i'm protected

In an unexpected turn of events, orders of protection have been issued to keep two people (whom I have never met) away from me.

The surprise came with the mail -- four (or was it five?) envelopes from the Queens County District Attorney. Now, I don't know about anyone else, but I'm kind of a nervous person. So I see these envelopes and start panicking. What are these? What can it mean? Am I being accused of something?

Opening an envelope, it took me a moment to figure out what it was. In the middle of the cover letter, in bold print, I saw "INSTRUCTIONS ON READING THE ORDER OF PROTECTION." Did I mention that I'm a nervous person?

When I saw that, I immediately started trying to figure out what the hell I did that someone got an order of protection against me. Finally, when I calmed down enough to read it, I was listed as the "Protectant" and someone else was listed as  "Defendant."

Phew! That's a load off my mind. But wait! Why is there this order of protection? What happened that this person wants to kill me? Oh my God! I'm gonna get murdered!*

Part of what had me so confused is that I simply don't have any experience with orders of protection. I didn't know they can be issued without you even asking for them. Once I calmed down enough to view it rationally. I remembered the water theft that happened last week. I wrote about it here. The police had told me I might hear from the District Attorney. I knew that there may be criminal charges -- if it's determined that the items these people stole (from other porches as well as mine) are collectively worth enough to make it worth pursuing.

I can only assume that these orders of protection are related to that theft. That it's a matter of course** and all the identified victims are also protectants. Maybe it's prophylactic. Maybe it's a way of potentially upping the charges (assuming the thieves return to any of the same homes to steal again).

The one thing that's truly odd is that the document orders the defendant to (among other things):

Refrain from assault, stalking, harassment, aggravated harassment, menacing, reckless endangerment, disorderly conduct, criminal mischief, sexual abuse, sexual misconduct, forcible touching, intimidation, threats or any criminal offense or interference with...members of the family or household of...Marc Whinston.

Seems to me these actions are already illegal. Maybe it's, again, about upping the possible charges in case they come back.

The cover letter lists a phone number for a Crime Victims Advocate Program, but I didn't see the mail until too late in the day to call. I'll try in the morning. As for tonight, I'll keep a baseball bat by the bed.

*Yeah...still nervous

**I hope so, anyway. What if it's not and my family is truly in danger? Did I mention that I'm a nervous type?

they stole my water!

Late last night Ethan and I got out of Keith's film class and went to the car. I had a series of texts from Blair. To paraphrase:
Call the police
Officer <name> at the 107th Precinct at <number>
He has our Fiji water
It was stolen


It took me a second to figure out what this meant. It was something I knew would happen sooner or later -- a package was stolen from our porch. It seems like a national epidemic -- at least judging by the plethora of Youtube videos on the subject. I'm sharing one below.

It has been discussed at meetings of the Jamaica Estates Association, since it has seemed to happen a lot in this neighborhood, and many are furious. Of course, there's not a whole lot the police can do to stop it from happening. They simply can't be everywhere at once, and I assume these are low priority since they're nonviolent.

It seems to me that the increase in package theft is due in large part to the increasing prevalence of online purchasing. It's simply a matter of a newly-emergent opportunity being exploited. One person I know disagrees. She has heard from the police that it has to do with Mayor DeBlasio being soft on crime. Theory of Broken Windows and all that.

Maybe. But then why is it not just a New York thing? Maybe it's a combination of factors, as such things so often are.

At any rate, I have to give my thanks to the police at the 107th precinct. They caught the water thief (with over a dozen packages addressed to a variety of homes) and called our house. When I called, and when I got there to pick up my water, they were very courteous and professional. They told me a little of what had gone on, and asked for my estimate of the value. Apparently, if the total value of the stolen items is above some threshold then it becomes a felony. Anyway, I appreciated them and their demeanor.

Now I'm gonna have some water.

constitutional questment ii: eligibility for the presidency

I was thinking about who ca be president -- the eligibility rules and whether Congress can change them by simply passing a law.

Backing up, let's start with the eligibility requirements, as defined in the Constitution. Article II, Section 1 reads as follows: 

The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows: 

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector. 

