Over the past four years, thousands of gallons of ink have been spent about the use of filibusters by the Democratic minority in the U.S. Senate to block several of President Bush’s nominees for the federal courts.

The Constitution of the United States gives the Senate the responsibility to offer its “advice and consent” for the President’s appointees to the federal bench. For most of our nation’s history, the senate acted as little more than a rubber stamp; nominees were rejected only if Congress learned of some personal or professional indiscretion that clearly disqualified the nominee from serving as a federal judge. That began to change in the 1980s. It is always dangerously difficult to determine who threw the first punch, but I would identify the Democratic Senate’s refusal to confirm Robert Bork, a conservative judge who had been nominated to the Supreme Court by President Reagan. Since that time, judicial nominees have faced increased scrutiny not only for their personal and professional conduct, but also for their ideologies.

I believe that the U.S. Senate should confirm all judicial nominees who are morally and ethically fit for the office. I don’t believe that ideology should be a factor. However, I recognize that United States Senators have the right to vote however they want for whatever reasons they choose.

This is what bothers me about the Democratic filibusters about judicial nominees. They are preventing our elected Senators from exercising their constitutional responsibility. Every one of President Bush’s judicial nominees have had the support of at least 50 Senators. But because the Senate’s archaic parliamentary rules require the support of 60 s enators to end debate, Democrats have literally talked Bush’s nominees to death.

This is where the so-called “nuclear option” comes into play. Republicans have developed a strategy whereby they could break a Democratic filibuster with only 51 votes. Here is how it work: Democrats would stage a filibuster of a judicial nominee. A Republican senator would object to the filibuster, arguing that it inhibits the senate’s constitutional responsibility to offer its advice and consent. This objection would require a ruling from the President of the Senate who would rule in favor of the Republican senator. The Democrats would object to his ruling, but only 51 votes would be required to uphold it. There are 55 Republican senators.

Is this an ideal situation? No. The ideal situation would be that there would be an up-or-down vote on every judicial nomination. But as long as the Democrats choose to resort to procedural means to block nominations, they have no right to complain when Republicans counter with procedural means of their own.

Tony Venhuizen is a registered republican and a student representative with the Board of Regents.

Last Wednesday was an historic day. On that day, Condoleezza Rice became the first African-American woman to be sworn in as secretary of state. As a supporter of the president, I was pleased when he nominated Rice to replace Secretary of State Colin Powell, who was retiring after four years in the position. I have always been impressed with Rice’s depth and breadth of knowledge in the area of foreign affairs. For that reason, I watched most of Rice’s 10-hour confirmation hearing before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

During the confirmation hearings, Rice was peppered with questions from the democratic members of the committee about the situation in Iraq, the Bush administration’s plans for dealing with possible threats in Iran and North Korea and the administration’s position on the incidents of torture in American-controlled prisons. While these questions raised important issues, many of them were clearly designed not to inform the senators, but to politically position the questioners and inflict damage upon the president’s nominee.

We are in the first weeks of Bush’s second administration. I believe that Rice’s confirmation hearings raise an interesting question: What will be the direction of the Bush foreign policy over the next four years?

President Bush’s decision to nominate Rice to be secretary of state is a clear signal that the president is not planning a significant shift in his first-term foreign policy. Rice was one of the president’s most trusted foreign policy advisors. I would hesitate, however, to label the new Bush foreign policy as “more of the same.”

In her confirmation hearings, Rice confessed that the Bush administration made mistakes in foreign policy. I believe that the administration will learn from its mistakes. The importance of relationships with allies and with the “public face” of diplomacy, which sometimes seemed to be lost on the first Bush administration, will become a higher priority in the second. Rice has committed herself to working harder to foster good relationships with our European allies. The administration is working with these allies in the Balkans and Afghanistan. France, Germany and Great Britain are taking the lead in negotiations with Iran regarding its nuclear program. At the same time, the United States is working with China, Japan and South Korea in negotiations with North Korea.

A new presidential term is an opportunity for new beginnings. The last four years have been difficult for the entire country. In his inaugural address, President Bush reaffirmed our country’s commitment to spreading freedom throughout the world. That is an ambitious long-term goal, but with President Bush and Secretary Rice leading the way, I am confident that American foreign policy will bring us closer to that ideal.

