Biden's Agenda and Indiana Needs
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Election Division Presidential Electors Faqs and Roster of Electors, 1816
Election Division Presidential Electors FAQ Q1: How many presidential electors does Indiana have? What determines this number? Indiana currently has 11 presidential electors. Article 2, Section 1, Clause 2 of the Constitution of the United States provides that each state shall appoint a number of electors equal to the number of Senators or Representatives to which the state is entitled in Congress. Since Indiana has currently has 9 U.S. Representatives and 2 U.S. Senators, the state is entitled to 11 electors. Q2: What are the requirements to serve as a presidential elector in Indiana? The requirements are set forth in the Constitution of the United States. Article 2, Section 1, Clause 2 provides that "no Senator or Representative, or person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector." Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment also states that "No person shall be... elector of President or Vice-President... who, having previously taken an oath... to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. Congress may be a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability." These requirements are included in state law at Indiana Code 3-8-1-6(b). Q3: How does a person become a candidate to be chosen as a presidential elector in Indiana? Three political parties (Democratic, Libertarian, and Republican) have their presidential and vice- presidential candidates placed on Indiana ballots after their party's national convention. -
DUMMY REVERSAL By: Brian Gunnell
BRIDGE BITES from The American Contract Bridge League DUMMY REVERSAL By: Brian Gunnell ♠ 8642 E-W Vulnerable ♥ KQ9 South West North East ♦ KJ6 1♥ 2♠ 3♠ Dbl ♣ AKQ Rdbl Pass 4NT Pass ♠ AQJT53 North ♠ K97 5NT Pass 7♥ All Pass ♥ 542 West East ♥ 6 ♦ T42 ♦ 9873 N-S do well to reach 7♥. North’s 3♠ said “Good hand with Heart support”, ♣ 4 Declarer ♣ J9853 South’s Redouble showed a control in ♠ Spades, 4NT asked for Aces, and the ♥ AJT873 5NT response said “Two Aces and a ♦ AQ5 void”. That void was clearly in Spades, ♣ T762 so North took a shot at the grand slam. Trusting that the ♠A was not cashing, West led a trump, at which point Declarer could see 12 top tricks. The 13th might come from the Club suit (if the Jack would come down in three rounds), or, if trumps were 2-2 then the 13th trick would come from a Club ruff in Dummy. As you can see, both these lines of play were doomed to failure, but there was a another line available, in the form of a so-called dummy reversal. Instead of counting six trump tricks in her hand plus maybe a single (Club) ruff in Dummy, Declarer reversed her thinking and went for no fewer than four Spade ruffs in her own hand. Here’s how the play started: opening trump lead won in Dummy, Spade ruff, trump to Dummy (East showing out, and putting paid to any ideas of a Club ruff in Dummy) and another Spade ruff. Back to Dummy with a Club, another Spade ruff, back to Dummy with the ♦J, and a fourth Spade ruff. -
Picking the Vice President
Picking the Vice President Elaine C. Kamarck Brookings Institution Press Washington, D.C. Contents Introduction 4 1 The Balancing Model 6 The Vice Presidency as an “Arranged Marriage” 2 Breaking the Mold 14 From Arranged Marriages to Love Matches 3 The Partnership Model in Action 20 Al Gore Dick Cheney Joe Biden 4 Conclusion 33 Copyright 36 Introduction Throughout history, the vice president has been a pretty forlorn character, not unlike the fictional vice president Julia Louis-Dreyfus plays in the HBO seriesVEEP . In the first episode, Vice President Selina Meyer keeps asking her secretary whether the president has called. He hasn’t. She then walks into a U.S. senator’s office and asks of her old colleague, “What have I been missing here?” Without looking up from her computer, the senator responds, “Power.” Until recently, vice presidents were not very interesting nor was the relationship between presidents and their vice presidents very consequential—and for good reason. Historically, vice presidents have been understudies, have often been disliked or even despised by the president they served, and have been used by political parties, derided by journalists, and ridiculed by the public. The job of vice president has been so peripheral that VPs themselves have even made fun of the office. That’s because from the beginning of the nineteenth century until the last decade of the twentieth century, most vice presidents were chosen to “balance” the ticket. The balance in question could be geographic—a northern presidential candidate like John F. Kennedy of Massachusetts picked a southerner like Lyndon B. -
("DSCC") Files This Complaint Seeking an Immediate Investigation by the 7
