The Colvin Report: Is The Senate A Proper Training Ground For A President?

Senators very seldom win Presidential elections.

In fact, only two sitting senators have ever been elected president. (1) John F. Kennedy, who ran against then Vice-President Richard Nixon in 1960, and (2) Warren G. Harding, an Ohio Republican who beat the Democratic governor from his home state to win the 1920 election.

This year, we have no choice, McCain, Obama, and Clinton are all sitting senators. But, does this position give the leadership and experience needed to become President of the United States?

To put things in perspective, a U.S. senator has 43 Staffers, while a Manager of Walmart Supercenter has 450 or more employees.

Is two (Obama) or six (Clinton) years of having 43 staffers under your control really enough experience to run a nation of 300 million people?

At least with McCain he has vast military (retired a Captain) and 25+ years of political experience, but does that help or hurt him? With McCain's 20+ years in the Senate he has built up a track record. Seems like a good thing at first, except that as a Forbes article points out:

"They often appear to flip-flop on issues, or will vote against a slightly different version of a bill. Other times, a senator will vote for a bill simply because there is an amendment attached that would be favorable to his or her constituents.

This amounts to a field day for opposition research teams: Few things are easier to twist in a 30-second campaign spot than a Senate voting record."

What will be the deciding factor?

And now, for a second act... (Part 1)

Barring catastrophic scandal, or unlikely (though possible) comeback, the top ticket of both the Democratic and Republican tickets will have been decided by March 5th. Let us begin to enter the ever-speculative, and ever-entertaining, world of vice presidential prognostication. Who will the front-runners pick, and how will that affect their chances in November:

First, the Republican race:

The top of the ticket is going to be Senator John McCain, flyboy rebel from the Arizona Republic. I offer a list of possibles, along with some comments. Feel free to supplement.

• Kay Baily Hutchinson - Senator from Texas - An ideal choice to spin the identity politics away from the Democratic Party, even without HRC at the top of the ticket. She's retiring from the Senate, so she isn't busy these days. Possibly too moderate on Abortion for the Right-wing, but basically a Bush-Republican on other issues.

• Charlie Crist - Governor of Florida - The perfect figure to modernize the Republican Party. More Bloomberg than Inhofe, Crist has straddled the center since being elected in 2006. He's a progressive-minded, fiscally conservative former attorney general, with a youthful television personality and excellent approval ratings in Florida. Probably the biggest reason McCain won the decisive Florida primary. First, though, he really ought to get married (Rumors constantly circulate about Crist's sexuality).
  

• Willard "Mitt" Romney - Former Governor of Massachusetts - Bringing the GOP ticket together like this would certainly thrill members of the far right. Unfortunately, once the new Mitt Romney melts away, the old moderate, Gov. Romney appears. His right-ward shift cannot mask the years he spent as a technocratic, pragmatic governor of one of the most liberal states in the Union. His economic chops are plus for the ticket, but his baggage probably isn't. He is exceptionally well-groomed, however, and makes McCain look like a midget

• Piyush "Bobby" Jindal - Governor of Louisiana - the 36(!) year old wunderboy from Louisiana just might be the perfect choice for McCain. He is very conservative on the social issues that McCain can sometimes waver on and has a youthful charisma (not to mention a laudable intellect) that would electrify the republican base. Unfortunately, it seems as if he is devoted (quite honorably) to fixing the state of Louisiana first.

• Tim Pawlenty - Governor of Minnesota - Another rising GOP star, who won the governor's race in progressive MN by significant margins. He is probably the most conservative governor the state has ever had, but don't let that fool you. His positions tend to look moderate when viewed from the national perspective. He has strongly emphasized environmentalism and alternative energy and was well-received for his handling of the bridge collapse in Minneapolis last year. Definitely on the inside track, considering his long-standing support for McCain's candidacy.

Some other options, not making the short list:

• Former Sen. Phil Graham (R-TX)
  
• Former Governor Mike Huckabee (R-AK)
  
• Governor Haley Barbour (R-AL)
• Senator Joe Lieberman (I-CT)
• Governor Rick Perry (R-TX)
• Governor Mark Sanford (R-SC) [Although see his positive words on Obama here]
  

Next time, the Democrats...

Obama's "Super" Tax

I was recently alerted to this story via U.S. News and World Report: I'll highlight the basic facts before giving my own thoughts on the policy and its potential ramifications.

