Craig says 'I am not gay,' did no wrong

Craig says 'I am not gay,' did no wrong; By Todd Dvorak, Associated Press Writer; 28 August 2007.

Under fire from leaders of his own party, Idaho Sen. Larry Craig on Tuesday the only thing he had done wrong was to plead guilty after a police complaint of lewd conduct in a men's room. He declared, "I am not gay. I never have been gay."

"I did nothing wrong at the Minneapolis airport," he said at a news conference with his wife, Suzanne, at his side.

Craig's defiant stance came as Senate Republican leaders in Washington called for an ethics committee review into his involvement in a police sting operation this summer in the airport men's room.

"In the meantime, the leadership is examining other aspects of the case to see if additional action is required," Sen. Mitch McConnell and other top GOP lawmakers said in a written statement.

A private group, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics, also filed a complaint with the ethics committee seeking an investigation into whether Craig violated Senate rules by engaging in disorderly conduct.

Craig entered his plea several weeks after an undercover police officer in the airport arrested him and issued a complaint that said the three-term senator had engaged in actions "often used by persons communicating a desire to engage in sexual conduct."

Craig said he has hired a lawyer and will ask him to review the case.

The airport incident occurred June 11. Craig signed his plea papers on Aug. 1, and word of the events surfaced Monday. The senator issued a statement Monday night that said, "In hindsight, I should have pled not guilty."

He repeated that assertion at the Idaho news conference. "In June, I overreacted and made a poor decision," he said. "I chose to plead guilty to a lesser charge in hopes of making it go away."

Craig was at times defiant, at others apologetic on Tuesday.

"Please let me apologize to my family, friends and staff and fellow Idahoans for the cloud placed over Idaho," he said. "I did nothing wrong at the Minneapolis airport. I did nothing wrong, and I regret the decision to plead guilty and the sadness that decision has brought on my wife, on my family, friends, staff and fellow Idahoans."

The conservative three-term senator, who has represented Idaho in Congress for more than a quarter-century, is up for re-election next year. He said he would announce next month whether he would run again and suggested he still considers himself a politician with a future.

"Over the years, I have accomplished a lot for Idaho, and I hope Idahoans will allow me to continue to do that. There are still goals I would like to accomplish. And I believe I can still be an effective leader for our state," he said.

Craig, who has voted against gay marriage, finds his political future in doubt because of the case, which has drawn national attention.

Craig, 62, has faced rumors about his sexuality since the 1980s, but allegations that he had engaged in gay sex have never been substantiated. Craig has denied the assertions.

Trying to put his actions "in context," Craig lashed out at the Idaho Statesman, which published a lengthy article Tuesday on its investigation into the senator's actions.

The scandal had already taken a political toll. On Monday, Craig resigned from a prominent role with Republican Mitt Romney's presidential campaign. He had been one of Romney's top Senate supporters, serving as a liaison for the campaign since February.

Asked about Craig, Romney said, "He's disappointed the American people."

"Yeah, I think it reminds us of Mark Foley and Bill Clinton. I think it reminds us of the fact that people who are elected to public office continue to disappoint, and they somehow think that if they vote the right way on issues of significance or they can speak a good game, that we'll just forgive and forget," Romney said on CNBC's "Kudlow & Company."

Foley is a former Republican lawmaker who resigned nearly a year ago after being confronted with the computer messages he sent to male teenage pages who had worked on Capitol Hill. Clinton is the former president accused in congressional impeachment proceedings of lying about an affair with a White House intern.

According to a Hennepin County, Minn., court docket, Craig pleaded guilty to a disorderly conduct charge on Aug. 8, with the court dismissing a charge of gross misdemeanor interference to privacy.

The court docket said Craig paid $575 in fines and fees and was put on unsupervised probation for a year. A sentence of 10 days in the county workhouse was stayed.

According to the prosecutor's complaint, obtained Tuesday by The Associated Press, airport police Sgt. Dave Karsnia, who was investigating allegations of sexual conduct in airport restrooms, went into a stall shortly after noon on June 11 and closed the door.

Minutes later, the officer said he saw Craig gazing into his stall through the crack between the door and the frame.

After a man in the adjacent stall left, Craig entered it and put his roller bag against the front of the stall door, "which Sgt. Karsnia's experience has indicated is used to attempt to conceal sexual conduct by blocking the view from the front of the stall," said the complaint, which was dated June 25.

