THE GOD PARTICLE

(a/k/a THE HIGGS BOSON PARTICLE)

I don't know about you, but it certainly didn't take more than a tenth of a second for the headlines proclaiming “The God Particle Found” to grab my attention and twist my imagination with fantastic scenarios.  “What?  They found a particle of God?”  Remember, those headlines did not say “evidence of God” (which is another subject entirely), but rather “particle of God.”  My mind raced with now-absurd questions.  “How on earth did they find a particle of God?  How do they know for certain this is a particle of God?  Will they put it on display?”  I would fly anywhere at any time to see an actual “particle of God,” and I am sure I would not be alone.

            Anyway, sanity won out after those first few minutes of crazed speculation, and I read the articles.  Okay, they were not talking about an actual “particle of God,” but rather a particle of physics.  While logically, on the face of it, that sounded more grounded in reality, as I struggled to understand the obscure physics-speak, my eyes crossed and tangled with the remaining strands of my brain.  I thought that maybe, if I could find a way to simplify this little bit of particle physics, I might be able to make some sense of it all.  There are no doubt nonphysicists who can  understand particle physics, how to put the details together in some sort of cohesive thought process, and my hats off to them.  My mind does not travel the trails of obscure technical lingo quite that smoothly.

            Here is my attempt to explain what this “God particle” business is all about.  To get to it, though, we need to start with the basics to insure that we are all on the same page of understanding.

            First and foremost, “The God Particle” is the catchy epithet given to a physics phenomenon more correctly known as the “Higgs Boson Particle” – a name not quite as dramatic nor destined to grab headline attention in today’s tabloid world.

            Let us begin with a basic explanation of particle physics:  It is that branch of physics which deals with the properties, relationships, and interactions of subatomic particles.  Particle physics is interested in finding out what subatomic particles are made of, with the aim to study the basic building blocks of matter and the forces they exert on each other, to see how they interact to make the universe look and behave the way it does.  It is the study of the fundamental constituents of matter and the forces of nature.  It attempts to re-create the universe just after the Big Bang with the hope of answering those eternal mysteries: “Where do we come from?” and “What are we made of?”

Right now we know of twelve fundamental particles: six quarks and six leptons.  Currently there are hundreds of identified particles made from combinations of these twelve fundamental particles, and scientists are still finding more.  Quarks combine to form larger particles, such as protons and neutrons, most of the matter in the universe.  There are two main classes of leptons: charged and neutral.  Charged leptons combine with other particles to form other particles such as atoms, while neutral leptons rarely interact with anything and are rarely observed.

What specifically is a boson?  A boson is a fundamental force by which leptons and quarks are transmitted.  Bosons with the same energy can occupy the same place in space.  A boson has no “spin,” which is the rotation around a particle’s axis that sets up a magnetic field.

           

Let’s pause for a quick second to talk about the difference between particle physics and quantum physics.  While they overlap, as we now know particle physics is the study of the fundamental particles (those quarks and leptons).  Quantum physics studies interactions, not just of those fundamental particles, but anywhere that quantum theory is appropriate, such as atomic physics, lasers, nuclear physics, etc.

Who is Higgs?  Peter Higgs is the guy behind all this brouhaha.  He is a British theoretical physicist and emeritus professor at the University of Edinburgh.  Higgs first suggested his boson theory in 1964 as a “missing link” in standard physics, a missing link which explains how particles acquire mass.  While other theorists may have proposed such a hypothesis, Higgs was the only one to explicitly predict the particle and identify some of its theoretical properties.  Aptly named “Higgs Boson,” it has often been described as "the most sought-after particle in modern physics."

Without the Higgs Boson, our elementary particles would flit past each other at the speed of light.  Those elementary particles that make up the visible universe would, consequently, have no mass.  The Higgs Boson slows down the elementary particles.  Such slowing down is interpreted as “inertia,” and since Galileo, inertia has been identified as a property of things with mass.  So we have a mass (the Higgs Boson) slowing down the elementary particles which make up the universe to make up the visible universe.

