This isn't the first time this sort of thing has happened (assuming he really didn't father all those kids.  Back in the 90's, L.A. County, the District Attorney Gil Garcetti got into controversy over default assignments of child support, wherein women on welfare simply listed a name (even if they weren't sure of the true paternity), and orders were sent out (sometimes to the wrong people) to appear in court within thirty days.  Those that failed to do so were by default assigned to pay even if they later proved definitively they were not the father through DNA testing.  More here.

I think Ornstein and Mann are assuming a bit too much to think that compulsory voting will simply shore up Democrats' and Republicans' left and right flanks, respectively;  I think it's probably more likely politicians will find themselves under attack by third parties from the extremes if staying at home is no longer an option for those who don't support either candidate.  (Of course, as Scarlet Pimpernel pointed out above, you can simply leave portions of the ballot blank; thy have the ability to make you take the thing, but not do anything with it.  Assuming they propose to keep the secret ballot.  If they don't we have bigger problems).

Clarifying the meaning of "navigable waterways" so the feds cannot claim jurisdiction over every little roadside brook.

Restricting eminent domain at every level of government to legitimate public purpose (i.e., no taking land to give to private citizens), and defining just compensation as the market value of the property before it is made publicly known the government will seize the property.

Restricting the ability of the federal government to own land.

Excluding the federal government from intrastate affairs (excepting where state actions clearly contradict the Constitution).

Severely limiting the definition of interstate commerce.

Require that any tariffs placed apply at an equal rate to all goods and services (to ensure they are revenue-raising, not protectionist).

1. It seems to me at least that repealing the 17th would essentially nationalize state elections, i.e., national issues relating to the election of the Senator would crowd out legitimate state issues (to the extend that people today actually pay attention to state issues; I don't).  People forget, I think, that the 1858 Lincoln-Douglas race actually were state-legislature elections, but the national issues simply took over.
2. As Arahant pointed out, it seems more likely that a system of underfunded mandates would simply be replaced by a system of extraordinarily well-funded graft.  When Senators rely directly on state legislators for support, who doubts the CINY guys will simply vote themselves massive streams of federal cash to continue denying reality?

Please.  Don't give him any ideas.

I think it may just be part of their mindset; they simply don't see there are more than two sides to one question.  The following exchange between me and a teacher is explanatory.  I had just argued that the contraception mandate would hurt Obama in states like Pennsylvania with significant Catholic populations.  His response is instructive:

"Well, I saw a poll the other day; 98% of Catholic women have used contraception."

The implication, of course, is that the only reason for opposing the mandate is knuckle-dragging religious fundamentalist hatred of contraception.  Absolutely no consideration whatsoever that it is quite possible for someone to have no problem with contraception but oppose religious charities and businesses to pay for it against their conscience.  It's one-dimensional thinking, really.

Looking at the list, it's amazing how few of the moderates are gone because of the Tea Party.  One can add Bennett, Lugar, and Specter to the list.  Even assuming all the 2010 and 2012 retirements are due to the influence of the Tea Party, a fairly dubious proposition (excepting Martinez, who decided to retire in 2008), we still only have six moderates.  Throw in Murkowski, and you have seven.  Whereas nine fell to Democrats in the general.

Congratulations and good luck.

Byrd also served six years in the House, so consider this: he was first elected to Congress when Harry Truman was President, and served into Barack Obama's term

Truth be told, I couldn't guess which either.

OK, thanks.  I must've missed it.

Depends on how bad the economy is and Obama and Romney's respective numbers on the economy.  I recently saw a poll somewhere that had people believing Romney more credible on the economy by a ten-twelve point margin.  Of course, it all depends on who believes what is important.  If those 34% who believe birth control is important are mostly just limousine liberals in San Francisco, it's no big deal; if it's an important swing constituency (say, Catholics in Pennsylvania), it could very well be crucial.  It also depends what specifically these people believe about the issue; if they mostly feel strongly that employers should be forced to pay for birth control, it helps Obama; if they believe in economic and religious liberty, it's probably good for Romney.

What happened to Axe?

My point was that from Mr. Kessler's post the book seems to go  beyond trying to teach values like patriotism and supporting the troops and went into the realm of politics.  'Operation Rocky Freedom', 'Operation Iraqi Freedom'.  "Support our troops"isn't necessarily the same thing as "support the war in Iraq", and from Mr. Kessler's post it seems the book leans more to the latter.

Irrespective of the relative merits of Special Hops, it seems just a bit too much of a Captain Planet-type thing for me.  After all, the old teacher's maxim is "We're here to teach you how to think, not what to think" (or something along those lines).  And yes, the liberals and statists and anti-Americans do do it through the public schools and other, but it's a rather unseemly to involve young kids in political debates.  As many on the right point out when the teacher's unions bring eight-year-old students to protest marches, the kids are just being set up for glib demagogues in the future.  While I'm not opposed to instilling moral values, "Operation Rocky Freedom", seems to take it too far.

When Thomas Sowell makes the point about the peace movement leading to more violence, I don't think this was what he was talking about...