The complaint said Craig then tapped his right foot several times and moved it closer to Karsnia's stall and then moved it to where it touched Karsnia's foot. Karsnia recognized that "as a signal often used by persons communicating a desire to engage in sexual conduct," the complaint said.

Craig then passed his left hand under the stall divider into Karsnia's stall with his palms up and guided it along the divider toward the front of the stall three times, the complaint said.

The officer then showed his police identification under the divider and pointed toward the exit "at which time the defendant exclaimed `No!'" the complaint said.

The Aug. 8 police report says that Craig had handed the arresting officer a business card that identified him as a member of the Senate.

"What do you think about that?" Craig is alleged to have said, according to the report.

While Craig said he had made a mistake in not getting a lawyer before pleading guilty, a police report says he returned to where he was booked 11 days after his June 11 arrest — and more than a month before he entered a plea — and said he needed a "contact so his lawyer can speak to someone."

The officer at the booking station connected him with Karsnia who provided him with the name and phone number of the government attorney handling the case, police said.

Comment: While this is not the forum to debate about homosexuality, I would point out that Idaho, as well as the rest of the 49 states, would be better served by having the state legislative body elect its senator. But we’ll be watching this one unfold nonetheless.

The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution.

From the Ludwig von Mises Institute:

Rethinking the Constitution, Completely

By David Gordon
Posted on 8/16/2007

[The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution. By Kevin R.C. Gutzman. Regnery Publishing, 2007. Xiii + 258 pgs.]

Kevin Gutzman gives his readers much more than they had a right to expect. The "Politically Incorrect Guide" series in which his book appears aims at a popular audience: its goal is to correct commonly held myths of leftist propaganda.

Gutzman eminently fulfills this goal, but his book cannot be called an elementary work. Quite the contrary, The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution is a major contribution to American constitutional history.

Gutzman is a leading authority on the Virginia ratification debates on the Constitution, and he uses his research to great effect. He has been much influenced by the pioneering originalist scholar Raoul Berger, but he strengthens and extends Berger's views.

The principal thesis of the book is that the Jeffersonian, states' rights understanding of America's founding and the Constitution is correct. When the American colonies assembled in the Continental Congress and adopted the Declaration of Independence in 1776, they did not create a new nation, Abraham Lincoln to the contrary notwithstanding...

Read the rest here.

Think Political Parties Are Destroying America? Thank the 17th Amendment!

Think Political Parties Are Destroying America? Thank the 17th Amendment!; Todd Huston; The New Media Journal; June 2007; (reposted on Free Republic).

This article has received quite a bit of attention on the web and has been found on a number of website. I decided to post it in its entirety because the author makes the point of the overreaching influence the two national parties have gained as a result of the 17^th Amendment.

Think Political Parties Are Destroying America? Thank the 17th Amendment!

by Todd Huston, Senior Writer

June 5, 2007

If you think our nation is being ruined by the two party system you should consider the huge mistake we made in 1913 by changing our Constitution to allow American citizens to vote our Senators into office. In the beginning and until 1913 we did not elect our Senators to that chamber as the Founders originally meant for them to be individually appointed to office by the legislatures of the various states.

That mistake is the17th Amendment. Previous to 1913 Senators were appointed by the state governments to represent them in Congress but after passage of the 17th amendment Senators were from that point forward elected by the people at the ballot box in a general election.

At first hearing, it seems like a good idea full of populist “power to the people” and a way to “fix” what had seemed like an error in the original Constitution. The cure, however, has proven worse than the disease and made the old saying, "all politics is local" into a lie at long last.

As originally conceived by our founders, the members of the House of Representatives were to represent the needs of the people of their regions or states, which is why they are elected by the citizens of a state. Senators, on the other hand, were to represent the state legislatures in Congress to assure that Federal power did not usurp state sovereignty and were, therefore, appointed by those same state legislatures accordingly.

But now that the Senators are elected to their position we have essentially eliminated any say that state governments might have in matters Federal simply because those same Senators are no longer beholden to their state legislatures.

