tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-57342040595339095512024-03-13T17:35:36.823-07:00The Government TeacherThis is my personal and profession blog where I will write about mostly topics that have my interest. Most of the posts will likely be political in nature since as a profession I study and teach about our government.Adam J. Bulavahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13891143755157356548noreply@blogger.comBlogger130125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5734204059533909551.post-17973120557663914732011-07-06T01:50:00.000-07:002011-07-06T01:50:23.143-07:00The Government Teacher Blog Moved to WordpressHello loyal reader, <br />
<br />
On the recommendation of a person I know who does blogging for a living, I have decided to transfer my entire blog to the WordPress site. I find that it has an easier to use interface for both me and my readers. You will find all my old posts and all previously made comments have been transferred to my new site. Please come over to the new home of <a href="http://ajbulava.wordpress.com/">The Government Teacher blog</a>, subscribe and enjoy as you did before. Thanks for your continued support and have a nice day.<br />
<br />
Adam J. BulavaAdam J. Bulavahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13891143755157356548noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5734204059533909551.post-22133449562618950822011-07-05T00:00:00.000-07:002011-07-05T00:00:02.520-07:00Book Summary: "Broke" by Glenn Beck - Chapter #1: Ancient History, Modern LessonsFor a while now I have wanted to do a comprehensive summary of a book I have read in the past. The subject matter of the book I choose (<i>Broke: The Plan to Restore Our Trust, Truth and Treasure </i>by Glenn Beck) seems quite poignant considering the debate going on currently regarding federal debts, deficits and other budgetary issues in the states and local municipalities. I could have done do a longer post summarizing the main points of each of the chapters but choose instead to devote sometime to each chapter to give the main points of these chapters in more detail.<br />
<br />
One thing to know before we begin. The book is broken up into three major parts. Part One: The Past is Prologue (Chapters #1-9) outlines the history of how we got to 14.3 trillion dollars of debt and massive budget deficits. Part Two: The Crime of the Century (Chapters #10-12) discuss the specific problems we face at the current moment regarding our budget deficits and debt. Part Three: The Plan (Chapters #13-20) outlines Glenn Beck's plan of how we can get our nation back on track to fiscal responsibility.<br />
<br />
<b>CITATION NOTE: </b>Any words that are quoted are directly from the book with an appropriate page number reference. If another source is quoted from the book that is from Beck's massive amount of citations I will be sure to list it immediately after the pertinent information. Enjoy.<br />
<br />
<u>Chapter #1: Ancient History, Modern Lessons</u><br />
We are an empire in decline because we are crumbling from the inside, and I am not talking about our infrastructure. The U.S. government and people are fighting a loosing battle against the laws of economics. Our debts, deficits, unemployment, inflation rates and other financial indicators are just the side effects of the disease that we face as a nation. "It's time to stop listening to the politicians, professors, and prognosticators and instead pay attention to the true predictor of the future: the past" (4)<br />
<br />
<b>WHEN IN ROME</b><br />
<blockquote><i>The United States can be likened to Rome before the fall of the empire. Its financial condition is 'worse than advertised.' It has a 'broke business model.' It faces deficits in budgets, its balance pf payments, its savings--and its leadership. - </i>David Walker (former comptroller general of the U.S., before the 2005 National Press Club</blockquote>Where does this comparison come from? It comes from examining the Edward Gibbons "The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire," released between 1776 and 1788 in six volumes. Our Founders were familiar with this book, in fact Jefferson's copy had many notes in the margins. Among the observations of Gibbons is that when people expect more from the government they fall prey to tyranny. Sound familiar to discussions taking place today? Gibbons even focuses on the education of the masses that required men to be reduced to the same level, to equalize the minds of men, where the masses must accept the interpretations of the men of learning, instead of interpreting things for themselves (Beck 5-6). But just as the incentive to learn is killed so was the incentive to work.<br />
<br />
High taxes ate away at the incentive to work hard; sons were forced into their father's trade; people stopped innovating because it was not worth their time, effort or creativity. Roman bureaucracy exploded and by the fourth century AD less and less people worked, in fact the number of receiving benefits from the government was much larger than those paying taxes, because of the size of the tax assessments (Lactantius). This was coupled with heavy military spending that strained the producers of commodities. Citizens in the cities got more and more handouts in an method engineered by Augustus to make the people forget about their past and freedoms "in their enjoyment of plenty." (Beck 6-7)<br />
<br />
Rome could not pay their bills and resorted to higher taxes which the government had a hard time collecting because merchants spent to much time trying to legally avoid them. To avoid the people's discontent emperors offered entertainment and other freebies to keep them "calm and docile." The government now took on massive public works projects whether necessary or successful and the massive amounts of handouts exempted the poorer citizens from having to work. This led to class warfare between the different segments of society.<br />
<br />
There were other things that helped lead Rome into ruins but a simple equation can be found and has been replicated many times in history and is repeating itself today. "The state encroaches on freedom and demands more power. People take less responsibility for themselves and want more handouts from the government. Taxes go up to pay for the handouts. The size of government explodes and economic growth slows. The government seeks to divert the public's attention from what is really going on to 'bread and circuses.' Collapse, economic or otherwise ensues" (Beck 8). Want some more examples?<br />
<br />
<b>GREECE LIGHTNING!</b><br />
Freedom cannot last in a crisis. Once they had economic troubles<b> </b>the citizens of the Greek city states turned to dictators and away from individualism. These dictators often was a noble that "took the people into partnership" (Herodotus), to be the champion for the poor, get himself a private army, and rid the nation of the other leaders to seize power. Greeks suffered from so many internal disputes, all over envy of their neighboring city's property. The Greeks only saw one way to get rich, at the expense of their neighbors: greed (Beck 9).<br />
<br />
<b>THE SPANISH INQUISITION</b><br />
In the sixteenth century, the Spanish empire was even more powerful than Rome, but it feel prey to this the same problems of bureaucracy, power and taxes. The fall came when they consumed more than they produced and massive amounts of debt which required future revenues to pay that debt. The state had to many employees, doctors and priest but not enough businessmen. The biggest problem though was the ten percent excise tax on the transfer of all property. Spanish business men evaded the tax using clever business managers. The government than debased their currency inflating the prices on everything (Beck 9-11). The key fatal move that caused this and other economic declines, "extravagance of the government" (Reginald Trevor Davis, <i>Spain in Decline 1621-1700 </i>(London: McMillan, 1957) <br />
<br />
<b>A FLOCK OF TIMID ANIMALS</b><br />
"We are an empire on the edge of chaos," as Harvard Professor Niall Ferguson as stated. How does the situation in the U.S. compare to these other examples? Problem number one: over fourteen trillion dollars of debt and rising. What are our fatal mistakes? Over centralization of power instead of true federalism has killed the entrepreneur, encouraged an attitude of entitlement, and a there is a "lack of pride in individual accomplishments" (Beck 11). Rome grew through conquest, America through business growth that is being slowed by extreme regulation and "vilification of profits" (Beck 12). Every society faces inevitably and natural challenges, but how do we respond? We can be a flock of timid animals looking to government to solve the problem as our shepherd or take hold of the problems ourselves and be our own shepherds.<br />
<br />
History has shown us the U.S. is going down the same path as Ancient Rome, Greece and Spain. We must learn the lessons of history because "we are not immune to the laws of economics... but we have to turn the corner now" (Beck 12). We have the past to guide us and give us a idea of where to go, a plan to follow.<br />
<br />
Unless current events, break up this series I intend to continue such summaries until the entire book is complete for your reading. Next time I will address the second chapter of the same book which deals with our Founder's view on debt. To sum it up: frugality, thrift and charity. <br />
<br />
Questions? Comments? Concerns? Class dismissed!Adam J. Bulavahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13891143755157356548noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5734204059533909551.post-3733884764678348882011-07-02T00:00:00.000-07:002011-07-02T00:00:02.554-07:00Time Magazine: Does It Still Matter by Richard Stengel<div class="separator" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;">This week when I got my mail the newest issue of TIME magazine what should assault my eyes? The wonderful image of the Constitution being shredded and the question "Does it still matter?" being asked by a the author and publication. The author is the managing editor of TIME and also wrote a small piece in the Inbox of this week's issue. This article is a response to that question. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><b>CITATION NOTE: </b>Any direct quotes will are taken from the article itself and are the property of TIME magazine and the author Richard Stengel</div><br />
<blockquote>[Regarding what the founders gave us] <i>the idea that a black person was three-fifths of a human being, that women were not allowed to vote, and that South Dakota should have the same number of Senator as California, which is kind of crazy.</i></blockquote>This sentence is full of historical fallacies its not even funny, but that's par for the course in this article. First, the three-fifths clause was not stating that imported black slaves from Africa were any less than a person than the other people of the United States. They were only to be counted as three-fifths of a person when it came to the census and apportioning members to the House of Representatives. The other two options before the compromise. One, count the slaves and give the slave holding states an enormous advantage in the House of Representatives. Two, many slave owning delegates, like George Washington, argued for not counting the slaves to help end the practice sooner, since once they were freed they would be counted in the census for representative apportionment. So they reached a middle ground, they could count them as part of a person <i><u><b>ONLY FOR THE CENSUS WHEN DETERMINING REPRESENTATION</b></u></i>. Their is no implication that this was meant to mean they were only three-fifths of a human being. This issue is dealt with in a past article on this blog. <a href="http://ajbulava.blogspot.com/2010/04/us-constitution-lesson-11-slavery.html">Check it out.</a><br />
