2011 New Year Resolutions

So its New Year's Eve and I guess that means I should make some resolutions for the next year.  Here are mine.

1. Lose more weight:  Since the end of July 2010 I have lost about 30 pounds.  I saw my weight at 230 pounds and only some of my clothes were fitting right.  Shirts bulging, pants pinching, and feeling depressed about the whole thing.  I started watching what I eat by using a calorie counter online.  My friend Grace also had a competition to see who could lose the most by New Years.  From July until today I have reached down as far as 195 pounds.  I want to lose at least 15 more pounds or more to get me down to my college weight or below.  I would also like to put on some more muscle mass as well.
2. Write more.  I will be more consistent with this blog in the new year.  I am not sure of the schedule yet, but it will be three or four days a week instead of trying to do it everyday or hit and miss. I want to make this blog a money maker for me and my wife.  I am not sure exactly how to do that, but I want to learn how.  I also want to write some more American History / Government books for children.  Possibly submit them to a publisher.
3. Invest more.  My dad gave me a book several years ago that I finally read called "Rich Dad, Poor Dad," by Robert Kiyosaki.  It totally changed my perspective on money in this day and age.  I then read "The Millionaire Maker" by Loral Langemeier.  I have continued to read more on financial literacy.  I want to take some money and invest it to make more money in passive income for my family.  I know its doable.
4. Move to back to the Midwest.  This would involve finding a job back in that area.  I am going to send out more resumes to Lutheran high schools and fill out applications for as many Illinois school districts as I can.  I want to get out of this city.  No offense to those born and raised in Vegas, but its not for me, Katie or Samantha.
5. Eliminate debt.  Within the next month the car will be paid off.  The credit card is next.  We have paid a ton of money to our debt in the last 18 months.  Its time to eliminate most of  it.  Possibly pay more off on our student loans.

What are your new years resolutions?  Please feel free to share.

New Year, New Topics

To my loyal readers,

I know I suck at posting blogs in a regular fashion.  Thanks for sticking with me.  I want to get better at this but I do need feedback.  I have ideas of how I can be more consistent in writing and additional writing topics to my repetorie.  Here is what I have so far in terms of posts.

News of the Day:  These are articles in which I summarize and analyze the important news stories of the day.  Is their a news story in which you want to get my feedback?  Send them to me.

Public Policy:  In these articles I look at a particular area of public policy in governance and give my common sense solutions and views on those policies.  I am open to suggestions as to what public policy issues I can address.  Please send me your ideas.
 
My Perfect School:  In this article I describe some of the basic principles and ideas that will be used when I get the opportunity to build my perfect school.  I would like other teachers who would want to contribute ideas to send them to me and/or serve as a guest writer to explain their ideas.  Please feel free to contribute your ideas.

Government Lessons:  These articles address some topic in which I want to teach my readers about.  These lessons have been focused on the U.S. Constitution.  In the comping months and weeks I will be bring that series to a close.  Other things I have considered is teaching about "The Federalists Papers" or other political and government writings.  If their are topics or writings you would like to see me address please let me know.

Those are my biggest categories of posts in the last year.  Here are a few more ideas I have.

Book Reviews:  Those of you who know me know that I read a lot.  Maybe its time I reviewed the books that I read.  Tell me what you think.

The News Cycle:  In this article I would address the key news stories of the current news cycle.  This would be a derivative of my News of the Day articles.  More like a week in review.

Personal Posts:  I have avoided personal articles mostly because I like being all business.  I fear posting this stuff because I don't want to share to much about my personal life and embarrass myself, the people I know and love, or where I work.  That could be a dangerous road to walk.

Another idea I had was only posting on specific days (i.e. Mondays, Wednesdays, Fridays, etc.).  It would make it easier for me to make a due date if I had a day or two to come up with a topic and write about it.  The one thing I have learned from my favorite online comic strips is that they are consistent.  The key piece of advice he says to new web comic writers is to be on time.  Don't say you are going to post at midnight three days a week unless you can do it.  That is good advice to follow for anybody with followers.  Though I am not sure what days work best though.  Let me know what you think on the days would be best to have me post.

I have a few more ideas about articles but they have skipped my mind at this moment.  What would you, my readers, like to see coming out of this blog?  I want to know!  As always, thanks for reading. 

May you all have a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!

The U.S. Constitution - Lesson #13: Powers of the President

It's been a while since class has been in session but its time to get back to work.  Today's lesson focuses on Article II, sections 2 and 3.  Collectively these inform the citizens about the powers and responsibilities of the President of the United States.

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;

The very first power is where we see the President being the commander in chief of all military forces in the United States, including the state militias, which is now called the National Guard.  The power over the military is divided to protect the people and the government.  While congress has the power to declare war, regulate the military and provide funds for its running, they have no say over the command of the military.  So when the Democrats tried to lay out a time table for the removal of troops from Iraq they overstepped their Constitutional authority.

The President was given the power to command the military because military decision are best left in one person's hand.  You can't have Congress debating over military strategy because it would take to long.  That is why they could do nothing about the Surge.  They only thing Congress could do was cut off funding, which was within their authority.

he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices,

 As of right now we have 15 Executive Departments, the most recent being Homeland Security.  These are created by law in Congress.  These principle officers, or secretaries, are to provide the president with advice on how to enforce the laws passed by the United States Congress.  They also oversee their departments and assist with the enforcement of federal law.  They are sometimes called the Cabinet, but that informal term include others as well besides the heads of the executive departments.

and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

These are the president's clemency powers.  A pardon is legal forgiveness of a crime.  A reprieves is the postponement or lessening of a prison sentence.  This power is given to the president only over convictions of federal law, not state.  Impeachments cannot be pardoned because they are distinctly the power of Congress.  Also they only remove a person from office or prevent them from holding other federal offices.  The president could pardon a impeached official if they were officially charged and convicted of the federal crime that got them impeached.

A lot of talk in public policy over the last 5-6 years has been about comprehensive immigration reform.  One idea that has been thrown around by groups is that the Congress would grant amnesty to immigrants or aliens living in the United States against federal law.  The fact of the matter is though that the President does not need to wait on Congress to grant amnesty (A blanket pardon to a group of people) to illegal immigrants.  He has the power vested in him by the Constitution.  I think he just fears the backlash of such an action.

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.

Their are several things going on in this clauses that I want to address, but they all have to do with the special connection made between the President and the Senate inside the Constitution.  Treaties require the advice and consent of the Senate because it is the job of the Senate to protect the rights of the states and their citizens.  The 2/3 majority is required because treaties affect the entire nation and our relationship to the world.  It would be wrong for treaties to be approved by a simple majority since they can have such far reaching effects on the country, states, and citizens.

The Senate is also required to approve of almost all Presidential appointments, unless the law which creates them says they may be appointed by someone else.  This clause is to protect the citizens from the President appoint his friends into power.  People may be worried that a person may buy an office with campaign contributions; this is designed to give a check on those types of appointments.  A key thing that people miss in this clause though is that these appointed positions MUST be created by law.  All of these czars and special advisers that Presidents have appointed that do not require Senate approval are unconstitutional positions.

