The U.S. Constitution - Lession #5: The U.S. Senate

Today's lesson on the U.S. Constitution focuses on the power of the U.S. Senate as found in Article I, Section 3.  Again I will deal with this section clause by clause.

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof, for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.

The concept key to the U.S. Senate is the idea of equal representation.  No matter how large or small the state is, in terms of its population, each state will get two senators.  This was part of the Great Compromise to satisfy the smaller states, who felt that both houses being based on population would negatively affect them.  The Senators serve a longer term than the members of the House or the President largely because of the extra activities the Senate is involved in besides law making. They need members who serve longer terms so that have experienced members at work all the time and not constantly worried about elections.

The section of text that is is bolded is no longer valid since since the ratification of the 17th Amendment.  The state legislatures were given the power to choose the state senators because the role of the Senate was to protect the rights of the state and its sovereignty under the Constitution.  The powers listed in the Constitution were to limit that of the federal government.  Anything else not specifically delegated to the national government or denied to the states, belonged to the state as their reserved powers.  This ideal and power was codified by the 10th Amendment.  With senators now being elected by the general electorate they have become more beholden to the people and not to the state itself, which also needs protection from a powerful federal government.  This is where the issues of states rights are to be determined.

Immediately after they shall be assembled in Consequence of the first Election, they shall be divided as equally as may be into three Classes. The Seats of the Senators of the first Class shall be vacated at the Expiration of the second Year, of the second Class at the Expiration of the fourth Year, and of the third Class at the Expiration of the sixth Year, so that one third may be chosen every second Year; and if Vacancies happen by Resignation, or otherwise, during the Recess of the Legislature of any State, the Executive thereof may make temporary Appointments until the next Meeting of the Legislature, which shall then fill such Vacancies.

 This clause designs the U.S. Senate as a continuous body (an elected body where all the seats are never up for election at the same time).  Every two years the Senate elects approximately only one third of its members.  This is to make sure that there are always experienced members inside that house.  The Class numbers do not mean anything than when the senator is up for reelection.  The Majority Leader of the Senate, Harry Reid of Nevada is a member of Class III, which means he is up for reelection in 2010.  The other senator from Nevada, John Ensign, is a member of the Class I, which means he is up for reelection in 2012.  Again the class number is just a number that determines when your term ends.

The bolded section again a part of this clause that was amended with the ratification of the 17th Amendment.  It is now changed that the executive may make a temporary appointment with the approval of the state legislature.  But ultimately the people need to elect a new senator at the next possible election.  This provision came into question both in Illinois and Massachusetts in the last year.  Roland Burris was appointed, by the now impeached Governor Rod Blagoavich, to President Obama's senate seat.  He will be up for reelection in November of this year.  Compare that to the situation with the late Ted Kennedy's seat.  Massachusetts had a law that said the state must hold a special election when a vacancy occurs in the Senate.  That law was changed this year, on Kennedy's behalf.  That led to the appointment of a temporary senator until the election of Sen. Brown just two weeks ago.

No person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.

This clause lists the constitutional qualifications for a person to be elected to the office of United States Senator.  The qualifications are set slightly higher than those of the House of Representatives to show the increased prestige and importance of this august body.

The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided.

This sets up the presiding officer of the Senate, which is actually part of the Executive Branch of our government.  In our modern day the Vice President does not sit in and preside over the U.S. Senate on a daily basis.  They only preside in modern America if it is the State of Union address, when they sit next to the Speaker of the House, or if the Senate will be voting on some measure that is sure to end up as a tie.  They will then cast the deciding vote.

The Senate shall choose their other Officers, and also a President pro tempore, in the absence of the Vice President, or when he shall exercise the Office of President of the United States.

By the practices and traditions of the Senate, the President Pro Tempore is typically the most senior member of the majority party in the Senate.  Currently that is Senator Robert Byrd, who incidentally is the oldest member of the Senate.  THough, typically the Senate Majority Leader wields more power in the Senate than the President Pro Tempore.

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

The next two clauses focus on the specific power of the Senate to be the trial court for all impeachments.  They can only act after the House of Representatives agrees on the charges against the officer of the government.  The Senate acts as the jury for the trial while members of the House prosecute the case along with the defense attorney for the accused.  It requires two thirds of the members to convict the impeached official, which is a similar standard to a typical jury.  There has to be an overwhelming majority to convict beyond a reasonable doubt.  Also the Chief Justice presides over presidential impeachments because it would be a conflict of interest if the Vice President were to be the presiding officer of his superiors impeachment trial.

Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

The only punishment that a person can receive from a guilty verdict in an  impeachment trial is to be removed from office and/or be prohibited from hold any other office in the U.S. government.  The people convicted of impeachment may also be punished in criminal or civil courts of the United States.

That does it for this lesson.  Next time we will look at Article I, Section 4, which outlines the election of Congressional members and when they meet.  If there are any questions, comments, feel free to post them.  Class dismissed.

News of the Day - 2/5/2010: Nevada Budget & CCSD

A fellow faculty member of my school posted the following article on Facebook yesterday.  I felt it fitting to address it in my daily blog post.

The article lists the options that are before Superintendent Walt Ruffles of Clark County School District as the state faces a near one billion dollar short fall of the budget for the next fiscal year.  The governor Jim Gibbons has called for a ten percent cut to all parts of the state's budget to cut the short fall. The Superintendent of the Clark County School District (CCSD) has said that action would mean cutting over 2,000 across teachers in the district.  There are other options listed in the article as well to help, from cutting days from the school, which would also mean cutting the pay of teachers to compensate, which would require changing our contract.

Personally I think the superintendent is using scare tactics to try and protect his school district.  There are plenty of options out there to cut money from the CCSD budget.  The first would be to eliminate all nonessential positions inside the central administrative structure of CCSD.  There is a website that shows the salaries of people who work for the state, country and the school district.  There are so many consultant that have nothing to do with the education of the child that would save the district millions.  The administration could also cut the pay of themselves or initiate a pay freeze on the district.

Another option I have is to bid out some of the work done by district employees to private companies.  Specifically I am referring to the busing of students to and from school.  Building maintenance and other building support services could be hired out to private contractors and probably save the district some money.

They mention the possibility of shortening the school year as an option as well.  The article says by law we need to have 180 instructional days.  This is an out right lie in the story.  By my count CCSD schools have 176 instructional days and four teacher in-service or professional development days.  I would object to cutting more days from school especially since many of my days are taken away from me because of proficiency testing, credit checks, pictures and every other excuse under the sun.  We cannot afford to lose more instructional days.

There are other options to cover the budget short fall that don't include raising taxes and fees, but I don't want to get into those now.

Another thing that bothered me recently related to this topic.  It annoys me when people think there are certain jobs that are safe in a recession.  People like that are delusional.  All jobs are subject to reductions and cuts in pay during a recession.  People who don't understand that idea are deluding themselves and don't understand basic economic theory and practice.  I know I can lose my job because of a recession especially if I am the low man on the totem pole, which I am.

Comments, questions and topic suggestions are always welcome.  Have a nice day.

News of the Day - 2/4/2010: Justice Thomas Speaks Out

I was not sure today if I wanted to comment on the chosen article for today.  After listening to Roger Hedgecock on my way home I thought it was important to address the topic of the recent U.S. Supreme Court case of Citizens United v. FEC.  Here is the article in question.

The article summarizes when Justice Thomas made a speech and answered questions at a law school in Florida.  From what I understand Supreme Court Justices never speak openly like this.  And when they do they never take questions.  So this shows the justice had something to get off his chest.  He answered several question on the recently decided case of Citizens United v. FEC.  He also gives a the students a history lesson behind some of the law regarding campaign contributions.

For a summary on the case in question please use the following link

First, contrary to what President Obama said during his State of the Union address Citizens United v. FEC does not end the limitations that corporations can give to individuals.  There has always been limitations on those contributions.  It specifically states that a corporation may spend its money in a political way other than to an individual, like on commercials, as an independent expenditure; like the video in question during this case.  Also they cannot be censored by a certain time frame before the election, specifically 30 days before a general election or 60 days before a primary election.

Side bar:  Here is an interesting point of history, that Justice Thomas points out, is the restrictions on corporations giving money to individual candidates goes back to Tillman Act.  Tillman wrote the law because of a corporation in his state would give money to support the freedom of blacks from slavery by giving money to the Republican nominee.  So this act which limited corporate campaign contributions was implemented as a way of censorship against abolitionists and Republicans since more Republicans were abolitionists.  Everyone clear on that.  It was stop corporations from funding Republicans who were against slavery.  So much for equal protection under the law. 