Scientists found the Higgs Boson by using the Large Hadron Collider at the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN) in Geneva.  Until July 2012 there were only hypotheses and compelling theoretical structures.  Now, facts can be gathered.  Further work is needed to analyze Higgs Boson properties to determine if it has all the properties expected.  Again, the Higgs Boson particularly is important because, without it, we would have no visible universe.

Remember, my explanation is a simplistic one.  It is not meant to explain the detailed properties of quarks, leptons, inertia, fields, etc., or to explain the intricate details of the research.  If you are interested in the mind-twisting world of particle physics, I encourage you to learn more.

Finally, the term “The God Particle” was coined for Leon Lederman's 1993 popular science book on particle physics, “The God Particle: If the Universe Is the Answer, What Is the Question?”  Lederman gave the Higgs Boson the nickname "The God Particle" because “This boson is so central to the state of physics today, so crucial to our final understanding of the structure of matter, yet so elusive, that I have given it a nickname: the God Particle.”

            Until the next time, LLAP!

References

http://teachers.web.cern.ch/teachers/archiv/HST2001/bubblechambers/introduction.html

http://www.particlephysics.ac.uk/

http://www.pas.rochester.edu/~pavone/particle-www/particle_physics.html

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?34468-Difference-between-quantum-physics-and-particle-physics-cosmology

http://www.ph.ed.ac.uk/higgs/peter-higgs

http://www.lepp.cornell.edu/Education/rsrc/LEPP/Education/TeacherResources/Brief_Intro_to_HEP1.pdf

http://www.markusehrenfried.de/science/physics/hermes/whatisspin.html

http://hep.uchicago.edu/cdf/cdfglossary.html

http://cdsweb.cern.ch/journal/CERNBulletin/2012/28/News%20Articles/1459456?ln=en

http://theadvocate.com/home/3423194-125/scientists-hear-background-of-cern

http://books.google.com/books?id=-v84Bp-LNNIC&pg=PA22#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jim-baggott/higgs-boson-god-particle_b_1691194.html

The Fed

Ben Bernanke’s “Report to Congress” on July 17, brought home again how intensely we regard pronouncements from the Federal Reserve System.  As “The Fed” speaks, markets rise or fall, affecting us all whether we realize it or not.  I want to take a look at the Fed, to perhaps demystify it a bit, to provide a snapshot so the whole business won’t seem entirely cabal-like.

The Federal Reserve System, created by an Act of Congress in 1913, consists of a seven member Board of Governors headquartered in Washington, D.C., and twelve Reserve Banks located in major cities throughout the United States.  The board is appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate to serve 14-year terms of office.  Members may serve only one full term, but a member who has been appointed to complete an unexpired term may be reappointed to a full term. In making appointments, the president is directed by law to select a "fair representation of the financial, agricultural, industrial, and commercial interests and geographical divisions of the country."

The primary responsibility of the board is the formulation of monetary policy.  It has regulatory and supervisory responsibilities over Reserve banks, bank holding companies, Edge Act and agreement corporations, and the U.S. activities of foreign-owned banks.  The board sets margin requirements which limit the use of credit for purchasing or carrying securities.  Another area of responsibility is the development and administration of regulations that implement federal laws governing consumer credit.

The Fed is an independent entity within the government, accountable to the public and Congress and not a private, profit-making institution.  Its policy decisions do not have to be approved by the president or anyone else, and it does not receive funding appropriated by Congress.  Authority is derived from Congress, and Congress can alter its responsibilities by statute.  Board financial statements are audited annually by an independent audit firm retained by its Office of Inspector General in addition to its own internal auditing procedures.

The Fed is structured to remove the influence of politics from monetary policy. That being the official “party line,” it would appear that appointments to the board are politically motivated with each president nominating according to his party.  However, President Obama took the unusual step of nominating a Republican, Jerome H. Powell, along with a Democrat, Jeremy C. Stein, as a pragmatic attempt to satisfy Senate Republicans.

Congress sets the salaries of the board members.  For 2012, the chairman's annual salary is $199,700.  The annual salary of the other board members, including the vice chairman, is $179,700.  Board rules do not allow employees, their spouses, and minor children, to own debt or equity interests in banks, thrifts, or other depository institutions or their affiliates.

Now for a short study of the board members.  Detailed career and education background is given on the Fed website (http://www.federalreserve.gov/aboutthefed/default.htm).