The last phrase gives the power to make appointments to offices requiring Senate approval when they are out of session.  This was to make sure that the government can still fully function when Congress is not in session.  But their is a check on this power, they will only serve until the end of the next session of Congress.  It limits the power of the President in this regards.

Recently, both Presidents Obama and Bush have used this power to appoint a person who was not politically popular.  Bush did it with John Bolton as our ambassador to the UN and Obama did it with an appointment to a new health insurance bureaucracy under the law passed this year.  Both did this to avoid open debate and discussion on the person.  Obama's man did not even have a hearing prior to the session ending and the appointment being made when the Senate was out of session. 

He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient;

The President must communicate with Congress.  It is required in Article II of the Constitution.  For most of the history of the United States this communication was an annual letter or message to Congress.  There is no provision for it to be aired on television, just that it be presented to Congress.  Could be dangerous if this was done in private.

he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper;

This clause shows that the President has limited powers over Congress.  The chief among them being the power to call them into an emergency session.  This is not as important today as it was a hundred years ago.  Congress meets almost in continuous session over the two years they are elected.  The Senate is sometimes called back to approve of a presidential appointment, but rarely are both houses called back.

The second power is the power to adjourn Congress.  The only time he may adjourn the Congress is when their is a disagreement between the two houses for how long they will adjourn.  The are required to have the permission of the other house if they are to adjourn for more than three days.

he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers

The President is the chief diplomat of the United States, and represents us to the world.  This power is connected to his power to make treaties.  This powers was given to the President because some conversations between different head of state are confidential and require secrecy, which is easier with a singular executive.  Also it makes negotiations easier for treaties if all 100 members of the Senate are not until ratification of such treaties.

he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,

To execute the laws means to enforce them.  This is a reiteration of the very first line of Article II, which vests all executive power in the President.  When a president refuses to enforce the properly approved legislation of the U.S. Congress he is in violation of not only this clause of the Constitution, but also his oath of office.  Whether the President likes the law, supreme court decision or treaty, it is his job to enforce it equally among all citizens. 

and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.

This power is connected with the his power as commander in chief of the military.  Most major military officers do require Senate confirmation, like when General Petraus was appointed commander in Afghanistan following General McCrysal's resignation.  Though I am not sure from where they get that authority.

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

This last section of Article II, outlines that all civil officers can be removed from office if they have been impeached by the Congress.  They only real crimes defined as impeachable by the Constitution are Treason and bribery.  I wonder if taking money, trips, and other items from lobbyist, special interest groups and political action committees can be seen as bribery?

That is all I have for you today class.  Next week we will start to look at Article III of the U.S. Constitution that deals with the Judicial Branch.  Any questions, comments, concerns?  Class dismissed.

Public Policy: Reforming the U.S. Congress

It's been a long time since I have written anything so I figured I would give it another shot.  My topic today deals with how I would, as a member of Congress, seek to reform the Congress to make it more fiscally responsible.

1.  Cut pay of all members of Congress.  Members of Congress make AT LEAST $174,000/year.  That is not counting all the fringe benefits that they get, including health insurance, franking privileges, travel expenses and a bunch of others.  It is not right that members of Congress can get rich in public service.  With that intention in mind, I would cut Congressional pay down to the current poverty level, adjustable for inflation.  They would get a stipend to use for their health insurance, that they must buy on the open market.  They would get no retirement pension, since this is a temporary position, not a career.  They would get no other benefits or emolument, as the Constitution describes it.

2.  Cut Congressional Members personnel staff.  There are many members of Congress who have large numbers of staffers.  This comes usually with their rank in the House or the Senate.  All of these are paid by the tax payer.  Each member of Congress would be allotted one secretary for their D.C. office, and one personal aide that accompanies them while they are in Washington, D.C. They will be paid out of the treasury at the market rate for such positions.  They also will have stipend for their health insurance.  They will not get any retirement since this is a temporary position.  If members wanted additional staff in Washington or in their home state and/or district they must pay for it out of their own pocket (excluding campaign contributions).

3.  Cut Congressional Committee staffs.  There are over 25,000 people who work for the U.S. Congress most of them work for the individual committees that Congress creates to investigate bills.  The staff of these must be cut.  They will be paid the market rate for their positions out of the treasury.  I am not sure how many staffers are needed to run each committee but I can't imagine it would be more than ten people.

4.  Reform Government Printing Office.   This part of the U.S. Congress is the office that prints these thousand page bills, the federal budget and all other bills and necessary information for members of Congress and their staffs.  Effective immediately I would stop printing all documents on paper and send them to members of Congress via PDF or editable files to be downloaded on to their computers or other devices.  This would make the government more green and save the tax payers money by not having to buy paper.

Those are the major reforms I would make.  Are there any others that people would suggest.  I am open to new ideas.

Happy 234th Birthday U.S.A!!!

Its been a while I know, but I must honor the creation of the single most influential nation in the history of the modern world.  The only nation founded by choice.  The only nation where we make money and wealth.  The only nation where the poorest among us could become the richest with hard work and genius ideas.  The only nation that deliberately sat down and wrote out its system of government to last for ages.  The only nation to guarantee equal justice under the law in it constitution.  A nation that acknowledges that god is the source of rights, not the government or man. A nation made up of 50 sovereign states.  I present to you the document that created this nation.  The Declaration of Independence:

In Congress, July 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new guards for their future security — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. — The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.

1. He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
2. He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
3. He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
4. He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
5. He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
6. He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
7. He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
8. He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.
9. He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
10. He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our People, and eat out their substance.
11. He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
12. He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.
13. He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
14. For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
15. For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from Punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
16. For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
17. For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
18. For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
19. For transporting us beyond seas to be tried for pretended offences:
20. For abolishing the free system of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
21. For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the forms of our Governments:
22. For suspending our own Legislature, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
23. He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
24. He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
25. He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
26. He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
27. He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions we have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have we been wanting in attention to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do.

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

Public Policy: The Post Office

An interesting topic of discussion for today's Public Policy debate:  the Post Office.  This power is conferred on Congress in Article I, Section 8:  "Congress shall have the power... to establish post offices and post roads.  If anyone knows me I am a stickler for the Constitution and the federal government only doing things that they are authorized to do under the U.S. Constitution.


The United States Postal Service is technically a government corporation.  This is a business that is run by the federal government to provide a specific service.  They are regulated and sometimes receive federal funds as part of their budget.  Unfortunately the mail service we have is not always the best.  I can speak from experience as I have several letters and packages "Lost in the mail," via the USPS.  My main purpose of the public policy is for the free markets to decide the fate of this service.

I would through legislative means break up the USPS and break some of those parts from the federal government.  I would retain the USPS as a regulatory body for all post services throughout the United States.  They would set the regulations for delivery of mail.  This would mostly of establishing zip codes and standards for the delivery of post to anyone in the U.S.  They could also be called upon to help search and protect the citizens from the mailing of hazardous materials.

