without citation. For any of those assertions she could have cited an appropriate Bible verse. In some cases she does, but in most she doesn't.

She obviously believes the Bible is an authority on the subject but she never clearly establishes that as a basis for her argument.

I think I would have done three things with the paper. (1) Tell her that she needed to establish early on that in her opinion the Bible is an authority. (2) Identified every assertion without a citation (and there are a lot) and (3) Pointed out that her argument would have been stronger if she had justified using the Bible as an authority.

I would have subtracted 2 points for (1) and 6 points for (2) but nothing for (3). So 17 out of 25 strikes me as a fair grade. That's a C or C-.

Then again, I got my degree in 1969 when you bled for any grade above a C. Given today's grading standards, I probably would have given her a 22 out of 25, subtracting only 1 point and 2 points each for my citation criticisms. That's an B or B+. There is no way this paper deserves 25 out of 25 or 0 out of 25.

Reimmigration

Reimmigration making the rounds in Europe and has not effectively popped up in a Trump tirade although he used "Reverse Migration" instead. Basically it's the idea of kicking out all of the immigrants that are causing issues real or imagined.

Let's not get hung up on a term. The bottom line is that Trump and his cronies are looking for an excuse to revisit the status of people here under protected status, with green cards and perhaps even naturalized citizens. 

So of course the Internet is running wild.

I think everyone needs to calm down. What they're proposing may be bat shit crazy but their hands are still handcuffed by US law. Trump doesn't have the authority that he thinks he has and even his hand picked SCOTUS isn't going to let him get away with not following federal law.

The federal government can legally review immigrant status at any time. The government can attempt to revoke immigration status due to crimes, fraud, national security concerns, and violations of immigration rules. There must be a final decision made by an Immigration Judge and the individual has 30 days to file an appeal with the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). 

So until there is evidence that the administration is bypassing federal law, all of this nonsense is legal. Cutting off immigration from certain countries is a power that the president has under the "Immigration and Nationality Act (INA)." So unless Congress modifies the INA, Trump is within his rights to "pause" immigration from anywhere he wants.

My Basement Leak II

When last we talked about this I had not gotten the promised call from the plumber so I called him. Incredibly, he answered the phone but said he couldn't talk and promised to call back. 

Here we go again.

But, much to my surprise, he did call back and made an appointment to drop by late that afternoon. An appointment that he kept. After looking around he said he didn't see any problem but then hit me with a wrinkle that I hadn't thought about. Did I want to keep or replace the baseboard heating covers?

Hmm, that was something I hadn't thought of. He simplified it by saying that he would send me two estimates, with and without new covers. He said he would get in touch with the basement folks. That was on October 17th.

The next day I got the estimates and the number almost knocked my eyes out. I hadn't expected a $2,350 bill just for the plumbing. Since it was only $350 less if I didn't replace the covers, I said that we would do new covers.

I heard nothing so I called the Basement Guys on October 22nd and was told I would get a call back. This was deja vu all over again.

I did actually get a call back at about 9:15 AM on November 3rd, but I missed the call. The message said that the plumber was available the following Wednesday and to call back to work out the details.

I called back and the guy wasn't there. I was told that I would get a return call, which I didn't. I called again the next day on November 4th. Again, I was told that I would get a call back. I heard nothing.

Finally, I decided that enough was enough and on November 10th I went looking for another contractor.

I left messages with three places and got a call back from one that day. He made an appointment to look things over that evening. Let's call these folks the New Basement Guys and christen the other folks the Old Basement guys.

He looked around, and gave us a $7,500 quote not including painting the sheetrock, new baseboard trim (which I figures I would get when we got the new carpeting) or the cabinet that the other guys had suggested to cover the sump pump. I thought he told me that the pump would be in the wall but, as we shall see, I was mistaken.

He asked for a $1,500 deposit. So now I was out $7,358 with nothing to show for it so far.

On the same day, November 10th, I called the Old Basement Guys to tell them that I no longer needed their services and that I would appreciate the return of my deposit. I was told that I would get a call back.

I heard nothing on November 11th so I called again on November 12th just to make sure that there was no misunderstanding. I was put on hold for a bit and then told that the owner would call me back.

The owner actually did call me back a few hours later. We chatted for a bit. I made it clear that I thought this was just one of those things and he promised to send me a check for the amount of my deposit. My wife said that she would believe that when the check had cleared and the money was in our account. I agree with her and I'm thinking that I'll never see that $5,858 again without a lot of grief.

In the meantime, the New Basement Guys made an appointment for November 17th, between 8:00 AM and 8:30 AM. Along the way I received two reminder emails. We put tarps over the remaining stuff in the room the night before.

So I dragged my sorry rear end out of bed about 7 AM and sure enough they arrived around 8:15 AM.

