Immersion Lithography
http://news.com.com/IBM+launches+Power+chip+alliance/2100-1006_3-5473770.html
When being more like America is modern and progressive, and being traditional France is conservative... US liberals should take note.
Mr Sarkozy, by contrast, has no time for tradition for tradition's sake. In an enlarged Europe, he argues that France can no longer rely on the Franco-German motor and needs to cultivate a group of six that also includes Britain, Spain, Italy and Poland. Atlantic-minded, he urges a milder approach to America. He advocates an overhaul of the French social model, pushing for less state regulation and a more flexible labour market; his inspirations are Britain and Spain, not moribund Germany. He considers that the French model of integration has failed French Muslims, and argues for American-style social engineering to help minorities advance. In short, where Mr Chirac urges caution and conservatism, Mr Sarkozy presses for modernisation and change.
http://www.economist.com/agenda/displayStory.cfm?story_id=3442355
http://aca.ninemsn.com.au/stories/574.asp
The STPP ranked Salt Lake City the most improved city for pedestrian safety.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6635704/
http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=295926&page=1
"Anti-abortion" and "Abortion-rights"; shouldn't it be, "Anti-Abortion" and "Pro-Abortion"?
http://nytimes.com/2004/12/02/politics/02abortion.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5094&en=a92fd979192bbe66&hp&ex=1102050000&partner=homepage
Assembly Speaker Fabian Nuñez (D-Los Angeles) said Schwarzenegger's repeated use of the ballot — where his popularity with voters is a potent weapon — amounts to a disdain for representative government, where policymaking power rests with elected officials.
Working through the Legislature "is the most reasonable way to solve problems, unless we believe the form of government we have in this state absolutely stinks and we no longer are a modern democracy," Nuñez said. He called on the governor to pursue a legislative "vetting" of his plan, as opposed to "just saying I'm going to the voters and spending $40 million [on a special election] so they can vote on my proposals."
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-arnold2dec02,0,3748213.story?coll=la-home-headlines
!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!
When being more like America is modern and progressive, and being traditional France is conservative... US liberals should take note.
Mr Sarkozy, by contrast, has no time for tradition for tradition's sake. In an enlarged Europe, he argues that France can no longer rely on the Franco-German motor and needs to cultivate a group of six that also includes Britain, Spain, Italy and Poland. Atlantic-minded, he urges a milder approach to America. He advocates an overhaul of the French social model, pushing for less state regulation and a more flexible labour market; his inspirations are Britain and Spain, not moribund Germany. He considers that the French model of integration has failed French Muslims, and argues for American-style social engineering to help minorities advance. In short, where Mr Chirac urges caution and conservatism, Mr Sarkozy presses for modernisation and change.
http://www.economist.com/agenda/displayStory.cfm?story_id=3442355
http://aca.ninemsn.com.au/stories/574.asp
The STPP ranked Salt Lake City the most improved city for pedestrian safety.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6635704/
http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=295926&page=1
"Anti-abortion" and "Abortion-rights"; shouldn't it be, "Anti-Abortion" and "Pro-Abortion"?
http://nytimes.com/2004/12/02/politics/02abortion.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5094&en=a92fd979192bbe66&hp&ex=1102050000&partner=homepage
Assembly Speaker Fabian Nuñez (D-Los Angeles) said Schwarzenegger's repeated use of the ballot — where his popularity with voters is a potent weapon — amounts to a disdain for representative government, where policymaking power rests with elected officials.
Working through the Legislature "is the most reasonable way to solve problems, unless we believe the form of government we have in this state absolutely stinks and we no longer are a modern democracy," Nuñez said. He called on the governor to pursue a legislative "vetting" of his plan, as opposed to "just saying I'm going to the voters and spending $40 million [on a special election] so they can vote on my proposals."
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-arnold2dec02,0,3748213.story?coll=la-home-headlines
!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!
posted by bryan at 8:00 AM
2 Comments:
While I would probably agree with Governor Schwarzenegger’s proposals to improve whatever he wants to improve in California, I don’t necessarily agree with the way he has to do it. It’s not his fault, its California’s fault. The system of government they have is pretty whack. The California Constitution doesn’t really allow for the Governor to have an executive role but instead gives him the job of a “Super-Legislator”. He proposes legislation and it goes directly to the people via initiatives or referenda, completely bypassing the state legislature. What this fella Nuñez says is obviously a loaded political statement, however there is plenty of truth in what he says. It is also obvious some good has come from California’s “progressive” form of government with that ballot measure passed a few years ago endorsed by the LDS Church to disallow same-sex marriages, but plenty of ridiculous laws have passed as well. I found the following from article by some law professor who shares my point of view on California’s system of government. Read it. This is only one page out of 85 he wrote on the subject.
From The Regents of the University of California
UCLA Law Review
April, 2004
Taking Politics Seriously: A Theory of California's Separation of Powers
By Jonathan Zasloff
(Professor of Law, UCLA School of Law; J.D., Yale Law School; Ph.D., Harvard University who says this about the US Constitution [it brings a tear to my eye:]
“The Federalist Constitution has proved to be a brilliant success, which unitary nation states and parliamentary democracies all over the world would do well to copy. I give it most of the credit for the fact that ours is the wealthiest, most technologically advanced, and most socially just society inhuman history, not to mention the fact that we have with ease become a military superpower.... The rest of the world is quite rightly impressed with us, and it is thus no accident that the United States of America has become the biggest single exporter of public law in the history of humankind. Almost wherever one looks, written constitutions, federalism, separation of powers, bills of rights, and judicial review are on the ascendancy all over the world right now - and for a good reason. They work better than any of the alternatives that have been tried.”)