Also if a union or other organization of people can spend money on a candidate then why can't a corporation be allowed the same rights.  Unions are allowed to donate money, advertisement and the like without these restrictions, so the law does not provide equal protection under the law.  A petition posted by my friend states that no corporation should be allowed to give without the consent of its owner.  The law should apply equally to unions.  Meaning a union cannot give money to a candidate without the expressed approval of its members.  I did not support the Clark County Education Association giving money to Obama.  The laws need to apply equally to all people and groups, not single out a particular person or group.

Secondly,  President Obama state that the overturning of a specific portion of the McCain-Feingold law would allow for foreign corporations or citizens to give to campaigns.  This also is not true.  McCain-Feingold specifically prohibits contributions from foreign nations, legal foreign residents, and foreign corporations.  This part of the law was kept intact by the Supreme Court.  Also, the President technically broke this law during his campaign.  His aunt (who is a foreign national whose visa has expired and has been living in the United States illegally for years) contributed, according to Obama's own campaign financial records $260 to his campaign in 2008.  Obama broke the law in question when he accepted that donation.  Technically he could be impeached for that offense (High crimes and misdemeanors).  Also there is numerous reports that part of his campaign was financed by people in other countries by untraceable gift cards through the internet.

I am not sure if this clears up the issue with anyone but I have finally addressed this topic.  If you have questions or comments feel free to respond.  Have a nice day.
.

My Perfect School: Common Assessments

A few weeks ago I wrote a blog on the grading policies in My Perfect School.  That was on the division and weighting of summative and formative assessments in the classroom.  I want to continue along this same path of other items that could and would be addressed in the grading policy of my perfect school.

Common Assessments.  This topic has been all the rage in the five years I have been a teacher.  I used to be for it but now I seeing how this is not a best practice.  The idea of common assessments is that teachers of the same classes (Algebra, Biology, Government, etc.)  would collaborate and create assessments that are exactly the same to each other.  Generally this applies to summative assessments like unit test, exams and quizzes.  The theory sounds good but the practice is fraught with problems.

The first problem comes with the fact that teaching style dictates assessment style.  A teacher who teaches directly out of textbook will use the tests of the textbook.  Someone teaches through discussion can assess through that same methodology.  Assessment must match methods or visa versa.

The second issue I have is the path it takes education down.  A common test means we must teach common material and facts (which I have no problem with).  This can lead us to common lesson plans, planned down to even the day, hour and minute of a class period.  It turns educators into cookie cutter teachers.  It removes our academic freedom to be the teachers that make us great.  This also kill flexibility of the teacher.

Thirdly, a lot emphasis in today's educational atmosphere is on differentiation and multiple intelligences.  If we have common assessments, where is the differentiation?  We are now forcing all our diverse students to fit into the same mold.  We are making cookie cutter students.

Lastly, I have heard this statement  to  many times when it comes to common assessments.  "Let's just use the questions out of the test bank that came with our books."  The book used in any class is a resource for learning not the end all be all of the content.  Also that means I must now have my students read every page out of the book so they have a chance to pass the test.  Its teaching to the book, not the objectives.  Plus books, especially history books, have lots of errors in them and they never explain things as fully as they should.  I wish they would take out the wasted paper used for section assessments and chapter reviews since that is not the purpose of a school text book, but that is a totally separate topic.

Personally, I have used an assessment model the last two years that has worked brilliantly.  Common assessments will force my student to take tests that are not in any like the ways they are assessed on a daily basis in my class.  My methods work too.  My first year the typical multiple choice and matching tests got me students who would more often than not do poorly on them.  Now I quiz on individual objectives with short answer questions.  Almost all student pass the quizzes.  My final exam my first year had an average score in the sixty percentile range.  Last two years they have been in the eighties.  Lastly, my students have told me time and time again that they like the assessments.  Why should I have to change what work and is successful because other teachers don't know how to assess accurately what the student knows?  Also I don't think my assessment methods should be forced on others.