In his speech last week in Wisconsin, Mr. Obama said the following:

"In the end, this economic agenda won't just require new money. It will require a new spirit of cooperation and innovation on behalf of the American people. We will have to learn more, and study more, and work harder. We'll be called upon to take part in shared sacrifice and shared prosperity."

Sounds good right? However, most important is to unwind the words and look for real policy. It is important to to examine both Mr. Obama's economic agenda and the sources of his so-called "new money." As I discussed previously, Obama plans on massive tax increases to support his policies. However, the increase may just be the tip of the iceberg.

Back in December, Obama sponsored the "Global Poverty Act," a bill that proposed the following:

To require the President to develop and implement a comprehensive strategy to further the United States foreign policy objective of promoting the reduction of global poverty, the elimination of extreme global poverty, and the achievement of the [U.N.] Millennium Development Goal of reducing by one-half the proportion of people worldwide, between 1990 and 2015, who live on less than $1 per day.

The legislation, if approved, dedicates 0.7 percent of the U.S. gross national product to foreign aid, which over 13 years he said would amount to $845 billion "over and above what the U.S. already spends." Additionally, the Bill could "result in the imposition of a global tax on the United States" and would make levels "of U.S. foreign aid spending subservient to the dictates of the United Nations.

It has been suggested that gas taxes would have to be increased from 35 cents to $1 in order to pay for the increase in foriegn aid. Not only does Obama want to raise taxes on Americans making over $250,000 a year and eliminate the $102,000 wage cap on Social Security taxes, he perhaps wants to add another trillion dollars in taxes to pay for dramatically increased foreign aid.

People, including myself, have decried the current President's lack of fiscal responsibility, but there is currently a very good possibility that the next president could increase our current deficit. After all Mr. Obama could simply borrow the money to fund his spending considering I've never heard him advocate for a balenced budget.

Lastly, the last time I checked people in our own country are struggling. We have poor, impoverished, and hungry people in the U.S. Why can't we use our funds to help these people. Although some people might be strictly anti-tax, I am more willing to allow the government to take what it needs if the resources go to helping my own countrymen. Why should people in foreign lands take precedent over struggling people in our own land?

Although much has been made about the Obama family's background in economics, it is Barack Obama running for President. It is a worthy cause to want to help all people everywhere, but it is not the job of the U.S. to solve the world's problems. The last time I checked we had poor and hungry people here that need our attention more than those in foriegn nations.

Let's look for those that need our help the most: Our fellow Americans.

Energy: Right in front of us??

Recently the N.Y Times posted an article concerning a new way to get fuel. If two scientists are correct, we will still be driving gas powered cars 50 years from now. However, the difference between now and the the future, would be the source of the energy. Instead of getting energy of middle east oil barons, these scientists propose that we would simply suck the carbon dioxide from the sky and create oil.

The scientists even suggest the idea would be easy to implement. Air would be blown over a liquid solution of potassium carbonate, which would absorb the carbon dioxide. The carbon dioxide would then be extracted and subjected to chemical reactions that would turn it into fuel: methanol, gasoline or jet fuel.

The concept even resonated with me. After all, you learn in high school chemistry that mass cannot be created or destroyed. It simply changes shapes. Although, the idea is still yet to be tried, the scientists say it is all based on existing technology.

The Los Alamos proposal does not violate any laws of physics, and other scientists, like George A. Olah, a Nobel Prize-winning chemist at the University of Southern California, and Klaus Lackner, a professor of geophysics at Columbia University, have independently suggested similar ideas. Dr. Martin said he and Dr. Kubic had worked out their concept in more detail than previous proposals.

Although the energy expediture to accomplish the reaction would be massive, scientists say a nuclear reactor dedicated to the project would produce the required amount of energy.

According to their analysis, their concept, which would cost about $5 billion to build, could produce gasoline at an operating cost of $1.40 a gallon and would turn economically viable when the price at the pump hits $4.60 a gallon, taking into account construction costs and other expenses in getting the gas to the consumer. With some additional technological advances, the break-even price would drop to $3.40 a gallon, they said.

Despite all the other critics advocating alternative energy, gasoline is an almost ideal fuel (except that it produces 19.4 pounds of carbon dioxide per gallon). It is easily transported, and it generates more energy per volume than most alternatives. If it can be made out of carbon dioxide in the air, the Los Alamos concept may mean there is little reason to switch, after all.