Tony Venhuizen is a registered republican and a student representative with the Board of Regents.

The race for the White House is in full swing.

President George W. Bush and Senator John Kerry are barnstorming the country, promoting their visions for the country as they discount their opponents.

Every four years, we are told that that year’s election is “the most important in a generation” or “a turning point in American history.”

The same clich

This week, my friend on the left is writing about Sen. John Kerry’s upcoming selection of a running mate. Kerry will be choosing from among scores of qualified individuals, each with positives and negatives.

Political journalists are joining in the fun of the every-four-year-ritual of “Veepstakes” speculation.

Far less attention is being paid to the rather lackluster question of President Bush’s running mate.

Everyone knows that George W. Bush will ask Dick Cheney, his indispensable sidekick and advisor, to serve again as vice-president. Or will he?

The 2004 presidential election is going to be close, and both Bush and Kerry are going to pursue every option to win public support. In such a competitive race, President Bush may be faced with this question: Is Dick Cheney a drag on the ticket?

One can certainly make the argument that Bush would be better off to replace Cheney with a fresh face. Dick Cheney is the embodiment of a good-old-boy insider. Controversies have arisen over his ties to Halliburton, his friendship with Justice Antonin Scalia and his perceived enthusiasm for a war in Iraq. For democrats, Cheney is an attractive target, because he can be drawn into debates about corporate accountability, the wisdom of the war in Iraq, the quality of intelligence prior to the war and the reconstruction in Iraq.

George W. Bush has already said that his running mate will be Dick Cheney, and Cheney has said that he wants to run. But that does not mean the case is closed.

Cheney has had four heart attacks since he’s been in office. If Bush finds that he needs a boost in the polls in September or October, he could privately ask Cheney to step aside. No one would question Cheney if he claimed that ill health forced him to resign from the ticket. And unlike most vice-presidents, who are politically ambitious, Cheney has no further political ambition.

Bush may even entice him with another post in the administration – CIA director, for example.

Who would Bush consider to replace Cheney? The candidates are just as numerous as those that Kerry is considering. Certainly Colin Powell and Rudy Giuliani would be high on the list.

Powell is one of the nation’s most well-respected public figures, and his moderate views on foreign policy would be appealing. It is enticing to voters to have an African-American on the ticket.

Rudy Giuliani is a hero to many after his leadership during the 9/11 terrorist attacks. He is rumored to be considering a run for governor or senator in New York, and may be Bush’s attorney general in a second term.

Beyond Powell and Giuliani, the list of possible Republican candidates is endless.

Will Dick Cheney be dumped from the republican ticket? I doubt it.

The last president to dump his running mate was Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1944 . I would bet that, come Election Day, Dick Cheney is the Republican nominee for vice-president.

But in the world of politics, one can always expect the unexpected.

Reach Tony Venhuizen at tonyvenhuizen@hotmail.com.

Over the last several weeks, a controversy has emerged around United State Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.

Justice Scalia is a good friend of Vice President Dick Cheney. Despite this, Scalia has refused to recuse himself from an upcoming decision involving the vice president.

Last Monday, the South Dakota State Legislature concluded a successful, yet quiet legislative session. Under the steady leadership of Governor Mike Rounds, legislators found that there was no overriding issue to inspire controversy. Rounds and the legislature took advantage of the calm conditions to make important contributions to education and economic development .

Last November, Josh and I wrote about civil unions. Since that time, gay marriage has become the hot political topic. It has clearly replaced abortion as the “social wedge issue” of 2004.

Gay marriage has emerged as a major issue because of several events in the news. In Massachusetts, the state Supreme Court ruled that the state had to grant marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples. The city of San Francisco has granted thousands of marriage licenses to gays and lesbians in violation of state law. These licenses constitute a form a civil disobedience on the part of Mayor Gavin Newsom and other city officials.

President Bush responded to the issue by calling for a constitutional amendment to define marriage as between a man and a woman. His campaign clearly plans to use the issue against Senator John Kerry, Bush’s likely November opponent from Massachusetts.

Polling has shown that two-thirds of Americans oppose gay marriage; however, only half support a constitutional amendment.