It is true that there was a problem with the original way we placed senators in Congress, granted. Previous to the 17th amendment state legislatures could often be found in such a closely split balance between parties that a choice of a senator was a political impossibility, the Parties not being able to agree on a candidate. The consequence of this deadlock was that sometimes states would find themselves without a senator sitting in Washington and, therefore, without representation there. Even in the very first Congress New York found itself without a senator for a period of time because they could not agree on a candidate due to a deadlocked legislature. The problem really became troublesome after the Civil War and just until the Amendment was proposed. Delaware once went four years at a stretch without a Senator. This was the problem the 17th Amendment was meant to remedy.

Like I said, at first this seemed like an ideal solution. Let the people vote and take the burden off the state legislatures and, in this way, assure that there will always be the requisite number of Senators sitting in Congress.

Unfortunately, we have seen the result of this fix to the Constitution, an act akin to putting a Band-Aid on a case of skin cancer allowing the malignancy to grow instead of getting rid of it.

By opening Senators to election by the people we took the influence of the state right out of the Federal government. Since the Senators themselves were no longer directly responsible to the state legislature, but supposedly to the people who elected them, they no longer had to pay strict attention to what the state government needed or wanted. The Senators were autonomous from the state legislature and have since gravitated to adherence to strict party line making them beholden to the national parties and not the state OR the people who elected them. They now campaign on the "national issues" of the day as this last election demonstrated clearly and as many of the elections since the 1980's have similarly demonstrated.

Such campaigning on party issues was pioneered by the Democrats in the 1930's as they tried to advance the New Deal policies of the FDR administration. It was made into an art form by the Johnson and Clinton administrations with the Republicans following suit starting with the Reagan era and solidified in Newt Gingrich's '94 elections. National parties have since made strict national issues or planks which have become a litmus test for party candidates and for party money to be bestowed upon them for their campaigns by the national organizations.

This, in turn, has totally eliminated state control or representation in the halls of Congress and that has unleashed a torrent of Federal rules and regulations that have hamstrung the states and reduced them to vassals of the Federal government.

Senators who are beholden to the national parties make it less likely that they will differ too greatly from the party line thereby not giving them much latitude to act independently or to be influenced by regional concerns. This is increasing year after year.

The issues Senators run on have been thoroughly nationalized and so has the expectations of the electorate of just who is and who is not a “proper” member of any particular party. For instance, abortion and gun control have become national standards for party affiliation whereas they used to originate from regional standards. Al Gore used to be against abortion and gun control before he became a Democrat on the "national stage" and from the point he announced a run for the presidency. In the early 1990's he made a 180-degree flip flop on those issues for no other reason than to be compatible with the national policies of the Democratic Party. He did this while still a Senator, it should be remembered. He certainly did not change his opinions out of introspection but rather to "fit in" with the directives of the national party and to assure himself the attention and support of that national party.

Joe Lieberman is a perfect example of this problem. He was forced to run as an “independent Democrat” against an upstart candidate who didn’t even come close to representing the needs and wishes of the people of Connecticut but one who fit in perfectly with the Democratic Party leadership. The Party alone tried to chose Connecticut’s candidate quite regardless of what they wanted.

Another aspect of this problem is the amount of campaign donations that come from outside any particular state to fund a Senate run. Lieberman’s unrepresentative opponent was heavily funded by forces well outside the state instead of by the citizens who would actually elect him to office. This has the effect of driving the costs of running for office ever higher in key races.

This nationalization of issues also has the unintended consequence of making an independently minded national candidate for president difficult to elect or to even be heard because the parties themselves have become stronger than the states making them far more the arbiter of who is “allowed” to run for office than the people. This has made the truly conservative Republican a pariah in the national party as was evident by the near total exclusion of the excellent and intelligent Alan Keyes in the 2000 presidential election as well as similarly squelching the chances of a far left candidate like Ralph Nader.

Perhaps it is time to revisit the 17th amendment and place power back in the hands of the states as they determine who will represent them and, in turn, us in the halls of the Senate of the United States.

Text of the 17th Amendment

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.

When vacancies happen in the representation of any state in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, that the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.

This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.

Comment: Mr. Huston’s comments are spot on; the national parties have attained an enormous amount of power outside the construct of the election process and governmental system. While it is very evident on the national level, it is also evident on the state level as well. However, I would disagree with him over the matter of why the 17^th came about in the first place. The research conducted by Professor Todd Zwicki clearly points to the influence of special interest groups that aspired to control the federal government and to increase the tenure of senators (Professor Zwicki and other scholarly articles concerning the 17^th are posted on the right hand side of the main page). Yet as Mr. Huston says, too many issues have become nationalized, while they should, as outlined in the Constitution, be addressed by the States. This is why we have a run away national debt and a massive number of unfunded mandates imposed upon the states.