Perhaps instead of advocating all the alternative energy proposals, we should give these scientists the chance to see if their theories hold up. As I wrote in an early post ethanol is not the answer to our problems, and growing plants takes up wide swaths of land. This proposal would not take nearly as much land.

Although the project is still about one year away from a test, most believe it is viable. I guess it remains to be seen whether this break through technology will end our dependance on foriegn oil, or will go the way of cold fusion.

Straight Talk express off the tracks?

As almost every media outlet will report tomorrow morning, the New York Times broke a simmering story wide-open tonight regarding Senator John McCain's relationship with a telecom lobbyist, Vicki Isema, while McCain sat on the powerful commerce committee . Two things are alleged here, one that is getting too much attention, and another, not enough:

First, McCain may have had an extramarital (his second/third, depending on who's asking and which wife) affair with a lobbyist working the Senate beat. McCain has written about his indiscretions during his time with his first wife (whom he divorced when he arrived back from Vietnam, only to marry Cindy one month later). This is the over-reported story. Who cares if a public official cheats on his wife?

The second, and more troubling, issue speaks to a betrayal of public trust. As expected, the far-right jumps all over the messenger, the loathed Grey-Lady. I tend to agree that the story is lightly sourced, but from what I hear and read, this is only the tip of the iceberg. Several McCain advisors speak on record about the relationship, and others speak off the record in more detail. The problem here isn't an affair, but the fact that McCain, who prides himself on "clean government", fighting government pork and earmarks, and public financing reform is doing the bidding of a lobbyist against the interest of his constituents. Senators should not be sharing private jets with lobbyists, should not be going to vacation destinations with such individuals, nor should they be associating themselves so closely as to create the aura of impropriety.

Now, most of the conduct McCain apparently participated may not have been explicitly illegal, although Senators may not take personal gifts from lobbyists (such as rides on airplanes, hotel comps, etc.). I don't particularly think this is any worse than the known McCain scandal, the Keating 5 savings and loan disaster. McCain has apologized for this behavior in two of his books, following a pattern that endears him to the press by grinningly acknowledging the error of his ways and then sarcastically explaining away the fault with snark and bitting wit. He has done so explaining his 6th to worst class rank at the Naval Academy, his flip-flop over the Confederate Flag in South Carolina in 2000, and over his former denunciation of Christian Right Leaders.

Many will dismiss this story as a fable timed to sink McCain. The media is always out to get politicians like McCain, because he's someone that could change the game. The hypocrisy inherent perpetrated by a reformer, like McCain, doesn't bode well for the well-honed character argument he's primed to make in the general election. Generally, I love John McCain and any other year I would have been an ardent supporter of his. This does not lower my opinion of him (yet), but I have several thoughts on this story I'd like to share:

• If this has been floating out there, why didn't the Bush Campaign use it against him in 2000. They had no problem using the famous "black baby" smear in South Carolina. So why not use this stuff?

• Why release this today? It was after the last primary in February so it has the least potential to deny him the nomination, but it is sufficiently early in the election year to be forgotten by November. It seems like a very favorable time to drop it by the New York Times.
  

• Will this unite the far-right in support of their imperfect (liberal!) hero in Senator McCain, or will Huckabee rise from the dead?

• Did Huck know about this? Is that why he stayed in?

• Does Cindy know about this? And will he have to make a "I did not have sex with, or trade votes with, that woman" statement?

• Attacking the messenger may work for now, but reports are now surfacing that McCain knew about the story several months ago and even lobbied Bill Keller (NYT executive editor) to spike it, but Keller declined. I doubt the New York Times would purposely hit McCain, someone they LOVE, especially when they've been reticent to accept Obama and have actively supported Senator Clinton.

• How bad does Willard Romney feel now? Will he reconsider his thoughts on his true talent, hosting game shows, to re-enter the race (remember, Romney only "suspended his campaign, never ended it: He's still got those delegates)?

• How pissed are evangelicals? Will they sit this one out? Or will they move cautiously to Obama (he spent lots of time in Churches in the south, and his message resonates with a certain section of evangelicals who dislike the ideological purity the movement has bred in support of right-wing candidates, whose policies run county to some biblical truths)?