<br />
Secondly, women did not have the right to vote in any society during the eighteenth century. The idea of denying women the right of suffrage women did not start in the U.S, but the start of the women's suffrage movement in the U.S. started even before the Constitutional Convention. Abigail Adams told her husband after signing the Declaration of Independence to not "forget about the women."<br />
<br />
Third, the whole purpose of giving all states equal representation in the Upper House of the U.S. Congress was the result of the Great or Connecticut Compromise. This was the most contentious argument of the entire Constitutional Convention. It was put in place to protect the states with smaller populations from the larger states. It is recognition that not only do the people need to be represented but so do the states. The idea that the individual states are no greater or lesser than each other in the country so they should be represented equally in the legislature.<br />
<blockquote><i>"The Constitution was written explicitly for one purpose--to restrain the federal government" (Ron Paul). In fact, the framers did the precise opposite. They strengthened the center and weakened the states.</i></blockquote>The author is right on one point but wrong on the other. The constitution was written to strengthen the federal government because of the weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation. He is wrong in that it weakened the states. If you were to do even some cursory research on the views of the founders and their views of state's powers in relation to federal power, even they would say in the unamended Constitution that the states have more power. The Constitution had very specific and explicit powers. Anything that was not directly forbidden by the Constitution belonged to the states. They could write laws about everything else not expressly mentioned in the Constitution.<br />
<blockquote><i>If the Constitution was intended to limit the federal government, it sure doesn't say so. Article I, Section 8, the longest section of the longest article of the Constitution, is a drumroll of congressional power. And it ends with the "necessary and proper" clause, which delegates to Congress the power "to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof." Limited government indeed.</i> </blockquote>Everyone I meet that misreads this one section of the Constitution. <a href="http://ajbulava.blogspot.com/2010/01/us-constitution-lesson-3-implied-v.html">In fact, I did a whole article on this one clause several years ago</a>. This does not expand the government's power in any way, shape or form. It only allows the government to make additional laws to carry out the powers in this Constitution. It does not state they can change the meaning of the words, or add any authority not already explicitly given. It limits to government only to those things already listed.<br />
<blockquote><i>The War Powers Resolution is a check on presidential power, but the President seeks to balance this by, well, ignoring it. That's not unconstitutional; that's how our system works. The larger question is whether the War Powers Resolution is constitutional.</i></blockquote>If the President is ignoring the law and refusing the enforce it, his actions are unconstitutional. He swore an oath to faithfully execute the office of President, which includes enforcing all federal laws, even the ones with which he does not agree or like. The War Powers Resolution is federal law; he is in violation of the laws of this nation and his oath of office. The War Powers Resolution could very well be deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in the future but it has not yet and until such time it is valid U.S. law to the enforced by the President of the United States.<br />
<blockquote><i>The government does require us to pay taxes, serve on juries, register for the draft. The government also compels us to buy car insurance (if we want to legally drive our car), which is a product from a private company. George Washington once signed a bill asking Americans to buy a musket and ammunition.</i></blockquote>The first three powers mentioned by the author are clearly expressed powers in the Constitution. (Taxes = Article I, Section 8, Paragraph 1; juries = Article III, Section 2 under the necessary and proper clause; draft = raising and maintaining an army and navy, Article I, Section 8, Paragraph 12). The last one is a power of the state governments not the federal. This is one of those areas where the state governments are superior and more powerful than the federal government. There is no authority granted in the Constitution to force someone to buy a product. I challenge someone to find and share the authority. Also, the whole point of requiring a person to purchase auto insurance is to protect the people who are not at fault in an accident. Lastly, Washington <i>asked</i> Americans to buy a musket, he did not require them by law, to do so.<br />
<blockquote><i>No one really disputes Congress's power to regulate interstate commerce, and it's silly to argue that health care — which accounts for 17% of the U.S. economy — doesn't involve interstate commerce. Your doctor's stethoscope was made in one state and was shipped to and sold in another.</i></blockquote>Just because a piece of medical equipment is made in one state and shipped to another does not give the government the authority to regulate that company or even one-sixth of the U.S. economy. Health insurance is not interstate commerce. I am only allowed to buy health insurance from companies allowed to do business in my state. Some states have only one company their citizens can buy from. Congress would have the authority to write a law that stated any health insurance company, could set up shop in any state, as long as they follow the appropriate state laws. That would be in the spirit and original intent of the Founders. The interstate commerce clause was to ensure free and unrestricted trade among the states in the Union. Meaning one state cannot stop a company from another state from doing business in its border. Its intent was not to give the government authority to regulate any business that makes widgets in one state and ships them to another.<br />
<blockquote><i>But what happens when that healthy, young uninsured woman goes skiing and tears her anterior cruciate ligament and has to have emergency surgery? She can't afford to pay the full fee, and the hospital absorbs much of the cost.</i></blockquote>That is one thing you could do. The other thing is you could make the person responsible for paying the bill. Allow hospitals to go after those who do not pay their bills. It is a matter of personal responsibility; you run up a bill you have to pay for it.<br />
<blockquote><i>The remedy for bad laws is elections.</i></blockquote>Which explains the "shackling" the Democrats took in the 2010 midterm elections. The American people spoke out clearly against the bad laws that were being written in the first two years of Obama's term.<br />
<blockquote><i>Some opponents of birthright citizenship argue that illegal immigrants are not under U.S. jurisdiction and therefore their children should not automatically become citizens, but this argument doesn't hold up under scrutiny. </i></blockquote>Firstly, the author never explains why this argument does not hold up under scrutiny. Seconly, he ignores a large part of the 14th Amendment that explains that jurisdiction. Let's read the 14th Amendment: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States..." The clause clearly states that only the born or naturalized in the United States are citizens and therefore subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.<br />
<br />
Another interesting aspect of this Amendment is the last clause: "The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article." What this means is Congress can by "appropriate legislation" define the limits of born and naturalization. They have done this before. That is one of the contentions of why birthers argue President Obama is not a natural born citizen. When he was born his mother may not have been old enough to confer natural born citizenship upon him since his father was not a citizen of our nation. A colleague stated that when she was in England in the 1960s and 70s she had a kid and her kid was not allowed automatic U.S. citizenship because she was not old enough when she had him to confer citizenship by blood.<br />
<blockquote><i>It's equally strange to me that a nation that was forged through immigration — and is still formed by immigration — is also a nation that makes it constitutionally impossible for someone who was not physically born here to run for President. (Yes, the framers had their reasons for that, but those reasons have long since vanished.) </i></blockquote>I have to respectfully disagree with the author for the need for only natural born citizens to be the constitutionally allowed citizens to run for President. Even my students in U.S. Government understand the motivation behind this clause. It was written to prevent the installation or election of a king or other foreign national from becoming President. It is still important today whether the author thinks those reasons are valid or not.<br />
<blockquote><i>We need to make legal immigration easier, faster and cheaper so that illegal immigration becomes harder and less desirable.</i></blockquote>Agreed but we still need to have good legislation to only allow the best and the brightest to be welcomed here. We still need to keep out the criminals and others, which Congress has the authority to do under Article I, Section 8.<br />
<blockquote><i>The Constitution works so well precisely because it is so opaque, so general, so open to various interpretations. Originalists contend that the Constitution has a clear, fixed meaning. But the framers argued vehemently about its meaning. For them, it was a set of principles, not a code of laws. A code of laws says you have to stop at the red light; a constitution has broad principles that are unchanging but that must accommodate each new generation and circumstance.</i></blockquote>The Constitution is not "so general." Look at the hundreds of documents and newspapers articles that were written, and the speeches that were given during its ratification and you will find the author is so wrong. The Founders knew what each phrase meant and its meanings can be easily discerned with a little bit of research by looking at these documents, like the Federalists Papers or even the transcripts of the Constitutional Convention by James Madison. And that is the major problem I have with this author. He states in "What Would the Framers Say?" from the Editor's desk feature earlier in the magazine:<br />
<blockquote><i>Politicians ask all the time, What would the Framers say? The truth is, we don't know, and they're not around to prove anyone wrong.</i></blockquote>WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! As I stated above the founders words and intent can be found with a little bit of research. The Founders may not have known about airplanes, terrorist attacks, the internet, Ipods or anything else that has sprung up in the 222 years since the ratification of the Constitution. I guarantee the principles, intent and solutions behind all of these modern problems and items can be found in their writings.<br />
<br />
