Blogs

Grant acceptance passes seven to one, with Mayor Schweighart being the line vote against. CM Mike LaDue gave a great talk outlining his concerns with the business plan before explaining his vote to accept.

Today's News-Gazette:

The Illinois Supreme Court is expected to issue its long-awaited decision Thursday morning on whether the hospital is property tax-exempt. Arguments on that case were heard before the high court last September.

The Illinois Department of Revenue removed the hospital’s longtime tax exemption in 2004, on the recommendation of the Champaign County Board of Review, finding the hospital didn’t qualify as either a charitable or religious institution.

The Supreme Court decision stands to affect other not-for-profit hospitals throughout Illinois, depending on how broadly the court chooses to rule.

At stake financially for Provena and taxing districts in Champaign County is more than $1 million a year in property taxes the hospital had been paying to the city, school district, park district and other taxing bodies. In all, the hospital had paid $6.1 million between 2003 and 2007 — money local governments didn’t get to keep as the case moved through the court system, but stand to have refunded to them if Covenant loses in the final round.

Discuss.

Tuesday, March 16, 2010.

I attended and participated in tonight's City of Champaign Community and Police Forum.  The crowd was standing room only, and the ground rules and agenda facilitated an interesting discussion, at least in my small group.  We worked through the four guiding questions, and kept returning to a few key points - respect is both mutual and earned, better communication between the community and police is necessary, and there are all sorts of great ideas in our community about how to improve relations.

I think, at some point, the points made by all (32!) groups will be compiled and shared by the City, along with additional information about next steps.  The problems present in relationships between the police and the community weren't created overnight, and won't be fixed overnight.  I look forward to reviewing the thoughts of the other groups and I hope you'll share your thoughts on here and in person as well. 

John goes to work every day just as he has for the last 20 years. He works for a major agri-business in central Illinois. His wife of thirty years works part time in a professional office. They support John's disabled adult brother and help out their adult children. Last year his wife had a lump removed from her breast and underwent a year long course of follow-up treatments. John had health-care benefits through his employment and after paying a $1,500 deductible and co-payments as they went along his wifes surgery and treatment were covered.

Something happened in January. Well, two things happened in January. His wife discovered another lump in the same breast and John's employer changed health insurance carriers. The new policy is a $5,000.00 deductible policy, limited coverage policy that requires pre-treatment authorization for coverage. They submitted his wife's treatment for authorization. The insurance company denied coverage because his wife's stage two tumor was "pre-exisiting" and thus her treatment was not eligible for coverage.

John and his wife don't have $5,000. Their savings have been used up paying for his mother's nursing home care. But even if they had the money to fund the deductible the insurance company won't pay for the treatment she needs to stave off the cancer. Remember, John did not change insurance companies. He had no choice. His employer changed to a different company with a different policy. John and his fellow employees didn't have any options. They are effectively uninsured for any of the health risks of mid life.

Now this is not a hypothetical case - it is real and it is happening today in a small town near here. That is why we need health care reform written into law and the sooner the better.

Today's NG:

The city council on Tuesday is expected to make a final decision on "Big Broadband," and the vote could determine whether the Champaign-Urbana high-speed Internet network will continue or be buried.

The council is schedule to vote on the project during its regular meeting Tuesday night at 7 in the City Building, 102 N. Neil St.

Maryland consultant Doug Dawson will travel to Champaign for the meeting to answer questions council members have about the project.

Fearing that the city would be on the hook for hundreds of thousands of dollars in the years following the network's construction, some members and Mayor Jerry Schweighart in recent weeks have expressed concern about the financial sustainability of the network.

Tuesday's Council agendas are here, with links to supporting materials for the Broadband discussion.

Monday, March 15, 2010.

