BLOGROLL

The following originally appeared as an op-ed in the National Review. -Staff

On this day, 222 years ago, 12 state delegations approved the new Constitution of the United States and 39 of the 42 convention delegates signed it. They sent it to the states for ratification, the act that would make it the supreme law of the land. It is worth focusing on just what the Constitution actually is.

The Constitution opens by saying: "We the people . . . do ordain and establish this Constitution." Nearly all Americans say the Constitution is very important to them and it requires that virtually all legislative, executive, and judicial officers, both state and federal, "shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution." But what is this thing called the Constitution that the people established, that Americans say is so important, and that public officials swear to support?

Comment (1)

The following originally appeared as an op-ed in USA Today. -Staff

Affordable and quality health care for every American is neither a Republican nor a Democratic issue -- it is an American issue. Unfortunately, the current health care bills before Congress are too partisan, too expensive and too big-government for most Americans to support.

As congressional Democrats inch towards going it alone on health reform, I ask them to do what American families are demanding -- step back, take a deep breath and start over on a truly bipartisan bill. Using a partisan "reconciliation" process to jam a bill that deals with one-sixth of our economy with 20 hours of Senate debate -- less than one full day -- would be one of the most irresponsible actions that the majority could take.

Comment (3)

The following originally appeared as an op-ed with Senator Jim Inhofe in the Deseret News. -Staff

It has been said the first casualty in war is the truth. Unfortunately, in the modern political arena we must now expand this maxim to include the defense procurement process. A prime example is the misinformation being disseminated about the F-22A Raptor. If one bases his or her opinion of the F-22 on these inaccurate assertions, it would be natural to conclude the Raptor is the biggest boondoggle since the Edsel. Fortunately, for this and future generations of Americans who will rely on the F-22 to maintain our nation's control of the skies, the truth is far different.

The fact is, the F-22 will be the pre-eminent fighter/bomber for the next 40 years, capable of defeating the air threats of today and tomorrow. What are these air threats? One of the most menacing is, and will remain, the relatively inexpensive advanced integrated air defense system. It is easy, for example, to imagine a nation such as Iran, with its insistence on building nuclear weapons, purchasing the Russian S-300 surface-to-air missile system. This system makes penetrating hostile airspace extremely difficult, if not deadly, for those aircraft lacking the F-22's advanced stealth technology and sustained supersonic speeds of supercruise engines. Only one western aircraft, the Raptor, will for the foreseeable future combine these decisive technologies, thereby giving it the unique ability to penetrate hostile airspace and hunt and destroy strategic ground targets during the night and day.

The Raptor will accomplish this while simultaneously establishing air superiority. For example, during a recent military exercise in Alaska, the F-22 dispatched 144 adversaries versus the loss of only one aircraft. Once again, the F-22's advanced stealth capabilities and supercruise engines proved decisive. The F-22 also has remarkable avionics that, in addition to collecting intelligence and providing battlespace awareness, enable it to engage aircraft and surface threats long before an enemy can retaliate.

Comment (0)

The following originally appeared as an op-ed on ESPN.com. -Staff

During the June 7 hearing before the Senate Antitrust Subcommittee, University of Nebraska Chancellor and Chairman of the Bowl Championship Series (BCS) Presidential Oversight Committee Harvey Perlman was asked what more last year's University of Utah undefeated football team could have done to get a shot at the national championship.

His answer to this question perfectly described the problem that so many of us see with the BCS.

Sen. Orrin Hatch says the BCS needs to change its ways or the government might get involved.

Put simply, Chancellor Perlman said that the one thing Utah could have done more to qualify for the national championship would have been to play the University of Nebraska's schedule.

However, as the Chairman undoubtedly knows, college football's regular season schedules are set years in advance and the majority of every team's schedule consists of teams from its own conference.

So, in essence, he argued that, if the University of Utah would have had the foresight a few years ago to cancel its 2008 conference schedule and fill it with games against Big 12 teams, it would have had a shot at a national championship.

Comment (0)

The following originally appeared as an op-ed in the National Review. -Staff

We must examine Sonia Sotomayor's entire record.

The Judiciary Committee hearing on the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to replace Justice David Souter must be respectful and thorough and must focus on whether she is qualified to serve on the Supreme Court. Judicial qualifications include legal experience and, more important, an understanding of the power and role of judges in our system of government.