Just some things to stir on. And I do wish this had never happened to Senator McCain, but if it's true, this may be very big.

Obama Foreign Policy in Action

When he was roundly, and rabidly, criticized last summer for his stance on unilateral strikes on terrorists into Pakistan, Senator Obama stuck to is guns about this critical issue in protecting America and American interests. It seems as if the Department of Defense has taken his advise, or at least acted in the vein of his proposed policy, and carried out a strike unilaterally inside Pakistan. This strike, by armed Predator drones, or UAV (unmanned aerial vehicles), was the first successful strike on Al Qaeda leadership in Pakistan in two years(!).

While the Pakistanis are our allies, it isn't clear that their government hasn't, in the past, and perhaps will again in the future, tip off terrorists to our intentions. Their government is compromised and does not even enjoy the support of their people. Perhaps elections there will remake the Pakistani state, and it seems as if the Islamic radical factions have lost big at the hands of the pakistani people. Still, we mustn't cede our ability to track and destroy our enemies abroad, and Senator Obama's statements have supported this critical policy.

Clinton Driven to Drink...

At a final stop in Millwaukee, Wisconsin, Hillary Clinton said:

“We need to know as specifically as possible what our next president
intends to do. We don’t need a leap of faith, we don’t need to have a beer with
the next president, we had that president. Although, I’d be happy to have a beer
too; we can talk about what we’re going to do to solve our problems.”

Answers: Not Questions

Much has been made about Mr. Obama's message of hope and change. I like the message. What I don't like is the answer. I think most Americans can agree that we have a lot of problems right now. The war in Iraq, the increasing burden of social security, and the increasing lack of health care. It took me about a minute to think about the problems. I can find the problems myself: what I wrestle with are the solutions.

Don't get me wrong, Mr. Obama has the potential to become a great presidential candidate. He is a great speaker and seems to energize people with his words. However, I wonder how effective words are when the country continues the steady decline.

Much of Mr. Obama's record has been overlooked during the primary season. He is relatively new to the senate. My colleague on this blog has suggested that Mr. Obama favors a technocratic solution to the energy crisis. All I've heard him say is we need to regulate emissions. This is not a technocratic solution, it actually preserves the status quo on technology.

There is also Obama's stance on crime. He is against guns and the Chicago Defender, Dec. 13, 1999 reported: Obama is proposing to make it a felony for a gun owner whose firearm was stolen from his residence which causes harm to another person if that weapon was not securely stored in that home. However, he also voted against making gang members eligible for the death penalty if they kill someone to help their gang. (2001).

The last time I checked gang violence was more serious than stolen firearms. Why take the death penalty off the table? Who knows?

How does Obama plan to fix social security? He plans to invest more money in the program via taxes. I seem to remember in high school history class that social security was enacted and not many people were expected to get it. Why not just raise the age on social security. Who knows?

Mr. Obama could ultimately be a great candiate. I just need to hear more. I know where we need to go, but I need the president to tell me how we're going to get there.

In a President, I want a mechanic who can fix the problem, not a salesman who sold me the lemon I brought to the mechanic. I guess we'll have to wait to see which one Mr. Obama becomes.

The Colvin Report: Wisconsin, The Great Debate

Obama is a strong speaker, one of the best, so why dodge Hillary in debate?

He point's out that he has debated her 18 times, but fails to mention one key aspect. Of those 18 times, only 1 time has it been a 1 on 1 race. That 1 debate was California, where HIllary won. Is there a connection?

It seems to me that his choice to evade a Wisconsin debate puts a bad taste in Wisconsin voters for no reason. Had there been no mention, okay. But, Hillary has called him out. Maybe its a political stunt caused by her lead shrinkage in Texas, but Wisconsin voters don't care about Texas.

I know I am a critic, but the only justification that i can develop is wanting to avoid tough questions about plans and solutions, which could be the final blow to his momentum. Other than that, he has no problem speaking in public or combatting Hillary, so why make it an issue? He has plenty of time and money.

Will this effect Wisconsin voters if they go to the polls without their own debate?

Castro Resigns

With CNN International cutting in on Anderson Cooper 360, news just, and I mean just (Fox News, CNN, the New York Times, and MSNBC hadn't even updated their sites as I began to type this) broke that Fidel Castro will not return to power. Reports regarding the Cuban leader's failing health surfaced last year, and now this.

