The U.S. Constitution - Lesson #7: Legislative Process

Today's lesson on the U.S. Constitution focuses on Article I, Section 7  which explains in the barest details of how a law is passed by Congress and the President.

All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.

All bills for raising taxes MUST start in the House of Representatives.  The reason behind this methodology was because representatives were voted on by the general electorate.  If the representatives vote to raise taxes the people can vote them out of office in the next election.

Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States...

With that statement the entire law making process is explained by the Constitution.  A bill must be passed by both the House and the Senate and must be presented to a President. All the other steps I teach in my classes are a result of previous provisions in the U.S. Constitution.  Specifically, Article I, Section 5 Clause 2, which states:  "Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings..."  Each house outlines the procedures for how their house is to pass a bill .  This is where the filibuster and cloture rules from the Senate and the Rules committee in the House were created.

If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it.

This phrase describes the check of power the President has on the Congress's law making power.  The President being the chief law enforcer has final approval of all laws.  Considering that he also has an oath to uphold the Constitution, as the Supreme Law of the land, he then is the first check on protecting the Constitution against unlawful changes through legislation.  There are numbers of Presidents who vetoed lots of legislation the most prevalent are Andrew Jackson, Andrew Johnson and my personal favorite, Grover Cleveland.  He was known to veto many private bills that came through Congress to give some person tax payer dollars.  Here is a key example I want to share with you readers which comes from Glenn Beck's, "Arguing with Idiots (6-7).

"In 1887, Congress passed a bill appropriating money to Texas farmers who were suffering through a catastrophic drought.  These days, that funding would not only be authorized, it would probably be done so under an emergency program that gave more money to the farmers than they ever dreamed of.  But not in 1887.  Not with Grover Cleveland as President.  Here is how he responded:  I feel obligated to withhold my approval of the plan, as proposed by this bill, to indulge a benevolent and charitable sentiment through the appropriation of public funds for that purpose. I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution, and I do not believe that the power and duty of the General Government out to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit.  A prevalent tendency to disregard the limited mission of this power and duty should, I think, be steadfastly resisted, to the end that the lesson should be constantly enforced that thought the people support the government the government should not support the people.  That friendliness and charity of our countrymen can always be relied upon to relieve their fellow-citizens in misfortune.  This has been repeatedly and quite lately demonstrated.  Federal aid in such cases encourages the expectation of paternal care on the part of the government and weakens the sturdiness of our national character, while it prevents the indulgence among our people of that kindly sentiment and conduct which strengthens the bonds of common brotherhood." (Note to self:  Need to find books and read more about Grover Cleveland, a pure constitutionalists, a politician after my own heart)

The President may either sign the bill showing his approval of the law, or he may veto it to show his disapproval.  The Constitution does indicate that the President must tell why he vetoed the law, which will be entered into the journal of the house in which the bill originated.  They can then reconsider the bill which means one of two things.  First, that they rewrite the law and re-pass it according to the President's objections and sending it to him for his final approval.  Or they may...

If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by Yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively.

Both houses of Congress must pass the vetoed bill again by a two-thirds margin.  This congressional override is a check on the power of the President to veto legislation.  But it does require what is known typically as a super majority.  In the House it requires 287 members to vote in favor of the bill; in the Senate it requires 67.  Therefore a bill must be extremely popular to be overridden.  Only about 4% of all Presidential vetoes have been overridden.  A very effective check on over legislating by the Congress.

Also another key limitation on this clause is that the Congress MUST record in its journal who which member voted Yea and Nay.  This is so the people may know precisely who voted for and against the bill.

If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.

This provision in the Constitution provides a check on the President's power to approve or disapprove of a law by including a time limit for his actions on any given bill.  If the president could just ignore bills by Congress then he would have an uncontrolled amount of power over the legislative process.  The time limit of ten days also makes sure the president has time to review the legislation before signing or vetoing a law.  He cannot just ignore laws presented to him by Congress.