They gave the government specific powers of foreign relations and commerce both with foreign nations and between the states. That was their main goals at the convention: protect the nation from foreign invaders and from internal squabbling. Let me give you an example of how modern issues can be solved with original intent with the Internet and its appropriate commerce.<br />
<br />
Did you know when you buy a product from Amazon, in most states you are still required to pay the state sales tax even if the company did not already charge you that percentage? Now you do. The Constitution was written to help free and unrestricted trade among the states, under Article I, Section 8. Congress has the authority require force internet based companies that operate in the U.S. selling goods and services to incur that sales tax on the citizen that bought the item and submit that tax revenue to the appropriate state. My wife and I had a discussion on this about how do you determine what state sets the tax rate and receives the revenue. My contention is that the state where the person is buying the product is the state with the greater jurisdiction, even if it is shipped to another state. If buy a product here in Nevada and then move it to another state I am not required to pay sales tax again. There is one example; give me others and lets work on them together on whether Constitution deals with that inside is words. And if it doesn't then those are the nearly unlimited powers of the state and local governments.<br />
<br />
Point being, the Constitution still matters. It is the rule above all rules in our nation. If it does not matter than the limits on the government and protections it provides the citizens of this nation do not matter. We are a people not bound by ethnicity or nationality, but by this document its limits on the government and its protections regardless of the era in which we are living. But one thing to remember is even if these document did not exists... <br />
<blockquote><i>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.</i></blockquote>Questions? Comments? Concerns? Thanks for reading and lets all wish a happy 235th birthday to the U.S.A.! Class dismissed. <br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div>Adam J. Bulavahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13891143755157356548noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5734204059533909551.post-25124105554626162472011-06-30T00:00:00.000-07:002011-06-30T00:00:05.737-07:00Book Review: The Keys to the White House by Alan LichtmanA few days ago I finished a book that I had heard about at the Silver State AP Conference a few years ago. The teacher of my class on AP U.S. Government & Politics explained to us the thirteen indicators or "Keys" that can accurately predict who will win the popular vote in any given presidential election since the election of 1860. While this system is not a sure guarantee since the winner of the popular vote has lost on several occasions (the most recent being the 2000 election), it is a fairly good indicator of who the President will be when the election is over.<br />
<br />
There are several things to explain. First, their are thirteen indicators or "Keys" that can be turned in favor or against the incumbent party candidate. If six or more of the "Keys" statements are found to be false (Turned against the incumbent party candidate) than the challenging party candidate will win the popular vote. If five or less of the "Keys" states are found to be false (Turned against the incumbent party candidate) then the incumbent party candidate will win the popular vote. Let's get started on the individual keys and their application to both the most recent and the forthcoming Presidential Elections.<br />
<br />
<b>NOTE:</b> There are many keys that cannot necessarily be predicted for the 2012 election at this time. The predictions made in the analysis are my own and reflect my best guess as to the situation of the keys as they may fall in the 2012 election. This is not meant to be biased in anyway specifically against the current administration. It is meant as fair assessment of how the keys may have already turned or will turn against the incumbent administration. If a specific key is marked by a question mark that means this could still change in the months leading up to the general campaign and election.<br />
<br />
<u>Key 1: Party Mandate</u><b> - </b><i>After the midterm elections, the incumbent party holds more seat in the U.S. House of Representatives than it did after the previous midterm election.</i><br />
2008: False (0-1)<br />
2012: False (0-1)<br />
<br />
This key is based on the proportional changes in the U.S. House of Representatives of the incumbent versus challenging parties. The incumbent party wins the key if it achieves a net gain in its House seats from the previous presidential and midterm elections combined. In the 2008 election, the Republicans, the incumbent party in the White House, had already lost 31 seats in the previous midterm election which meant this key was turned in favor of the challenging party, the Democrats. The same is true for the upcoming 2012 Presidential Election. The Republicans (Challenging party) gained 63 seats in the House during the 2010 Election, which even if you combine the previous gains in the last two House elections is a net gain over the democrats.<br />
<br />
<u>Key 2: Nomination Contest</u><b> - </b><i>There is no serious contest for the incumbent party nomination.</i><br />
2008: True (1-1)<br />
2012: True? (1-1)<br />
<br />
This key is turned against the incumbent party candidate if their is a serious competition for the party nomination prior to the general election. To turn this key for the incumbent party, a candidate must "win at least two-thirds of the total delegate vote on the first ballot at the nomination convention" (Litchtman 26). In 2008 the incumbent party nominee was John McCain who won the nomination with 98% of the delegate votes. As of right now there is not Democratic Party candidate that will more than likely challenge sitting President Barrak Obama. There may be a later runner but for now it is true, and will more than likely stay that way.<br />
<br />
<u>Key 3: Incumbency</u><b> - </b><i>The incumbent-party candidate is the sitting president.</i><br />
2008: False (1-2)<br />
2012: True (2-1)<br />
<br />
This key is self-explanatory so I won't spend a lot of time on it. In 2008, the incumbent party (Republicans) could not nominate the sitting President since he had already been elected to two terms as limited by the Twenty-Second Amendment to the Constitution. In 2012, barring any candidates challenging President Obama to the Democratic Party nomination he this key will turn in his favor.<br />
<br />
<u>Key 4: Third Party</u> - <i>Their is no significant third-party or independent campaign.</i><br />
2008: True (2-2)<br />
2012: True? (3-1)<br />
<br />
For this key to be turned against the incumbent party candidate, a third party candidate must garner significant support on the night of the election. The threshold that one or more third party candidates must meet is five percent or more of the popular vote. In 2008, their were several candidates from third parties that ran also in the election, but none of them alone or combined met the five percent threshold. We cannot necessarily accurately predict this one at the present moment. The Libertarian Party has a good chance of getting additional support this year because of the huge backlash against the Obama administration's policies. The Tea Party Movement could also play a factor, though they are not an established political party in the U.S.<br />
<br />
<u>Key 5: Short Term Economy</u> - <i>The economy is not in recession during the election campaign.</i><br />
2008: False (2-3)<br />
2012: False? (3-2)<br />
<br />
This is the second best predictor of an election. In all eight elections in which the economy has been in a recession the incumbent party has lost the election (Lichtman 32). This key plays not only on facts presented by experts, but also on the perceptions of the electorate. In 2008, the economy was definitely in the middle of a recession that had started a year or more before. In 2012, we don't know accurately yet if we will be in a recession. Their could be a big change in policy that brings us out of this current recession before the campaign. <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/20/the-recession-is-over-say_n_731450.html">According to the National Bureau of Economic Research the economic recession ended in June 2009</a>. But the fact is many people in the electorate don't buy the facts. Unless something drastic is done in the next few months that spur economic growth this key could be turned against the Obama administration.<br />
<br />
<u>Key 6: Long-term Economy</u> - <i>Real annual per-capita economic growth during the term equals or exceeds mean growth during the previous two terms.</i><br />
2008: False (2-4)<br />
2012: False? (3-3)<br />
<br />
This key relies on broad based and long term indicators of economic growth. While the voters may not make the calculations themselves they can notice a long term trend of economic indicators. This is also the one that confounds the most out of people when trying to predict. In 2008, the incumbent party candidate John McCain had to deal with the down turn of the economy at the start of and end of Bush's terms. There was also significant growth at the end of Clinton's last term and after the initial recession of Bush's first term. In 2012, President Obama has nothing to lose in this area because Bush's last term was atrocious in terms of economic growth. This key will turn on the whether it exceeds the mean growth of both of Bush's terms. <a href="http://www.indexmundi.com/united_states/gdp_real_growth_rate.html">I have looked at numerous pieces of information in trying to predict this key</a>. It is my estimation that this key will not turn in favor for Obama; here is why.<br />
<br />
Using the chart above I figured out the average GDP (gross domestic product) - real growth rate of the United States. In Bush's first term the average was 2.7125%; his second term was 2.675%. So far in the Obama administration he has an average of 0.4% of economic growth. Obama has a lot of ground to make up to even come close to that kind of growth with his last eighteen months of this current term. Not impossible but I think everyone can agree this key will not be won by him.<br />
<br />
<u>Key 7: Policy Change</u> - <i>The incumbent party administration effects major changes in national policy.</i><br />
2008: False (2<i>-5</i>)<br />
2012: True (4-3)<br />
<br />
This key is also fairly self-explanatory. Again these keys do not rely on political ideology or partisan politics. The policy change must not only depart from established practices or break new ground, but this must be widely perceived at the time (Lichtman 37). This can be both domestic or foreign policies. In 2008 this key was turned against John McCain because the Bush Administration did not have any major policy changes in his second term. Most of them were continuations of what had already been accomplished during his first term. President Obama secured this key during this first two years in office with the health insurance reforms that are now known as Obamacare. Even if the legislation is repealed or deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, this key still will turn in his favor.<br />
<br />
<u>Key 8: Social Unrest</u> - <i>There is no sustained social unrest during the term.</i><br />
2008: True (3-5)<br />
2012: True (5-3)<br />
<br />