COMPLAINT BEFORE THE FEDERAL ELECTION CBHMISSIOAl INTRODUCTXON - 1 The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee ("DSCC") 7-_. J _j. c files this complaint seeking an immediate investigation by the 7 c; a > Federal Election Commission into the illegal spending A* practices of the National Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee (WRSCIt). As the public record shows, and an investigation will confirm, the NRSC and a series of ostensibly nonprofit, nonpartisan groups have undertaken a significant and sustained effort to funnel "soft money101 into federal elections in violation of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, as amended or "the Act"), 2 U.S.C. 5s 431 et seq., and the Federal Election Commission (peFECt)Regulations, 11 C.F.R. 85 100.1 & sea. 'The term "aoft money" as ueed in this Complaint means funds,that would not be lawful for use in connection with any federal election (e.g., corporate or labor organization treasury funds, contributions in excess of the relevant contribution limit for federal elections). THE FACTS IN TBIS CABE On November 24, 1992, the state of Georgia held a unique runoff election for the office of United States Senator. Georgia law provided for a runoff if no candidate in the regularly scheduled November 3 general election received in excess of 50 percent of the vote. The 1992 runoff in Georg a was a hotly contested race between the Democratic incumbent Wyche Fowler, and his Republican opponent, Paul Coverdell. The Republicans presented this election as a %ust-win81 election. Exhibit 1. The Republicans were so intent on victory that Senator Dole announced he was willing to give up his seat on the Senate Agriculture Committee for Coverdell, if necessary. -
A History of Maryland's Electoral College Meetings 1789-2016
A History of Maryland’s Electoral College Meetings 1789-2016 A History of Maryland’s Electoral College Meetings 1789-2016 Published by: Maryland State Board of Elections Linda H. Lamone, Administrator Project Coordinator: Jared DeMarinis, Director Division of Candidacy and Campaign Finance Published: October 2016 Table of Contents Preface 5 The Electoral College – Introduction 7 Meeting of February 4, 1789 19 Meeting of December 5, 1792 22 Meeting of December 7, 1796 24 Meeting of December 3, 1800 27 Meeting of December 5, 1804 30 Meeting of December 7, 1808 31 Meeting of December 2, 1812 33 Meeting of December 4, 1816 35 Meeting of December 6, 1820 36 Meeting of December 1, 1824 39 Meeting of December 3, 1828 41 Meeting of December 5, 1832 43 Meeting of December 7, 1836 46 Meeting of December 2, 1840 49 Meeting of December 4, 1844 52 Meeting of December 6, 1848 53 Meeting of December 1, 1852 55 Meeting of December 3, 1856 57 Meeting of December 5, 1860 60 Meeting of December 7, 1864 62 Meeting of December 2, 1868 65 Meeting of December 4, 1872 66 Meeting of December 6, 1876 68 Meeting of December 1, 1880 70 Meeting of December 3, 1884 71 Page | 2 Meeting of January 14, 1889 74 Meeting of January 9, 1893 75 Meeting of January 11, 1897 77 Meeting of January 14, 1901 79 Meeting of January 9, 1905 80 Meeting of January 11, 1909 83 Meeting of January 13, 1913 85 Meeting of January 8, 1917 87 Meeting of January 10, 1921 88 Meeting of January 12, 1925 90 Meeting of January 2, 1929 91 Meeting of January 4, 1933 93 Meeting of December 14, 1936 -
Libertarians in Bush's World
ESSAY ON LIBERTY+ LIBERTARIANS IN BUSH’S WORLD Todd Seavey* Imagine ordinary, non-ideological people hearing about an obscure politi- cal sect called libertarianism, which emphasizes self-ownership, property rights, resistance to tyranny and violence, the reduction of taxation and regulation, control over one’s own investments, and the de-emphasizing of litigation as a primary means of dispute resolution. Since this philosophy has very few adherents in the general population and is very much a minority position among intellectuals, one might expect proponents of the creed to count themselves lucky, given the likely alternatives, if the president of the country in which most of them live increasingly emphasized the themes of freedom and ownership in his major speeches; toppled brutal totalitarian regimes in two countries while hounding democracy-hating theocratic terrorists around the globe; cut taxes (despite howls even from some in the free-market camp that the cuts were too deep); called for simplification of the tax code; appointed relatively industry-friendly officials to major regulatory bodies such as the Environmental Protection Agency and the Food and Drug Administration despite frequent criti- cism by the media; proposed partially privatizing Social Security (America’s largest socialist boondoggle but one long regarded as sacrosanct by political analysts); and pushed tort reform to combat the chilling effect of lawsuits on doctors and manu- facturers. + Essays on Liberty is a continuing series of the Journal of Law & Liberty, dedicated to explorations of freedom and law from perspectives outside the legal academy. * Director of Publications for the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH.org, HealthFactsAnd- Fears.com), which does not necessarily endorse the views expressed here. -
