"Don’t count your hatches until they have chickened" is a common saying among D.C. area conservatives who have observed the career of Utah Senator Orrin Hatch, which career is characterized by sellout, after sellout, after sellout.

Now, in the latest chapter of betrayal by Ted Kennedy’s good friend, Orrin Hatch, The Washington Post (5/2/07) reports "A prominent Republican senator, Orrin G. Hatch, threw his weight behind the D.C. voting-rights bill yesterday in what supporters called a possible breakthrough in getting the legislation approved by that chamber.

"Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.), who introduced the bill yesterday with Hatch (Utah), said both men would start lining up support in the Senate. Lieberman, chairman of the key Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, pledged to hold a hearing on the legislation this month.

" ‘I...am certain [Hatch’s] co-sponsorship will lead to the breakthrough we’ve been searching for to bring an end to the 200-year disenfranchisement of District residents,’ Lieberman said.

"The legislation is a political compromise that would pair a new House seat for the heavily Democratic District with another seat for the Republican-leaning Utah. Hatch’s state just missed getting a fourth representative after the last census. …

"Supporters of the bill were elated by the leading role assumed by Hatch, a 30-year Senate veteran who is widely respected in Congress, particularly among Republicans. As a former Judiciary Committee chairman, Hatch could be an influential counterweight to those who have called the bill unconstitutional, advocates said.

" ‘It’s very, very important,’ said Rep. Thomas M. Davis III (R-Va.), who co-sponsored the House bill with D.C. Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D). ‘You need a leading Republican face’ to get the bill passed.

"Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R.-Ky.) reiterated his opposition to the measure, however. Asked whether Hatch’s move would change Republican minds, McConnell said: ‘Well, it doesn’t change the Constitution. And the Constitution’s really quite clear on it.’

"Critics of the D.C. vote legislation say it violates the constitutional requirement that House members come from states. The bill’s supporters argue that the Constitution gives Congress sweeping powers over the District, which would allow for giving it full representation in the House. Prominent legal experts disagree over which side is right.

"Hatch said he had been persuaded by arguments that Congress treats the District as a state in many ways. ‘These arguments lead me to believe it is only fair that we proceed with this legislation,’ he said. …

"Asked whether he would talk to President Bush about approving the bill, Hatch said: ‘You bet.’ …

"The bill would give Utah the seat and an extra electoral vote until 2012, when redistricting takes place based on the 2010 Census. The legislation would permanently raise the number of House seats to 437."

SPELLINGS UNCONSTITUTIONALLY PROMOTES FEDERAL CONTROL OF "HIGHER EDUCATION"

"Education Secretary Margaret Spellings called Tuesday for greater accountability by colleges and universities, including the creation of a national database to track how well students learn.

"Lee Shulman, president of the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, said in an e-mail that aside from the privacy question, there has been ‘far too little discussion of whether such a s(database) system is worth creating…if the data it records is not worth using. Really poor and misleading data is far more dangerous than no data at all.’" (USA TODAY, 9/27/06)

Former Astronaut Wally Schirra died today (May 3) at the age of 84. In 1970, when, at the request of the White House, I was a candidate for Congress in the Sixth Congressional District of Massachusetts, the main event of my campaign was a dinner to be held in Haverhill, Massachusetts, featuring Astronaut Schirra.

Several hours before the event, which was the first occasion on which my campaign expected to receive significant media coverage, Schirra cancelled.

Obviously, his liberal friends had gotten to him. In order to make sure the event could, nonetheless, be a success, I contacted Frank Borman, then head of Eastern Airlines, and other astronauts, as well as a great many members of the U.S. Senate as possible fill-ins for Schirra.

Ultimately, with the help of Dick Cheney, who was then Rumsfeld’s Special Assistant, Counselor to the President Don Rumsfeld, on short notice, agreed to turn his car around (it had been headed to the White House) and go to D.C. National Airport for a flight to Boston.

With the help of Massachusetts GOP Governor Frank Sargent, I had an impressive police escort, consisting of a half dozen motorcycles and other vehicles which sped us to the event in Haverhill at speed of more than 100 m.p.h.

During the discussion which my wife, Peggy, and I had with Rumsfeld on the drive to Haverhill, Rumsfeld insisted that I visit him after the campaign and consider taking a position with him at the U.S. Office of Economic Opportunity (OEO). I told Rumsfeld that was the last place I wanted to go, having just finished a stint running youth programs for President Nixon and Vice President Agnew as Director of the President’s Council on Youth Opportunity, which covered some of the same domestic policy ground as did the Office of Economic Opportunity.

When the campaign ended, I was blessed with numerous offers, including Assistant Secretary of Defense for Legislation, Chairman of the John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Company, Regional Administrator of any one of several Federal agencies which had offices in Boston, and Chairman of the Massachusetts Republican Party, I was also encouraged to stay in Massachusetts to prepare for another Congressional campaign.

It’s a long story, but, for a variety of reasons, I wound up at OEO as Special Assistant to the Director who, when Rumsfeld left in December of 1970, was his former Princeton wrestling partner, Frank Carlucci.