I would argue the bills passed by Congress in our modern era are to long to be reviewed by the President. Bills that are hundreds, if not thousands, of pages in length are too long for the President to properly review them prior to his approval.  Also the president receives hundreds, if not not thousands, of bills each year to approve.  That is his key job, review the legislation and approve it if it is Constitutional.  The extreme length and number of bills passed by Congress has hindered the President from doing this key job.  It is time to enact reform so that our bills are easy to read and understand for all people of our nation.  But that is a longer discussion for a different day.

Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the Same shall take Effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the Rules and Limitations prescribed in the Case of a Bill.

This final clause states that the President's approval must be given on ANY bill that is passed by both house of Congress.  The only exception to this clause is when they vote to adjourn.  If the President had the power to adjourn the Congress indefinitely it would give that office a huge amount of power  over the legislative process.  Though he does has some limited power to adjourn and call Congress to session, but we will discuss more of that when we get to Article II.

I hope you enjoyed the lesson for today.  As always feel free to comment or question.  Class dismissed.

The Constitution: Living Document or Original Intent

I added this post today in an effort to "catch up" since I missed my posting yesterday on account of celebrating my wife's birthday.  Enjoy.

Often times I have heard that the U.S. Constitution is a living document whose meaning changes depending on the age of which we are currently living.  This idea cannot be further from the truth.  There are several competing beliefs of how we interpret the strict constructionist, and loose constructions.  Strict constructionists are often times called following the "Original Intent" of the founders. It is my belief that our Constitution and its amendments must be read with the original intent of the founders in a strict constructionists manner.   My arguments are as follows.

First, an example from literature.  J.R.R. Tolkien, author of the "Lord of the Rings" books, often said in personal writings and quotes that the book it was story that has many themes and values portrayed within it, but its not to be read as an religious or political allegorical text.  Should we go beyond the intent of the author when interpreting and analyzing this fine piece of literature?  I would argue that we should not.  We have his own words defending the meaning, themes and values of the text.  To go beyond that and make up some new analysis that is counter to the author's intent is a false interpretation of the text.  This is how we should also read our Constitution.

The Constitution was completed on September 17, 1787 and submitted to the states for their ratification.  Over the next few years it was ratified by all thirteen original colonies and one additional state.  During that time period prior to the American Revolution and during the ratification of the Constitution, there was a vast amount of writing about the Constitution and governmental theory.  Most of these theories and writings exist today thanks to the invention of the movable type printing press about two hundred years before by Gutenberg (Funny story:  The main network printer at my college for my first few years was called Gutey.  I swear it took me a couple of semesters to get it).  Thanks to the printing press these documents still exist today but are rarely studied in our classrooms.  They give us the fullest picture of what was the intent of the founders when they wrote the Constitution.  The most prevalent documents I want to refer to are the "Federalist Papers."

"The Federalists Papers" were written by James Madison, John Jay (Future chief justice of the Supreme Court) and Alexander Hamilton.  These documents defended the Constitution and its ratification by the states.  It explains why it was needed and some key points that the Anti-Federalists made during the ratification process.  These 87 articles give us the clearest picture as to what our constitution means.  It is these documents we must consult first, when trying to interpret the Constitution.  Why should we ignore the very words used to defend the Constitution in the first place?  They are our road map to understanding the original document.

Secondly, we must look at the historical background behind when the words were written.  I use this specifically to refer to this historical background of the Amendments.  Since most of the amendments were written well after the founding of our nation.  I want to use the 14th Amendment as an example.  I want to focus my time on the very first clause of the document since it is the most applicable to us today.  The other clauses deal primarily with the confederate states after the Civil War and have very little influence on us today.