The business aspect of the post office, all the branch offices would be privatized.  They would be required to run the sweat of their brow and the services they provide.  But also the other private companies that handle post (UPS, FedEx, DHL, and others) would be given greater freedom to compete with the USPS on even ground.  They could send letters and other things through the mail following the same regulations established by the government regulatory agency.

That does mean, in the short term, prices for post would go up through the post office.  The price of mailing a letter might go up.  But if they are forced to compete against the other mail carriers in the U.S. their service and the service of other companies would go up.  Think of the freedom of choice you would have now.  You as a consumer could decide which service delivers your mail (for a nominal fee if you like).  Each company could provide different services and rates to fully compete against each other from your business.  Since the government will not have a monopoly on delivering mail this will drive prices down in the long term.

This idea may not work, but they do it in other countries.  In Australia, the Post Office is still part of the government but they must run based only on the money they bring in.  This makes them more efficient, offers better and faster service, and spawns more competition among the companies that handle post.

Thoughts?  Comments?  Questions?  Points I missed?  Let me know.

The U.S. Constitution - Lesson #12: President of the United States

Today's lesson gets us back into the text of the Constitution and its meaning for us today.  Recently we had finished Article I of the Constitution, which focused on the powers of the Legislative Branch of government, the U.S. Congress.  Today we move on to the first section of Article II, which is the Executive Branch, or the President of the United States.

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:

This clause state the executive power, the power to enforce the laws will be in a single President with a Vice President.  Both will serve a term of four years.  There was a large debate during the Constitution convention on the make up of the Executive.  There were calls for a committee of three to five individuals, a triumvirate of sorts.  The argument for a single is that only one person is responsible for executing the laws.  If there were three or four or five executives then you would have too much debate and discussion over the simple task of enforcing the laws passed by Congress, which needs to be a deliberative body.

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.

Here begins the explanation of the most confusing part of the American government: the electoral college.  Set out in this clause is how the states will determine the electors who will vote and elect the President.  In practical terms of election of the president is not a single national election, but 50 individual state elections.  First the electors are chosen by the state legislatures, removing all doubt that the election for president is not one of popular vote but of the votes of the state electors.  Each state will have the same number of electors as it does in Congress, so Nevada has three members of the House and two Senators, so it has five electoral votes.  It does prohibit any elected official for the U.S. government from being an elector.

In modern times this is how they electors are chosen.  When you cast your vote for the President and Vice-President, you are casting your vote not for those candidates, but the slate of electors chosen by that political party that have pledged their vote for that candidate.  My vote did not technically go for John McCain and Sarah Palin in 2008. It went to the five Republican electors for the state of Nevada.  Who then in turn, if chosen, by majority vote, will cast their electoral votes for those two individuals.  Everyone understand so far?  Good moving on.

The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two
persons, of whom one at least shall not lie 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 Representation 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.

Here is where it can get complicated because of all the language in this one clause.  The electors, chosen by the state legislatures, will meet in the capital city.  There they will vote for two people for President.  One of them must be from outside that state.  This actually caused a problem in the 2000 election.  Vice-Presidential candidate Dick Chaney, was set to move his to Texas prior to the election, unfortunately if he did that he would not have been able to be received the electoral votes from Texas, since both Bush and Cheney would then be from Texas.  If it weren't for that we could have easily had President George Bush and Vice-President Joe Lierberman.  But moving on...

All the votes from that state would then be sent to the President of the Senate, technically the current Vice-President, and those votes will be opened and counted in a joint session of Congress.  The person with the most votes would be declared the President, the person with the second highest votes the VP.  Under this system you could have political enemies serving in the same White House.  In fact that did happen between 1797-1801 when President John Adams, of the Federalists Party, served concurrently with Vice-President Thomas Jefferson, of the Democratic-Republicans.  That situation did not last long as I will talk about in a minute.

If there was a tie or no majority then the House of Representatives would vote, by state, on a slate of candidates that had the highest number of votes.  It was important that the House vote by state.  While, at present, California may have an a lot of power in presidential elections in the electoral college, in the event of a tie they have no more power than Rhode Island or Alaska.  This again shows that in fact the people do not elect the President, the states do.

Keep in mind also this method changed about eleven years after the Constitution was ratified.  It was changed by the 12TH Amendment.  Here it is

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; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President and of the number of votes for each, which lists 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;

There is a bit more to the amendment but listed above are the major changes to this method.  The 12Th Amendment makes it so that when the electors vote they have two separate ballots, one for President and one for Vice President.  The creation of political parties made this change necessary during the election of 1800.  Let me explain.

During the election of 1800, Vice President Thomas Jefferson, ran for President against the his sitting boss, President John Adams.  Jefferson choose Aaron Burr to run as his Vice-Presidential candidate as part of the new Democratic-Republican party.  Jefferson instructed the electors that would be chosen for him by the state legislatures that they should vote for both Jefferson and Burr (The popular vote is still about 24 years away in American history.).  What happened?  Obviously a tie between Jefferson and Burr.  So the vote went into the House of Representatives and it took 36 votes to make Jefferson our third President.  Mostly because the Federalists were trying to prevent Jefferson from becoming President and voting for Burr.  Here we see the beginnings of partisan politics.  This problem created by political parties necessitated the change to the electoral system.  With the ratification of the 12TH Amendments party politics and partisan elections were ingrained and included, in our Constitution, against the wishes of the now dead Father of our Country, George Washington.  He had this to say about political parties in  his farewell address: 

In contemplating the causes which may disturb our Union, it occurs as matter of serious concern that any ground should have been furnished for characterizing parties by geographical discriminations, Northern and Southern, Atlantic and Western; whence designing men may endeavor to excite a belief that there is a real difference of local interests and views. One of the expedients of party to acquire influence within particular districts is to misrepresent the opinions and aims of other districts. You cannot shield yourselves too much against the jealousies and heartburnings which spring from these misrepresentations; they tend to render alien to each other those who ought to be bound together by fraternal affection.

There can be a lot said about this method of electing the President.  I welcome a hearty debate on the electoral college in my comments. Bring it on!  But moving on.  There is more to tell.

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

It already has been stated that Congress has the power to alter the dates of the elections (Article I, Section 4, Clause 1).  Since this is not a general election Congress is also granted the power of when electors should be chosen.  This along with the general election day is the first Tuesday in November, after the first Monday.  They have also set by the the date when the electoral votes must have been certified and submitted to Congress.  I believe it is December 20TH.  This is why the case of Bush v. Gore was argued and decided so quickly after the 2000 election.  They had to do it so that the electoral votes could be submitted in the manner prescribed by law.  There is another topic of debate we could address in the comments with this posting:  the Supreme Court case of Bush v. Gore.

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.