To turn this key against the incumbent party "unrest must manifest itself in violent challenges to authority that either are sustained or raise concerns that remain unresolved at the time of the election campaign. This key shows that the administration is unable to cope with with crisis (Lichtman 38). This key has not been turned against an incumbent since 1968. While there have been major political protests against both President Bush and Obama neither of these have been violent challenges against the government. It is unlikely to turn against Obama in the next eighteen months.<u> </u><br />
<br />
<u>Key 9: Scandal</u> - <i>The incumbent administration is untainted by major scandal.</i><br />
2008: True (4-5)<br />
2012: True? (6-3)<br />
<br />
Only one administration has ever survived a major scandal to be elected to a second term and that is because the incumbent candidate could not be linked to the scandal itself. A major scandal must "bring discredit upon the president himself, calling into question his personal integrity, or at least his faithfulness in upholding the law." These must touch the president personally or actions of other administration officials that the president "mishandled" (Lichtman 39). While there may have been some questionable actions by the President Bush in during this second term, there was nothing to the level described above to turn the key against the incumbent party. As of right now there is not pending scandal directly attached to the President. Though, given the information coming forward about <a href="http://www.redstate.com/moe_lane/2011/06/15/operation-fast-and-furious-fast-and-furious-unraveling/">Operation Fast and Furious</a> this key could easily be turned against President Obama.<br />
<br />
<u>Key 10: Foreign/Military Failure</u> - <i>The incumbent administration suffers no major failure in foreign or military affairs.</i><br />
2008: False (4-6)<br />
2012: False? (6-4)<br />
<br />
"A foreign policy setback can result in a single, 'splash' event that commands public attention or from sustained disappointment with the conduct of high-visibility foreign enterprise" (Lichtman 43). In 2008, the failure of a major successes in the Iraq War turned this key against President Bush and the incumbent party candidate John McCain. This key could very much be up in the air and subject interpretation. I predict this key being turned against President Obama because of the many minor things he has been subjected himself too in foreign affairs. The many occasions of him bowing to foreign leaders, limited involvement in the political protests around the world, being dressed down by Israeli PM Netanyahu while out of the country, and the several times he has brought himself forward at several world conferences and not achieved any success could all work against him with this key.<br />
<br />
<u>Key 11: Foreign/Military Success</u> - <i>The incumbent administration achieves a major success in foreign or military affairs.</i><br />
2008: False (4-7)<br />
2012: True (7-4)<br />
<br />
"The great majority of foreign successes have been decisive victories in war or momentous treaties. Judgement about foreign successes... must be made in the context of the times" (Lichtman 44, 45). The book states that this key turned against President Bush, but due to a "lack of an offsetting triumph abroad" (Lichtman 178). I would argue that the Surge tactic of President Bush as recommended by General Petraeus in 2007. It can be argued that the increased number of soldiers in was a success in that it helped stem that sectarian and terrorism based violence in that nation. I am not sure whether or not it might meet the high standard of this key though; so I keep it as a false statement and turn it against the incumbent party candidate. Even if it had been a true statement, the keys still work because the incumbent party candidate would still have six keys turned against them, therefor they lose. This key is hung one major military success of President Obama: the assassination of Osama bin Laden. While it may have only given him a slight bump in the polls and it was accomplished because of Bush Administration policies, it is a decisive victory against our enemies, Al-Qaeda.<br />
<br />
<u>Key 12: Incumbent Charisma</u> - <i>The incumbent-party candidate is charismatic or a national hero.</i><br />
2008: False (4-8)<br />
2012: True (8-4)<br />
<br />
"Few candidates have reached this threshold... but only when there is an extraordinary persuasive or dynamic candidate, or one who has attained heroic status through achievements prior to his nomination" (Lichtman 46). In 2008, the incumbent party candidate, John McCain could not turn this key. While he was a Vietnam Veteran, spending many years abroad in a prisoner of war camp, he does not have a heroic status in the military. Meanwhile, President Obama is without a charismatic candidate; that is without doubt or debate.<br />
<br />
<u>Key 13: Challenger Charisma</u><b> </b>- <i>The challenging party candidate is not charismatic or national hero.</i><br />
2008: False (4-9)<br />
2012: ????? (8-4 or 5)<br />
<br />
This is the only key where the challenging party organization and candidate can affect any major change in the campaign. The party must be willing to nominate a person who matches the description above in Key 12. In 2008, this was Senator Barrack Obama, as stated before, it is beyond doubt that he is charismatic. In the upcoming election, this could go either way. A nomination of a candidate like Sarah Palin or Governor Chris Christie, or a national hero like Generals McCrystal or Petraeus could turn this key against the incumbent party. This one cannot be determined until early next year.<br />
<br />
<u>2012 Predicted Results</u>: Undecided<br />
Looking at the predictions above President Obama could very easily attain a win in the popular vote and a second term as President of the United States. But if you look at there are several of the keys that could be in question or interpreted in a different way. If the Republicans nominate a charismatic candidate and Operation Fast and Furious gets pegged directly to President Obama, we may have a new President on January 20, 2013. Some of the false statements could also be returned to a true as we approach the election as well and therefore give him a second term. <br />
<br />
I would be interested in you, my readers, views of the these keys and how they can be turned for the 2012 Presidential election. Remember, this predicts who wins the popular vote, not the Presidency itself, because of the electoral college.<br />
<br />
Questions? Comments? Concerns? Class dismissed.Adam J. Bulavahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13891143755157356548noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5734204059533909551.post-41120710405852674152011-06-28T00:00:00.000-07:002011-06-28T00:00:01.571-07:00Public Policy: Reforming Taxes, Debts and DeficitsToday's article will focus on my message, if I were the President of the United States, to Congress about our taxes, debts and deficits. Unfortunately today, people on both sides of the aisle are playing political chicken about the reforms that must be made to make the United States government solvent and be able to pay its bills. Here would be a rough transcript of my speech to Congress and the U.S. regarding these topics.<br />
<br />
My fellow Americans it is time that we face the problem of our generation, debts, deficits and taxes. I am going to take the lead and, as our Constitution states, "recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient," and make no mistake about it our need is necessary and expedient. What I am suggesting today will be my attempt to address the budget deficits that have grown so large in the last few years, the national debt that we have ballooned out of proportion to our economy, and a tax system that is made to take advantage and benefit many people instead of collecting revenue for the essential job of government. I would like to start with the tax code.<br />
<br />
The tax code is over 80,000 pages long with numerous tax breaks, tax credits, deductions and other tax tricks that allow people to get out of paying their fair share to the government. Everyone expects money back from the government every year and that is not how our tax system should be run. It is time to overhaul our entire tax code. While I may not agree with the income tax in principle, since it was strictly forbidden in the unamended U.S. Constitution, we can use this system to ensure everyone pays their share for the protections they receive from the federal government. I would like to see on my desk in the next six months a reformed tax code by the U.S. Congress, that would be implemented at the start of the next calender year. I am looking for a few basic things in this tax code.<br />
<br />
First, a flat simple tax rate that everyone is pays into regardless of income level. I would be open to having a few different levels of tax rates, at the most three, but no individual tax rate should be exorbitantly or unreasonably high. We need to get rid of the pages and pages of documents printed each year for taxes and simplify it to a single page return.<br />
<br />
Second, no deductions, subsidies, or tax credits. It is not the job of the single, renter with no kids to subsidize the married, homeowner with 19 kids. It is not the job of the government to subsidize or encourage any economic behavior. Let the tax we pay be the tax we pay.<br />
<br />
Thirdly, all federal, state and local welfare benefits that provide direct monetary assistance will be counted as income and counted towards their income taxes. The state, local and all federal agencies that provide such assistance from tax payer dollars must provide each recipient with a valid tax documents stating the money the received from the program and how much of it was taken out via taxes like in your pay checks. Also, every single company must have every single employee on the books for tax purposes. If any company is paying anyone under the table we will come after you.<br />
<br />
Fourthly, to protect the weakest among us. No taxes will be paid until a person's income is above the locally determined poverty level. Employers and government agencies may still withdraw from a person's paycheck or benefits, a specific percentage each paycheck to send to the government in taxes. They will still provide W2s and other documentation to prove wages earned and taxes paid, and if a person paid more than was required above the poverty level that will be returned to the person as a tax refund.<br />
<br />
Another problem we have is with how much we spend each year in the federal government. I am submitting a budget to Congress in the next few weeks that asks each individual department, agency and part of the executive branch and the federal bureaucracy to cut at a minimum of 10% from their budgets. I will submit this to Congress when it is prepared. Also, over the next year I will be talking to each and every executive department and federal agency to discuss what it does for the people of this nation. The substance of those discussions is to submit to Congress at the start of the next year a plan to drastically reorganize and to make the executive branch more efficient and less wasteful. This will include the elimination or consolidation of many departments, and federal agencies. I encourage Congress to also, look it its own budget and structure to submit to me a change in how they could be more efficient and cost effective for the American people. I have several ideas, but will only push them on this if they cannot make the changes themselves in the next 18 months.<br />
<br />