I thought I had thoroughly tackled this topic some time ago in my previous Church and State post, but unfortunately it appears such arguments are unpersuasive to some. The last post focused on the term "respecting" in the 1st Amendment and Madison's own comments viewing it as separating church and state... which I'd consider compelling since he drafted the article. Call me crazy, I guess. Here's where I thought the confusion rose and fell:

respect
1 a : to consider worthy of high regard : ESTEEM b : to refrain from interfering with [please respect their privacy]
2 : to have reference to : CONCERN

For people who want to deny there is any separation, they tend to use the term respecting in the sense of "to hold in high esteem," thus their view of the 1st Amendment's religion clause could read as:

Congress shall make no law [holding in high esteem] an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

This view may help them sleep well at night, comfortable that the 1st Amendment's prohibition only prohibits a national church, but for the rest of us bound to the facts and not after confirmation bias, let's continue on to see whether the alternative fits more strongly with the drafter's view. Let's first look at the term respecting in the sense of "concerning" or "having reference to" and see how that sits:

Congress shall make no law [concerning] an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

Congress shall make no law [having reference to] an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

It certainly flows better, but this could be dismissed as a slight of hand via grammar and irrelevant to the point. I'd be inclined to agree. More important would be the problem of what fits better with Madison's own statements on the subject and actions as president on the matter.

His statements couldn't be more painfully clear:

"But the existing character, distinguished as it is by its religious features, and the lapse of time now more than 50 years since the legal support of Religion was withdrawn sufficiently prove that it does not need the support of Govt. and it will scarcely be contended that Government has suffered by the exemption of Religion from its cognizance, or its pecuniary aid.

The apprehension of some seems to be that Religion left entirely to itself may run into extravagances injurious both to Religion and to social order; but besides the question whether the interference of Govt. in any form wd. not be more likely to increase than controul the tendency, it is a safe calculation that in this as in other cases of excessive excitement, Reason will gradually regain its ascendancey." - James Madison to Rev. Adams

Here we find Madison extolling the virtues of the separation 50 years into the experiment. The emphasis is not mine on the "in any form" but from the original. An earlier demand that States follow suit in their own laws the separation enacted both federally and in many states can be found here:

"Ye States of America, which retain in your Constitutions or Codes, any aberration from the sacred principle of religious liberty, by giving to Caesar what belongs to God, or joining together what God has put asunder, hasten to revise & purify your systems, and make the example of your Country as pure & compleat, in what relates to the freedom of the mind and its allegiance to its maker, as in what belongs to the legitimate objects of political & civil institutions.

Strongly guarded as is the separation between Religion & Govt in the Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history." - James Madison, Detached Memoranda

It would be difficult to be more forthcoming than that on where Madison stood on the subject. This also highlights another issue to which many who deny such separation lay their arguments upon: the lack of a separation in many policies of the early States. What are we to make of this? Madison himself complained about those who would not follow suit with the separation established by the federal government and other States. Does this mean there was no separation after all? Why the contradiction?

The answer goes back to the legal standing of the Bill of Rights as only restraining the federal government. This confusion was sorted out in the infamous case of Barron v. Baltimore where the court reiterated that the protections in the Bill of Rights were restraints on the federal government, not on the State governments. This may seem peculiar given that many rights enshrined therein are currently restraining upon State and thereby their local governments as well. What changed? The answer: 14th Amendment Incorporation.

I've tackled the concept of 14th Amendment Incorporation (and substantive due process constructions) on the issue of the 2nd Amendment's protection of firearms ownership here, and also dealing with abortion case law here. Both are probably constructive in seeing how it is the Bill of Right's restrictions on the federal government have slowly been incorporated with the 14th Amendment as restrictions on State and local governments as well.

So what does this mean? It means that the arguments about the States having more leeway in their religious mixing with government earlier in the Republic used to be accurate, but since the 14th Amendment and its incorporation with the 1st, that argument is simply no longer valid. The arguments that this somehow proves the federal prohibition did not exist were never accurate, however, so as a general argument against the existence of the separation it fails miserably.

Madison, as president, further interpreted the 1st Amendment he principally drafted as a prohibition against mixing religious and civil affairs when vetoing a bill that merely recognized the incorporation of a single church:

To the House of Representatives of the United States:

Having examined and considered the bill entitled "An act incorporating the Protestant Episcopal Church in the town of Alexandria, in the District of Columbia," I now return the bill to the House of Representatives, in which it originated, with the following objections:

Because the bill exceeds the rightful authority to which governments are limited, by the essential distinction between civil and religious functions, and violates, in particular, the article of the Constitution of the United States, which declares, that " Congress shall make no law respecting a religious establishment." The bill affects into, and establishes by law, sundry rules and proceedings relative purely to the organization and polity of the church incorporated, and comprehending even the election and removal of the Minister of the same; so that no change could be made therein by the particular society, or by the general church of which it is a member, and whose support it recognizes. This particular church therefore, would be so far be a religious establishment by law; a legal force and sanction being given to certain articles in its Constitution and administrations. Nor can it be considered, that the articles thus established are to be taken as descriptive criteria only of the corporate identity of the society, inasmuch as this identity must depend on other characteristics: as the regulations established are generally unessential, and alterable according to the principles and canons by which churches of that denomination govern themselves; and as the injunction is a prohibitions contained in the regulations, would be enforced by the penal consequences applicable to all violation of them according to local law:

Because the bill vests and said incorporated church an also authority to provide for the support of the poor, and the education of poor children of the same; an authority which being altogether superfluous, if the provision is to be the result of pious charity, would be a precedent for giving to religious societies, as such, a legal agency in carrying into effect a public and civil duty. [emphasis mine] - James Madison Veto Message February 21, 1811

As is plain from both the text of the bill and the arguments (available at the same link with citations), this was not a bill that established a national church by any stretch of the imagination. As with another veto on February 28, 1811 (further down the page), with similar explanation, the issue was mixing religious function and civil function in general, not merely preventing a national church from being recognized. These bills dealt merely with incorporation and land grants. For a 1st Amendment challenge one is forced to view Madison's view of "respecting" as indistinguishable from "concerning" or perhaps even "having reference to" as opposed to some modern revision viewing it as an issue of esteem.

Indeed, the very concept Madison hailed in his comments about the federal separation was explained in the Religious Bill he had referenced and which ironically was anything but an atheistic screed:

An Act for establishing religious Freedom.

Whereas, Almighty God hath created the mind free; that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burthens, or by civil incapacitations tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, who being Lord, both of body and mind yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as was in his Almighty power to do, that the impious presumption of legislators and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical, who, being themselves but fallible and uninspired men have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavouring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world and through all time;...

...that to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves is sinful and tyrannical; that even the forcing him to support this or that teacher of his own religious persuasion is depriving him of the comfortable liberty of giving his contributions to the particular pastor, whose morals he would make his pattern, and whose powers he feels most persuasive to righteousness, and is withdrawing from the Ministry those temporary rewards, which, proceeding from an approbation of their personal conduct are an additional incitement to earnest and unremitting labours for the instruction of mankind;...

...that our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions any more than our opinions in physics or geometry, that therefore the proscribing any citizen as unworthy the public confidence, by laying upon him an incapacity of being called to offices of trust and emolument, unless he profess or renounce this or that religious opinion, is depriving him injuriously of those privileges and advantages, to which, in common with his fellow citizens, he has a natural right, that it tends only to corrupt the principles of that very Religion it is meant to encourage, by bribing with a monopoly of worldly honours and emoluments those who will externally profess and conform to it;...

...that though indeed, these are criminal who do not withstand such temptation, yet neither are those innocent who lay the bait in their way; that to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles on supposition of their ill tendency is a dangerous fallacy which at once destroys all religious liberty because he being of course judge of that tendency will make his opinions the rule of judgment and approve or condemn the sentiments of others only as they shall square with or differ from his own;...

...that it is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government, for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order;...

...and finally, that Truth is great, and will prevail if left to herself, that she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict, unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons free argument and debate, errors ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely to contradict them:

Be it enacted by General Assembly that no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief, but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of Religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge or affect their civil capacities. And though we well know that this Assembly elected by the people for the ordinary purposes of Legislation only, have no power to restrain the acts of succeeding Assemblies constituted with powers equal to our own, and that therefore to declare this act irrevocable would be of no effect in law;...

...yet we are free to declare, and do declare that the rights hereby asserted, are of the natural rights of mankind, and that if any act shall be hereafter passed to repeal the present or to narrow its operation, such act will be an infringement of natural right. [paragraphing added for readability]

Such an example extolling the virtues of a separation from a perspective cherishing religious beliefs equally with the revolutionary demands for both its protections from and for the state are indeed a rare gem these days. Madison further solidified his view of the separation and his actions as President to that effect in this letter:

There has been another deviation from the strict principle in the Executive Proclamations of fasts & festivals, so far, at least, as they have spoken the language of injunction, or have lost sight of the equality of all religious sects in the eye of the Constitution. Whilst I was honored with the Executive Trust I found it necessary on more than one occasion to follow the example of predecessors. But I was always careful to make the Proclamations absolutely indiscriminate, and merely recommendatory; or rather mere designations of a day, on which all who thought proper might unite in consecrating it to religious purposes, according to their own faith & forms.