Jerome H. Powell, a member since May 2012, has described himself as “by any fair reckoning a fiscal conservative” but he is known for taking independent positions on policy issues.  He has argued publicly that the debt ceiling should be raised, warning Republicans against failing to do so.

Jeremy C. Stein, also a member since May 2012, has advocated for stricter regulation of financial companies, including higher capital requirements for large financial institutions.  He has argued for strengthened regulation of “shadow banks” such as private equity funds and mutual funds that function like banks but are not subject to the same rules or oversight.

Both Powell and Stein are experts in the workings of financial markets; at the time of their appointments, the other five board members were primarily experts in other areas.

Daniel K. Tarullo, a member since January 2009, recently stated that much remains to be done in implementing banking reforms, and that policies underlying regulation should embody an affirmative set of goals.  He said that to return to, and maintain, a healthy housing market a healthy system of mortgage finance is needed, and that the debate about what we don’t want intermediaries and financial markets doing must be informed by a better articulated view of what we do want them doing.

Elizabeth A. Duke, a member since August 2008, has said that it would be unlikely that anyone would fully agree with the final decisions eventually made with regard to policies that will affect the future of the mortgage market, but until those decisions are made, uncertainties will continue to hinder access to credit, the evolution of the mortgage finance system, and the ultimate recovery in the housing market.

Sarah Bloom Raskin, a member since October 2010, has said that the financial inequality resulting from stagnating incomes for most Americans, and rapid growth in the richest 1%, is hindering the economic recovery, and that regulators must work to help consumers gain access to financial services and to ban products inherently unfair or deceptive.

Janet L. Yellen in October 2010 took positions simultaneously as vice chair of the board and as a board member.  She has said that the lackluster trajectory of the economic recovery might require the Fed to continue its efforts to bolster growth even beyond the end of 2014, and that the Fed remains committed to the efforts to suppress interest rates and reduce the cost of borrowing.  She stated that a highly accommodative monetary policy will remain appropriate for some time to come.

Ben S. Bernanke, originally took office simultaneously as chairman and board member in February 2006.  He began a second term as chairman in February 2010. Bernanke is a vocal advocate for an even more transparent Federal Reserve.   His study of the Great Depression instilled a life-long interest in the effects of deflation and its impact on people’s lives.  While stemming deflationary pressure by increasing the supply of money can have an inflationary result, he does not take inflation lightly.  He has stated that while the banking system has improved significantly in the past few years, banks have more to do to restore their health and adapt to the post-crisis regulatory and economic environment.

On July 17, 2012, Bernanke reported that while our economy has continued to recover, economic activity decelerated during the first half of this year.  While there have been modest signs of improvement in housing, a number of factors continue to impede progress (tighter lending standards, prospective buyers worrying about their own finances, etc.).  Rise in business spending has decelerated from that pace seen the second half of 2011.  Financial strains associated with the crisis in Europe have increased since earlier in the year.  Recovery continues to be held back by still-tight borrowing conditions and the restraining effects of fiscal policy and fiscal uncertainty.  The development of a credible medium-term plan for controlling deficits should be a high priority.  Recovery could be endangered by the confluence of tax increases and spending reductions that will take effect early next year if no legislative action is taken.  The most effective way that Congress could help would be to address the nation’s fiscal challenges in a way that takes into account by the need for long-run sustainability and the fragility of recovery.  He assured that the Fed is prepared to take further action as appropriate to promote a stronger economic recovery.  (However, as Bloomberg summed, while Bernanke says the Fed is prepared to act, he declines to specify steps.)

You can read Bernanke’s complete report at http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/testimony/bernanke20120717a.htm

Board member terms can't be cut short. The chairman, also nominated by the president, is limited to four-year terms, but after he's confirmed the president has no authority to remove him unilaterally.  He can only be removed “for cause.”  Furthermore, the chairman is also a member of the board, so even if a president were to replace Bernanke as chair when his chair term expires in 2014, Bernanke could choose to complete the remainder of his 14-year term as a board member.  Removal, however, would involve proving wrongdoing of some kind, and the process would ultimately be decided by employment lawyers and the legal system, not by a president alone. The Fed has declined to specify which causes might prove grounds for removal.