The major last problem we have in facing our debts and deficits is from our mandatory spending in Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid , and other entitlement programs. It is time for reform on this issue. These programs were meant to only be safety net programs, not programs everyone can draw upon. I strongly urge Congress to make the requirements for all of these programs stricter for those who will draw upon them in the future. They should be designed only to help the weakest among us and only when absolutely necessary. It is not the Constitutional duty to provide for the citizens retirement pensions, or old age health insurance. The free market will do it cheaper and more efficiently. Also it is the job of the people through local charity to help out their neighbors; we need to get back to that mentality. But also we must consider that only the taxes taken out of the paychecks for that purpose is the only money we can use to pay for those programs. And everyone should help bear the cost of these programs.<br />
<br />
One more thing, a smaller reasons why our government costs so much is all the laws that Congress decides to pass. All these laws must be enforced by me, which cost the tax payers a lot of money. I will not sign any law that I feel does not meet the standard of the expressed powers of the U.S. Constitution. I will also sign no laws until these measure, as I directed above are passed. <br />
<br />
Questions? Comments? Concerns?Adam J. Bulavahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13891143755157356548noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5734204059533909551.post-52561908726954017472011-06-24T08:05:00.000-07:002011-06-24T08:05:23.326-07:00CNN GOP DebateOk sorry about this article not being posted sooner. I swear I told Blogger to post it the day after the debate. But here it is now for your reading pleasure.<br />
<br />
On June 13, CNN held an open debate for declared and undeclared GOP candidates for the Republican nomination in the 2012 Presidential race. Today’s blog is devoted to answer the questions that were asked of the candidates. Some questions were posed specifically to specific candidates and will be answered as a general question. The questions were pulled from the <a href="http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/06/13/live-blog-from-the-new-hampshire-2012-presidential-debate/?iref=NS1">CNN.com Live Blog of the event </a>as well as my own viewing of the event. The full event can be watched at the CNN website.<br />
<br />
<b>What are your plans to create jobs and cut government spending? (Follow up: How do we get to 5% growth with tax cuts if that did not happen under President Bush?)</b><br />
As President of the United States I first would order a full scale audit of all federal regulations and the entire federal bureaucracy. The purpose of this audit is to look for unnecessary, conflicting and unconstitutional federal regulations that are placed on business. Each federal agency will be required within my first six months in office to report on those regulations to me which I would submit to Congress for their debate and approval. Secondly, I would submit a plan to government to massively overhaul the federal bureaucracy. This plan would eliminate, consolidate, or reform many executive departments and other federal agencies to save the American citizens money. <br />
<br />
The United States did not get a 5% economic growth under President Bush because he just cut taxes. President Bush and the Republicans in Congress, most of whom were kicked out of office in 2006, 2008 and 2010, did not cut spending. The government must cut its spending as well as the taxes we lay on our citizens to get the economy of the United States growing at any percentage.<br />
<br />
<b>What three steps would you do to de-fund "Obamacare" and repeal it as soon as possible?</b><br />
First, I would not appropriate any funding in the budgets I submit to Congress every year. Any budget that would try to restore or add funding to enforce such legislation would be vetoed by me as President. Secondly, I would ask members of Congress to submit a new bill that would replace Obamacare with common sense legislation that creates a true free market system for our citizens to buy affordable health insurance but also hold insurance companies responsible for cutting citizens who have premiums all their life and then are dropped when they need it most. Thirdly, I would go after waste and abuse within Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and other federal entitlement and welfare programs to save the American people more money and make the federal government more fiscally responsible. <br />
<br />
<b>Will you have a balanced approach to governing including all parties and groups?</b><br />
I guess it depends on what you mean by a balanced approach to governing. All groups, caucuses, political parties, intentest groups have a right and a privilege to lobby their case before the Congress of the United States. As President my balanced approaches to governing will include balancing the power of the federal government against the Constitution of the United States. And if the Constitution does not give the federal government the authority to govern in that area then it will be vetoed. I don’t care if the ideas come from Republicans, Democrats or Libertarians, from Conservatives, Liberals or Moderates. The Constitution is the balancing that all laws must be weighted against and many have been found wanting.<br />
<br />
<b>How will you return or keep manufacturing jobs in the U.S.?</b><br />
For manufacturing jobs to be returned to the United States must include steps taken within the first question. Federal regulations on businesses must be reduced only to the necessary and proper regulations that are constitutional. I would return the regulation of businesses to the states. There is no authority in the Constitution for the federal government to generally regulate business. The original intent interstate commerce clause of Article I, Section 8 was to prevent the states from hindering trade with the other states since they were supposedly in union with each other. As Presidents, I will let the free market decide where businesses thrive and flourish based on the different regulations of the 50 states returning authority in this area back to the states and local governments.<br />
<br />
<b>Where do you fall on the right to work? Would you support federal right to work legislation?</b><br />
Every citizen has the right to work in any job that they want to pursue, if they are the best citizens for that job. It is not the job of the government to force its workers to join a specific group to practice their chosen profession. It is not the job of the government to force any private business to support or hire employees from a particular group. It is an inalienable right of the people to freely work in any legal profession without restriction or forced association with another group. I would not support federal right to work legislation because it has not authority within the U.S. Constitution. I would strongly encourage the states to pass such legislation if they choose to do so, under the 10TH Amendment and the principle of Federalism.<br />
<br />
<b>What standards to do you have for government assistance in private enterprise?</b><br />
None. It is not the job of the federal government to assist private enterprise. It is the job of the federal government to ensure the states are not practicing commercial protectionism or monopolistic practices that prevent private enterprise.<br />
<br />
<b>TARP? Bailout a success?</b><br />
Bad idea, hastily drawn together and is quickly becoming a federal government slush fund. Bailouts are never a success, but if there is one way TARP was a success it is this. Banks did not lend out the money we gave them. If they had, the influx of $800 billion in new loans would have decreased the value of the dollar and increased inflation. The banks saved us by not lending out the money. <br />
<br />
Those banks that made bad choices should have been allowed to fail. Stronger banks would have been created or risen up to take their places. The same is true in the cases of GM and Chrysler.<br />
<br />
<b>What is the role of government in space exploration?</b><br />
It is the job of the government to provide the standards by which private enterprise can start the exploration and research of space. I do not see a need to cut funding from NASA as this time nor stop setting our sights for higher goals in this area. I want to set a goal that the U.S. will have a permanent citizen run base on the moon in the next ten years.<br />
<br />
<b>How will you improve housing? (What would you do to right the housing ship?)</b><br />
It is not the job of the federal government to ensure every citizen owns a house. It is not the job of the government to subsidize home ownership with the taxes of the citizens who rent. It is the job of the state and local governments to improve and regulate housing legislation.<br />
<br />
<b>How would you keep Medicare solvent? Social Security?</b><br />
The United States citizens are on the hook for more than $63 trillion in unfunded liabilities in Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. The first act I would take as President is to recommend to Congress that they enact legislation that prevents the Congress and future presidents from drawing upon the surplus taxes collected from individuals and businesses would not be included in the general fund. Included in that legislation would be that Congress cannot appropriate revenue from specific purposes and taxes to other programs.<br />
<br />
Secondly, I would encourage Congress to consider a serious overhaul of both system which would include raising the age that citizens could draw upon Social Security and Medicare. When the system was designed, the “retirement age” was three years past the average life expectancy. The system needs to be reformed in a responsible way to protect it for future generations or to spit us all out of the system while protecting those in the system and those who will realistically need the system for their retirement survival. It is not the job to provide retirement pensions or old age medical insurance to the citizens of this nation. This is a job of personal responsibility for the citizens to accomplish.<br />
<br />
<b>Will Congress raise the debt ceiling?</b><br />
I hope not, because it will finally force us as a government to confront the serious fiscal situation we face as a nation.<br />
<br />
<b>Separation of Church and State?</b><br />
This is not a constitutional doctrine. The original intent of the Freedoms of Religious practice in the 1ST Amendment was to prevent the encroachment of government in religion, not to prevent religion from encroaching on the job of government. In fact many of our laws and parts of our Constitution are based off of religious text such as the Bible. <br />
<br />
<b>Are American Muslims less committed to the constitution than Christians or Jews?</b><br />
Not necessarily, but there are elements of the Muslim community that would like to see Sharia Law implemented as the law of the land inside the United States. This would be a violation of the establishment clause in the 1ST Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Any separatist Muslim community in the U.S. that lives by these standards is more than likely in violation of the U.S. and state constitutions, as well as state statutes in several areas. <br />
<br />
<b>Overturn laws allowing same-sex couples to legally marry?</b><br />