Here is the infamous clause that states the qualifications for President of the United States The qualifications for the Vice-President are the same and are set in the 12TH Amendment. This is where the "Birthers" have take issue with our current President.  They claim President Obama is not a natural born citizen.  They do have some logical doubts, but some of them are nuts.  There is some doubt according to Philip Berg that when Obama immigrated to Indonesia with his mother that his father at the time, made him an Indonesian citizen.  Thereby renouncing his American citizenship and not making his natural born anymore.  There is also some question to the law at the time of the his birth and the age of his mother.  According to U.S. law a parent had to have been at least 19 years a citizen before she could confer citizenship on her child.  Records show she was 17 or 18 at the time of his birth, therefore he may not have been a true natural born citizen.  There is also anecdotal evidence of his grandmother (his father's mother) saying she was at the birth, even though it was in Hawaii.  She lived in Kenya.  There is the fact that some political figures of Kenya have even stated that America elected a Kenyan citizen.  Michelle Obama has said her husband's home country is that of Kenya.  Include in this the hysteria of a Manchurian candidate because of his far leftists political beliefs, the fact that he went to a Muslim school in Indonesia and  you are ripe to have a conspiracy theory on your hands.

This is how I look at it.  A)  Someone, somewhere had to have seen President Obama's birth certificate certifying he was an American citizen. If they saw it or it was fraudulent or said something different than we know then the conspiracy is bigger than we know and that is unlikely with how incompetent our government and political parties are.  B)  If he really wanted to shut these people up he could just show it and entirely discredit them.  For the record, I am sure there are Birthers in the Tea Party movement, but they are a small minority.

The reason behind the Natural born citizenship clause is so that a foreign power could not invade our country and become the chief executive.  This was to help prevent us from being ruled by a foreign power.  At one point before the writing and ratification of the Constitution were almost had a king, twice.  First it was offered to General George Washington following the end of the Revolutionary War.  He turned it down.  He is the most powerful example of an elected leader.  He always was willing to give up power.  He reluctantly served two terms as President.  Too many people now seek the office and I fear that corrupts them.  During the critical period between the end of the Revolution and the Constitution the president of the Congress under the Articles of Confederation ask the Prussian king to becomes American's king.  He declined due how we reacted to our first one.

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.

This clause allowed for the Vice-President to take over as President upon the remomal of the President by any means.  It also gives the Congress the authority to provide for the selection of a new President if this were to occur.  The Vice-President would serve as President though until there be a new President.  Following the death of President Harrison there were questions of who and what would be done with the Presidency.  Vice-President John Tyler stepped into the Presidency and proclaimed that he was now the President with all this powers.  Thus the tradition of the VP serving out the remaining portion of the President's term was established.  This was also changed by the 20TH, and 25Th Amendments.  They also provided for it in the Presidential Succession Act of 1947.  This set the current secession of government officials in the following order:

1. Vice President
2. Speaker of the House
3. President PRo-Tempore of the Senate
4. Heads of the Executive Department in the order of their creation (Last in line: Secretary of Homeland Security)

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.

This ensures that the President gets paid for his service.  Currently the President earns $400,000 a year, though the total financial benefit of being President is closer to $60 million dollars over their four year term.  It also prevents Congress from raising or lowering the President's pay during his term.  This is to prevent them from punishing the President for his actions.  Its a check on the Congresses power of the purse.

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."

This oath has been taken by every President since George Washington.  It is also very similar to the oath of office taken by members of Congress, the Supreme Court and other appointed officials in the government.  There was a small mix up in the wording of the oath of office during Obama's inauguration.  Chief Justice John Roberts chose to do the oath by memory, but Obama, being the Constitutional professor that he was, knew it and recited it correctly.  A day later they redid the oath in the Oval office just to make sure they got it right. 

It is the job of the President, in this oath, to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution.  It sad to say I fear our current and many former Presidents have failed at this oath.  Many have taken powers not given to them in the Constitution.  They have signed, instead of vetoed, laws that have no Constitutional authority.  They have refused to enforce vigorously the decisions of the Supreme Court.  The Constitution is the supreme law of the land and when the person charged with enforcing the law fails at that job we all lose a little bit of the liberty granted for us by our forefathers.

Class dismissed.

The Death of Compromise and the Rise of Partisanship

In the last few weeks I have been involved in some heated discussions, debates and arguments on my school's staff chat forum on our email program.  This week I decided to stop contributing to the discussion.  These discussions always seem to devolve into something that is not debate.  All of this has lead me to the conclusion that true debate, discussion and compromise is now dead in American politics.  It has been replaced by partisan politics proclaimed by political pundits.

As I was reading this weekend about the 1787 Constitutional Convention I realized how important compromise is to a republic.  During the writing of our constitution there were lots of compromises made to complete the document.  The Great Compromise gave us the make up of our U.S. Congress.  The 3/5 Compromise made it so slaves states would not be as powerful as they could have been, and even gave them incentive to free their slaves.  These compromises may not have been what one side or the other directly wanted but each side got something out the deal.

You even see compromise through out our history.  The Missouri Compromise kept the peace between the slave holding south and the free north for a short while.  The Compromise if 1850 again did the same.  Both sides were willing to give up one thing to receive another.  Compromise has been essential to our republic.  But where is it today.

Within my lifetime I have seen our nation become more and more polarized and our politicians become more and more partisan.  I see this even more so in the debates and legislation that has been since the election of President Barack Obama.  It has become the tactic of my way or the high way.  There was no input from the minority party on the Stimulus bill, Health Care Reform, Cap and Trade, or Immigration Reform.  They have been cut out entirely.  Just today Harry Reid says if Republicans are going to be with us we will move on without them.  What ever happened to compromise.

Democrats have some good ideas of how to fix some problems we have in the United States.  So do Republicans.  Take Health Care Reform.  Here is a compromise that could have been made.  Democrats wanted pre-existing conditions covered.  Great!  Republicans wanted more competition to allow people to buy across state lines.  Democrats wanted an individual mandate.  Republicans wanted qualifying medical expenses to be tax free.  Why can't we compromise on these things.

Its not all our nothing.  That is dangerous and tramples on the rights of the minority.  This is not about D's and R's its about sitting down and agreeing together that each side has good ideas.  That these ideas are not contradictory and would make the legislation better.

Instead we have Democrats going all or nothing without the Republicans.  And we have the Republicans filibustering just to be heard or to stop the legislation.

I am sick and tired of all the parties.  I wish this nation had listened to our greatest President over 200 years ago when he condemn political parties.  All they care about is gathering power to themselves.  Very rarely is it in the best interest of our nation.

Questions?  Comments?

News of the Day - 4/22/2010

Another great day for news.  So lets begin.