The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two Persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately choose by Ballot one of them for President; and if no Person have a Majority, then from the five highest on the List the said House shall in like Manner choose the President. But in choosing the President, the Votes shall be taken by States, the Representatives from each State having one Vote; a quorum for this Purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two thirds of the States, and a Majority of all the States shall be necessary to a Choice. In every Case, after the Choice of the President, the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal Votes, the Senate shall choose from them by Ballot the Vice-President.  

The Congress may determine the Time of choosing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.  

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.  

In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the Same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by Law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then act as President, and such Officer shall act accordingly, until the Disability be removed, or a President shall be elected.  

The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be increased nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them.  

Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:-"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

The fifth paragraph above defines three eligibility requirements: natural born citizen, 35- years old, a resident for 14 years. Easy, peasy, George loves Weezie.

So, of course, Congress cannot loosen the requirements. Suppose passed a law saying that the minimum age requirement is 30, or that you don't have to be a natural born citizen. Such a law wouldn't pass constitutional muster.

But suppose Congress tightened the restrictions. For example, suppose they passed a law saying simply "No one shall become President who shall not have attained the age of 40." What then? Such a law wouldn't contradict the Constitution. The document doesn't actually prohibit the addition of more requirements.

So, based on that, it would seem that Congress could add requirements. But I suspect that that would rankle some, and would be met with the argument that that was not the intention. I'm not convinced by such an argument.

But the Article above also defines the election process*. What if the electors choose a 35-year-old? The law passed by Congress prohibits that person from being President. But if he or she was elected by the process defined by the Constitution, then I don't see how the law passed by Congress can actually override that election.

So I guess I arrive at the same place as most people, but I take a more circuitous route.

*The process was changed by the Twelfth Amendment, but not in a way that materially affects this analysis

claire as running mate? more annoying stupidity in house of cards

Not that I'm about to stop, but why am I watching this shit?

The shit I'm referring to is House of Cards, the Netflix original series. The latest offense came in Season 4, Episode 3. Claire Underwood tells her husband, who is running for President, to make her his running mate. Seriously, Netflix, WTF?

I get that they wanted drama, and so far the figfhting between the Underwoods has been the major source of conflict. But, while the principles address the debatable issues about whether the move would help him get more votes, they totally ignore the practical matter of it costing them electoral votes in their home state.

I quote the 12th Ammendment to the Constitution:

The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves;

What this means is that when the electors vote, they must vote for either a Presidential of Vice Presidential candidate from outside their state. Assuming Frank and Claire both live in South Carolina, being running mates means that each elector from South Carolina can vote for Frank for President or Claire for Vice President, but not for both. Giving up those electoral votes would be bad strategy. If the show is going to go there, they at least need to address the issue.

Incidentally, I wrote about this a year ago, in addressing the possibility of Hillary Clinton picking Bill as her Veep. As I discussed, the pundits who say she couldn't because he was term-limited out are wrong.

The bigger problem is that Claire is a poorly-written character. She's inconsistent. I said as much after viewing the episode with her outburst in Moscow. At the beginning of the series, Claire was running a not-for-profit, and benefiting from her relationship with her husband who was then a Congressional Whip. It seems as if the writers decided they didn't like that story line, so they had her move on. But then they just didn't know what to do with her. If they can't find a role fpor her where she can be consistent, then just kill her off and let the show move on without her.

i must know the answer to this unimportant question

I find myself a member of the aggrieved class in a class-action lawsuit. For a variety of reasons I don't want to discuss the specifics of this suit. Who the defendant is, and what it is accused of doing are not important for my blogging purposes.

What I am addressing is one aspect of the proposed settlement, and something that I find unclear. The fact is that the answer to my question won't make a material difference to me, but it's just a matter of curiosity.

According to the proposed settlement, the settlement fund will be divided among eligible class members, pro-rata, based on a certain well-defined measure (which I will call "M"). But, presumably to avoid administrative costs, no one will get a payout of less than ten dollars. Any class member whose share is calculated as less than ten dollars will forfeit his or her share, which will then be redistributed among the members of the class who are getting ten dollars or more.

But there is a subtlety to how this is to be accomplished that has me puzzled. Will they:

1. Make one pass at calculating shares. Then redistribute the settlements amounts of all class members receiving less than ten dollars; or
2. Make successive passes, each time taking the smallest shares and (if they are less than ten dollars) redistribute them to the members receiving more than ten dollars.

