Leave the gun, grab the Trotsky: You know that neoconservatives have returned in full ideological force when Irving Kristol steps forth to explain exactly what one is.

Although neoconservatism unquestionably owes an immense intellectual and organizational debt to the Godfather (and his GOP Goodfellas from Alcove No. 1), Kristol pere has always been overly concerned with trumpeting a neocon orthodoxy that belies the great diversity that marked the neoconservative intellectual movement -- and his works tend to display the "what" without acknowledging the "who" behind them. Nonetheless, a good read by a great writer.

 
States' rights for me -- but not for thee: From Fox News Sunday:

TONY SNOW: Texas — there is an imbroglio about redistricting. Republicans want to change the map because their Republican majority is substantial in your home state.

But there's a question. These same Republicans, a couple of years ago, agreed to a redistricting, or at least, in courts, got involved. Why should Republicans get another bite at the apple?

TOM DELAY: Well, we haven't had the first bite. We're supposed to, by Constitution, apportion or redistrict every 10 years. The state legislature in Texas couldn't do it in the last legislature, and three judges did it and they did a very poor job, as evidenced that the fact that we have a minority of Republicans in our congressional delegation.

What — you know, we in Texas, Tony, have prided ourselves on honor, duty and responsibility. Unfortunately, the Democrats in the state legislature don't understand honor because they're violating their oath of office to support the United States Constitution. They don't understand their duty, which the Constitution calls for in redistricting. And they don't want to accept responsibility for it, so they ran.

We're insisting that the Constitution be upheld, and we feel very confident that if the state legislature does its duty and redistricts, then we will end up with a majority of Republicans in the congressional delegation.

This is a remarkable argument on many levels, most of which are shaky indeed.

To begin with, there is no Constitutional requirement for redistricting, only reapportionment of Representatives following the census. (Art. 1, Sec. 2 and the 14th Amendment) The district requirement is statutory, not Constitutional, law, laid out in Title 2 U.S.C. Sec. 2(a) and Sec. 2(c). Furthermore, the manner of redistricting is left strictly up to the states, certain VRA requirements notwithstanding. Basically, as long as no protected class is deliberately harmed, states are free to choose their own manner of electing Representatives (see, for example, Ohio ex rel. Davis v. Hildebrant, 241 U.S. 565, 569 (1916)).

So one clause into his second sentence, and DeLay has already knowingly made a false argument, or has demonstrated a remarkable ignorance of the law of this nation. If he feels that the redistricting was somehow invalid, then he should have invoked the rules in Title 2 U.S.C. Sec. 2(a)(c), which provide that " additional Representative or Representatives shall be elected from the State at large and the other Representatives from the districts then prescribed by the law of such State."

DeLay is also mendacious when he states that the Texas Lege "couldn't do it [redistricting] in the last legislature;" the truth is that Perry refused to call a special session because he felt that a judge-drawn map would be more favorable to the GOP. This belief that was largely borne out -- under the pre-2001 map, the Dems held a 17-13 edge, while under the current map the GOP picked up two new seats for a 17-15 total. The problem the GOP has isn't that the map doesn't reflect an increasingly-conservative Texas, but that it doesn't reflect it enough. (Previous stories on the 2001 courts battle are here, here, and finally, here.)

But while DeLay accuses Democrats of violating the Constitution and their oaths of office, it may be that the remaining state Senators have violated their own rules by imposing fines and other penalties upon the missing Senators. The rules of the Senate allow that absent Senators, "by order of the majority of those present, may be sent for and arrested wherever they may be found and their attendance secured and retained by the Sergeant-at-Arms or officers appointed by the Sergeant for that purpose." Without a quorum, no additions or suspensions of the rules may be made. Should they return to the state, the absent Senators will not be long out of the chamber -- but as long as they're absent, they are arguably safe from any new and innovative compulsions created by a bare majority.

DeLay is attempting to interject federal law -- Constitutional law, no less -- into a state issue, which should come as a surprise to any conservative who has supported greater state freedom in the face of expanding federal control. If he feels this strongly about redistricting, perhaps DeLay should resign his federal post and run for the state Senate. Certainly, the salary isn't quite as grand -- some $147,200 less than his current taxpayer-financed salary, not including perquisites of federal office -- but he can always return to private life as a pest exterminator to make up the difference. We'd be glad to have him here.