SOUTH PARK CENSORED BY ISLAMIC EXTREMISTS
This week Comedy Central fully censored South Park for its use of a characterization and the use of the name Muhammad, the prophet of the Islamic faith.  The main reason behind this censorship was that Islamic organizations in the U.S. and abroad threatened the life of the producers of the show.  Welcome to life under Sharia Law!  This happened on "South Park" several years ago when they tried to make fun of "Family Guy."  My real question is why do we kowtow down to these these violent extremists?  I wish I had an answer.  Where is the line in the sand for our nation, when we say "Screw you, we will say what we want about your religion and your people, and your prophet.  If you don't like it then go ahead and try and attack us again.  If you do, we will hunt every single extremist down, kill you all until all that is left are those that want to live in peace with the rest of the world."  We need to take a lesson from President Thomas Jefferson.  These Islamic extremist were attacking our ships and other European nations for years after the Revolution.  The U.S. paid tribute several times.  Finally he sent the U.S. Navy and Marines over to Tripoli and wiped out their base of operations.  Didn't hear from them again in 1993.  I maybe wrong on this but I am sick of the freedom of expression in the world being dictated by some people who just don't know how to take a joke.

TEA PARTY PROTESTERS PEACEFUL FOR POLICE
The Christian Science Monitor has discovered that the Tea Party Movement is actually a peaceful movement.  So much so that police have found they can relax their standards when they hold an event.  This information flies in the face of everything the liberal media says about the movement.  We are violent, and seditious racists who want to kill Democrats and being compared to the Timothy McVeigh.  While there are some nut jobs in the movement (I saw a 9/11 Truther at one event and asked him to leave.), that is not the majority of the people who are part of this movement.  The movement, as I have said before, is about two principles 1) Limited government under the Constitution 2) government fiscal responsibility.  I have not heard any speakers of the movement or those who support it like Rush, Beck, Hannity or other conservative commentators advocate the use of violence in our protests.  In fact, Glenn Beck just ask all of his listeners to commit to a nonviolence pledge that was used by Martin Luther King, Jr. in his campaigns during the Civil Rights movement.  As a person who has been to several events, none of them have been violent against any of our elected officials or the president.  There is not racism that can be seen in the vast majority of the people.  It would be interesting to compare the protests of the tea party to that of the anti-war protesters during the Bush administration and Vietnam.

Questions?  Comments?

The U.S. Constitution - Lesson #11: Slavery & the Constitution

I was going to move forward on our lessons about the Constitution, but felt it was important to deal with a controversy that came out of the creation of the Constitution:  Slavery.  I want to make sure the historical record is straight when it comes to how it was addressed and compromised on during the summer of 1787.

Once it was decided upon that the House of Representatives apportionment would be based on population, slavery became an issue of debate during the Constitution Convention.  The key question on this debate:  Would slaves be counted in the census to determine a state's apportionment in the House of Representatives?

"Persons held to service or labor" is the awkward phrase used to describe slaves (Bennett 121).  At the time of the Constitutional Convention only Massachusetts had abolished the practice, four other states were in the process of doing so (Bennett 122).  In the grand scheme of things, the Founders felt that it was a system that was on the path to extinction.  George Mason, the governor of New York railed against the practice just steps away from his friend largest slave holder in the U.S., and President of the convention, George Washington.  Very few delegates morally approved of the institution.  Washington and Jefferson, future presidents and slave holders, did not approve of the practice but were victims of history and their culture.  Washington would free all his slaves upon his death.  Again showing his greatness, he led by example.

The arguments to end or limit slavery hit a  brick wall in the form of the delegates from the southern states.  No argument of morals or economic seemed to sway them to relinquish that right.  So the Founders did what they did best in this convention. they compromised.  A topic I will address in a future post.

Slavery was not even mentioned in the Constitution, they talked around the subject (Bennet 123).  They used an interesting mathematical formula to determine a state's population for their apportionment in the House:

Representatives.... shall be apportioned among the several states... according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

This phrase does not mean that slaves viewed as a three fifths of a person but it was only there for figuring out how many representatives each state would get.  In fact, it distinctly calls them persons, not property or chattel.  It was only a mathematical formula to prevent slaveholders from getting more representation in Congress and electoral votes towards the presidency.  This compromise would actually encourage the emancipation of slaves.  As more slaves were free they would be counted as whole persons toward the state's population.  Therefore increasing their representation in Congress.  In the eyes of history, the slave holding southern states were actually denying themselves more representation in Congress by holding the slaves in bondage. 

The Constitution also grants the power to Congress to abolish slavery, not immediately, but after 1808.  By granting this temporary reprieve in the Constitution they secured the approval of several delegates from slaves states, and the possibility eventually of ending slavery.  At the start of the Congressional session in 1808, Congress ended the external slave trade.  Slavery could have been abolished at that time but unfortunately party politics ran that option into the ground until the 1860s and the Civil War. 

There is one other time slavery is talked around in the Constitution.  In Article IV, Section 2, the Constitution states:

No person held to service or labor in one state, under the law thereof, escaping into another, shall in consequence of any law or regulation, therein, be discharged from such service or labor but shall be delivered up on the claim of the party to whom such service may be due.

This clause is a basic fugitive slave law.  People were required to return slaves to their owners, by the Constitution.  The founders put this in the Constitution because they believed it would not be ratified without it.

As I have stated before in other postings, the Founders made these compromises regarding slavery because that was not the larger issue at stake at the Constitutional Convention.  The issue was the create a government that would be strong enough to administer a nation of 13 different sovereign states, but with enough checks and balances so no branch or state go too powerful over the whole.  The issue of slavery would be the key issue in American politics and debate for the next eighty years of American History.  And it would take a war that killed more men than any other war in our history.  The sins of the forefathers, were paid for by their children a few short generations later, in the Civil War.

Questions?  Comments?  Concerns?  Class dismissed.

Public Policy: Immigration

Today I saw an thread on facebook about the reaction of some people to the idea or term of calling someone an illegal alien or immigrant. I realized, after checking my archives, that I had not discussed the issue of immigration policy in the United States.  Today's posting will deal with that public policy topic.

First, there is nothing wrong when the U.S. Congress write legislation regulation the immigration and naturalization of other people into the United States.  This is one of their expressed powers under Article I, Section 8:  "To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization."  Even though we may not agree with how they have decided to write said laws, there is no question about the authority of the government to make and enforce such laws. 

Secondly, I hate it when people say something like, "Nobody is illegal," or how the terminology has slowly been changing over the last 100 years from illegal alien to illegal immigrant to undocumented immigrant.  If you are a person whose citizenship is from another nation you are an immigrant or alien.  If you came to the U.S. by means that circumvent our laws, then you are here in the country illegally.  Hence the term: illegal alien or immigrant.  So PC police get off the backs of people who want the laws enforced.  Just because you don't like them does not mean other people can break them.  We live in a nation of laws and no one is above it.  Now on with my solutions.

First, we need to be able to control access to our country.  As of right now we have over 4,000 miles of border that is relatively unprotected.  There are several ways you could do this.  The most popular solution is to make a giant wall.  I can get behind that solution.  I would make a nation wide competition for people to submit plans for the "Great American Wall."  The winning design would be chosen by me, the President.  I would then bid out the construction to local companies in the states where the wall would be built.  The money would be appropriated for this project in the federal budget.  This wall or fence would be built along both our northern and southern borders.