There is little chance that a constitutional amendment can muster the required two-thirds vote of the Senate and the House of Representatives; in the Senate, most Democrats and a few liberal Republicans have spoken publicly against the amendment.

Constitutional amendments are rare. Throughout American history, the constitution has only been amended 27 times.

Numerous amendments have been proposed in response to unpopular court rulings. Proposed amendments to allow for child labor laws, allow prayer in school, ban flag burning and prohibit abortion have all failed.

It seems unlikely that an amendment to define marriage would be any more successful.

But that does not mean it is a bad idea.

I have said in this column before that one of America’s great problems is activist judges who legislate from the bench. Abortion is a good example. The constitution says nothing about abortion; it is only through complex legal interpretations that a “right to choose” emerges.

The constitution should be taken to mean what it says, and nothing more. State legislatures should have the power to decide whether or not to allow abortion. The same is true with gay marriage.

Some have proposed a constitutional amendment that specifically prohibits gay marriage. I would personally prefer a “states’ rights” version that would allow each state to decide the issue for itself.

Either way, a constitutional amendment that allows the people to resolve the gay marriage issue is appropriate.

Gay marriage is an important issue; it is something that should be decided through our democratic institutions, not our dictatorial courts.

Reach Tony Venhuizen at tonyvenhuizen@hotmail.com.

Super Bowl XXXVIII was one of the best championship games ever played.

But this year’s Super Bowl will not be remembered for its explosion of offense in the second half or its last-second game-winning field goal by SDSU’s Adam Vinatieri. Super Bowl XXXVIII will be most remembered for what occurred at halftime, when Janet Jackson put a little too much of herself into the MTV-produced halftime show.

Janet Jackson’s exposure lasted for less than a second, but it was the hot topic in the media for days.

The NFL, CBS and the FCC wasted no time in condemning the action. Now some members of Congress are talking about new measures to toughen content standards in the media and impose stiffer penalties on violators.

The debate on media censorship came to SDSU as well, thanks to last week’s edition of Juice.

In the weekly supplement to the Collegian, Kara Lindquist wrote her regular sex advice column about oral sex. The column did not deal with the issue subtly; it talked about the topic in plain language.

Evening news programs on both KELO-TV and KDLT-TV aired stories on the controversial column and the reaction to such topics being discussed in the school newspaper.

Here in Pierre, where I am spending the legislative session, numerous people approached me about the topic. Every one felt that the column had been inappropriate.

I am not going to formulate perfect standards for media content in this column. I think it is very clear that Janet Jackson’s stunt was inappropriate for primetime television, especially the most watched television event of the year.

Kara Lindquist’s sex column is not so easy to judge. I believe strongly in first amendment rights, including the rights to free speech and free press. However, I also believe that the news media has a responsibility to produce content that is appropriate for its audience and within acceptable social norms.

The sex column may not have been terribly shocking to SDSU students, but it was certainly shocking to others who read the Collegian.

Government has the responsibility to protect the fundamental rights of the governed. It also has the responsibility to ensure that offensive or profane material is not widely publicized without reason.

That is why Janet Jackson’s actions were clearly over the line; there was no good reason for her to do that.

The sex column is more difficult. I personally felt that it could have addressed the same subject just as effectively in a more subtle way.

The sex column should be about giving advice to students; it should not be about drawing attention to the newspaper.

With every right comes a responsibility The Collegian, like all media outlets, has a responsibility to publish content that is not unduly offensive to its readership.

Reach Tony Venhuizen at tonyvenhuizen@hotmail.com.

Over the last couple of weeks, John F. Kerry, the junior senator from Massachusetts, has emerged as the likely Democratic nominee for president. With the primary season already drawing to a close, the focus of political junkies now shifts to November. The November election presents several interesting questions. How will President Bush fare against Senator Kerry? Will the Republicans maintain control of the Congress? What will be the key issues?