The first clause of that Amendment reads as such: 

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The historical fact behind the ratification of this amendment are as such.  Previously the Radical Republican had passed the Civil Rights Act of 1886 which made all people born in the United States, except Native Americans, citizens of the U.S.A.  They were fearful of the Supreme Court declaring the law unconstitutional so they codified this in the constitution in this amendment.  The intent was so that Blacks would be citizens of the U.S., since the Dred Scot Decision ruled that blacks, whether slave or free, were not citizens of the United States.  That was the original intent.

Also a key point I want to make in the language of this text.  The first phrase makes it clear that the people born in the U.S. or naturalized must be under the jurisdiction or authority of the U.S.  Illegal aliens are not technically under the U.S. jurisdiction, they are citizens of another country, under the jurisdiction of that nation.  Which is why we deport them when we discover them.  The anchor babies of illegals, according to the original intent of this amendment, should not be considered natural born citizens of our nation. 

Also, this amendment has been used to incorporate the rights found in the Bill of Rights to apply to the states.  But if you look closely at the language you will that the states may not abridge the rights of CITIZENS.  Illegals aliens are not citizens and therefore are not afforded the same rights as citizens of the U.S. Constitution.  They do deserve due process and equal protection of the laws, but not the same rights.

The point I was trying to make is that the original intent of the writers of the Constitution and its additional amendments should be consulted and used to understand the language and use of the Constitution.  Just like we should consider the words of J.R.R. Tolkien when interpreting "The Lord of the Rings."

During this whole debate on health care reform the idea of unconstitutionality has been thrown around by both sides of the aisle.  What scares me is when I hear people say that we can find a way to defend it in the constitution later; lets just get it passed now.  These people take an oath to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, both foreign and domestic.  When they have to look to defend a law later then we have serious problems of how we understand the Constitution.  Like where is it authorized that the government can regulate schools, give money to foreign nations, or mandate we buy something? 

The fact of the matter is none of these powers are expressly given to Congress in the Constitution, nor can they be reasonably implied if you understand implied powers correctly.  (Check out this blog posting on that topic for more information).  It is time we returned to the tried and true principles and powers granted in the U.S. Constitution, that we ask all leaders to follow it to the letter, and vote only for people who will truly defend it. 

Thanks for listening and have a nice day. As always comments are welcome.

News of the Day - 2/10/2010: Dhali Lama & Terror Attacks

Sorry to my loyal readers for a lack of a post yesterday.  I got home and instantly got to celebrating with my wife the date of her birth.  It was a good night for all.  We went to Famous Dave's for dinner, shared cake with the family and her twin sister, and then just veged on the couch for the rest of the evening watching tv shows on spies and doctors.  But today's it back to the grind of writing for my readers.  A couple of news stories today that I want to call your attention too.

ATTACK ON IRS... A TERRORIST ATTACK
So yesterday a deranged anti-government individual flew his plane into an IRS building in Austin, Texas.  The crux of the article is whether or not this "lone wolf" attack was a terrorist attack.  I like how Fox news gets opinions from both sides on this issues, from both a liberal (Center for American Progress) and conservative (Heritage Foundation) think tanks.  I guess the fair and balanced part of their news reporting is not entirely untrue.  But both sides and the White House agreed that it should not be labeled a terrorist attack until the appropriate investigation had been completed.  What irks me is how quickly the main stream media and others called it domestic terrorism and related this gentleman to Timothy McVeigh.  BUT when Major Hassan in Fort Hood has multiple contacts with Al Queda operatives and extremist Muslim clerics and jihadists, there is no way it could possibly be a terrorist attack of any kind.  It just seems to me we are trying to appease this backwards thinking, civil rights abridging, violent religious sect.  Let's call a spade a spade no matter what we think on the issue or people.