I imagine the wall would be double layered anti-scaling fence , with razor wire on the top.  There would be enough room between the two fences for a car or two to pass by each other on patrols.  I would also suggest the fences be electrified.  The foundations would go deep into the earth to prevent tunneling.  Guard towers and access points would be provided every five to ten miles.  Either way the way would be there to provide a difficult physical barrier to stop people from entering.  Also it help stop incursions from the Mexican military and drug cartels.

Second, I would hire additional border patrol agents.  They would man the guard towers in the Great American Wall.  ICE and other agents who work with immigration would man these posts as well to help process the paperwork for any people wishing to enter the United States.  The American military would fill the gaps left by the border patrol.  The Coast Guard would be responsible for paroling the waterways in which people could sneak through.

Thirdly, I would increase work site enforcement of our current immigration laws.  I don't believe the solution is more laws, but enforcing the ones we have already written.  Anybody could tip off ICE to illegal aliens being hired and exploited by their company.  ICE would execute a search and capture both the offending aliens.  Also, the company would be punished as well according to already established laws.  Any elected or appointed official at the state or local level deeming themselves a sanctuary city and refusing to allow federal immigration laws to be properly enforced, would be tried in federal court and punished.

Fourth, after all of the previous steps were completed I, as President, would ask Congress to look at and possibly amend current immigration law and quotas.  One, goal would be to make it easier for people of other nations, who want to come to the U.S., and can contribute to our society and culture to make it easier for them.  If you want to come to our country and make a better life for yourself temporarily that is cool too.  But either way the government needs to be able to keep track of you and your family.  This would probably require monthly checkups on residence, job status and other information.  People on student visas have to prove they are in school and show good progress.  If a student, fails out of school then they are not allowed to live here any more.  End the quota system to allow more people from other areas to come here willingly and cut down the waiting list.  If you are a immigrant here and you commit a crime, depending on the severity you would be deported back to your home country and not allowed to return to the U.S. under any circumstances.

In summary, my policy would be to secure our borders, enforce the current law, and then enact the changes needed for more people to be allowed citizenship to this greatest nation on God's green earth.  As always I welcome any and all comments and suggestions.

The U.S. Constitution - Lesson #10: Powers Denied to the States

Its been a while since I wrote a lesson on the U.S. Constitution.  Sorry for being an absentee teacher.  I hope they were missed.  Most of all I hope all of you have been learning more about the Constitution both from me and in your own studies, in my absence.  Anyway, today's lesson focuses on the last section of the first article of the Constitution.  It focuses on the powers specifically denied to the states in the union.  So lets get started.

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

This clause is a very big catch all clause that lays out a large number of actions to which the state government cannot do.  If you look at the previous section of Article I you find this is a repeat of some of those clauses.   It strictly forbids any special treaties between states.  Since we are a Union of sovereign states this may seem odd, but if we were able to enter into special treaties with other countries then what is the point of the Union.  States are forbidden from both printing money (reserved for the Congress under Section 8 of Article I) and emitting Bills of Credit.  This is the main reason why states are facing budget crunches right now, they cannot carry debt.  They have to have balanced budgets by the Constitution.  The Silver and Gold clause has little value now since our money is not backed by silver or gold.  The last clause, the obligation of contracts, basically means that a state cannot stop a contract from being fulfilled.  Contract Law is an area specifically granted to the states because that is where all contracts are made valid, in state court.  The Congress has invalidated lost of contracts in the last few years though:  AIG bonus contracts, debt contracts between bond holders of GM and Chyrsler, etc.  If the right to contract is not safe then what's the point of having contracts.

No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.

So this is an enforcement clause on some of the reserved powers of Congress from Section 8 of this article .  Congress has the sole power to regulate interstate commerce and to have control over import and export taxes.  The only reason a state may charge taxes on imports or exports is for the inspection of the product by its own state standards and laws.  Even when they collect that tax, it must be given to the federal government, not the state treasury.  Lastly Congress has to consent with all those taxes.

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

Last clause of this article is another catch all clause.  Again Congress has the final approval of all of these denied powers.  The troops and ships clause was to prevent any state from possibly going to war with the other states over some perceived threat or slight.  The militia were the only real troops they states had.  The militia was considered the whole body of men in a community.  They were only called upon in an emergency for the state.  The states now a days do keep troops but they are not on active duty.  They only are called up in times of emergency. 

I think most of this article is pretty self-explanatory, but if you have any questions do not hesitate to ask.  Class dismissed.

Public Policy: Drug Legalization

News broke this week that California is considering the total legalization of marijuana through out the state in the up coming election in November.  So I thought I would take some time to explain my position on the topic and how public policy should be created and enforced.

Thought it may surprise some, I am not strictly against the legalization of pot to the general public.  I am not sure exactly where I stand with harder and chemically made drugs, like heroine, cocaine, crystal meth, and others, but pot is okay.  Here is how I would write and enforce such policy.

1. Any person, 18 years and older, may grow and use the drug for their own personal use within their own property. (California sets the age limit at 21 years old.)
2. Any person wishing to sell the drug must be licensed, by the state, to meet certain standards for growing for commercial purposes.  They can sell it online, to specialty stores, or to individuals.  This includes those people who grow it in their homes, they may not sell it without a license.  Anyone caught selling the drug without an appropriate license will be fined and possible imprisoned.
3. The state and local municipalities may require a nominal tax placed on the purchase of said drugs by any consumer.

Simple, easy to understand and to the point.  Also, in my opinion, easy to enforce. These regulations could also be used in the future to include other possible drugs to be legalized in the future.

Several problems this would clear up would include.   No longer would local police be required to enforcement and incarceration of drug users for a personal choice.  We could empty out or prisons of all these nonviolent felons drug users.  My assumption is those convicted of a drug crime would be pardoned by governor of the states for those crimes since there is no real point in continuing to incarcerate them.  We would have an influx of tax and licensing revenue to the state and local governments to help the deficits.  The drug is now regulated and safer to use since there will be standard growing and selling practices.

One more thing about the topic.  Now that the drug is legal, we would not have to fund the entitlement programs that help people get off the drug.  Its a personal choice to use it so you have to fund your recovery if you need it, not the state or the people.  Also insurance companies could offer an addition policy to cover you in the case of your addition to the drug.  Hey, free market principles work again.

Questions?  Comments?  Concerns?  As always they are welcome.

News of the Day - 4/5/2010

Sorry again for the long haitus.  I am not sure why I have not written, but I have a bunch of articles today for comment.  Please feel free to send me ideas, news articles or other things you would wish me to discuss in this forum.  Teachers, I welcome guest spots on the My Perfect School posts.  Give me your curriculum for specific or general subjects and I will post them as a guest writer to this blog.  Anyway, enjoy!

