Author: photog

What Have We Got to Lose?

photog Camera Reviews, Country Music Reviews, Current Events, Music Reviews, Photography Reviews, Trump , ,

This week Donald Trump has a meeting in Alaska with Vladimir Putin.  I find this intriguing.  And not because I believe they are on the cusp of agreeing to the end of the Ukraine war.  Far from it.  Ukraine and Russia are killing each other there at an industrial scale and there does not seem to be an end in sight.  So that doesn’t seem to be on the agenda.

And maybe that’s the point.  I think both men are getting together despite knowing that no peace deal is currently possible.  So why are they getting together?  I’m not really sure of the answer but maybe it’s because they both know they are in a sort of unique position.  I think that maybe both of them want to find a way out of this nightmare and maybe they figure if they meet up without those in their orbits who want to keep the war going forever, that maybe they can figure something out that would satisfy both sides.

I know that Trump doesn’t want any part of this war but the neo-cons are very powerful in the Congress and even to some extent in his administration.  As for Putin, he’s in a million dead Russians so he can’t just walk away.  And even if he could there are a lot of Russians in Ukraine and he’s carving out a homeland for them.

But all and still, there may be a way to move this thing forward so that the killing stops.  And maybe that’s why both of them are there.  Trump’s whole persona is “the art of the deal.”  He probably figures it couldn’t hurt to talk to the other head honcho.  It’s not as if he’s afraid the other guy will talk him into a bad deal.  So how could it hurt?

Of course, if the two of them walk away accomplishing absolutely nothing and can’t even come up with some story about how these are the “first steps toward peace” then it will look like a loss for Trump.  And Trump must know this.  So, he must think there is something to be gained that outweighs that risk.  And that’s what intrigues me.  Could both of them be there for entirely the right reasons?  Could these two supremely egotistical and cynical men be getting together because they want to change the trajectory of the world?  Because if you think about it, they’re the only two men on this planet who have the authority and clout to actually do it.  Between the two of them, they control about 90% of the nuclear weapons on the planet and between the two of them they control some enormous amount of the resources (both natural and financial) of the planet.  Now certainly, both of them are constrained by the political systems they exist in.  Believe it or not Putin is considered a moderate in his regime structure and Trump has to deal with the military-industrial complex that is still insanely powerful.

But they still are the chief executive officers of two very, very powerful entities.  And imagine if the reason they are going to meet is to try and untangle the conflagration that Biden and the neo-cons has allowed to engulf us.  Maybe they can find a path.  Or maybe it’s hopeless.  But I give them both credit for trying.  What have we got to lose?

Guest Contributor – Tregonsee – 09AUG2025 – Constitution on Census

photog Current Events, Guest Contributors, Tregonsee, Trump

I actually looked at the constitution with respect to the census in a comment in another blog ( https://thenewneo.com/2025/08/07/trump-calls-for-new-census-that-doesnt-count-illegal-aliens/ ) Looking at the text of Article I, Section 2, Clause 3 of the US Constitution (partial) we have

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct.

So first issue is that the 3/5 clause is made moot by the 13th amendment as slavery is now forbidden, as are terms of service for a period of years . The “Indians Not Taxed” Portion has been nullified by legislative action in 1924 by the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 so native Americans DO count towards the census. This effectively leaves us with

“according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons”.

Sadly the most direct reading of that is NOT citizens but humans (actually counted/enumerated). It might be possible for the legislature to clarify the meaning to citizens (making legislative changes similar to what it did to include Native Americans). More sure would be a change in the constitutional language in the form of a constitutional amendment. A purely legislative change is likely to see judicial challenge given large blue states would get hammered by it. At present I doubt an amendment could be gotten through Congress let alone the 38 states needed for ratification. Probably worth a shot via the legislature as the Supreme Court might view that change as a clarification of the definition of Persons, analogous to the change created by the Indian Citizenship act.

With respect to the inaccuracy of the count alleged by the Trump administration the language uses the words count and enumerate. This does NOT seem to leave slop for the various estimates used in the blue cities with respect to transient and homeless populations as well as to count illegal aliens who do not directly reply to the census. The language implies that you have to actually count the people. Only people so counted, to be repetitive, count. This would be challenged but is on far stronger ground with the current Supreme Court’s tendency to being more constrained by the text.

Finally the language concerning whether you can do another census sooner than 2030 says “The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct.” That implies no more than 10 years between enumerations but Congress may legislate when within that period. So it would seem they could require an enumeration sooner, but it may take legislative action depending on the law as it exists.

Of course, I am NOT a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV, so this and $2.50 will get you a cup of coffee (maybe). This particular idea of restricting the redistricting to be based on citizens (or similar) seems like a win. It also seems like what the founders intended as the purpose of redistricting is to avoid rotten boroughs, as seen in 17th-century England and trying to keep representation in line with citizens/population.
If Congress WERE to write an amendment to restrict the enumeration to citizens I would think that they should also go with something like the Wyoming rule (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wyoming_Rule), adding seats so that there is less of the discrepancy on representation/seat where some small states votes are disproportionate to districts in larger districts. Last I looked the Wyoming rule would require ~570 seats instead of the current 435 in the House. It is something the Left complains about A LOT and I do not think the Wyoming rule would have much effect on overall balance as the red areas get a fair addition of seats too.