It is not the job of the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn the laws passed by the people of the states in regards to marriage. The states have the right under the 10TH Amendment to regulate marriage, and this power does not belong to the federal government. Any Supreme Court decision regarding this issue should be focusing on the issues related to Full Faith and Credit in Article IV of the Constitution.<br />
<br />
<b>Stance on "Don't Ask, Don't Tell?"</b><br />
I believe that homosexual men and women have the right to serve without prejudice or discrimination in the United States military. I also know this makes many people, including some men and women in our military, uncomfortable. I feel that there are regulations and laws on the books within the Uniform Code of Military Justice that would protect any man or women who serve in our military from being harassed sexually by any member serving with them. This change over will also take time and must be handled sensitively. Homosexual men and women must be protected from those who might do them harm or harass them. But there will also be heterosexual men and women who will not want to be housed or shower with homosexual men and women. We need to make sure their needs and beliefs of these men and women respected, as much as we protect the beliefs of homosexual men and women.<br />
<br />
<b>Should Romney's changed position on abortion rights be an issue in this primary?</b><br />
The right to an abortion is not about a woman’s right to choose, it is about the inalienable right to life we all have granted by our Creator, which was expressed in the Declaration of Independence. We in the United States must make it a point to protect those who are the most vulnerable. <br />
<br />
Most abortions in the United States are elective. Many people make the argument about babies created out of rape or incest. Less than 1% of all abortions are because of these reasons. I would be willing to consider this as an option in legislation but there are better options than killing an innocent victim of said crimes.<br />
<br />
<b>What is your plan for preventing illegal immigrants from using U.S. services?</b><br />
Enforce immigration law currently on the books. Period. There is much more to be said about immigration law, its enforcement and removal of the old quota system, but if we enforce the laws of this nation, many will voluntarily self-deport to their countries of origin. Enforcing current passed legislation would go a long way in preventing illegal immigrants from taking advantage of U.S. services.<br />
<br />
<b>Should governments be allowed to seize private land for major projects to reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil?</b><br />
The government is prevented by the 5TH Amendment to the U.S. Constitution from seizing private property unless it is being used for public use. Giving land to private companies to make jobs that benefit a local community or tax base is not a viable public use, which is why many states are fighting back against these eminent domain abuses by local and state governments. Nevada is one example when the citizens of that state passed the PISTOL initiative a few years ago.<br />
<br />
<b>Time to bring our combat troops home from Afghanistan?</b><br />
As long as the mission is accomplished and we have no fear that terrorist organizations will be setting up bases within that country anymore. It is time to withdraw all American soldiers from areas of the world where we are no longer needed. We have bases all over the world that cost the American tax payers billions of dollars a year and are unnecessary for our protection, the sole job of the United States military. Our main military and defensive objective is the capture or destruction of all elements of Al-Queda and any other terrorist organizations that seek to destroy and kill Americans.<br />
<br />
<b>Opinion on involvement in Libya?</b><br />
We have no reason to be there. The people of Libya have never asked for our help, nor do we really know whom we are helping.<br />
<br />
<b>Shut down military bases that aren't vital to national security to pay off national debt?</b><br />
Ask and answered. If we close these bases along with several other reforms and changes that need to be made to the Department of Defense, U.S. citizens could be saved billions every year.<br />
<br />
<b>Which person on this stage would you ask to join your administration?</b><br />
I would ask that Congressmen Paul to serve as my Secretary to the Treasury. I would ask former governor Cain to serve as my Secretary of Commerce. The general rule which I would follow though in appoints to the administration would be to take people with common sense and separate from government to serve in their capacity. These normal everyday people could probably point out the fraud, waste and abuse that are found in these systems, easier than those already in the system.Adam J. Bulavahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13891143755157356548noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5734204059533909551.post-88332988323841099602011-05-03T20:49:00.000-07:002011-05-03T20:49:08.647-07:00Current Events: Libya, Bin Laden and ObamaIts been a while and a lot of things have happened since I last wrote you. The biggest items of which I want to talk about today is the involvement of the United States in Libya and the assassination of Osama bin Laden this past week by American military forces in Pakistan. In both cases, people on the political left and the right have questioned whether President Obama has the authority to do either of those things. Many politicians have been caught in their own words, from the past, regarding the authority the President's authority as Commander-in-Chief of the military. This article will focus on several points regarding the President's authority as top military commander in the U.S. First, did the President overstep his bounds when he authorized military strikes in Libya? Second, did the president have the authority to order the capture or killing of Osama bin Laden? As always the discussion will focus on his constitutional authority and its original intent.<br />
<br />
Over a month ago the President Obama committed some of our military forces to be involved in the obvious civil war taking place in the North African nation of Libya. During the start of the new year many middle eastern Arabic nations and people have started to rise up and protest against their governments, with mixed results. Libya was one of them that quickly expanded into full on civil unrest and a civil war with citizens rebelling against their tyrannical leader.<br />
<br />
First and foremost, the President has under his authority in the U.S. Constitution the power to command the U.S. military forces in any and all cases. This would be one of them. Whether you agree with it or not he has that power. Some people may bring up that he must abide by the War Powers Act, but that has never truly been enforced by the U.S. government. The main reason, people wonder about its constitutionality if it was enforced. It clearly violates the President's power to command the military.<br />
<br />
Do I agree with the President's choice of getting us involved in another military conflict? No, but he has the authority to do so. He has not taken us into a war; he has committed a limited number of troops to a limited field of combat. The President was given this authority, like that of a monarch, so he can make the split second decision that must be made without long and drawn out debate, like military operations to protect the lives of innocent civilians. It may be getting us involved in a war that we don't need to stick our nose in but every President has used this power in undeclared operations. <br />
<blockquote><b>Side bar on the Iraq War: </b>Regarding the last statement of the previous paragraph. Iraq does not count because Bush 43 actually did seek authorization from the Congress and they gladly gave it. Yes it was fouhgt on false pretenses, but if you look at the resolutions that went through Congress in late 2002 and early 2003 BEFORE we went into Iraq their were multiple reasons for why representatives on both the political left and right thought we should invade; weapons of Mass Destruction was only one of them.</blockquote><br />
This weekend President Obama authorize a strike against a compound in Pakistan believed to be housing the most wanted man alive, Osama bin Laden. It was carried out successfully with bin Laden being killed during the operation. Now everyone is questioning whether the President had the authority to order the death of the man. The simple answer to this question is yes.<br />
<br />
Again the president has the military authority to order them into the field of battle, whether we agree with it or not. Osama bin Laden was a military target of our on-going conflict with the extremist members of the Islamic faith, know as al-Queda. Since it was a military operation against our current foe he had every reason to the operation and to order the possible kill shot. <br />
<br />
Its about the Constitution people. We must learn to follow it and respect it even when it leads us to decision with which we do may not agree. If you don't like the way a person interprets that authority or how they exercise that limited power then you can elect new representatives. I may not like the President authorizing our military's involvement in Libya or in other nations, but he has the authority to do so and pay for the consequences at the ballot box.Adam J. Bulavahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13891143755157356548noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5734204059533909551.post-49517637037347358852011-02-22T00:00:00.000-08:002011-02-22T00:00:04.315-08:00Current Events: Wisconsin Protests<u><i><b>FACEBOOK READERS:</b></i></u> Please go to my blog site (http://ajbulava.blogspot.com) and sign up to be a follower. You will receive an email in your inbox when I update. Also Facebook postings do not include any videos pictures or links that may be embedded in the articles so you might be missing out on some good content. Also, I may be dropping Facebook as a feed for my blog in the near future. I think it has reached a lot of people but you miss a lot when you use it. Sign up today at my website. Thanks!<br />
<br />
As promised I will bring up several issues and topics related to the recent events in Wisconsin. Keep in mind I have been following the events from the distance. I may not have all the facts straight, and if I don't please correct me. I also have not done a ton of research on this and am going by reports of several trusted people, a colleague being one of them. This is my opinion all based on my limited knowledge of the situation. Disclaimer ended.<br />
<br />
<u>Encouraging Unions Lying Teachers & Sympathetic Doctors</u><br />
It is a well established fact in this whole scenario that teachers are using their sick days as a method of political protest, as well as marching on the capital. Unions are also encouraging this behavior and doctors are writing fake sick notes to protect the teachers. This is lying and should not be an acceptable behavior of anyone, especially public unions that are providing an essential service to the community. Unions that encourage this behavior should lose their power to collectively bargain. Teachers who do this should be fired, in violation of the contract. Doctors who do this should lose their medical licenses. What are we teaching our students with this behavior, that its okay to lie for your own benefit?<br />
<br />