The Obama administration and Senate Democrats say that Judge Sotomayor's cases, not her speeches and articles, reveal her approach to judging. When then-senator Barack Obama opposed the appeals-court nomination of California supreme court justice Janice Rogers Brown in 2005, however, he examined her "speeches outside of the courtroom" for clues about her "overarching judicial philosophy." If that approach was fair when Senator Obama opposed Republican nominees, it should be fair when President Obama picks his own nominees.

Judge Sotomayor spoke about elements of judicial philosophy in one speech that she gave at least five times during ten years of her judicial service. She said, for example, that transcending personal sympathies and prejudices is an aspiration that judges probably cannot accomplish in most cases, and even questioned whether they should try. She said that, in deciding cases, her personal experiences "affect the facts that I choose to see" and that judges must assess when their personal "opinions, sympathies and prejudices are appropriate."

Comment (0)

The following originally appeared as an op-ed in The Spectrum. -Staff

The political stars have finally aligned for passage of a new and expansive federal hate-crimes law. Soon, President Obama and a number of his Democratic allies in Congress will likely stand on a stage to tell the world just how much they hate hate, and they'll have a new law to prove it. Sadly, they could have expressed this same sentiment without recklessly and needlessly expanding the powers of the federal government. But what would be the fun in that?

The House passed a hate-crimes bill on April 29, and a similar bill has been introduced in the Senate. Both would create a new federal crime for willfully causing bodily injury (or attempting to do so) because of the victim's actual or perceived "race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability." A person unfamiliar with the hate-crimes debate reading these provisions would likely respond by asking, "Wait, isn't that already a crime?" At that point, they'd officially be one step ahead of the proponents of these bills.

Currently, 45 states already have hate-crimes statutes on the books. Furthermore, crimes such as murder, assault, vandalism, and harassment -- the offenses typically associated with hate crimes -- are punishable in every jurisdiction in the U.S. In the many years Congress has debated this issue, we have heard horrific accounts of killings, beatings or other such crimes motivated by bias or prejudice. During that time, many of us have been asking for evidence that these crimes are going unpunished at the state level.

We're still waiting.

Comment (2)

The following originally appeared as an op-ed in the Desert News. -Staff

The political stars have finally aligned for passage of a new and expansive federal hate-crimes law. Soon, President Barack Obama and a number of his Democratic allies in Congress will likely stand on a stage to tell the world just how much they hate hate, and they'll have a new law to prove it. Sadly, they could have expressed this same sentiment without recklessly and needlessly expanding the powers of the federal government. But what would be the fun in that?

The House passed a hate-crimes bill on April 29, and a similar bill has been introduced in the Senate. Both would create a new federal crime for willfully causing bodily injury (or attempting to do so) because of the victim's actual or perceived "race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability." A person unfamiliar with the hate-crimes debate reading these provisions would likely respond by asking, "Wait, isn't that already a crime?" At that point, they'd officially be one step ahead of the proponents of these bills.

Currently, 45 states already have hate-crimes statutes on the books. Furthermore, crimes such as murder, assault, vandalism and harassment -- the offenses typically associated with hate crimes -- are punishable in every jurisdiction in the U.S. In the many years Congress has debated this issue, we have heard horrific accounts of killings, beatings or other such crimes motivated by bias or prejudice. During that time, many of us have been asking for evidence that these crimes are going unpunished at the state level.

We're still waiting.

The most oft-repeated example is the story of Matthew Shepard, a young Wyoming man who was savagely beaten and murdered in 1998 because of his sexual orientation. The horrific accounts of Shepard's murder have been detailed countless times as justification for a new federal hate-crimes law. The Senate hate-crimes bill bears Shepard's name, which is ironic because his story perfectly demonstrates why such a law is unnecessary. Both of Shepard's killers were tried, convicted and sentenced to consecutive life terms in state court. Make no mistake, Shepard's story is a profoundly tragic one, but an expanded federal hate-crimes law would have done nothing to prevent the murder or add to the punishment his killers received. This is typically the case.

Both bills introduced this year also would expand the definition of a hate crime to cover offenses motivated by a victim's "gender identity." However, "gender identity" is not defined in either bill, nor is there any existing legal definition of the term. Using what appears to be the conventional understanding of "gender identity," one must conclude that it is a matter of the self-perception. So, in essence, this legislation would provide enhanced punishment for crimes wherein the perpetrator was motivated by the victim's perception of themselves. Taking us even further through the looking glass, the bills also include crimes motivated by the victim's perceived gender identity, meaning they would punish a perpetrator's false perception of a victim's self-perception.

At best, this legislation unnecessarily intrudes on state governments and creates crimes that are impractical to prosecute. At worst, it would be unconstitutional.