That it's not easy to get rid of a Fed chairman is evidenced by the fact that two different presidents tried, or at least considered, removing one and failed.  Presidents John F. Kennedy and Richard M. Nixon both wanted to remove William McChesney Martin.  Martin refused to step down and filled out his term.  It looks like Bernanke has as close to supreme job security as you can get.

So let’s see here, we have an organization with top management that can’t be fired and with a board that is pretty much guaranteed a job for a finite period of time.  As they speak, markets fluctuate, affecting the world.  Talk about job security combined with an ultimate power of economic rule!  

Can’t help but remember that famous quote by Lord Acton:  Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Until next time, LLAP!

References

www.federalreserve.gov

http://www.therichest.org/celebnetworth/tag/ben-bernanke-salary/

http://spectator.org/blog/2011/12/13/could-gingrich-fire-bernanke

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/28/business/economy/obama-to-nominate-economics-professor-and-ex-treasury-official-to-fed-board.html?_r=1

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/28/business/economy/obama-to-nominate-economics-professor-and-ex-treasury-official-to-fed-board.html

http://www.bis.org/review/r120503d.pdf

http://www.bis.org/review/r120516c.pdf

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2012/06/vice-chair-janet-l-yellen-perspectives-on-monetary-policy/

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/12/business/economy/fed-official-sees-long-road-back-for-economy.html?ref=janetlyellen

http://www.federalreserve.gov/aboutthefed/default.htm
http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/testimony/bernanke20120717a.htm

Deep Fried Brains

The heat of the last few days has taken its toll, I'm afraid, and has lead to a plethora of staccato thoughts:

A true hero doesn’t know he’s a hero; he only knows he has done the right thing and doesn’t get what the hoopla is all about.

If Mohammed, Jesus Christ and Buddha were alive today, they wouldn’t want to be.

A fear of dying frequently corresponds to a fear of living.

Technology is fabulous but its primary function is to help us expand our knowledge base; nothing can replace actual synapting axons and dendrites.

Always remember that the one who saved Middle Earth didn’t need to be a warlock, witch, wizard or elf to do so.

You are entitled to not believe in a higher presence or higher purpose, but you are not entitled to deride those who do.

Being old does not guarantee that you merit the respect you think you deserve.

Never put laundry detergent in the dishwasher.

Is it bravery when there is no alternative?

Religion may be for the masses, but belief is for the privileged.

Aging is nature’s idea of an ironic joke that too few people know enough to laugh at.

Remember, math is primarily theory.  Very little of it can actually be proven.

Escapism is the most direct route to reality.

Only the guilty have need for redemption.

Time is wasted on those who count their seconds.

Show me a contractor who finishes on time, and I’ll show you a contractor who is never without contracts.

If you can’t laugh at yourself you’re doomed.

A little bit of enlightened self-interest goes a long way.

People who think they are too old generally are.

A project will usually take at least three times as long as originally expected to complete.  If it only takes twice as long as expected to complete, consider it finished ahead of schedule.

Seek and ye shall find.  Knock and it will be opened to you.  Kick it in the butt and your path will be cleared.

Don’t mistake a smooth talker for a mystic.  Platitudes are easy to come by.  Wisdom is rare.

Time doesn’t put itself on hold for us.  If there is something in this life you really want to do then you sure as hell better do it.

Who would have believed at the birth of Star Trek that in so short a time we would be wearing those tiny communicators on our ears.

When a dream is in its embryonic stage be careful with whom you share it.  Be on guard for the jealousy of vision.

A logical deduction to the admonition “Love they neighbor as thyself” is that we must first love ourselves.

Sometimes that “winter of our discontent” can last a month of summers.

If you speak loudly on your cell phone within range of my hearing, you have earned the benefit of my input.

Everyone should learn the fine art of kicking themselves in the butt.

Never, never, never, never, never, never ask “What else can happen?” because, with a certainty, you’ll find out.

There’s no turning back once you post it on Facebook.

And I leave you with -

May you have done unto yourself what you have done unto others.

Until next time, LLAP!