More on the story when I wake up in the morning.

The Colvin Report: 5...4...3... Still Waiting

As my colleague has pointed out, I was vague in my statements and left room for criticism. So, I will go through his statement and try to further explain why HIllary is in this race.

My delegate count, as depicted 6 votes separating the parties includes all "super delegates" that have publicly declared their support and vote for one of the parties. For all intensive purposes, this is the likely outcome.

Now, to his points:

First, It is misleading to say that Texas wont put her in the lead, because Texas and Ohio both go to the polls on March 4th. Even without super delegates, a win in both states could put her in the lead. Assuming she wins those states, if we factor in Pennsylvania, she is ahead. Further, when you factor in pledged super delegates, she is well ahead. This means she is not out of the race. Huckabee... he is out of the race.

Second, to suggest that Hillary' campaign strategy is somehow illustrative of her policy/platform is unreasonable. The fact is that Hillary and Obama attract different segment of the Democratic vote. Demographics play a role. Primary strategies don't diminish voting records, initiatives, and plans.

Third, As for Florida, the fact is that 1.2 million people came out and voted for Hillary. That is impressive and should not be diminished. To ignore such a large group of voters doesn't seem very democratic. Even if the delegate votes are withheld, don't think super delegates will ignore these people in justifying their vote for HIllary. As for Michigan, a revote is not beyond possibility. I understand rules are rules, but this is a Democracy, I think its in the Democratic Party's interest to reconsider.

Fourth, its ironic to associate any politician with "slimy creatures." They all associate with rich people that are disliked and I don't think its fair to bash any of the candidates for this. For instance, Obama and McCain are both friendly with George Soro's (convicted of insider trading and a general scumbag).

Fifth, Lets see how it plays out.

The Colvin Report: 'Change' Round 3

Obama is a charismatic speaker, full of charm, hope, promise and optimism. But what lies beneath the rhetoric?

I now attack his claim that he "has not taken a dime of lobbyists' money."

He uses that as a platform to set himself aside from Hillary Clinton.

So, what kind of game is the Obama campaign playing?

Obama's self-imposed ban on lobbyist money was examined by the LA Times which explained that the "ban" does not exclude gifts from partners of lobbyists who work at the same law office, or lobbyists who actively lobby in other major cities besides D.C, or lobbyists who rename themselves "consultants."

Federal lobbyists who want to give large sums to Obama need only temporarily de-register as a lobbyist, write the check and then go back and re-register as a lobbyist. Oh, and the lobbyist's family's are not included in this self-imposed ban.

Alston & Bird, the 35th largest lobbying law firm in the US gave Obama $33,000 in the first 90 days of his campaign.

At a Florida fundraiser, Obama received large checks from lobbyists for the sugar industry and fast food industries, and insurance industry (this explains him wanting to give them a seat at the table).

And he is also fine with taking huge sums directly from corporations, having taken $160,000 from Exelon (the nation's largest nuclear power corporation). He took this donation before he gutted his legislative platform that originally was to force the industry to report spills and leaks, allowing in the end for the industry to decide which leaks and spills needed to be voluntarily reported.

Stephen Weissman of the Campaign Finance Institute, a nonpartisan think tank that focuses on campaign issues sums it up: "Overall, the same wealthy interests are funding his campaign as are funding other candidates, whether or not they are lobbyists."

So the question is, why mislead the voters? Why not be honest about something all politicians do? And if you don't trust interest groups, why keep seeking their endorsement and advice?

Its admiral to have a self-imposed ban on lobbyist contribution, and it is well known that he has given back donations made by known federal lobbyists, so what gives with all the exceptions?

Clinton Campaign Deathwatch

Since my Clinton dropout prediction, much has be made about the resurgent abilities of the woman who so easily bends at the whim of a poll, who has no clear stances and is so easily malleable as to be likened to a wind-vane. Sure, if she panders just enough, she brings hispanic children up on stage, continues her deflating rhetoric about America's many problems, then surely she'll rebound, right?

I'm anxious to move on to more substantive political issues, but the horse-race talk persists, and so I digress:

As for Texas, well, there goes that idea... Tied within the margin of error, 2(!) weeks out. And trends look bad for her.

