Saturday, April 10, 2010

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.

Friday, April 9, 2010

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.

Monday, April 5, 2010

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.