The last question is the easiest to answer. Gay marriage and civil unions will clearly be a defining issue of this campaign; it will displace abortion as the key “social wedge” issue. The issue is impossible to avoid. The City of San Francisco has openly defied California state law by issuing marriage licenses to homosexual couples. The Massachusetts Supreme Court has ruled that the state must marry gay and lesbian couples. The State of Ohio has passed a tough new anti-gay marriage law. The issue seems to favor Republicans; a strong majority of Americans still oppose gay marriage. The Democrats will have difficulty distancing themselves from the issue. Massachusetts is the center of activity in the current debate, and they will nominate a Massachusetts senator at their Boston convention. The challenge for Democrats will be to convince voters that civil unions are a reasonable compromise. The challenge for Bush and the Republicans will be to use the issue to rally their conservative base without alienating more moderate voters.

Senator Kerry will try to take advantage of Bush’s record of military service to establish himself as the national security candidate. Kerry’s campaign will spend plenty of time talking about the lack of WMD’s in Iraq and the troubles in the Iraqi occupation. Bush’s campaign will concentrate on the improved security in the United States and the capture of Saddam Hussein. National security has always been a Republican issue, and though Kerry’s distinguished war record will be an advantage, I do not think the Democrats will make major gains in this area.

Bush has also positioned himself well in health care and education. Though the Medicare reform bill and No Child Left Behind are controversial, Bush can honestly say that he did something about both issues, which is more than most presidents can say.

The Democrats will try to use the economy as an issue, but with an improving economic situation, I do not think they will find great success.

How will the elections turn out? It’s way too early to know. The United States is truly a “50/50″ nation, and I am sure the Bush-Kerry contest will be extremely close. The Republicans are poised to maintain and perhaps expand their control of Congress, however. The number of competitive races just seem to favor the GOP, and barring a massive collapse by the Bush campaign, I believe that the next president, be it Bush or Kerry, will be dealing with Republicans on Capitol Hill.

Reach Tony Venhuizen at tonyvenhuizen@hotmail.com.

Last weekend, Republicans met to select a candidate for Bill Janklow’s U.S. House seat. On the fourth ballot, the convention unanimously selected Larry Diedrich, a farmer and state legislator from Elkton.

Ever since it became evident that Bill Janklow would not be a candidate in 2004, the Democrats have been crowing about their candidate. In their words, Stephanie Herseth is “a dream candidate” and “unbeatable.” Even some Republicans voiced their doubts that she could be beaten.

While I would never characterize Herseth as “unbeatable,” I will concede that she has strengths as a candidate: she is young, attractive, and articulate. She is an excellent speaker and can win over a crowd. Last semester, I was student in her class on political parties and campaigns and I witnessed firsthand Stephanie Herseth’s strengths as a candidate.

Stephanie Herseth is not unbeatable, however. She has weaknesses, and Larry Diedrich is just the kind Republican who can articulate those weaknesses. Compare their resumes:

Stephanie Herseth has never held an elected office. Larry Diedrich has been elected to the state legislature four times and is well-respected as a legislator.

Herseth has never operated a business. Diedrich operates a large family farm in rural Elkton.

Herseth only moved back to South Dakota two or three years ago.

Diedrich lives in the house he grew up in. Herseth left the state to go to college. Diedrich is a proud alumnus of South Dakota State University.

In 2002, Stephanie Herseth sought the agricultural vote by emphasizing her childhood on a Houghton farm and talking about ag issues. That may not work so well this year.

Larry Diedrich is a nationally recognized leader in ag issues. His numerous leadership positions include the presidency of the National Soybean Association. In this position he spent time lobbying in Washington for South Dakota’s farmers. Until his recent resignation from the state legislature, Diedrich was the chairman of the Senate Committee on Agriculture and Natural Resources.

Can Larry Diedrich beat Stephanie Herseth? Sure he can. Stephanie currently has a name-recognition advantage, but one ad campaign will change that. Two years ago, no one had heard of Stephanie Herseth either.

The Argus Leader reported two days after Diedrich’s nomination that Herseth had a 10:1 campaign fund advantage. One can be certain that Herseth’s money advantage will melt away; the June 1 special election will be the only House election in the country that day and both parties will be eager to make a statement with a victory.

Larry Diedrich is smart, likeable and knowledgeable. He is the most experienced candidate.

South Dakota needs a representative who is more than a pretty face. This state needs a representative who can be an effective advocate for South Dakota in Washington. Larry Diedrich is that person.

Reach Tony Venhuizen at tonyvenhuizen@hotmail.com.