CHINA PROTESTS OBAMA VISIT WITH DHALI LAMA
The President finally sat down with fellow Nobel Peace Prize winner, the spiritual and political leader of the Chinese occupied province of Tibet.  China was none to happy about this.  You see they took over Tibet in the 1950s.  The Dhali Lama can not even go back because he will likely be imprisoned and killed by the Chinese government.  This is the danger of our out of control debt.  China hold a lot of power over our heads by controlling so much of our debt.  In fact they started selling it off, possibly as punishment for this meeting.  What's next? Them requesting that we leave Iran alone since they get a large amount of their oil from them.  Or maybe allow their military ships to dock in our ports.  Or just stop the CIA from having operations in China.  The same situation was true when J.P Morgan bailed out the U.S. Government TWICE!  The U.S. government made it a point to pay him back ASAP because they did not one individual to have that much power over the government.  It is the same idea with our debt to other nations.  It is dangerous.  Also we are close to having our national debt be equal too if not more than our yearly Gross Domestic Product.  So we owe as much as we make in a single year, as a nation.  Scary stuff.

Thanks for reading.  Hope you have a great weekend.  The next lesson on the U.S. Constitution will be up tomorrow as scheduled.

My Perfect School: Houses v. Classes

At my high school some of the best moments I remember were spirit weeks and pep rallies.  We really one had two a year:  one during fall sports and one during winter sports.  During spirit weeks we would have class competitions to earn points.  The same would be true for the pep rallies if you won a game you won points for your class.  The class with the highest points at the end of spirit week would then possess the school mascot for the next semester.  My class (Class of 2000 -- Represent!) won it three semesters in a row our last three years at the school.  This is a system I would like to incorporate in one of two ways:  by Multi-class Houses or by graduating Classes.

Here is the deal every quarter or semester the groups would have various spirit days, and other competitions.  Spirit days earns you points for "dressing up" appropriately for that day.  One competition I have thought of is an intramural competition of sports.  Each quarter would have a different sport and the classes would compete against each other kind of like the Quiditch Cup at Hogwarts in the Harry Potter series.  Each win would earn you points for your class.  At the end of the quarter or semester you have the pep rally with more class competitions.  Another competition could be like a quarter long scavenger hunt or something else like that.  At the end of the quarter or semester you would have a pep rally with more games that earn a grouping more points.  The group with the most points at the end of all the competitions wins and possess the mascot until the next grading period. 

Here are my areas of which I want input from my readers.  Should I do this by graduating classes or by a house system?  I like the graduating class system because that is how we did it, but you can't really establish long trains of wins.  Also it is more favored to the upper class men than the freshmen.  The House idea would be cool where each house has multiple students from each grade level.  They would be assigned a house at the start of their time in the school and remain in that house during their tenure at the school.  I am not sure how we would select for each house.  The key would be to key the houses as equally proportioned as possible in total numbers and in the different grade levels in each house.

I would like my readers comments on this posting.  Please give me some help.  Which one should be used:  Houses or Classes?  Thanks in advance.

Public Policy: The Transporation Safety Administration

Today I want to deal with a specific part of our federal government's policy, specifically relating to how we keep the friendly skies, as well as other modes of transportation, safe for consumers in the United States.  This posting is in direct response to this story I saw today.

The first part of any reform to the transportation safety is to consolidate all national transporation administrations, like the TSA, FAA, NTSB, and others, into one single administrative structure to oversee and enforce federal laws relating to transportation safety.  This would be done through a law passed by Congress.  The consolidation of these agencies into one would cut down on the overlapping jurisdictions, and staffing of separate agencies that essentially do the exact same things just with slightly narrow or specific jurisdictions. 

The benefits the the U.S. citizen for this reform would be decreased federal spending on repetitive administrations and agencies.  Also many federal employees would be laid off, which could seek employment in the private sector.  Those left would be the most qualified to investigate, test, and enforce laws in our national privatized transportation network.

Secondly, I would authorize, through this new law, the complete elimination of the U.S. government from providing security for airports, trains and other modes of transportation inside the United States.  The law would require that the private airports and/or airliners provide for their own security.  The newly consolidated Transportation Safety Agency would serve to test these companies to make sure their security is up to snuff and provide the data to the consumers.  This alone would eliminate hundreds of thousands of government workers and free up federal money to be used elsewhere.  I am not sure if I would get rid of the federal air marshals but I would definitely provide in the law for passenger airliners to authorize individuals to be company air marshals on any and/or all flights. 