Independence Day Meanderings

Occasionally my mind travels in bizarre directions.  Yesterday, the Fourth of July, it wandered to the movie “Independence Day.”  What I remember most about that movie has nothing to do with aliens, spaceships, Will Smith or Jeff Goldblum.  What I remember the most is that rousing speech that Bill Pullman, as President of the United States, gives just before he leads a troop of jet fighters to battle the invading aliens.

When I first saw that movie I remember thinking, wow, now isn’t that the kind of president any country would be proud to have as its leader.  This president is noble, articulate, intelligent, discerning, a loving father, and since his wife is killed by alien fire, he is a grieving widower.  To top it all off, he is an ace fighter pilot!  Though every disaster and tragedy imaginable surrounds him, he gives a speech that manages to rouse the entire planet.  What a “President,” with a Gigantic Capital P.

If you have a couple of extra minutes, watch it here: http://www.americanrhetoric.com/MovieSpeeches/moviespeechindependenceday.html

Yeah, I know.  How corny can one get?

But think of the fictitious presidential images that have been presented to us:  besides Bill Pullman in “Independence Day,” we also have Morgan Freeman in “Deep Impact,” Harrison Ford in “Air Force One,” Henry Fonda in “Fail Safe,” and many others.  It’s kind of pathetic that, more often than not, fictional presidents have the ability to rouse us more than the real ones.  Inevitably, we are disappointed because real life, what we say we want and hope for, does not imitate the movies.  How did we reach this point where we expect, consciously or subconsciously, our presidents to be the equals to the Superpresidents of fiction?

Surely the creation of a presidential image has been around for a long time.  Simple sloganeering began ages ago in 1840 with William Henry Harrison’s “Tippecanoe and Tyler too” and has gone on to, among others:

·         Vote yourself a farm – Abraham Lincoln

·         He kept us out of war – Woodrow Wilson

·         Return to normalcy – Warren G. Harding

·         A chicken in every pot and a car in every garage – Herbert Hoover

·         He’s making us proud again – Gerald R. Ford

·         A leader for a change – Jimmy Carter

·         It’s morning again in America – Ronald Reagan

·         Don’t stop thinking about tomorrow – Bill Clinton

·         Yes, American can! – George W. Bush

·         Yes we can! – Barack Obama

            In the 21^st Century we seem to have carried the formation of a presidential image to new heights, or depths, depending upon how you look at it.  Sloganeering has blossomed into a media package of photo ops, sound bytes, personal stylists, videography and a bevy of professional speech writers.  If a candidate looks good and sounds good, why, surely he must be good, right?  We don’t listen to speeches, we listen to rhetoric, rationalization and any bastardization of the truth that seems to strike the right chord with us, otherwise we don’t listen at all.  We won’t listen.  We confuse cleverness and the ability to come up with a smart retort in a millisecond with intelligence, wisdom, deep foresight and discernment.

            What do we choose to take away from these professionally manufactured sound bytes?

            “Yes, America can!”  America can what?  Yes, America can overcome its enemies; but what happens to those enemies after we overcome them?  America can be the best, but do we continue to be the best in the light of today’s new world economy and international arena?  If we decide that we are not, then what must we do to return to our original greatness?

            “Yes we can!”  We can what?  Rebuild our economy?  Overcome the daunting parameters of a new world society?  Bring jobs back to our own shores?  If we can indeed, how, at what price, and are we ready to pay that price?

            Our candidates must also ensure that they dress with the right balance of Kohl’s and Nordstrom.  I call it “The Macy’s Mode.”  Can you imagine the stylists, personal consultants and shoppers that must be kept on staff to insure that a photo op doesn’t turn against them – and how quickly we would turn against them if they did not adhere to images we have foolishly permitted to be imprinted in our minds.

Now there is nothing intrinsically wrong with sloganeering, photo ops and sound bytes.  There, however, is a lot intrinsically wrong with making our decisions based on them.  A sound byte or photo op should only be the springboard to the information process.  A sound byte or photo op is the title to a book.  If you only knew the title of a book, would you immediately agree with its author and content?

Harrison Ford, Bill Pullman and Morgan Freeman might be great on screen, but Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Obama were and are real people.  You may cheer a rousing speech in a movie because of the instant emotional gratification, but before you cheer a speech and gush slogans in real time make sure you understand exactly what is being said.