The second method will result in more people getting payouts.

To illustrate, I've created a very simple illustrative. Suppose there are three members of the class, Anna, Bertha and Claire. Their "M" values are, respectively, 90, 10 and 1 (for a total of 101). The total settlement fund is $100.

Under method 1:
Each class member's initial share of the payout is calculated as:
Settlement Fund × Individual "M" / Total "M"

Anna: 100 × 90 / 101 = $89.11
Bertha: 100 × 10 / 101 = $9.90
Claire: 100 × 1 / 101 = $0.99

Bertha and Claire each have shares that are less than $10, so they both get nothing. The $10.89 that was their initial share gets redistributed back to Anna, who ends up with the whole $100.

Under method 2:
Each class member's initial share of the payout is calculated as:
Settlement Fund × Individual "M" / Total "M"

Anna: 100 × 90 / 101 = $89.11
Bertha: 100 × 10 / 101 = $9.90
Claire: 100 × 1 / 101 = $0.99

Claire has the smallest share, and it's under $10. So she loses hers, which is redistributed to Anna and Bertha. Their preliminary shares are now recalculated as:

Settlement Fund × Individual "M" / Total "M" (among those remaining)

Anna: 100 × 90 / 100 = $90.00

Bertha: 100 × 10 / 100 = $10.00

Bertha has the smallest share, but it's at least $10. So she keeps it and there is no more redistributing.

I worked this all out in a spreadsheet here.

Now, of course, these numbers are artificial, and constructed to make the point. The actual lawsuit has a settlement fund of several million dollars, and the class has several thousand members. I am reasonably sure that my share will be higher than the ten dollar minimum, so I am better off if they follow method 1. Whether the difference (to me) is material, I can't say. But somehow I doubt it.

constitutional questment i: wherefore section 2?

I've been reading over the Constitution, and have come across some points that I have questions and comments (i.e., "questments") about. Rather than try to post a list of them, I'll do them one at a time. That way if I tyhink of more, I can post them too, without it looking like an addendum. So here goes with "Constitutional Questments."

The fifteenth amendment establishes that voting rights will not be denied on the basis of race, color or previous condition of servitude. That's in Section 1. Section 2 reads "The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."

What's the purpose of the second clause? The only explanation I can think of is a concern that a state could limit voting rights, and then argue that the Federal government can't come in and enforce the rule stated in Section 1. In that event the amendment would be toothless.

Is that it? Is there another reason?

a question about a big hit

One bit of 1970s cheesy pop music was Vicki Lawrence's hit, "The Night The Lights Went Out in Georgia," an icky tale of faithlessness, revenge and injustice. I love it. It's solid pop music, and it's part of the soundtrack of my youth -- or at least my teenage years. By that I mean, I don't have any memories of hearing it when it was current. But when i was in high school and got my first Walkman* it was on the first cassette that I bought. That cassette was "Top Hits of the '70s, Volume 2," which was sold at Radio Shack. Another thing in the song's favor (as far as I'm concerned) is that it's got such a pleasant sound you'd never realize how dark its subject matter is unless you pay attention to the lyrics.



For the sake of brevity I am assuming that my reader knows the lyrics and not reproducing them here.**


I have a question about this song -- something I've been wondering about for years. In today's world, in the United States, my understanding is that a person convicted of a capital offense has many appeals available before execution. But in this song that doesn't seem to be the case. Here the main character fires his gun to flag down the police, gets mistaken for a murderer tried and hanged all in very short order. It almost sounds like it happens in one day, since the narrator (who committed the murder (two, actually) didn't have a chance to speak up. Maybe it wasn't all the same day, but it couldn't have been a very lengthy process.


Was the process so different in 1970's Georgia that this could have happened?


*Technically, it wasn't a Walkman; it was a Toshiba portable cassette player.


**OK, OK. In case anyone doesn't know the lyrics, here they are, courtesy of lyrics freak. There are some minor mistakes, but they are immaterial and I am not going to try correcting them.