There are both costs and benefits for this reform.  The costs would include the individual airports providing security by charging their carriers additional fees to use that airport, which would get passed on to the consumer.  Or if the individual carriers were to provide the security at their own gates this cost would also be passed upon to the consumer.  The benefit would be that customers could choose which carrier to use, that they feel is the most security conscious.  Just like consumers have voted with their dollars with all the fees many carriers are implementing to stay in the black.  The other benefit is that passengers with a history in the company may be able to bypass security altogether since they have a good security record.  It also places the safety of passengers on the head of the airline companies.  If something goes wrong its their problem, not a problem with the government; the government makes enough mistakes as it is this would remove them from the equation.

Thirdly, in conjunction with the CIA, FBI and other agencies responsible for federal criminal investigations and apprehension, I would make available the entire no fly and terrorist watch list to the passenger airliners to cross check their passenger manifests against.  If someone gets flagged they can do several things.  One, alert the authorities of when and where they intend to fly so they may be apprehended.  Two, they could allow them to fly but request that a federal air marshal be on the flight for the safety of all individuals.  Third, they could allow greater scrutiny on that passengers security check before boarding the flight.

The benefits of this are super enormous.  As we found out on Christmas Day the system to stop terrorists from traveling to the U.S. is to cumbersome to work fast enough to stop the Crotch Bomber.  If individual airlines working inside the U.S. had access to this information they could instantly disqualify a person from flying on their planes.  Another thing they could do was put them up to greater security scrutiny before letting them fly on their private airline.  People could scream all they want about discrimination but its the right of the company to determine who they do business with and how they do business with them (We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone.).  Also, it side steps the fourth amendment of unreasonable search and seizures without probable cause since it is a private company and not the government. 

On a side note, I think some of the security measures in airports are a violation of our fourth Amendment rights.  How can it be seen as reasonable for an individual like myself to be search like he is going to commit a crime on a plane.  Its the job of the government to show probable cause before they search an individual; there is no search before that time.  It should be the job of the companies and the government to work together to identify those people who should be search based on probable cause.  A person who is on the no fly list has enough probable cause to be search before boarding a flight.  Just another way our freedoms are slowly being taken away from us. 

Fourth, any lawsuit brought against a passenger airline or transportation company would be granted exclusive jurisdiction in the federal courts.  There would also be legal limits on the amounts that would be paid out in any successful lawsuit.  The benefit here brings tort reform to one specific area.  Also, since some modes of travel cross state lines, that would grant the federal courts jurisdiction over any such case.

That is all I have for today's post.  I would love to see your comments on this topic.  Have a great day.

News of the Day - 2/15/2010 - Schools, Stimulus, AGW & VP Biden

Another rapid fire news day.  This seems to be a preferred format since I can briefly comment on several stories each day.  Also, if there is a juicy story that requires a longer post I can do that as well so here... we... go.

SCHOOLS FACE CUTS AS STIMULUS RUNS OUT
From the AP we hear that public schools are facing more and larger cuts this year.  The main reason: government spending from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 has now run out.  So now schools have to do with less than before.  My own district is suffering with having to make around $100 million cuts for the next school year.  The Superintendent has allowed us to email suggestions to his office.  I have already done so and told the students to send me ideas to send to him. 

The fact of the matter is that government spending made the problems worse.  Now deeper cuts have to be made to offset the money given last year.  Throwing money at the problem never solves it, it just makes the solution harder to find since the money briefly filled the hole.  It is time of public education to take a serious look at its bureaucratic structure and eliminate all the unnecessary waste.  I don't hear of very many private schools going out of business.  The main reason could be that they don't rely on government money to make ends meet so they have to justify each expenditure wisely.  There are too many bureaucrats in most large public school districts.  There are too many under qualified and over paid consultants and administrators who do not do anything to improve students education.  Cuts need to begin there not at the school level. 