Why have we reached this point?  Why have we become so shallow?  Why have we so willingly, it seems, given our power over to media imaging?  When did we make the deal with the devil to trade depth for image?  Are we lazy?  To paraphrase Pogo “Have we met the enemy and is he us?”

Therefore, I declare today, July 5, 2012, a New Independence Day.  I declare independence from the sound byte.  I declare independence from the manufactured media image.

Until the next time, LLAP!

PS . . . Interesting how similar the Bush and Obama campaign slogans are.  One could travel all sorts of highways of deliberation with regard to the difference in using the word “We” versus using the word “America.”

References:

http://www.presidentsusa.net/campaignslogans.html

http://www.americanrhetoric.com/MovieSpeeches/moviespeechindependenceday.html

Executive Privilege

The news media has been nonstop in its indignation and condemnation toward President Obama for invoking executive privilege with regard to “Operation Fast and Furious.”  

To briefly summarize what brought us to the current situation:  the Obama Administration told a U.S. House panel that the President is asserting executive privilege by refusing to turn over documents related to a U.S. law enforcement gun operation.  President Obama invoked this privilege just before a House committee vote to hold Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt of Congress for failing to provide documents subpoenaed more than eight months ago related to the failed "Fast and Furious" operation.  Guns lost in the operation, which was originally meant to track the flow of firearms between the United States and Mexican drug cartels, were found near the scene of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry's murder in 2010. 

While Congress reviews the issue of whether or not the withholding of such information is vital to our National Security, and whether or not President Obama is justified in doing so, let us examine the practice of “Executive Privilege.”  When did the use of executive privilege start?  Who has used it in the past?  By reviewing its history, perhaps we can better understand what is happening between the White House and Congress.

The simplest definition of executive privilege is the privilege, claimed by the President for the Executive Branch of the Government, to withhold information in the public interest.  Executive privilege is a claim by the President or other official of the Executive Branch that he/she need not answer a request (including a subpoena issued by a court or Congress) for confidential government or personal communications on the ground that such revelations would hamper effective governmental operations and decision making.  The rationale is that such a demand would violate the principle of separation of powers among the Executive, Legislative and Judicial Branches.

Executive privilege is not mentioned in the Constitution, but, since our founding, Presidents have on occasion claimed a right to withhold information from Congress to preserve the confidentiality of that information in the face of legislative inquiry.

Further, the Supreme Court (in US vs. Nixon) ruled executive privilege to be an element of the separation of powers doctrine, and/or derived from the supremacy of the Executive Branch in its own area of Constitutional activity.  Chief Justice Burger noted: "Whatever the nature of the privilege of confidentiality of Presidential communications in the exercise of Art. II powers, the privilege can be said to derive from the supremacy of each branch within its own assigned area of constitutional duties. Certain powers and privileges flow from the nature of enumerated powers; the protection of the confidentiality of Presidential communications has similar constitutional underpinnings.”

Our first President, George Washington, claimed executive privilege in 1796, when the House of Representatives asked him to reveal details of the Jay Treaty with Great Britain.  Washington refused to do so since the House was not involved in making the treaty and hence had no right to view the information.

Thomas Jefferson also asserted the privilege with regard to documents requested in the treason trial of Aaron Burr, claiming their release would endanger public safety.  The Supreme Court overruled Jefferson’s claim and the documents were released.

During the period of 1947-1949 several major security cases became known to Congress.  A series of investigations ensued, culminating in the Hiss-Chambers case of 1948.  The Truman Administration issued a sweeping secrecy order blocking Congressional efforts from obtaining FBI data, and other executive data, on security issues.  Security files were moved to the White House and Administration officials were banned from testifying before Congress on security related matters.  Investigation of the State Department and other cases was stymied and the matter left unresolved.

In 1954, President Dwight D. Eisenhower instructed the Department of Defense not to share any information about its internal affairs with Congress, which was then holding the Army-McCarthy Hearings.  Although Eisenhower cited national security as the reason for his order, the broad scope of his order covered a great deal of Defense Department information that had nothing to do with the hearings.  In the end, Eisenhower would invoke the claim forty-four times between 1955 and 1960.