BUSH BASHERS GET NO NEWS COVERAGE
REGIME CONDEMNED BY MATTHEWS BUT USED AGAINST BUSH

These two articles compares the news coverage of our current and past present, George W. Bush.  The first, mentions how protesters against the Iraq War were covered versus the Tea Party Protests.  In the second, Chris Matthews of MSNBC criticizes Rush Limbaugh and other hosts for calling the Obama Administration a regime, when in the eight years of the Bush Administration the same person used the same term 6,769 times from July 1, 2001 to the present.  What bothers me the most out of all these stories is the true hypocrisy of those on the left both in politics and in the news media that supports them.  They call us racists and violent, when they are the ones who threw eggs at the Tea Party Express on March 27th in Searchlight, NV.  It was the SEIU who attacked people at town hall meetings last summer.  It was Nancy Pelosi and other prominent democrats that suggest that it is patriotic and acceptable to question any administration, and then call those standing up to the government, Nazis (They do not understand that Nazi are actually politically closer to what they represent than the classic liberals in the conservative movement.).  This just makes me sick to my stomach. 

It just reminds me of the big lie theory.  Tell a big enough lie long enough and eventually people will believe it.  The lie that is being spouted now is how all Tea Party Protesters are racist, biogots and violent, when there is not evidence to support such facts.  Yet when Glenn Beck or Limbaugh or any other talk show host proves with facts, and quotes who these people are, then they call them names and are ridiculed.  That is the favorite tactic of the left.  If you can't win the argument, call them opposition names.

TEA PARTY WARRY OF GOP
This article goes into details of how the Tea Party movement is not in all honestly linked with any political party or group.  It is not a part of the GOP or any party.  It is a movement that has two goals:  1)  return the Constitution back to its rightful place as the law of the land.  2)  fiscal responsibility of our government.  Both are actually very interconnected.  I saw another story addressing the fact that 40% of the members of the Tea Party Movement are Independents and Democrats.  The rest identify as Republicans or with no party at all.  As a Tea Party follower I am warry of the GOP and any politician looking to profit out of this movement.  And there are a lot of them out there, like Newt Gingrich, Freedom Works, and others.  They have been trying over the last year to co-opt the people into their causes when that is not what they Tea Parties are all about.


SHORT SALE PROGRAM
This story deals with another aspect of the housing crisis we still find ourselves in at this time.  Basically the government will give  people $3,000 to move out of their houses and take a short sale (selling the house for less than it is worth or that you paid for it.)  Basically we are subsidizing people to give up on the responsibilities they have when they signed the mortgage papers for that house.  Does anyone take responsibility any more?  Maybe I should just default on my debt and hope someone will bail me out? 

OBAMA LIMITS NUCLEAR OPTIONS
So basically in this story the Obama Administration tells the entire world that we will not use nuclear weapons against another country, even in self-defense.  Also we are drastically reducing our nuclear arsenal for the whole world to see.  Obama obviously does not know how to play poker.  You don't tell you opponent what cards you have and how your are going to bet.   You can't win that way.  This is dangerous to America and its citizens.  The threat of nuclear weapons is a clear and present danger to all nations wanting to challenge the U.S. or take us down.  Since we are the only nation to ever use them against another country they know we have them and are willing to use them.  This is just dangerous.

And This is the Problem

The following was posted online by a friend on Facebook and at my school. I felt the need to respond.

The major problem I have with this whole story is the last line.  This story presumes that all these things required government involvement and regulation.  It also presumes because the government regulates these things, that it is socialism.  Socialism is the ownership of companies by the workers, but its is more realistically interpreted when the government owns and operates the business in the stead of the people.  That is how it realistically happens.  The fact of the matter is we are already a socialist nation.

The government owns banks, auto manufacturers, the student loan industry and several other things in the last 100 years.  Government involvement in health care is not bad but when our President talks of wanting a single payers system where the government pays for all health care, that is socialism.  The problem is that most people do not know or recognize socialism, or fascism, anymore.

I do have some other issues with this story as well.  I will deal with those now.

First, a I thought monopolies were not a good thing.  When they are run by a government, especially for an essential service like power, that is even more dangerous.  Also someone please tell me where in the Constitution where the federal government has any power to regulate "energy."  If anything this is a reserved power for the states to determine.

Second, the FCC is hugely unconstitutional.  How can the federal government regulate what I say and see on TV, like George Carlin's seven words you can't say on radio.  I believe the 1st Amendment states that Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech.  The FCC is a censor to our speech and abridges that liberty.

Thirdly, long before the National Weather Service people predicted the weather using things called almanacs.  I am not suggesting that we go back to those times but that was a service provided by private individuals, like Benjamin Franklin, long before the government got involved.  Also, there are plenty of satellites in orbit that were made by other people.  The Weather Channel I am sure has its own, that it paid NASA or another space agency to launch into orbit.

Fourth, the regulation of time is a power granted to the Congress is Article I, Sectio 8: "To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures," and therefore I have no problem with that.

Fifth, where in the Constitution does it say Congress can regulate a product like cars, how they are made, which fuel they can use, what standards they are built too.  The free markets can do this.  Cars are safer now because people have demanded safer cars in all make and models.  Not because Congress said so.  Also it is the job of the government to maintain roads, Article I, Sec. 8: "To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;"  This is also why the mail thing is not that big of a deal, but the point could me made that they are very bad at doing their job since they are always over budget, every year and not allowed to make changes to make them solvent.  I say make them fully private and let competition feed the lower prices of mail and package shipping.

Sixth, unions were doing a good job of protecting us from big business LONG before OSHA was passed.

Seventh, fire and police departments are an essential government function, even before they became professional careers.

Eighth, the internet may have been created by DARPA, but it is largely supported and spread through private enterprise.

My Perfect School: Disciplinary Procedures

One subject I have failed to broach in the subject of my perfect school is the disciplinary system.  I will address several issues related to that topic.

As stated before there will be a manager responsible for managing the disciplinary issues related to student in the school.  Students sent out of class according to the teacher's progressive discipline plan and their rules will go to this office.  The teacher will be required to fill out an incident report as soon as possible for the crime committed by the student.  The student may choose to write their own incident report to be added to the teacher's report.  This can be done immediately or upon the reception of the teacher's report.  The discipline manager then will contact the parent regarding the behavior in class.  If need be they will set up and appoint to meet with the parent and the student about the class behavior.  They teacher may be included in this meeting.  Discipline will not be meted out until these steps have been satisfied.

What is the discipline you speak of?  Instead of using detention the school will implement a community service reparation program to discipline students for bad behavior.  A student can be assigned a specific number of community service hours to complete as their punishment or discipline for their bad behavior.  The idea is to make the student give back or better the community in response to their behavior.  The discipline manager will assign community service for any breach of the school rules, observed by any member of the staff or faculty.  The teachers or staff will submit reports or escort students to the discipline office for the behavior in question.  I want it to go through the discipline office so that their is consistency in the disciplinary procedures of the school.

Teachers are expected to successfully implement a progressive discipline plan, approved by the Discipline manager, in their class.  They can use community service as well as part of their plans, but it must be included as part of their progressive discipline plan, spelled out in course expectations and give to students and parents.  Either way the forms will be routed through the Discipline office to record the amount of hours completed by all the students.