Even if she eeks it out in Texas, the delegate counts will be even and she'd still be behind Obama (NBC News has the pledged delegate count, the one that matters because superdelegates HAVEN'T VOTED YET, at 1116-985 Obama, and Realclearpolitics has it 1134-996 pledged for Obama)

Certainly she has plans for the country, like she had plans for after Super Tuesday... oops. Well, at least we can count on her not to change her position, you know, knowing where she stands...oops.

But she could seat Florida and Michigan, right? Even though she was the only one on the ballot in MI, and no one campaigned in Florida, the vote should count, right? Well, her ace delegate counter didn't think so last summer. The Rules are the rules. Everyone agreed to them, and Hillary is included in everyone. Anyone who cries and whines about the rules is probably losing. And so, again, the Clinton campaign grinds to an inevitable disaster, hopefully sooner than later for the sake of America and the Democratic party.

You see, she's not really much of a politician, just a poll-tested robot programmed by Mark Penn, Maggie Grunwald, and other slimy creatures. And America can do much better.

One more thing: Just go ahead and check inTrade... If you believe in free markets, you'll love the market of prediction. How accurate? Debatable, I guess, but an amusing look at the future.

Clinton Calls Out Obama, McCain

The Colvin Report: 5...4... Still Waiting

As I watch the Pledge Delegate count on the side of this very blog, I can't help but notice that Ms. Clinton has not only remained in the race, but is only behind by 6 votes.

Her super delegate strength is significant, she has a strong argument for counting 1.2M people that came out to vote for her in FL, Michigan may also come back into play, she is ahead by double digits in Ohio, leads in Pennsylvania, and leads in Texas.

I'd say she still has a horse in this race, a Clydesdale actually.

Despite the fact that the liberal media hammers Hillary and respects Obama's teflon protection, the people are tired of the Hillary crucification, they want debate and solutions, not rhetoric.

I'm an avid Republican, but nothing scares me more then going against a democrat who has no plans. At least with Hillary, I know where she stands.

McCain v. Clinton 2008

The "Crack Tax"

"If you can't beat it tax it" This is exactly what N.Y seems to want. In a recent article in the Wall Street Journal, there is currently a proposed law that would make illegal drug dealers pay tax on their contraband. The new tax would apply to stashes of cocaine, heroin, and other substances.

Much to my knowledge, taxing illegal drugs is more widespread than suspected. The tax is thought of a "extra punishment" and is easier to prove than the associated criminal charge. Tax authorities suggest the monetary penalty is a way of getting tougher on crime.

In my opinion, I don't think such a tax has credibility. How do you tax an "illegal substance?" Critics suggest that the tax sends mixed signals. I tend to agree with them. It seems to suggest you can have the substance if you just pay the tax. I'm not sure the fed would agree with the tax either. After all, they don't let people in California grow marijuania. Who knows. Maybe we'll start seeing drug dealers in Tax Court.

Should Schools Follow the Constitution

They teach us in grade school that the United States Constitution protects our liberties and freedoms from government prosecution. They also teach us that the Constitution applies to all people in our country regardless of age, sex, or race. What the DON’T teach us is that they Constitution doesn’t apply in the very places they are teaching us about the protections afforded by the Constitution.

So it’s generally accepted that certain basic freedoms aren’t guaranteed when we enter private places. For instance, the last time I checked people don’t have the freedom of assembly in my house. I don’t just let anyone into my house to start having a meeting. Additionally, we give up certain freedoms when we’re with other people. For instance we can’t simply yell “Fire” in a crowded theater just because we feel like it.

But what about schools? Are schools private places devoid of Constitutional regulation? The last time I checked, we had to go to school. However, the Supreme Court case has ruled that free speech is not a protection guaranteed at school. In the Supreme Court case, a student unveiled a sign with the phrase “Bong Hits for Jesus.” I should note that the student was not actually ON school grounds. He was outside. However, the school suspended him for his actions.

In a surprise, the highest Court sided with the school. Students can’t bring signs with messages on them outside of school grounds. What? The last time I checked schools don’t control the world. First, we give up freedom of speech, then what? Additionally, speaking of the suspension, did the school follow due process? The school’s decision was law. The student appealed but he lost.

I don’t know really what to thing about this. Yeah I probably don’t want the guy sitting next to me in class wearing a vulgar shirt, but where do we draw the line? I solicit comments to see what others think. Should students be protected by the Constitution?