It was my privilege to be one of the principal eulogists, along with his daughter, Nancy, at the funeral of a very great man, my dear friend, William K. Shearer, who died on March 3 at the age of 76.

In my remarks, I recounted much of Bill Shearer’s life story, which is difficult to encapsulate, given his wide range of talents: political leader, trial lawyer, Egyptologist, and more.

Bill had memorized every word of the many Gilbert and Sullivan operettas and was similarly capable of quoting at length from the Holy Bible.

Nineteen months prior to his death, Bill’s doctors had said he had only six months to live, but, thanks to the faithful ministrations of his beloved daughter, Bill lived for an extra 13 months. I began my remarks by saying that, for this reason, this funeral was a year late.

I expressed my appreciation for the crucial role which Bill had played in launching the U.S. Taxpayers Party, which is now the Constitution Party. In addition to his service as National Chairman of the USTP, Bill did a brilliant job as Parliamentarian and Chairman of the Party’s Platform Committee at our national conventions in New Orleans in 1992 and San Diego in 1996. Bill had been National Chairman of the American Independent Party (AIP) and had secured ballot access in California for the AIP, which he generously made available to our new party.

I first met Bill as an adversary in 1976 at a national convention of the AIP where, along with a few others from an organization called the Committee for the New Majority, I promoted the Presidential candidacy of Judge Robert Morris, former Chief Counsel of the Senate Internal Security Committee, who had played a key role in the investigation and exposure of Alger Hiss. Richard Viguerie was to have been Judge Morris’ running mate had the AIP accepted our recommendation.

My participation in the AIP convention in 1976 followed meetings with former California Governor Ronald Reagan, former Texas Governor John B. Connally, and former Alabama Governor George Wallace, each of whom members of our committee attempted to persuade to seek the Presidency in 1996 independently of the two major parties.

Bill Shearer regarded me as part of a hostile invading party, and I recall with trepidation his ominous yet principled demeanor. But Bill was a forgiving man and greeted me warmly when I approached him about the formation of our new party in 1991, leading up to the 1992 election.

Bill was an extraordinarily charitable man who was very modest, quiet, and self-effacing about the many good deeds that he performed in his personal life. Bill greatly missed his wife, Eileen, who had worked with him in the political arena and whom he called "Her Ladyship". Eileen predeceased Bill by three or four years.

The funeral service was held at the Chapel of the Roses in Bonita, California, a beautiful venue, and was attended by hundreds of Bill’s friends and admirers, including Constitution Party leaders from various parts of the United States. It was an additional honor for my daughter, Alexandra, to be one of two vocalists at the funeral, along with a leader of the San Diego Lyric Opera Company, cantor Leon Natker, who sang the 23^rd Psalm in Hebrew. (Bill Shearer had, at one point, been President of the San Diego Lyric Opera Company). Music was also provided by Charlie Zahm, via CD, and by my daughter, Alexandra Phillips. Pastor Royce ell presided with dignity and effectiveness throughout the event.

Here follow some of my comments at the funeral, summarizing key elements of Bill Shearer’s life:

Whatever happened to Dan Burton? I remember when he was a conservative.

Burton was one of 22 Republicans who voted in defiance of the Constitution to give the District of Columbia voting rights in the U.S. House of Representatives. The others were: Chris Cannon of Utah, Michael Castle of Delaware, Tom Davis of Virginia, Charles Dent of Pennsylvania, Jo Ann Emerson of Missouri, Philip English of Pennsylvania, Michael Ferguson of New Jersey, Wayne Gilchrest of Maryland, Darrell Issa of California, Ray LaHood of Illinois, Steven LaTourette of Ohio, Mike Pence of Indiana, Todd Platts of Pennsylvania, Jon Porter of Nevada, Rick Renzi of Arizona, Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, Jim Saxton of New Jersey, Christopher Shays of Connecticut, Christopher Smith of New Jersey, Fred Upton of Michigan, and Frank Wolf of Virginia.

Mike Pence’s decision to stand with Tom Davis and Elizabeth Holmes Norton is another sign that he expects to be tapped for the Vice Presidency by a mainstream GOP Presidential nominee. Pence has also gone liberal in his support of pro-amnesty immigration legislation.

More information about this issue.

Charles Orndorff, the Administrative Vice Chairman of The Conservative Caucus (TCC), who is a Phi Beta Kappa graduate of the University of Virginia and one of the nation’s leading Constitutional scholars, is more expert on the question of D.C. voting representation in the U.S. House of Representatives than any other living American insofar as I am aware.

Here follows Mr. Orndorff’s final rebuttal (Number Seven) in which he rebuts the claims of advocates for D.C. voting representation:

Although HR 1905 has now been sent to what is likely its final resting place on the other side of the capitol, two of the recklessly false statements made during debate demand correction.

1. Rep. Conyers claimed that "for those who wonder why we didn't make them a State right off the bat, at that time there may have been 150 people living in this swampy area that is now known as D.C. We didn't have anybody to make citizens."

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the census of 1800 found that what became the District of Columbia later that year (including the towns of Alexandria and Georgetown) had a population of 14,093 -- almost 100 times greater than the Conyers number (and the land that is now the District was never a swamp).