Wrap-up of the 17th Amendment on the Web up until 7 July 2007

Wow! Was I over due on this effort? Below is about two months worth of posting I had to side step. Work and summer travel has taken a small toll on my time to update this weblog. I'll have an update from 8 July tomorrow.

BD

RON PAUL & THE GOP: I TOLD YOU SO
NewsWithViews.com - Merlin,OR,USA
As I stated in the past, the 17th Amendment of the US Constitution was fraudulently ratified. Under the US Constitution, Senators are to be selected by the ...

A Very Interesting New Link
By The Real Sporer
In my evening reading I discovered an Ohio blog called "Repeal the 17th Amendment" . You know I'ma big believer in "original intent". I think the effect of deviations from the original constitution are not always good, and the 16th and ...
The Real Sporer - http://therealsporer.blogspot.com/

"China" Mitch McConnell thinks he'll tell us go to hell, vote for ...
American Chronicle - Beverly Hills,CA,USA
The 1913 17th amendment eliminated legislative senator selection and said: "The Senate ...shall be composed of two senators from each State, elected by the ...

Would you vote for Anrold Schwarzenegger for US Senate?
Napa Valley Register - Napa,CA,USA
Because of the 17th Amendment, an easily influenced population, not understanding of our Constitution or our laws, will vote for a Senator that have none of ...

Think Political Parties Are Destroying America? Thank the 17th ...
By The New Media Journal
Thank the 17th Amendment! by Todd Huston, Senior Writer June 5, 2007 If you think our nation is being ruined by the two party system you should consider the huge mistake we made in 1913 by changing our Constitution to allow American ...
News/Activism - http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/browse

The role of the states
By Perri Nelson
With the "progressive" movement, this structure began to change, first with the passage of the 12th amendment, then with the 14th amendment. Probably the single biggest change to this structure was the 17th amendment. ...
Perri Nelson's Website - http://perrinelson.com

Think Political Parties Are Destroying America? Thank the 17th ...
Men's News Daily - Guerneville,CA,USA
Previous to 1913 Senators were appointed by the state governments to represent them in Congress but after passage of the 17th amendment Senators were from ...

Think Political Parties Are Destroying America? Thank the 17th ...
By Warner Todd Huston
If you think our nation is being ruined by the two party System you should consider the huge mistake we made in 1913 by changing our Constitution to allow American citizens to vote our Senators into office. In the beginning and until ...
BlogWonks - http://blogwonks.com

What degree of madness
By Perri Nelson
What degree of madness indeed... only socialism, the 17th amendment, and an insatiable appetite for pork. Pork, "national health care", other socialist policies, an environmental protection agency that regulates things that have nothing ...
Perri Nelson's Website - http://perrinelson.com

Nut Job In A Mask
By Ray
... us smaller government, end subsidies and special status for special interests, end unconstitutional legislation and spending, end the brain cell destroying public education monopoly, even call for the repeal of the 17th Amendment! ...
The New Liberty - http://thenewliberty.com

Craig Thomas' Replacement -- Wyoming and the 17th Amendment
By Corpus Juris(--Blue Girl)
Findlaw's Vikram David Amar argues that any effort by the Wyoming legislature to limit the governor's discretion in the selection of a replacement violates the text of Section 2 of the 17th Amendment to the US Constitution. ...
Watching Those We Chose - http://proctoringcongress.blogspot.com/

17th Amendment Allows Senator Vote
Free Market News Network - Pompano Beach, FL,USA
Outrage over this arrangement led Congress to pass the 17th Amendment in 1912, giving people the right to choose their senators.-Politico.

Wake me when it's over--the two-year presidential campaign and ...
renewamerica.us - Washington,DC,USA
In 1913, Congress approved and the required number of state legislatures ratified the 17th amendment to the Constitution, which provided for direct popular ...