He was on his way home from Candletop.
(He'd)Been two weeks gone and he thought he'd stop
At Webb's and have him a drink 'fore he went home to her.
Andy Wardlow said, "Hello."
And he said "Hi, what's doin', Wo?"
He said, "Sit down, I got some bad news that's gonna hurt."
He said, "I'm your best friend and you know that's right,
But your young bride ain't home tonight.
Since you been gone she's been seein' that aimless boy, Seth."
Well, he got mad 'n' he saw red.
And Andy said, "Boy, don'tcha lose your head,
'Cause to tell ya the truth, I been with her myself."

[Chorus]
That's the night that the lights went out in Georgia.
That's the night that they hung an innocent man.
Well, don't trust your soul to no backwoods Southern lawyer
'Cause the judge in the town's got blood stains on his hands.

Well, Andy got scared and left the bar
(And went) Walkin' on home 'cause he didn't live far.
(You) See, Andy didn't have many friends and he'd just lost him one.
(And) Brother thought his wife must'a left town,
So he went home and finally found
The only thing Papa had left him, and that was a gun.
And he went off to Andy's house,
Slippin' through the backwoods quiet as a mouse--
Came upon some tracks too small for Andy to make.
He looked through the screen at the back-porch door,
And he saw Andy lyin' on the floor
In a puddle of blood. And he started to shake.

Well, the Georgia Patrol was a'makin' their rounds,
So he fired a shot just to flag 'em down,
And a big-bellied sheriff grabbed his gun and said, "Why'd ya do it?"
And the judge said, "Guilty," in a make-believe trial,
Slapped the sheriff on the back with a smile,
And said, "Supper's waitin' at home and I gotta get to it."

[Chorus]

Well, they hung my brother before I could say
That the tracks he saw while on his way
To Andy's house, out back, that night were mine.
And his cheatin' wife had never left town;
And that's one body that'll never be found!
See, little sister don't miss when she aims her gun.

That's the night that the lights went out in Georgia.
Oh-oh-aah
That's the night that they hung an innocent man.
Ah-huh-unh
Well, don't trust your soul to no backwoods Southern lawyer

'Cause the judge in the town's got blood stains on his hands.

a billary ticket?

Hillary Clinton's nomination for the presidency is becoming more and more inevitable (unless you read yesterday's Wall Street Journal, but let's ignore that for the moment). And so I turn to the question of who her running mate will be. Before I go any further, let me note that I am not endorsing or undorsing any candidate or position. I am posting this because of a particular question that I find interesting and that I think most of the punditocracy gets wrong.


The question is of whether Bill Clinton can be her running mate. Back in 2008 (the last time her nomination was inevitable), Hillary went on some talk show and was asked about whether she would pick Bill as her running mate. Or maybe Bill was on a show and asked about whether he would be her running mate? I don't remember which one was asked, and I can't find the clip. Anyway, whichever Clinton was on the show, (S)he answered that it's been looked into and Bill can't be veep. And most pundits agree. But they're wrong.


Now, since I'm saying that they're wrong, I suppose I should explain why. So let's start with the reasoning that has Bill ineligible. It comes down to the 12th and 22nd Amendments to the Constitution. The relevant language of the 22nd Amendment is:

No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once.

Since Bill was elected twice, he is no longer eligible to be elected President. So how does that speak to his possible candidacy for the number 2 spot? That's where the 12th Amendment comes in. The relevant language is:

But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.

So, the logic goes, Bill is ineligible to be President (22A), and therefore ineligible to be Vice President (12A). Seems pretty straightforward. So where do I disagree? The assertion that Bill is ineligible to be President (courtesy of 22A) is wrong. To see why, let's imagine a mirror universe (but leave out the Spock beard. That was always creepy). Bill, after leaving office decides to run for Congress. Popular as he is, he gets elected, and then gets elected Speaker of the House. Finally, in a tragic day for this country, both the President and Vice President die of food poisoning. What happens? Bill Clinton is next in line for the Presidency. I contend that he becomes President, since 22A prohibits him from being elected President but it does not prohibit him from becoming President.


Now that we've established that Bill can be President (assuming he is elevated to that position through some process other than being elected to it), 12A does not prohibit him from being Vice President.


QED.


Having said that, I note that Hillary would never choose him as running mate. Since they are both residents of New York, none of New York's electors would be able to cast votes for both of them. That's also courtesy of 12A, which states:

The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves;

But I still think it's an interesting question, moot though it may be.