On a second note, the superintendent of the Clark County School District complimented the fact that there are now 38 more empowerment schools in the district.  An empowerment school has more freedom to address issues important to that community.  Now someone tell me why all the schools in CCSD are not empowerment.  Education needs to be dealt with and supported by the community and parents.  Unfortunately not enough care anymore, at least at my school.  Moving on.

NO GLOBAL WARMING IN 15 YEARS
Coming straight from the horse's mouth is the fact that there has not been global warning in 15 years.  I thought if we were the sole cause of Anthropomorphic Global Warming (AGW) then our continued buring of green house gasses the earth's temperature would continue to clime.  I guess not.  I have not really ever addressed AGW on my blog so here is a first.  Here are my major issues with the climate change crowd. 

First, climate change happens, with or without human interaction.  There were vast changes to the climate before the burning of greenhouse gases, so how do we know WE are the ones causing it?

Second, climatologists have often threatened science magazine and journals to not publish works by their critics and then criticize when the critics have no publish works.  Why the gestapo tactics if your are correct?

Thirdly, the pure hypocrisy of the true believers.  Many of them say we need to make changes to the way we live but don't make any changes themselves.  They want to cap emissions but they have a larger carbon footprint than anyone else on the planet.  Something interesting I saw years ago was a comparison of Gore's and Bush's houses.  President Bush's house in Texas was heated by geothermal systems and powered by solar.  To compare Gore burns a significant amount of green house gasses to power his house.  Also, I love the quote of then Senator Obama saying we can't run our thermostats at 72 degrees if we want, but he keeps the White House super cold so that people must wear sweaters, while I pay the bill.  I think they calculated that all the travel to Coopenhagen would burn more green house gases than sixty developing nations.  It's a practice of do as I say, not as I do.  That right there is the biggest argument for why I fight against this scare science tactics.

BIDEN MOTORCADE ACCIDENT AT OLYMPICS
Ok what is going on with President Biden's motorcade?  This is the third accident in a year for his motorcade.  Someone needs to see what they heck is going on. 

That's all the news for today.  Have a great day.

For My Wife - Our Story... Thus far

So I missed Friday, and never posted anything additional on Saturday.  Sorry to my loyal readers that I missed a day.  Since yesterday was St. Valentine's Day, I have something I will share with the world at large.  I wrote this for my wife and gave it to her yesterday.

    Our Story, Thus Far
    By:  Adam J. Bulava

    On the occasion of our first Valentine’s Day as husband and wife

You made the first move, and did it real smooth.
Though I had my head shaved, you saw I was well behaved.
When the first movie we saw was so bad, but I sang the song by Santan(a)
Auditioning made you very nervous, though I thought you did fabulous.
Driving in the dark of night, with the gold coins forever in our sight.
Church on Good Friday, which reminded you of being Catholic on Sunday.
Meeting my best friend and mother, being glad I didn’t meet another.
Trip to Chicago at Thanksgiving, to know my family was only the beginning.
Four days at Christmas making you cry, just because you didn’t want to say goodbye.
A week on the plains with family and friends, wishing those days would never end.
A wedding and Star Wars in St. Paul, on our own with no one to call.
Buying a ring to put on your finger, while you were drunk hoping you would remember
Learning to dance while planning our day, making lots of decisions along the way.
Invites and dress, tuxes and a shower, waiting and waiting for that one hour.
Looking down the aisle seeing you in white, marriage with your friend finally in sight.
Saying I will and kissing my best friend, our feet hurt so bad we wanted it to end.
Honeymoon in Cali spending our time at the zoo, seeing everything anew.
Moving to our brand new home, finding a brother for our kitty who was all alone.
Starting a search for the next chapter in our life, searching for jobs in the Midwest in the Heights.