...

Notwithstanding the general progress made within the two last centuries in favour of this branch of liberty, & the full establishment of it, in some parts of our Country, there remains in others a strong bias towards the old error, that without some sort of alliance or coalition between Govt. & Religion neither can be duly supported. Such indeed is the tendency to such a coalition, and such its corrupting influence on both the parties, that the danger cannot be too carefully guarded agst. And in a Govt. of opinion, like ours, the only effectual guard must be found in the soundness and stability of the general opinion on the subject. Every new & successful example therefore of a perfect separation between ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance. And I have no doubt that every new example, will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Govt. will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together.

...

If a further confirmation of the truth could be wanted, it is to be found in the examples furnished by the States, which have abolished their religious establishments. I cannot speak particularly of any of the cases excepting that of Virga. where it is impossible to deny that Religion prevails with more zeal, and a more exemplary priesthood than it ever did when established and patronised by Public authority. We are teaching the world the great truth that Govts. do better without Kings & Nobles than with them. The merit will be doubled by the other lesson that Religion flourishes in greater purity, without than with the aid of Govt.

From this letter he not only speaks of the separation with fondness, but also highlights his own actions towards the same. He describes the alliance between religious and government forces that many activists now demand as "the old error." He further goes far beyond explaining a mere prohibition on a national church, but could be seen as far more supportive of government proclamations for "happy holidays" over any special consideration given to Christmas. There's some historical irony for you.

But Madison's views of a necessary separation go back even further. His criticisms of intermixing religion and civil government pre-date the 1st Amendment he framed. Here is an excerpt of his criticisms against a bill that would have used tax money to help pay religious teachers (a foreshadowing of the modern voucher debate):

Because if Religion be exempt from the authority of the Society at large, still less can it be subject to that of the Legislative Body. The latter are but the creatures and vicegerents of the former. Their jurisdiction is both derivative and limited: it is limited with regard to the co-ordinate departments, more necessarily is it limited with regard to the constituents. The preservation of a free Government requires not merely, that the metes and bounds which separate each department of power be invariably maintained; but more especially that neither of them be suffered to overleap the great Barrier which defends the rights of the people. The Rulers who are guilty of such an encroachment, exceed the commission from which they derive their authority, and are Tyrants. The People who submit to it are governed by laws made neither by themselves nor by an authority derived from them, and are slaves.

...

Because the Bill implies either that the Civil Magistrate is a competent Judge of Religious Truth; or that he may employ Religion as an engine of Civil policy. The first is an arrogant pretension falsified by the contradictory opinions of Rulers in all ages, and throughout the world: the second an unhallowed perversion of the means of salvation.

It takes a peculiar reading indeed to assume Madison approached the subject of mixing religious and civil matters in a way that would allow legislating to protect the souls of the flock. If one can come away from all this truly believing that Madison's prohibition on respecting an establishment of religion was merely to prevent recognition or support of a national church, with the endless arguments against legislation concerning religion being a slippery slope towards tyranny, and with his own arguments about the 1st Amendment he framed prohibiting the same, there may not be any hope for reason to "regain its ascendancy."

If those who swear by the myth that there is no separation to be found in the words, meanings, and intent of the 1st Amendment and must rely on confusion over things such as 14th Amendment incorporation to do so, it is clear that they haven't a leg to stand on in this debate. The dismissal of the idea as some out of context or poorly articulated comment excised from some old Thomas Jefferson letter to further cloud the issue and justify revisionism for their agenda is beyond the pale. Playing semantics to twist the meaning of the 1st Amendment to merely prohibit "establishing a religion" as opposed to prohibiting any law respecting an establishment of religion is mind boggling. They're own argument that such phrasing cannot be found in the Constitution is a boomerang smacking them square in the face of their own peculiar interpretation.

But myths are aplenty with historical revisionism these days. One may have also fallen for the myth that we were founded as a "Christian Nation" in spite of one of the first unanimous votes ever agreeing with this language in the Treaty of Tripoli:

As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,-as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen,-and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

Some try to obfuscate on this by pointing out the translation wasn't ideal, but it was this translation which was unanimously accepted by the Senate at the time. But this is just another in a long line of historical revisionism. Some still even believe the myth that the pledge originally had "under god" in it, even though that has been soundly debunked as a modern change to differentiate us from those "godless communists" during the cold war.