Rep. Conyers also ignored the lengthy debate that took place in the House in 1800-1801 regarding whether Congress should delay indefinitely assuming jurisdiction, allowing those who would otherwise become District residents to remain citizens of Virginia and Maryland, and thereby retain their voting rights (including voting for state legislators).

2. Del. Norton referred to "the sixteenth amendment, which requires only that citizens of States pay Federal income taxes. Why then have District residents continuously been taxed without representation?"

The actual text of the Sixteenth Amendment is "Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration." The amendment says nothing about taxing

only residents of the states, and the Constitution specifically declares, in Article I, Section 8, that taxes "shall be uniform throughout the United States", not among the states.

The only exception to this rule of uniformity is direct taxation, defined as poll taxes and taxes on real estate, and which must have variable rates from state to state so as to collect an amount proportionate to each state's population. (Congress has not levied a direct tax since 1862.) The Sixteenth Amendment was adopted to overturn a Supreme Court decision which found that a tax on income derived from the ownership of real property should also be considered a direct tax.

By voiding this decision, the amendment allowed taxes on all forms of income to be governed by the rule of uniformity "throughout the United States."

[This is one in a series of responses by The Conservative Caucus to arguments made by supporters of HR 1905. For further information, contact Charles Orndorff.

Charles Orndorff, the Administrative Vice Chairman of The Conservative Caucus (TCC), who is a Phi Beta Kappa graduate of the University of Virginia and one of the nation’s leading Constitutional scholars, is more expert on the question of D.C. voting representation in the U.S. House of Representatives than any other living America insofar as I am aware.

Accordingly, I am going to run a series of six blogs in which Mr. Orndorff rebuts the claims of advocates for D.C. voting representation.

Here follows Mr. Orndorff’s rebuttal Number Six:

It is a common matter for legislation to include a severability clause, declaring that if one portion is ruled by the courts to be unconstitutional, the remainder of the act shall not be affected. The offending portion is simply to be "severed" from the remainder.

However, HR 1905 contains just the reverse -- a non-severability clause. Section 7 of the bill states that " If any provision of this Act, or any amendment made by this Act, is declared or held invalid or unenforceable, the remaining provisions of this Act and any amendment made by this Act shall be treated and deemed invalid and shall have no force or effect of law."

This is obviously intended to eliminate the additional Utah seat when the District seat is ruled unconstitutional. Yet, the advocates of HR 1905 have incessantly declared that the bill is constitutional beyond any doubt. Why, then, should a non-severability clause be needed?

If supporters of HR 1905 are truly as confident as they claim that the Federal courts will uphold representation for the District, they should demonstrate this confidence by removing the non-severability clause. Its presence in HR 1905 stands as a "smoking gun", proving that even its sponsors know that the Constitution is against them, and that their chances in court are, at best, slim.

[This is one in a series of responses by The Conservative Caucus to arguments made by supporters of HR 1905. For further information, contact Charles Orndorff.

Charles Orndorff, the Administrative Vice Chairman of The Conservative Caucus (TCC), who is a Phi Beta Kappa graduate of the University of Virginia and one of the nation’s leading Constitutional scholars, is more expert on the question of D.C. voting representation in the U.S. House of Representatives than any other living America insofar as I am aware.

Accordingly, I am going to run a series of six blogs in which Mr. Orndorff rebuts the claims of advocates for D.C. voting representation.

Here follows Mr. Orndorff’s rebuttal Number Five:

Previous rebuttals in this series have shown the fallacy of the claim that Congress has constitutional authority to treat the District as if it were a state for purposes of congressional apportionment. However, even if Congress had the discretion to treat the District as a state, HR 1905 does no such thing.

The bill allows the District only one representative, no matter how large its population may grow. Each state has a constitutional right to its proportional number of representatives, depending on its population in the most recent census. If constitutional standards require that the District be treated as a state in order to award it representation, then the number of its representatives must be determined by its population.

We should note that, in presidential elections, the District is given an electoral vote equal to that of the smallest state. This limitation was created by constitutional amendment, and one must conclude that such treatment, inferior to that of a state, can only come through amendment.

HR 1905 also limits the District to representation only in the House. The District would receive no senators. This can by no stretch of the imagination be considered treatment as if it were a state. The Constitution actually gives extraordinary protection to the states in regard to their equal representation in the Senate, prohibiting any amendment to that portion of the Constitution. The District, even if represented in the House according to population, will still be ranked among the small states which need their Senate equality to protect their interests. By denying senate representation, HR 1905 denies treatment as if the District were a state.

The fact that HR 1905 establishes no connection between population and representation also leads logically to the conclusion that, if constitutional, Congress may arbitrarily grant the District any number of representatives it chooses. There could be no upper limit if representation is not tied to population, but is at the discretion of Congress. Such authority is easily recognized as absurd, and demonstrates the equal absurdity of any claim that HR 1905 can be constitutional.

[This is one in a series of responses by The Conservative Caucus to arguments made by supporters of HR 1905. For further information, contact Charles Orndorff.