During the Watergate scandal Nixon invoked the privilege to keep from turning over tapes of White House conversations on charges that had been brought against members of his administration.  The Supreme Court ruled against him.  If there is a potential criminal charge, executive privilege will be denied.  However, as mentioned above, at that time, the Supreme Court found a Constitutional basis for claims of executive privilege when ordering Nixon to surrender his tapes, leaving the door open for Presidents to cite it in future disagreements with Congress.

In our more recent history, since 1980, executive privilege has been used twenty-five times:

President Barak Obama – 1

President George W. Bush – 6

President William Clinton – 14

President George H. W. Bush – 1

President Ronald Reagan – 3

We do not go to court to settle the executive privilege issue once and for all because:  (1) Presidents worry that, if they lose, courts will take away a valuable tool and weaken the power of the office; (2) on the other hand, if the lawmakers lose, they could permanently weaken Congress' subpoena power when it investigates Executive Branch blunders.

What happens next seems to seem the major question.  Even if Holder is held in contempt, it is not clear whether or not he would be forced to do anything.  Congress could file a lawsuit against him or try to arrest or fine him to force him to comply.  The case could go to the local U. S. attorney for enforcement.  But that's a long shot.  Consider:  Who is that local U. S. attorney’s boss?  Holder, and ultimately, Obama, who appointed him.  That is why the Justice Department traditionally declines to pursue such contempt of Congress cases.  Disputes over executive privilege are usually settled with a compromise between the Executive Branch and Legislatures.

While the end of this affair is still up in the air, and while President Obama might be right in withholding documents, a real fact of the matter is that this is an election year and the people of the United States now, more than ever, are quite vocal in consistently asking of ALL politicians, Republican or Democrat, on ALL issues, “What are they hiding and why?”  Without satisfying resolution, this issue cannot help but leave those questions of what and why linger through to the November election.

That being said, we also cannot forget that other Presidents have invoked executive privilege. President Obama is not the first, and we can say with a more than confident certainty, based on both precedence and Supreme Court ruling, that he will not be the last.

                    Until the next time, LLAP!

References:

http://www.legal-explanations.com/definitions/executive-privilege.htm

http://suite101.com/article/executive-privilege-defined-and-explained-a327454

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=418&invol=683

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dorf/20020206.html

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Decoder/Decoder-Wire/2012/0620/On-Fast-and-Furious-Obama-invokes-executive-privilege.-What-s-that

http://www.propublica.org/article/the-facts-behind-obamas-executive-privilege-claim

The Electoral College

Since this is a Presidential election year, and, without fail, vigorous discontent about the Electoral College system extends through and immediately following a Presidential election, I thought it would be a good idea, as a timely refresher, to talk about the system, its origins, how it works, etc., with the hope that we might be able to better formulate our arguments either for or against it.

When we vote in a Presidential election, we actually vote how the electors from our state will vote.  By midnight of the day of the election, we usually know the winner, but it is not until electors cast their votes in their respective state capitals that we officially have a new President and Vice President elect.  By the way, the electors do not actually cast their votes until the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December.  This tradition began in the 1800s because it took that long after the popular election to count the votes and for the electors to travel to their state capitals.

The Electoral College (hereafter referred to as EC) system was established by Article II of the Constitution and amended by the 12th Amendment in 1804.  The exact wording is at the Government Archives website: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/provisions.html.   The EC is administered by the National Archives and Records Administration.

The EC was originally formed because the Founding Fathers wanted to ensure that people were given direct input in choosing their leaders and initially only saw two ways to accomplish this:  either everyone would vote for and elect the President and Vice President based on popular votes alone, or people of each state would elect their members of Congress by popular election and then those elected members of Congress would in turn elect the President and Vice President themselves.

The direct popular election option was feared because there was no structure yet by which to choose and limit the number of candidates.  There were no national political parties at the time and communication was slow.  A candidate could be popular regionally, but be unknown to the rest of the country.  A large number of regionally popular candidates could divide the vote and not indicate the wishes of the nation as a whole.  On the other hand, election by Congress would require members to vote according to the desires of the people of their states.  However, this could have led to elections that reflected political agendas of the members of Congress over that of the people.  The compromise was Electoral College system.

