June 30, 2010
Office of the Justices
16 East State Capitol
PO Box 1688
Madison, WI 53701-1688
Honorable members of the Court,
I am writing this letter to you as a concerned Wisconsin citizen who has just finished reading the Courts opinion on the issue of McConkey v. Van Hollen. While the Court’s ruling makes some very good points about a citizen’s legal standing to challenge the constitutionality of amendments enacted by the State, I fail to see the Court’s argument that the 2006 amendment did not violate the single subject rule set by our State’s constitution. I disagree with the Court on the grounds that the then proposed ballot question was indeed asking voters to vote on two distinctly different subjects, the first defining marriage as solely being the union of one man and one woman. In my personal opinion, that single clause would have been sufficient to achieve the intent of its authors, even though it creates a redundancy in our State’s laws which already establishes marriage as being the union between a husband and a wife (1979 c. 32 s. 48; Stats. 1979 s. 765.01). That being said, this letter is not to argue the definition of marriage or to air my discontent with the people of Wisconsin for passing such an un-American piece of legislation.
Where I depart from the Court’s opinion is the assertion that the second clause of the 2006 proposition fell under the same subject as the first clause (i.e. marriage). The second clause of this proposal when taken at face value does not enhance the intent of the first clause (which is to define who may enter into the contract), instead it asked the voters to decide for future generations of Wisconsinites whether other forms of legal relationship recognition (not marriage) should be recognized by the state. I ask the Court, how does this fall with in the single subject rule? Unless the Court is asserting that civil unions are equal to marriage (which other states have already said aren’t), I find the second half of this opinion highly troubling.
I do have to thank the Court for one thing though… it has helped me make a very tough decision about whether I will return to Wisconsin upon completion of my graduate studies or choose to relocate to another state that places a higher value on treating its citizens equally.
HuffPo is reporting that Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) is prepared to break from the Gang of Six negotiations and vote to pursue the budget reconciliation process which would allow senators to approve the more contentious parts of the Health Insurance Reform legislation to pass through with a 51+ majority vote thus overriding any possibility of a filibuster (at least in theory, there are still some concerns about using this move for non-budgetary legislation).
Thats all I have for now, will update post once I hear more details. 😎
Finally the Obama administration is doing something about the tactics used by the CIA when questioning Terror suspects during the Bush administration. It took long enough! Today Atty Gen. Eric Holder announced that he will be appointing a special prosecutor to launch a criminal probe of CIA questioning tactics. Now, I know I have remained pretty silent about this topic in the past (simply because foreign policy and homeland security aren’t exactly my cup of tea) but I am glad that the administration is finally living up to its promises. The news of this investigation comes after rather cool (as in low key) statement issued by Press Secretary Gibbs:
The President has said repeatedly that he wants to look forward, not back, and the President agrees with the Attorney General that those who acted in good faith and within the scope of legal guidance should not be prosecuted. Ultimately, determinations about whether someone broke the law are made independently by the Attorney General.
Frankly, I think this response from the White House is pretty illustrative of how poorly the WH communicates with the media and general public. I mean sure they have embraced new and emerging delivery methods to get their messages to a broader audience. However, greater delivery does not automatically mean greater control of the message. In fact I would say it leaves the administration open to misinterpretation (like on health care) and non-uniform/scrambled messaging which leads to greater confusion (i.e. HHS Sec. Sebilius’ little faux pas regarding the public option). My suggestion: Fire the entire communication’s staff and start fresh, I mean they really need a new communication’s strategy, one that they can coordinate across the executive departments (i.e. the cabinet) Technorati Tags: Obama, Holder, Investigation, CIA, Terrorism, Department of Justice