The authors of this legislation have maintained that Congress' constitutional authority to regulate interstate commerce allows for the prohibition and punishment of hate crimes because they indirectly affect interstate commerce. This is difficult to square with the Supreme Court's views on the Commerce Clause as the court has determined that a more direct link to interstate commerce is required to justify federal regulation of noneconomic activity.

Also, while both bills ostensibly prohibit prosecution for any activities protected by the First Amendment, the fact that they punish certain motives on the basis of political and social viewpoints calls their constitutionality into question. Past experience demonstrates that the only way the government will be able to prove such motives exist is to delve into defendants' personal lives -- the books they read, the Web sites they visit, the churches they go to -- and place them before a jury. Constitutional issues aside, the picture of a jury deliberating over the specific thoughts of a defendant should be enough to make supporters second-guess the wisdom of this approach.

This is not 1960; it is 2009. While violence and criminal activity motivated by prejudice still occur, any claims that state officials continue to turn a blind eye when confronted with such detestable acts are not supported by the evidence. Ultimately, the president and the Democrats in Congress should find a constitutionally permissible new way to declare their hatred of hate.

Comment (2)

The following originally appeared as an op-ed in The Hill. -Staff

America's ingenuity continues to fund our economy, and we must protect new ideas and investments in innovation and creativity. Patents encourage technological advancement by providing incentives to invent, invest in and disclose new technology. Now, more than ever, it is important to ensure efficiency and increased quality in the issuance of patents. This in turn creates an environment that fosters entrepreneurship and the creation of jobs, two significant pillars in our economy.

The patent system is the bedrock of innovation. Last year alone, nearly 500,000 applications were filed at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, the world's leading agency for intellectual property protection. The sheer volume of patent applications not only reflects the vibrant, innovative spirit that has made America a worldwide leader in science, engineering and technology, but also reflects countless new jobs waiting to be unleashed. When patents are developed commercially, they create jobs for the companies marketing products, and for their suppliers, distributors and retailers. One such patent has positive stimulatory effects across almost all sectors of our economy.

If there's anything that I've become more certain of over these past several months, it's this: If we are to have a durable economic recovery, we must rely on our renowned American ingenuity to lead us into prosperity again. Those of us in the IP community have long known the strong connection between a robust patent system and a healthy economy.

Yet, we have not made significant updates to the patent system since 1952. Put another way, the last time the patent system was significantly changed, the structure of DNA had not been discovered; gasoline was around 27 cents a gallon; and we had not yet gone to the moon. Cell phones, MP3 players, GPS navigators and the Internet were far beyond anyone's imagination. Technology has surpassed what anyone would have ever imagined back then, but unfortunately, our patent system has not been able to keep up with the growth in American innovation. The courts have interpreted the law in light of change, but that piecemeal process has left areas of the law unclear and out of balance -- leaving some important, unresolved gaps.

If we are going to maintain our position at the forefront of the world's economy and continue to lead the globe in innovation, then we must have an efficient and streamlined patent system that provides high-quality patents while reducing counterproductive litigation.

That is why Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) and I have been working on patent reform legislation for years -- three Congresses to be exact. From the outset, we had three primary goals: (1) to improve patent quality and the patent application process; (2) to improve and clarify several aspects of patent litigation, including the creation of a less expensive, more expeditious administrative alternative to litigating patent validity issues; and (3) to make the United States's patent system, where it is useful to do so, more consistent with patent systems throughout the rest of the industrialized world.

My years of legislative experience in the U.S. Senate has not only allowed me to broker some landmark initiatives, but has also taught me some valuable lessons. Namely, legislation that endures the test of time must balance as many interests as possible. This balance must be achieved without compromising the original goals for the legislation that stem from public policy considerations. As the Patent Reform Act of 2009 continues to work its way through Congress, it is crucial that we get it right and make it the best it can be. Too much is at stake. After all, if history repeats itself, we may not revisit this issue for another five decades.

Comment (0)

The following originally appeared as an op-ed with Senators Kay Bailey Hutchison, Mike Crapo and Jim Risch in the Washington Times. -Staff

In light of the country's current economic struggles, it is important we not lose sight of what really makes us competitive globally: our entrepreneurial spirit and the ability to innovate.

For more than 50 years, America's technological leadership has been the foundation for domestic economic growth, enhanced productivity and national security, and a sustainable competitive advantage within the global economy. While recent action in Washington encourages more research, we must realize the effects of tax policy and other legislation on the U.S. high-tech sector.