Being Late the Class.  God this is the biggest hassle for me as a teacher.  The key with this procedure is to make is simple and easy to follow.  Students deemed late the class or tardy will be automatically assigned one hour of community service for each tardy.  They teachers will have simple quarter sheet forms to give the student upon their late arrival into class.  The student will get one copy and the other will be given to the Discipline Office.  The teacher is expected to record this in the attendance program as well, but this serves as the student's reminder and proof of the rule infraction.

Electronic Devices.  They have some use inside the school building but not much.  My though  is that if a parent needs to reach a student they can call the school.  All phones will be confiscated by school police prior to students entering the building.  To get back the device students would be required to pay a fee; five dollars seems reasonable to me.  If a student pays the fine they may get it back at the end of the day.  Also they may make arrangements with the school police to complete community service hours to pay off the fine. 

That leads to another part of school discipline.  Students may do community service to "work off" any fines that they have incurred over the course of the grading period and/or school year.  Students who fail to pay off all their fines by the end of the school year will not have grades released to them or their parents until they are paid.  If a student transfers the school will not send transfer grades until the fines are paid.  A student may be removed from school for failure to pay fines before the start of the next school year or grading period.

A student's behavior justifies a suspension of several days then they will be given the choice of several community organization with which they can donate their time.  The school will expect them to report to one of those organizations the day of the suspension.  A student whose behavior justifies expulsion will be removed from school immediate.  If the parents and student wish to appeal the decision they may do so to the Committee of the Whole (the whole faculty) at their next staff meeting.  The teachers will then examine the evidence and determine if the student will be welcome back to the school or uphold the expulsion.

I am sure there is a whole host of other issues I could address in this post but I will leave it at this today.  I welcome all comments and questions on this system.  Thanks for reading and have a nice day.

My Perfect School: School Managers

I am so sorry to my regular readers for the lack of posts in recent weeks.  I am particularly upset with myself for not posting my U.S. Constitution lesson this past Saturday.  I will try to change the reliability of my posting.  I do need some help though from my readers.  Please email me or post suggestions of topics I could address in my blog, from Public Policy issues to my perfect school or any other topics you believe I should write about.  Thanks for your help.

Today's post will deal with some discussions I have had recently about administration in my school.  I have said before there will be no central administration, at least with what you expect in a typical school.  I am going to be giving a tad bit more details on the setup of my school's administration.

The school would have various managers over specific areas of responsibility.  The managers would only have a limited scope of power.  In the end though all power in the school resides in what I call the Committee of the Whole.  Large decisions must be made with the consent of the teachers in staff meetings held often.

Committee of the Whole.  The Committee of the Whole would be made up of all licensed faculty at the school.  Managers are hired by them after being interviewed by the current department managers.  All decision making power over the school and its policies are made by the Committee of the Whole, while in meetings.  Specific actions of the Committee will require between a simple majority and different levels of a super majority (2/3. 3/4, 4/5), depending on the decision being made.  These powers would be outlined in the school constitution, charter and/or by-laws.

Committees.  The school would use committees headed by the appropriate school manager to address specific concerns, issues, problems or possible changes to the school charter and by-laws.  The committees would be made up teachers from all available departments.  These teachers would share the items discussed in the committee and represent their department in the meetings.  The committees have no power to make binding decisions.  All possible solutions and decisions must be approved by the Committee of the Whole.

Evaluation Manager.  The primary responsibility of this manager is to evaluate each and every teacher, manager (except themselves) and staff member in the school.  A large part of this job would be observing each teacher in the classroom.  It would be at least once or twice a quarter, but I would expect them to do far more than that.  They would also compile the observations of other teachers, parents and students to complete the evaluation.  With these observations and evaluations they would talk to each teacher addressing what needs to be improved in their teaching.

Also near the end of the year, the manager would compile a list of teachers who may or may not need to released from the school during the next school year.  They would distribute the necessary evaluation information to all the teachers in the faculty.  They would then vote to either retain with probation or release said teachers.  This process would be made so that no one would know what teachers are being referred to in the files.  Each teacher would be assigned an ID number known only to the Evaluation Manager.  Teachers may or may not be able to figure out who is who, but privacy would of the utmost importance to this job.  If there is an emergency issue the evaluation manager may temporarily suspend a teacher, on reduced pay, until the Committee of the Whole can render a decision about the case.

Discipline Manager.  The discipline manager would oversee all discipline and attendance issues in the school, basically a Dean but with more specific powers.  They would keep track of all attendance reports.  If a student is sent to their office by a teacher for behavior they will contact the parents, assign punishment (I will deal with that issues in greater depth in a later post.) and/or schedule parent conferences with the teacher if needed.  If there is a case of an expulsion or another disciplinary decision which is appealed by a parent or student, then they will submit the necessary paperwork to the faculty.  The student will then get a chance to have their appeal heard by the Committee of the Whole.  The committee will then render its decision about that specific case.  They would also oversees and approves teachers progressives discipline plans.

Academic Manager.  This manager would oversee all academic information and reports about the students.  They would be responsible for report cards and transcripts.  They would maintain the programs to record and report grades to parents and students.  This manager would also create and maintain the school's master schedule of classes as well as the academic handbook.  Since this manager handles the master schedule then they would also be responsible for creating and changing student schedules.  Teachers would play the role of academic advisers to students during the scheduling process.  Classes will be assigned though by prerequisites and student choice.



Department Managers.  These are what most schools call department chairs.  They would be selected by the individual departments and elected to serve for a specific number of years, between two or three.  They are responsible for submitting observations and evaluations to the evaluation manager of the school at least once a quarter.  They would also interview prospective teachers applying to work at the school for their department.  Either the department would choose the individual to be hired or it could be left to the Committee of the Whole.  They would be required to attend manager meetings.  In these meetings the department managers would be given information to share with their departments.  They would also be responsible for relaying any concerns or problems from the faculty to the managers.  They may select individuals from their department to serve on various committees.

Building Manager.  The building manager is responsible primarily for the upkeep and scheduling of the school facilities.  This includes regularly scheduled maintenance, repairs, and upgrades. They are also responsible for the scheduling of school facilities, like athletic practices, extra curricular activities, rallies and assemblies.  As a side responsibility they make arrangements for substitute teachers.  This could be a position in the school not run by a licensed teacher since its responsibilities largely are not academic in nature.

Financial Manager.  The financial manager does not need to be held by a properly licensed teacher.  They are responsible for the major financial decisions and planning of the school.  Each year they will submit a budget to the Committee of the Whole for its approval.  If cuts need to be made then those decisions will be made by the Committee of the Whole.  They also over see pay checks and tax information.


If there are any other ideas about specific managerial positions or areas feel free to address them in the comments.  Also please submit ideas on topics to be addressed in this blog.  I appreciate all your help and feedback.  Have a great day.