There You Go
By rightwingprof
Repeal the 17th Amendment.
Right Wing Nation - http://rightwingnation.com

A Scheme Designed to Enhance the Quality of Those That Serve Us in ...
By XWL

Repeal the 17th Amendment (I agree with former Gov. and Sen. Zell Miller on this one), immediately. I have no problem returning to the days when the Senate was elected by each state's legislature. Popularly elected Senators are too ...
- http://immodestproposals.blogspot.com/

redraider1959: 6 Steps to stoping illegal immigration
By redraider1959
6 Steps to solving the Illegal Immigration Crisis: 1. Repeal the 17th Amendment. Senators no longer represent the people but their own special interests; therefore its time to put the states back in charge...
TownHall User Blogs - http://www.townhall.com/blog/

Senators, awake
Edmonton Sun - Alberta, Canada
By 1914, two-thirds of all the states had elected senators and that's when the 17th amendment to the US Constitution was passed, establishing an equal, ...
See all stories on this topic

Repeal the 17th amendment
By RonPaul08
REPEAL THE 17 TH AMENDMENT By John MacMullin After the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the federal government announced that it would preempt all state jurisdiction over airport security. The federal government preempted state ...
FireSociety Forums - Domestic... - http://www.firesociety.com

Thoughts on the 17th Amendment
By John Cox
I thought I would write a little bit about everyone's favorite subject: The 17th Amendment to the US Constitution. It's an interesting mix of a civics lesson gone awry, history lesson of the actual reach of William Randolf Hearst and ...
Wyome Blog - http://wyome.com/

I, President
By dpb
Repeal the 17th Amendment: The purpose of the Senate is to give state governments a voice in federal decisions. The 17th Amendment allowed for senators to be elected by popular election thereby defeating the purpose of the Senate. ...
davidpbrown.net - http://www.davidpbrown.net/

Sen. George Voinovich-Potentate or Nincompoop?
By Sue Bob
Voinovich's disrespect for his constituents reinforces my opinion that the 17th amendment should be repealed and selection of US Senators placed back on the State Legislatures. Direct election dilutes the power of the electorate over ...
Sue Bob's Diary - http://suebobsdiary.com

Wow, Was That Weak (Hannity Skunks Voinovich)
By TBlumer
This type of out-of-touch conduct and voting is a direct result of the 17th Amendment's direct election of senators. The past few days have effectively been Exhibit A as to why the 17th should be repealed, and the selection of Senators ...
BizzyBlog - http://www.bizzyblog.com

Would our Founding Fathers support legislation by talk show hosts?
renewamerica.us - Washington,DC,USA
In 1913 that was changed by the 17th Amendment to the Constitution which gave the vote to the people of each state. For almost 95 years the Senate has been ...

Too much democracy?
WorldNetDaily - Grants Pass,OR,USA
The 17th Amendment gave us a little too much democracy. The United States of America is a republic, unique in its structure, sovereign by the consent of the ...

Elected court worth debate, again
The Capital Times - Madison,WI,USA
The 17th Amendment to the Constitution turned the Senate from an American version of the English House of Lords into a representative chamber when it ...

FBI Searches Sen. Ted Stevens' Home

FBI Searches Sen. Ted Stevens' Home; Veteran Alaska Republican Has Been Under Investigation In Corruption Probe; CBS; 31 July 2007.

(CBS/AP) “Federal agents snapped photos and trained video cameras on the home of U.S. Sen. Ted Stevens during a search related to a public corruption investigation, law enforcement officials said.

“Stevens, 83, is under a federal investigation for his relationship with Bill Allen, an oil field services contractor who was convicted this year of bribing state lawmakers.

“A 2000 renovation project more than doubling the size of Stevens' home in the ski resort community of Girdwood was overseen by Allen, who is founder of VECO Corp. The Alaska-based oil field services and engineering company has reaped tens of millions of dollars in federal contracts.

“Agents from the FBI and Internal Revenue Service started their search at the senator's home Monday afternoon, said Dave Heller, FBI assistant special agent. He said he could not comment on the nature of the investigation.”

Comment: Stevens deserves the right to be presumed innocent and one can conclude correctly that corruption is not contained to only Washington D.C. However, Stevens does typify the consolidation of power in Washington and more particularly the U.S. Senate. I’ll be watching this, but my instinct leads me toward the belief that U.S. Senate is out of control and we need to return to the origins of our nations founding. Power should not reside in a centralized government. But, I am beginning to ramble…let’s wait and see.