Glossary of Bridge Terms
GLOSSARY OF BRIDGE TERMS Alert When your partner makes a conventional bid you must alert this to the opponents by knocking the table (or displaying the ‘Alert’ card if using bidding boxes). Auction Another term for the bidding. Avoidance An attempt to prevent a particular defender from regaining the lead. Balanced A hand containing no void, no singleton and not more than one Hand doubleton. Barrier When planning your opener's rebid, imagine a ‘barrier’ just above your first suit at the next level up. A new suit rebid below the barrier shows 12-15 points (occasionally 16 or 17 points after a 1 level response when opener doesn’t have enough for a jump shift). A new suit rebid above the barrier that isn’t a jump shift shows 16-19 points (also known as a reverse). Blocked A suit is blocked if there is a high card in the short hand that prevents the suit from being cashed. A player will often aim to unblock the suit. Break The way in which the defenders’ cards in a particular suit are divided between their two hands. For example, a 4-2 break indicates that with 6 cards in a suit missing, one defender has 4 cards of the suit and his partner has 2 cards. Also referred to as split. Cash Playing a card that is certain to win the trick. This card is known as a master. Clear a suit Knocking out the opponents’ last stopper in a suit, after which it will be possible to cash one’s tricks in the suit. -
March 2018 ACBL Bridge Bulletin Notes Jeff Kroll Sam Khayatt
March 2018 ACBL Bridge Bulletin Notes Jeff Kroll Sam Khayatt Reisinger BAM Teams (p. 14 – 16) Page 15, column 1, fifth paragraph: When West doesn’t find the killing spade lead, 7C is made by setting up dummy’s diamonds. Declarer realized that both the CK and C7 are needed entries to the diamond suit. Don’t pull trump at tricks two and three. Pull them as you use the K and 7 as transportation to the diamonds. Page 15, column 2, sixth paragraph: the SQ is played by declarer to finesse against the SK. West chose to cover, the correct play. West is trying to set up his S9. When East plays the S7 then shows out, declarer unblocks the S8 to finesse against West’s S9. Gordon, page 32, topic 1: when you alert and are asked to explain, you must give an explanation of the alerted bid. If you end up declaring, you must give an explanation of any undisclosed agreement, and any misinformation given in the auction, before the opening lead. On defense, you must wait until after the deal to divulge any misinformation – you can’t clear it up for partner. The Bidding Box (p. 37 – 39) Problem 1 Both Easts appropriately pass after North opens 1S: East… Is not strong enough to double and bid, Cannot make a takeout double with only a doubleton heart double, and Cannot overcall that four- card diamond suit– especially at the two-level. East must pass and count on partner to keep the auction open in the balancing position. -
November 20, 2019 the Honorable Mitch Mcconnell Majority Leader
November 20, 2019 The Honorable Mitch McConnell Majority Leader United States Senate 317 Russell Senate Office Building Washington, DC 20510 Dear Leader McConnell, The undersigned conservatives urge you to modify the Continuing Resolution recently passed by the House of Representatives to extend government funding for a full year. As we outlined in the attached letter, signed by over 100 conservative leaders, a CR into December gives leverage to Democrat demands on key issues, including significant pro-life policies, border spending, and other key areas. This is reflected in the partisan vote in which the CR passed the House, with 219 Democrats voting in favor, joined by only 12 Republicans. From both a strategic and fiscal perspective, we believe a CR into December would be an error. For both these reasons and those outlined in the attached letter, we urge the Senate to modify the timeline of the current CR to allow for full deliberation and debate of critical spending issues in 2020. Sincerely, Alfred S. Regnery Tom McClusky Chairman, Conservative Action Project President Chairman, Law Enforcement Legal Defense March for Life Action Fund The Honorable Colin A. Hanna Myron Ebell President Director, Center for Energy and Environment Let Freedom Ring, Inc. Competitive Enterprise Institute Kelly J. Shackelford, Esq. Jenny Beth Martin Chairman, CNP Action, Inc. Chairman President and CEO, First Liberty Institute Tea Party Patriots Citizen Fund ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ The Conservative Action Project (CAP) was founded in 2008 by many conservative leaders with former Attorney General Edwin Meese III serving as the Founding Chairman. CAP is currently chaired by Mr. Alfred S. -
Download the Full What Happened Collection [PDF]