One perceptive political analyst has observed that "America's most populous state seems to have given up on representative government." n194 This is not hyperbole. Through the initiative, California's voters have turned state governance into something that would be wholly unrecognizable to the framers of the 1879 Constitution. California initiatives have expanded and cut back on the Declaration of Rights, transformed the state's taxation system, created new constitutional offices and state bureaucracies, and dictated the state's fiscal priorities to such an extent that the California Legislature now has less discretionary authority than any other in the country. n195 All these plebiscites have effected changes in the California Constitution itself: They [*1122] have transformed not simply particular policies and law, but the basic structure of government.
To be sure, as a technical matter, not everything goes in California: The constitution allows "amendment" but not "revision" through initiative. n196 In practice, however, this distinction reveals little difference. Indeed, one commentator with unassailable knowledge has observed that "over the years to an almost universal extent, initiatives have been judicially untouchable." n197 The judiciary bends over backwards to ensure that initiatives stand, even if validation results in absurdities. n198 The constitution loudly declares that "all political power is inherent in the people," n199 and the state's courts have enforced this notion in the extreme, ensuring that the people can change the constitution virtually any time they want, virtually any way they want.
Such direct lawmaking flies in the face of everything we know about the Federalists' theory of government, once again severely impairing the applicability of federal precedent. n200 Indeed, Madison noted that the "pure democracies of Greece" differ from the federal constitutional plan because the latter envisions the "total exclusion of the people in their collective capacity from any share in [it]." n201 And that was the entire point. "There are particular moments in public affairs," he argued, "when the people stimulated by some irregular passion, or some illicit advantage, or misled by the artful misrepresentations of interested men, may call for measures which they themselves will afterwards be the most ready to lament." n202 Sound constitutions must "safeguard against the tyranny of [such] passions." n203 It is hard not to agree with Charles Beard when he argues that simple direct majority rule "was undoubtedly more odious to most of the delegates to the Convention than [*1123] was slavery." n204 Julian Eule observed that "everything about the tone of the Convention suggests that [the delegates] would have looked upon [the initiative] "with a feeling akin to horror.'" n205 In all, "if the Constitution's Framers were keen on majority rule, they certainly had a bizarre manner of demonstrating their affection" n206 - establishing the electoral college, indirect election of senators, an unelected and life-tenured federal judiciary, an enforceable Bill of Rights, large electoral districts designed to prevent populist candidates from being elected to the House, n207 and - not least of all - the separation of powers.
NOTES
n194. Nicholas Lemann, Rule by Proposition, N.Y. Times Book Rev., May 3, 1998, at 7 (reviewing Schrag, supra note 143).
n195. Schrag, supra note 143. [n143. Peter Schrag, Paradise Lost: California's Experience, America's Future 253 (1998) (footnote omitted).]
n196. The constitution allows the voters only to "amend" it. Cal. Const. art. XVIII, 3 ("The electors may amend the Constitution by initiative."). But the Legislature may, on a two-thirds vote, place a referendum on the ballot proposing "an amendment or revision of the Constitution." Cal. Const. art. XVIII, 1 (emphasis added). The Legislature may also by a two-thirds vote submit a ballot measure to call a convention "to revise the Constitution." Cal. Const. art. XVIII, 2 (emphasis added).
n197. Stanley Mosk, Raven and Revision, 25 U.C. Davis L. Rev. 1, 1 (1991).
n198. See Karl Manheim & Edward P. Howard, A Structural Theory of the Initiative Power in California, 31 Loy. L.A. L. Rev. 1165, 1206-18 (1998).
n199. Cal. Const. art. II, 1 ("All political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for their protection, security, and benefit, and they have the right to alter or reform it when the public good may require.").
n200. A particularly persuasive demonstration of this point can be found in Julian Eule's now-classic article on the initiative and the federal judiciary. See Julian N. Eule, Judicial Review of Direct Democracy, 99 Yale L.J. 1503, 1522-30 (1990).
n201. The Federalist No. 63 (James Madison).
n202. Id.
n203. Id.
n204. Charles A. Beard, Introductory Note, in Documents on the State-wide Initiative, Referendum, and Recall (Charles A. Beard & Birl E. Shultz eds., 1912).
n205. Eule, supra note 200, at 1523 (quoting Beard, supra note 204, at 28).
n206. Id. at 1522.
n207. This particular point was referred to as the "filtration of talent," and played a critical role in the Federalists' constitutional design. The idea was that large districts would prevent the election of legislators who appealed to a faction, and would allow people only to become congressional representatives through a slow process of advancement, thereby ensuring their civic virtue. See Gordon S. Wood, The Creation of the American Republic, 1776-1787, at 506-18 (1998).
i too believe that CA is jacked up :) the point of the post and the bold emphasis had a lot more to do w/ my opinions of the politics surrounding the situation.
ie, gov s. is trying to instill reforms that would be beneficial for the state but because that would possibly ruin the democratic club that is the CA leg. of course theyre against a vote that would go to the people. if it was a vote to increase funding to illegals or increase public health care, they wouldnt have a problem with that, but since its actually something that could actually constrict govt, then no, thats not something we would want the uneducated citizentry to vote on.
he knows full and well that if gov. s. worked within the legislature that the reforms would never come to pass... the club would continue.. and continue easily according to what we read about the districts.
"finally.. let the lawsuits begin" said one liberal blog. gay rights groups hold disdain for allowing the people to vote on the gay marriage issue. they prefer to use amoral judges to shove their agenda down our throats.
to me the article is just another example of liberals being afraid to actually have the vote on an issue. heaven forbid that the people decide how they are governed...
Post a Comment
<< Home