For some the facts will never matter. Instead, I share Madison's hope that "Reason will gradually regain its ascendancy."

Friday, March 12, 2010.

Thursday, March 11, 2010.

Local statesman Timothy V. Johnson joined with Walter Jones (R-NC), Ron Paul (R-TX), and 2 other Republicans in supporting Dennis Kucinich's Resolution demanding that Obama bring the troops home from Afghanistan.  The resolution failed 65-356.  Republicans and Democrats alike rejected the resolution, 5 - 167 and 60 - 189, respectively.  Read how they voted here.   This overwhelming statement by the House in favour of continuing the war occurred in spite of polls that indicate that the American public is opposed to the Afpak war (http://www.pollingreport.com/afghan.htm)

Tim Johnson released a statement regarding his support of the resolution (http://timjohnson.house.gov/index.cfm?sectionid=29&sectiontree=7,29&itemid=315)

Excerpt:

“This war is and has been a futile undertaking with no end-game in sight. We have now budgeted, against my vote, $130 billion for this year for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. According to the Congressional Research Service, $937 billion has been spent on the two wars since 2001.

“The cost of sending an additional 30,000 troops to Afghanistan will be about $33 billion a year, or more than $1 million per soldier. That is 2.5 times the whole economy of Afghanistan.

“If we had not spent this money, our national debt and deficit would not be at such outrageous levels and our budget outlook would not be so grim.

Today's NG:

Even before Gov. Pat Quinn formally proposed his budget that includes a cut in the state revenue sharing program with cities and counties, there were howls from local government.

Champaign County Administrator Deb Busey said Quinn’s planned reduction in income tax sharing with municipalities would mean a loss of $795,000 to the county. The governor will propose today a reduction from 10 percent to 7 percent in the amount of income tax revenue the state passes on to local governments.

“To us that’s a 30 percent drop in the revenue stream,” Busey said at Tuesday’s county board committee of the whole meeting. “In 2008 that generated over $3 million.”

Discuss.

Wednesday, March 10, 2010.

The South Carolina state legislature has passed a Resolution asserting its 10th amendment right as a sovereign state to refuse federally imposed health care.

The full text is available here.

here are some portions:

Be it resolved by the Senate, the House of Representatives concurring:

That the General Assembly of the State of South Carolina, by this resolution, claims for the State of South Carolina sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by the United States Constitution.

Be it further resolved that it is the policy of the State of South Carolina that:

No law shall interfere with the right of a person to be treated by or receive services from a health care provider of that person's choice;

No law shall restrict a person's freedom of choice of private health care systems or private health care plans of any type;

No law shall interfere with a person's or an entity's right to pay directly for lawful medical services; and

No law shall impose a tax, penalty, or fine, of any type, for choosing a health care provider, to obtain or decline health care coverage or for participation in any particular health care system or plan.

Although no such resolution would be expected for Illinois, several other states including Oklahoma, Missouri, and Texas have similar constitutionally grounded resolutions in the works.

Curiouser and curiouser.

The remodelled McDonald's on North Cunnigham is re-opening tomorrow

The Daily Illini has published a searchable database of salaries for all UI system employees.  Their justification:

Employee salaries are one of the largest items on the University's budget. With the recent mandatory furloughs and changes in the administration, there has never been a more important time for continuing the transparency the University has started. In addition, this list allows the public to see how their tax and tuition dollars are being spent.

Kudos to the DI. 

Discuss.

Today's NG:

Before voting unanimously to approve $2.3 million in cuts and revenue enhancements, several board members said they were satisfied the district has done that as well as it could.

The cuts also include: reductions in departmental budgets at the district level (not building budgets); the elimination of three director jobs and one special education administrator job; and the end of the extended-day program at Stratton Elementary School. The district also proposes selling land near Barkstall Elementary School and Dr. Howard Elementary School, and putting an energy savings program into place.

Discuss.

Tuesday, March 9, 2010.

I still wonder if these proposals will ever be allowed to come to a vote:

The two issues related to the county board are part of a package of various reforms, including whether to eliminate the office of county auditor and whether to establish an independent county board redistricting commission.

Tuesday's public meeting will begin at 7 p.m. at the Brookens Administrative Center, 1776 E. Washington St., U. It will be held within the county board's regular committee of the whole meeting, scheduled to begin at 6 p.m.

Discuss.