Technological advancements within the semiconductor -- the computational brains of every computer and electronic device -- industry in particular have spurred breakthroughs in energy efficiency, national defense, communications, health care, transportation and education. Semiconductor technology is essential not only to economic growth, but also to national security. In fact, the Defense Science Board issued a report on high-performance microchip supply, noting "semiconductor technology and manufacturing leadership is a national priority that must be maintained if the U.S. military is to continue to lead in the application of electronics to support the war fighter."

We welcome efforts on both sides of the aisle to increase basic research funding in the physical sciences, allow talented foreign students to stay here after they graduate and improve K-12 science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) education -- all elements critical to our high-tech sector.

This spirit of bipartisanship was exemplified by broad support for the America Creating Opportunities to Meaningfully Promote Excellence in Technology, Education and Science (America COMPETES) Act and a permanent research-and-development tax credit.

This being said, increases in basic research funding and work-force improvements are only parts of the solution. For instance, the semiconductor industry faces many macro-environmental forces, domestically and abroad, that could hinder our economic growth. Other countries continue to recognize the importance of this industry while they pursue efforts to attract and grow high-tech investment. There is a $1 billion difference in total operating costs associated with a chip fabrication facility over a 10-year period abroad versus the United States. This cost savings is largely attributable to tax rates and other investment policies that reflect calculated thinking by our largest competitors. In contrast, the United States has one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world.

Our high-tech sector will face even greater challenges if the administration's recent tax increases, like getting rid of deferral, are adopted for U.S. multinational firms. These proposals amount to a tax on innovation.

If we want U.S. companies to be competitive globally, we should encourage them to compete internationally as well. More than 70 percent of U.S.-owned semiconductor manufacturing capacity is in the United States, although the U.S. market represents less than 25 percent of its sales. Semiconductors are America's second-largest export. Success for this industry abroad translates into success and new jobs at home, both in manufacturing and research and development.

New innovations will boost jobs and help us out of the economic downturn. Only new innovations will create job opportunities and bolster future industries. It's time for Washington to take this into account.

As Congress debates legislation on energy, health care and education, it is fundamental to understand the impact that the semiconductor industry has on these areas. At the same time, we must focus on the sustainability of the American high-tech sector in the global economy.

Comment (0)

The following originally appeared as an op-ed in the Miami Herald. -Staff

Since January, the Obama administration's decision to close the Guantánamo Bay Detention Center was heralded with fanfare; however, there were few details on how they actually planned to do so by January 2010. Recently -- like the Titanic hitting an iceberg -- the unsinkable presidency hit its first obstacle.

Congressional Democrats wisely realized that requesting $80 million to close Guantánamo, without any plan on how to spend so much money, was a terrible idea. Not to mention the fact that Guantánamo is a $200 million investment that cannot be duplicated, and it is nearly impossible to determine how much more money it would cost to care for these terrorists domestically. I commend my colleagues on the other side of the aisle for recognizing this flawed proposal and supporting Republican amendments stripping those funds out of the war supplemental.

Before we close Guantánamo, the public should know exactly who the remaining detainees are and how closing the prison will help keep us safe.

• Of the approximately 240 detainees remaining at Guantánamo, 174 of them received or conducted training at al Qaeda camps and facilities in Afghanistan; 112 participated in armed hostilities against U.S. and coalition forces; and 64 either worked for or had direct contact with Osama bin Laden.
• Of the 240 detainees, 17 are Chinese Uighurs who all have demonstrable ties to the East Turkistan Islamic Movement, a designated terrorist organization since 2004 that is known for its terrorist threats against the 2008 Beijing Olympics and its close ties to al Qaeda members. Hassan Mahsun, one of the trainers for the Uighurs, was an associate of Osama bin Laden, and when the group traveled to Afghanistan -- where they were later captured -- they lodged in al Qaeda safe houses and terrorist training facilities.

Recently, Attorney General Holder described the closure of Guantánamo as "good for all nations." He argued that anger over the prison has become a "powerful global recruiting tool for terrorists." But neither he nor anyone else has yet demonstrated a strong analytic understanding of what is motivating terrorist recruitment. Terrorist groups did not appear to face a shortage of recruits prior to the media frenzy on Guantánamo.

Violent jihadists are ideologically motivated. Closing Guantánamo in the next eight months is not going to be a "silver bullet" and solve the problem of terrorist recruitment. For this and other reasons, I am not willing to trade Guantánamo for the possibility of trying to appease and become more popular with our critics in foreign countries.

Sadly, Guantánamo's epitaph was written the day the executive orders to close it were signed, even though it is still an asset to this country. I don't see how anyone who is honest about the matter can characterize it any other way.

Comment (2)