Things started off well. They put stuff to cover the floor from the front door to the stairs and to cover the carpet near where they were going to work. They put up tarps to keep the dust from going into the rest of the house. They covered the open area much more completely that I had been thinking to do.

Then they got to work. 

There was a lot of drilling and banging as expected but then, I started to hear water sloshing and they asked me where the water turn off valve was. That was bad but the tarps kept me from seeing what was going on. But when two water company trucks showed up I figured that I'd better hobble out the garage and go around to the front door.

They had ruptured the water main leading into the house.

Now, there are messes, there are big messes and then there is this. This just totally took a minor annoyance into a full blown catastrophe. My wife was, understandably, ready to kill. I was trying to figure out where do we go from here? It did not look good.

They tried to make amends. They got all the water out. They brought in radiators to dry things out. They tore up the carpet from the whole room and out of the closet under the stairs. The put the stuff from the closet in the basement.

So were are we?

1. They need to finish the wall.

2. The sump pump hole is big and ugly and is going to be a problem. We are thinking of getting a carpenter to build a cabinet to hide it, which is what the Old Basement Guys said they would do. Obviously I was wrong when I thought he said that it would be hidden in the wall. We're also thinking that a matching cabinet on the other side might be good.

3. We need to come to a price for painting the sheetrock or I can go get a handyman to do it.

4. We need to check if any of the stuff that was down there has been damaged. I don't think so but my wife isn't convinced.

5. We need to go through the stuff from the closet. Dump what we don't need and put the rest back because right now we can't get into the basement.

6. BTW, we still haven't seen a check from the Old Basement Guys. No real surprise there.

Obviously this is <<To Be Continued>>

On Socialism

I have degrees in mathematics and economics. The THEORY of Socialism is alluring but, to my knowledge, no one has managed to make it work in practice.

Countries such as Denmark, Norway and Sweden have arguably been successful with forms of Democratic Socialism which is a fancy way of saying the government pays for benefits and services through taxation. It can be argued that Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, SNAP, WIC and TANIF are Democratic Socialist programs either completely (Medicaid, SNAP) or partially (Medicare).

Notice the multiple uses of the term "IN THEORY" in what follows.

Socialism assumes that the government owns the means of production. If grocery stores were nationalized then, in theory, labor could be paid from the store profits. But there would be no shareholders to take a cut and no board worrying about how to make investors on Wall Street happy.

So the labor isn't being stolen. It's being paid for. What is eliminated from the equation are the stock holders who contribute no labor but share in the profits anyway.

If the city owned ALL of the grocery stores then, in theory, it's leverage with food producers and other vendors would be high enough to drive very cost effective bargains because of quantity and payment guarantees. This would, in theory, improve profit margins or allow a reduction in prices.

The city could also, in theory, institute initiatives to reduce or eliminate theft. It's hard to introduce such initiatives when your competition on the next block doesn't have such incentives because they tend to be unpopular. But when you control ALL grocery stores then, in theory, you might get away with it.

Agreement to End the Shutdown?

The Senate has apparently arrived at a deal to end the shutdown. It appears to be in three parts.

Part 1 - A legislative package that would fund the Department of Agriculture and the FDA, the Department of Veterans Affairs and military construction projects, and the operations of Congress, for the full fiscal year.

Part 2 - All other agencies would be funded through Jan. 30, according to the text of a continuing resolution.

Part 3 - Majority Leader John Thune is promising Senate Democrats a vote in mid-December to extend Affordable Care Act subsidies that are due to expire at the end of the year without Congressional action. Democrats will also get to determine what extension bill receives that vote.

Of course there  is no guarantee that the ACA subsidies will pass but given that the Dems will get to choose the bill helps.

Election Night 2025

It's 9:30 PM and the polls have closed in Virginia, New Jersey and New York City. Here What we have so far.

New Jersey Governor

Mikie Sherrill (D) leads Mike Ciattarelli (R) by 57%-42.4% and has been declared the winner by CBS News, NBC News and the AP.

Virginia Governor

Abigail Spanberger (D) leads Winsome Earle-Sears (R) by 56.2%-43.2% and has been declared the winner by CBS News, NBC News and the AP.

New York City Mayor

Zohran Mamdani (D), leads Andrew Cuomo (I) and Curtis Sliwa (R) by 49.6%-41.6%-7.9% and has been declared the winner by CBS News, NBC News and the AP.

Virginia Attorney General

Jay Jones (D) leads Jason Miyares (R) by 51.6%-48%.and has been declared the winner by NBC News.

California Proposition 50

Prop 50 passed by 63.8%-36.2%.

If these results hold up, and the one possibly in doubt is the Virginia Attorney General race, it's a bit of a smack in the face for Republicans and Trump in particular. I'm surprised by the New Jersey results. Everything seemed to indicate a much closer race. Then again, the margin should close as the Republican western counties results come in.