Although state laws differ on how their electors are chosen, generally they are selected by the individual state’s political party committees.  You can check out your own state’s procedure by going to your state’s website and searching for “Electoral College.”  As an example, I looked up California and found this: http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/elections_ec.htm.  It is important to note that Article II, Section 1, Clause 2, of the Constitution provides that “no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.”  Electors generally hold a leadership position in their party or are chosen to recognize years of loyal service to the party.

The number of electors in each state is equal to its number of each state’s members in the U.S. House of Representatives plus two (for the number of Senators).  The District of Columbia gets three.  Each elector gets one vote.  Thus, a state with eight electors would cast eight votes.  There are currently 538 electors and the votes of a majority of them – 270 votes – are required to be elected.  Since EC representation is based on Congressional representation, it follows that states with larger populations get more EC votes.

The distribution of electoral votes for the 2004 and 2008 Elections is given here:  http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/2004/allocation.html.  Note that the website explains that the numbers of votes allocated were based on the 2000 Census, which determines the number of Representatives in the House, which (again) determines the number of electoral votes.

If neither candidate wins 270 electoral votes, the election is decided by the House of Representatives.  The combined Representatives of each state get one vote and a simple majority of states is required to win.  In our history, two Presidents have been elected by the House:  Thomas Jefferson in 1801 and John Quincy Adams in 1825.

Forty-eight states use a winner-take-all system (giving all its electoral votes to the candidate who receives the highest popular vote); however, Maine and Nebraska do not.  These two states grant their electoral votes based on the popular votes in each Congressional district of their states.  If a candidate receives the majority of votes in California, he or she will be awarded all fifty-five electoral votes.  However, if the same candidate does not win the majority in Nebraska, he or she can still gain one or two electoral votes if he or she wins one or more district.

When you look at the electoral votes for each state, you can see how it is possible it is for a candidate to lose a popular vote but still be elected President by the EC.  Theoretically, in one scenario, a candidate could win in only eleven states (California, Texas, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, New York, Ohio, Michigan, Illinois) and the District of Columbia, and lose in the other thirty-nine, and still be elected.  

In our recent history, in the 2000 election, George W. Bush, with 50,456,002 popular votes won 271 electoral votes; Al Gore, won the popular vote with 50,999,897 votes, but won only 266 electoral votes.  (Note: one elector from the District of Columbia abstained.)  Bush was elected.  This is not the only time in our history that a President was elected who had not won the popular vote:  Rutherford B. Hayes in 1876 and Benjamin Harrison in 1888.

There actually is nothing in the Constitution that requires an elector to vote for the candidate of the party that chose them.  Twenty-six states have no requirements.  Nineteen states and the District of Columbia have laws requiring electors to vote for the nominees heading their party slate, but provide no penalty for those who do not.  Five states have penalties for electors who violate their pledges.  Throughout our history only ten electors (referred to as “faithless”) have failed to vote as pledged.  None of these “faithless electors” changed the outcome of an election, but cast their votes to make a point or highlight an issue.  While there were no legal ramifications, political reputations and careers were damaged.

The very nature of the EC makes it ripe for controversy:  the Presidential election is not made by the popular vote; there is always the possibility that “faithless” electors will vote contrary to the public will; and voter turnout could be affected.  On the other hand, the EC system encourages political parties to coalesce divergent interests into two sets of coherent alternatives which contribute to the political stability of the nation.

To eliminate the Electoral College would require an Amendment to the Constitution.  So the next time you find yourself complaining about the Electoral College, take the time to write your Representatives and your Senators.  Join an action group or start your own.  Start working towards amending the Constitution.

But, please, don’t carry on ad nauseum about an “unfair system” unless you are ready to underline your complaints with meaningful active engagement.

Until next time, LLAP!

References:

http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/about.html

http://www.kintera.org/site/apps/nl/content2.asp?c=fvLRK7O3E&b=190089&ct=262799

http://www.ourwhitehouse.org/gettingthevotes.html

http://uselectionatlas.org/INFORMATION/INFORMATION/electcollege_procon.php