In my perfect school common assessments would be a rare occurrence.  The one thing that I might suggest as a possible required common assessment is projects in similar classes.  Teachers of the same subject should have the same projects so that when a child transfers classes they have some assignments.  Judged and graded in the exact same way.

I will address the idea of collaboration in my next Perfect School post because it is linked very closely to this topic.  I welcome your comments, questions and suggestions.  Have a nice day.

Public Policy: Reforms to the Tax Code

Yesterday my blog on Public Policy attempted to describe the way our current tax system works by using a narrative.  Today I will address some of the more popular reforms people have suggested for our tax code.

Flat Tax.  The flat tax would be a tax rate that everyone regardless of income level would have to pay.  Everyone in the country would pay the same percentage regardless if you earned $10,000 or $100,000,000 a year.  This would simply the tax code and make filing each year simple.  A set percentage would be take out of your check each week.  Any other earnings could also possibly be taxed and recorded through statements, like the ones I get from my bank at the end of the year with the amount of interest I receive in savings or checking accounts.  You could file your taxes on a single sheet of paper.  If you paid more taxes this year than was required than the government would send you a check.  If you paid too little you would send a check.  Simple and easy

Fair Tax.  This tax has several different names.  I have heard one person call it a transaction tax.  It could be called also a consumption tax.  In essence, it is a sales tax.  The government would set a certain rate to tax items that a person buys.  One key item I would try to add to this would be to tax exemptions for specific things:  like food, housing, utilities, and clothes.  These are essentials to life that no one can live without.  Just as the lords of old could not tax the serfs before they were clothed, fed and housed so the tax would apply to us.  You also choose when you are taxed in this system.  If you don't like what the government is doing then you do without some wants for a while to send them a message: a boycott.  It makes sense that the founding fathers restricted direct taxes on individuals when they wrote the Constitution.  You cannot boycott an income tax without breaking the law.

State Collection.  This is the original method used by the federal government to collect taxes.  If you look at the Constitution in Article I, Section 2, Clause 3.  It shows that taxes from the federal government would be apportioned to the states based on their population.  So a less populace state like Alaska would pay less taxes than California.  The state would then use whatever methods they saw fit to raise said taxes to pay to the federal government.

No matter what system we use it needs to be applied equally to all people in the United States.  Also, the government needs to know how to stay within its limits.  No tax system will work effectively if the government continually spends more money than it brings in through taxes.  We could take a lesson from the Bible and the story of Joseph and the famine in Egypt.  When the government runs a surplus we must put that money aside for the future, so that when we run into rough times we can draw upon that surplus.

That's all I have for today.  I welcome all comments, suggestions and questions.

Public Policy: Our Current Tax System

This posting it would seem to be most appropriate on April 15, the day our tax returns are due, but a discussion on facebook prompts it to be written now.  This public policy posting will deal with how the U.S. distributes the tax burden and the possible ways to improve the complex system. First a story.  I found this online last summer and its the perfect way of understanding out current progressive tax system.

 The Way Our Tax System Works

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this: The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing. The fifth would pay $1. The sixth would pay $3. The seventh would pay $7. The eighth would pay $12. The ninth would pay $18. The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.  So, that's what they decided to do.

The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20."Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.
 
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?' They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay. And so: The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings). The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings). The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings). The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings). The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings). The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).
 
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.
 
"I only got a dollar out of the $20,"declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man," but he got $10!"
 
"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!"
 
"That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!"
 
"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"
 
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
 
The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!
 
And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier. For those who understand, no explanation is needed. For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.

This story show in simplistic detail how our tax system work.  Each person pays depending on how much money they earn pays a proportional amount of money so that they poorest pay little or nothing into the system and the richest pay the highest proportion of their income out of all of us.  But there are other things to consider when figuring taxes too like tax credits, refunds, exemptions, and deductions.  People get a deduction for charitable contributions, home mortgage interest, and children.  We all get a standard deduction; I don't even know what that means.  Some people this year got and $8,000 tax credit for buying a new home.   Others got tax credit for buying a more fuel efficient car.  The tax breaks and loopholes are almost impossible to document unless you have studied the 80,000 pages that make up the U.S. Tax Code.

All of these make the tax code horribly complex that even the man who runs the IRS does not do his own taxes.  Its time to simplify the tax code.  The next post will focus on the most popular solutions.  See you tomorrow.