A sick out is a recognized way of protesting and striking in a union. It is seen throughout U.S. history, but all of these were done by unions in private industry. The police, firemen, teachers and other government workers who are their to provide a vital service to the people do not have the right to do this. If education is a right that must be provided to the citizens by the state, then the people who provide that service have no right to strike unless their is a danger to their health or safety. If I was a citizen of Wisconsin and my students school was closed because teacher's called in sick to protest, I would not side with the teachers. Its your job to provide this service. You are paid to be in the classroom teaching my children, not protesting at the capital. <br />
<br />
<u>Students as Political Props</u> <br />
The teachers who say they care about the education of their students are using them as political props. By refusing to go to work they are depriving them of their state provided right to a K-12 education. They are trying to make a point of their importance by refusing to do the job they were contracted and hired. They are using students are political props. Check out this link for a local story on <a href="http://www.theblaze.com/stories/wis-college-students-feel-forced-to-attend-anti-budget-protests/">student protests</a>. You be the judge. Other schools have brought their students to the capital and the students have no idea of why they are there. If I could find the link I would post it.<br />
<br />
<u>Public Unions & Collective Bargaining</u><br />
If a public union is going to collectively bargain it should be with the people who pay their paychecks, the citizens, not the politicians. These negotiations should be open to the public so the citizens can have input and a say in how their tax dollars are spent.<br />
<br />
<u>Fleeing Democrats & </u><u>Uncompromising Parties </u><br />
The Democrats who fled the state should be hunted down and compelled into attendance at the state capital. Just because you loose a vote does not mean you can just run away. What would the media have said if the Republican Representatives and Senators in the U.S. Congress had fled Washington, before the Health Care Reform vote? They pulled this crap in 1999 during the impeachment of Bill Clinton, too.<br />
<br />
The union members are protesting but they have offered no alternative. The Democrats in the state also have not offered an alternative to this budget. I love how bipartisanship is out of the mouths of Democrats and Republicans only when they are in the minority, but when they are in the majority they push all this crap legislation down our throats. Both sides are guilty of this.<br />
<br />
<u>Loss of Benefits</u><br />
The union teachers are not losing benefits. They are just being asked to contribute to the benefits they receive. Everyone in private industry must contribute to their health insurance and to their retirement, why should public employees be any different?<br />
<br />
<u>Shared Sacrifice</u><br />
We are in the worst economic recession, hell lets call it what it is, depression since the great crash of 1929. Everyone needs to make sacrifices to survive. Families are cutting back because their losing wages or jobs. Governments are needing to cut back. Public employees need to cut back. We all have to share in the sacrifice for the common good. Expecting a pay raise every year for nothing more than surviving is not shared sacrifice.<br />
<br />
Here is one problem in Wisconsin, only teachers are being asked to sacrifice. A colleague of mine told me that the only public unions that are being asked to contribute to their health insurance and retirement is the teachers. Why? Because the other public employees unions contributed to the current governor's election campaign. That is not equal protection under the law or shared sacrifice.<br />
<br />
<u>Teacher Pay in Wisconsin</u><br />
<br />
<br />
<u>The Pendulum</u><br />
Over the last few years I have seen a disturbing trend. Since 2006, and election of Democratic Party majorities in the House, Senate and many state governments, we have moved steadily to the far left in how government works. This goes even as far back as the election of George W. Bush and the creation of No Child Left Behind and Medicare Part D. The election of 2010 showed a dramatic shift in the politics moving back to the right. This is dangerous for both sides.<br />
<br />
Like a pendulum, our politics sway back and forth. A pendulum that goes one direction, it will got just as far in the other. We swung to far to the left under the Democrats and we may have swung to far back to the right in 2010. We could easily swing just as far back to to left. The point is both sides must come together and compromise. That is the maxim and practice by which our Constitution was founded. This swinging back and forth will only continue to divide us, instead of doing what is in the best interest of the nation and for the individual.<br />
<br />
I am sure I missed something in this posting. I know I didn't deal with all the issues and points made on my Facebook posts. I dealt with only the pertinent issues I thought were at hand in this scenario. Also, I am not sure this makes any difference but I am card carrying, dues paying member of the Clark County Educators Association (CCEA). I don't think all unions are bad, nor do I think all teachers are good. Their are better solutions than what the governor is asking for and the public employees are demanding.<br />
<br />
Questions? Comments? Concerns? Class dismissedAdam J. Bulavahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13891143755157356548noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5734204059533909551.post-22761986093892554762011-02-19T00:00:00.000-08:002011-02-19T00:00:05.788-08:00The U.S. Constitution - Lesson #18: Federal Supremacy<u><i><b>FACEBOOK READERS:</b></i></u> Please go to my blog site (http://ajbulava.blogspot.com) and sign up to be a follower. You will receive an email in your inbox when I update. Also Facebook postings do not include any videos pictures or links that may be embedded in the articles so you might be missing out on some good content. Also, I may be dropping facebook as a feed for my blog in the near future. I think it has reached a lot of people but you miss a lot when you use it. Sign up today at my website. Thanks!<br />
<br />
The second to last lesson on this series on the U.S. Constitution focuses on Article VI of the U.S. Constitution. So lets get started.<br />
<blockquote><i>All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.</i></blockquote>Even though the country was essentially being reformed out of the Article of Confederation the founding fathers agreed that the debts still need to be paid. The government would not default on its loans to the nations that helped them out. The national government eventually even took on the debts of the state governments. This debt was eventually retired in the days of President Andrew Jackson. I wonder how long it will take to retire our $14 trillion debt? Probably really long considering we are just paying the interest on the loans and not any principle.<br />
<blockquote><i>This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.</i></blockquote>More commonly known as the Supremacy Clause, this outlines the practice that the laws and treaties made under the Constitution shall have any overriding power over any of the state laws on various topics. Above that the U.S. Constitution is the Supreme Law of the land which all judges must follow above any national or state law.<br />
<br />
An interesting omission from this clause is that the decisions of the Supreme Court are excluded from consideration in this clause. I wonder if that was intentional or not. Did the Founder's forsee that judges would make bad decisions and allow the people, the states and the federal government the power to ignore those decisions as not being on the same level as the laws of the nation or the Constitution. Maybe a protection against activists judges? Maybe not. Comments?<br />
<blockquote><i>The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.</i></blockquote>First this clause, ensures that the members of all levels of must hold allegiance to the U.S. Constitution. Interestingly, members of the state and local governments, national and state armed forces, and naturalized citizens must take an oath to support and defend the Constitution, but natural born citizens have no such obligation.<br />
<br />
This clause also provides for the first protection of religious freedom in our Constitution. When people make the insane claim that President Obama is a Muslim, I say, "So what?" The same is true for Representative Keith Ellison who is a practicing Muslim. Their is no religious test for office. You may not like it, but it doesn't matter. This ban on religious tests was extended to state governments in 1961 by the case of <i>Torcaso v. Watkins</i>.<br />
<br />
Next week, I will give my last lesson on the U.S. Constitution. Until then, class dismissed!Adam J. Bulavahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13891143755157356548noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5734204059533909551.post-24721669487499691422011-02-17T00:00:00.000-08:002011-02-17T00:00:03.474-08:00Public Policy: Department of Education<u><i><b>FACEBOOK READERS:</b></i></u> Please go to my blog site (http://ajbulava.blogspot.com) and sign up to be a follower. You will receive an email in your inbox when I update. Also Facebook postings do not include any videos pictures or links that may be embedded in the articles so you might be missing out on some good content. Also, I may be dropping facebook as a feed for my blog in the near future. I think it has reached a lot of people but you miss a lot when you use it. Sign up today at my website. Thanks!<br />
<br />
It probably comes as no surprise to anyone that I am not a fan of the federal Department of Education. Today's blog is going to focus on this topic. Today's posting will not be long but will cover the main reasons why it should not exists including prominent politicians, on both sides of the aisle, who never wanted it created.<br />
<br />
First things first, the Department of Education, at the federal level, is an UNCONSTITUTIONAL department. I challenge anyone to show me where in the U.S. Constitution the federal government has any authority over schools or anything related to education. If someone brings up the general welfare clause in Congress's taxation power in Article I, Section 8, Clause 1, I will slap you with a cold dead fish! Read what the founding fathers meant by general welfare, then get back to me. You will find that this is not a use of that clause. <br />
<br />
James Madison said quite clearly in the Federalist Papers that the federal government has clearly define powers and that the states have all other ones not granted to the federal government or denied to the states. And that was BEFORE the creation of the Bill of Rights and the 10th Amendment, that states:<br />
<blockquote><i>The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.</i></blockquote>The fact that we think we can solve our local educational problems with a big single policy from Washington is idiotic and ignorant. Who is better at solving the problems in the schools? A bureaucrat in Washington or a parent on the PTA, a teacher in the classroom, and an administrator in the hallway. Case closed; end of discussion. Education has always been a local issue and anyone who willingly gives up that power to the feds deserves to be controlled by them and has no right to complain when they set standards that no school can reach.<br />
<br />
My second point is that the creation of the federal department of education was never popular with any politician until after it was created. Check out these quotes which can be found in Glenn Beck's <u>Broke</u> on pages 303-305, with end notes about their sources in the appendix on page 398.<br />