American Compass December 2020 WHAT HAPPENED THE TRUMP PRESIDENCY IN REVIEW AMERICAN COMPASS is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization, launched in May 2020 with a mission to restore an economic consensus that emphasizes the importance of family, community, and industry to the nation’s liberty and prosperity— REORIENTING POLITICAL FOCUS from growth for its own sake to widely shared economic development that sustains vital social institutions; SETTING A COURSE for a country in which families can achieve self-sufficiency, contribute productively to their communities, and prepare the next generation for the same; and HELPING POLICYMAKERS NAVIGATE the limitations that markets and government each face in promoting the general welfare and the nation’s security. www.americancompass.org [email protected] What Happened: The Trump Presidency in Review Table of Contents FOREWORD: THE WORK REMAINS President Trump told many important truths, but one also has to act by Daniel McCarthy 1 INTRODUCTION 4 TOO FEW OF THE PRESIDENT’S MEN An iconoclast’s administration will struggle to find personnel both experienced and aligned by Rachel Bovard 5 A POPULISM DEFERRED Trump’s transitional presidency lacked the vision and agenda necessary to let go of GOP orthodoxy by Julius Krein 11 THE POTPOURRI PRESIDENCY A decentralized and conflicted administration was uniquely inconsistent in its policy actions by Wells King 17 SOME LIKE IT HOT Unsustainable economic stimulus at an expansion’s peak, not tax cuts or tariffs, fueled the Trump boom by Oren Cass 23 Copyright © 2020 by American Compass, Inc. Electronic versions of these articles with hyperlinked references are available at www.americancompass.org. -
WHY COMPETITION in the POLITICS INDUSTRY IS FAILING AMERICA a Strategy for Reinvigorating Our Democracy
SEPTEMBER 2017 WHY COMPETITION IN THE POLITICS INDUSTRY IS FAILING AMERICA A strategy for reinvigorating our democracy Katherine M. Gehl and Michael E. Porter ABOUT THE AUTHORS Katherine M. Gehl, a business leader and former CEO with experience in government, began, in the last decade, to participate actively in politics—first in traditional partisan politics. As she deepened her understanding of how politics actually worked—and didn’t work—for the public interest, she realized that even the best candidates and elected officials were severely limited by a dysfunctional system, and that the political system was the single greatest challenge facing our country. She turned her focus to political system reform and innovation and has made this her mission. Michael E. Porter, an expert on competition and strategy in industries and nations, encountered politics in trying to advise governments and advocate sensible and proven reforms. As co-chair of the multiyear, non-partisan U.S. Competitiveness Project at Harvard Business School over the past five years, it became clear to him that the political system was actually the major constraint in America’s inability to restore economic prosperity and address many of the other problems our nation faces. Working with Katherine to understand the root causes of the failure of political competition, and what to do about it, has become an obsession. DISCLOSURE This work was funded by Harvard Business School, including the Institute for Strategy and Competitiveness and the Division of Research and Faculty Development. No external funding was received. Katherine and Michael are both involved in supporting the work they advocate in this report. -
BR 20.6 - When NOT to Ruff : Loser on Loser Play
BR 20.6 - When NOT to ruff : Loser on Loser play In some situations it is to your advantage not to ruff. In such cases you invariably drop a loser of one suit onto a loser in another suit. This generally occurs in three different scenarios. 1. When, by reducing your trump length through ruffing, you may lose trump control 2. When by not ruffing you may develop a winner in the suit 3. When you are in danger of being over ruffed (Down - Up) Example 7 (Not losing trump control) Declarer is in a 1D contract. North leads the King of Hearts, then the Ace, followed by the Heart Queen. What do you do at trick 3? If you ruff the trick you will have only three trumps left in your hand. If Opponents trumps break 4-2, which is most likely, you will lose trump control and never be able to set up winners in the Club suit. Declarer Dummy ♦ - K Q J 4 ♦ - 10 9 5 ♠ - A K 6 ♠ - 9 7 3 ♥ - 8 2 ♥ - 9 5 4 ♣ - Q 8 7 2 ♣ - K J 10 3 Do therefore a loser on loser play and discard you small Spade loser on the third Heart trick. Declarer Dummy ♦ - K Q J 4 ♦ - 10 9 5 ♠ - A K ♠ - 9 7 3 ♥ - ♥ - ♣ - Q 8 7 2 ♣ - K J 10 3 Now if Opponents continue with a 4th Heart lead you can ruff it in Dummy with the 10, and the 4 card trump holding in your own hand remains intact. In essence what you have done is transferring your Spade loser to become a Heart loser instead.