<br />
<blockquote><i>This is a back-room deal, born out of squalid politics. Everything we had thought we would not see happening in education is happening here. </i>- Daniel Moynihan (D-NY)</blockquote><blockquote><i>No matter what anyone says, the Department of Education will not just write checks to local school boards. They will meddle in everything. I do not want that.</i> - Pat Schroeder (D-CO)</blockquote><blockquote><i>[A] national department of education may actually impeded the innovation of local programs as it attempts to establish uniformity throughout the Nation.</i> - Joseph Early (D-MA)</blockquote><blockquote><i>The supporters of a separate department [of education] speak vaguely of the need for a federal policy on Education. We believe that they misunderstand the nature of American education, which is characterized by diversity.</i> - New York Times</blockquote><blockquote><i>The two-hundred-year-old absence of a Department of Education is not the result of simple failure during all that time. On the contrary, it derives from the conviction that we do not want the kind of educational system that such arrangements produce.</i> - Richard Lyman, President of Stanford University</blockquote>I don't know of any educator who has not complained, at least once, about the policies of No Child Left Behind; proof that bad federal policy about local education problems come from both sides of the aisle. How important is the department? During the government shutdown of 1995, 89% of the department's employees were sent home as nonessential (Beck 304). <br />
<br />
Parents, or future parents, do you want a person in Washington taking your money, in tax dollars, and giving it to another school halfway across the country? Or would you rather have that extra money to help support your local schools? Teachers, would you like to be told by a bureaucrat in Washington what methods to use to teach and assess your students? Or would you rather work within your own state, and local community to make sure your specific students with specific needs, get exactly what they need out of their education? Administrators, do you really want to fill out more paper work so you can get a piddly amount of money from the feds that comes with so many strings attached that you have to hired more bureaucrats in the school instead of teachers? <br />
<br />
The choice is clear. It is time to get the federal government out of the business of education, on all levels, K12 and college. Its an unconstitutional power grab that they have successfully been pulling at for the last 30 years. We could save ourselves billions of dollars every year from its budget and its no nothing, do nothing bureaucratic structure. To the federal government I say this, "Get the hell out of my classroom and let me do my job."<br />
<br />
Questions? Comments? Concerns? Class dismissed.Adam J. Bulavahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13891143755157356548noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5734204059533909551.post-30449845600352007492011-02-15T00:00:00.000-08:002011-02-15T00:00:00.782-08:00In Defense of the Original Intent<u><i><b>FACEBOOK READERS:</b></i></u> Please go to my blog site (http://ajbulava.blogspot.com) and sign up to be a follower. You will receive an email in your inbox when I update. Also Facebook postings do not include any videos pictures or links that may be embedded in the articles so you might be missing out on some good content. Thanks! <br />
<br />
A few days ago a well respected colleague took the time to read this blog. He sent an message to ask a few questions regarding the method of interpretation known as Originalism or Original Intent. To start here is a short lesson on the major schools of though on the interpretation of the U.S. Constitution.<br />
<br />
<u>Methods of Constitutional Interpretation</u><br />
The following information was paraphrased or directly quoted from “We the People: The Citizen and the Constitution” textbook by the Center for Civic Education which had many writers, contributors and editors, to many to list here.<br />
<br />
<b>Textualism</b> – Also know as strict constructionist, this method “involves looking at the meaning of the words in the Constitution and giving each word, phrase, or clause its ordinary meaning.” This method is meant to keep the text neutral in its interpretation by the federal courts. It is meant to keep the judges from placing their own values on the document. This makes “the law certain and predictable” (180).<br />
<br />
<b>Original Intent </b>– Also, know as Originalism and related to the previous interpretation method, this answers the question of how to interpret unclear words, phrases and clauses. The use of this method seeks “to understand what the Founders meant when they wrote” the Constitution. The concept is that the Founders chose these words carefully when they debated the Constitution to produce an “enduring... framework.” This is meant to also help sustain the neutrality and stability in the law (180-181)<br />
<br />
<b>Fundamental Principles</b> – Concepts such as the separation of powers, checks and balances, limited government, judicial review, rule of law, natural rights republicanism and many others are key principles in understanding the Constitution. This method uses these principles “to interpret the meaning of the words, phrases and clauses that may be unclear” (181).<br />
<b><br />
Modernism</b> – Also know as instrumentalist, this method is the one which many people decry as being activist. The people who follow this interpretation method subscribe to the idea that the Constitution is a living document, that it should be interpreted according to the “changing circumstances and contemporary needs” of the nation. To not follow this method means that Constitution will need to be amended frequently or new conventions held to adapt the Constitution to the changing times. Those who advocate for this method “argue that justices should not hold back social progress to outmoded understandings of the Constitution (181).<br />
<br />
<u>Vagueness of Constitutional Language</u><br />
From my illustrious colleague:<br />
<blockquote><i>I'm curious why you think the founders wrote Articles 1-3 as vague as they did if they had the intention of enumerating a narrow scope of powers for Congress? In other words, how is such a broad enumeration consistent with strict construction and originalism?</i></blockquote>The Anti-Federalists made the argument in their articles that the document had listed many vague powers. They specifically were concerned about, what are call implied powers, in the Necessary and Proper Clause. (This topic has been addressed in other <a href="http://ajbulava.blogspot.com/2010/01/us-constitution-lesson-3-implied-v.html">article</a> but will devote some time to this concept later in the article to address a modern issue with Original Intent.) But Founders did not think they were being extremely vague. The Founders, knew what specifically they were talking about when they mentioned vague terms like commerce or general welfare. The meaning of these words can be seen in their own writings during the ratification of the Constitution through the Federalists Papers, as well as other primary documents. To say that no one knows what the Founding Fathers meant by a particular word or phrase is a straw man argument with no basis. Lets look at the vague term of general welfare.<br />
<br />
In Federalists Papers #41, James Madison says many people attacked the taxation power of Congress (Article I, Section 8, Clause 1) because c it allows Congress the “commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare.” His first refutes this argument say that if no other enumerated powers be listed “the objection might have had some color.” He continues: <br />
<blockquote><i>But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon? ... Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity.</i></blockquote>He continues later in the same article that the same phrase, “general welfare” is used several times in the Articles of Confederation. He continues: <i> </i><br />
<blockquote><i>Construe either of these articles by the rules which would justify the construction put on the new Constitution, and they vest in the existing Congress a power to legislate in all cases whatsoever. But what would have been thought of that assembly, if, attaching themselves to these general expressions, and disregarding the specifications which ascertain and limit their import, they had exercised an unlimited power of providing for the common defense and general welfare? I appeal to the objectors themselves, whether they would in that case have employed the same reasoning in justification of Congress as they now make use of against the convention.</i></blockquote>There are also numerous quotes of the Founding Fathers explaining their interpretation of the term general welfare. For example, Jefferson often says that the use of the term general welfare to take from the productive and give to the unproductive is an ill interpretation of that Constitution. Let us move onto the other questionable vague term in the Constitution: commerce.<br />
<br />
The Federalists Papers used the term commerce and trade almost interchangeably, and with good reason, they are synonyms for the same acts. When you see these terms used with in the Federalist Papers it generally refers to the trade of goods between states, the exchange of goods. Take this quote from Federalists Papers #42 as an example. Madison is addressing the powers granted to the Constitution and while they are necessary. He states:<br />
<blockquote><i>A very material object of this power was the relief of the States which import and export through other States, from the improper contributions levied on them by the latter. Were these at liberty to regulate the trade between State and State, it must be foreseen that ways would be found out to load the articles of import and export, during the passage through their jurisdiction, with duties which would fall on the makers of the latter and the consumers of the former.</i></blockquote>The problem they were trying to solve in the Commerce clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3) was the impending trade wars between the states with their tariffs. It was not about regulating economy of the nation, as a whole or in parts. This clause was about preventing the states from regulating trade that goes through their territory to another state. This is defended by the fact that the states are forbidden in the Constitution to raise import or export taxes for their revenue. Its not about regulating businesses its about regulating the states to prevent them from hindering trade between each other.<br />
<br />
The terms discussed previously are most vague in the Constitution. A brief review of the other specific enumerated powers in the Congress (Article I, Section 8), and other parts of the Constitution shows that the Founders were surprisingly specific in the enumeration of powers, not vague. And even their were more terms that were left intentionally vague, we have countless records of the Founders own words to draw upon to interpret what they meant. If there are any other terms that anyone sees as vague in the Constitution and the enumeration of its powers, please comment so we can discuss what it means. <br />
<br />
<u>Responsible Flexible Government</u><br />
From my respected colleague:<br />
<blockquote><i>I agree we should always consider the intent and meaning at the framing, and that the job of the court is to interpret the law, not create it, but to end it at originalism seems inconsistent with the idea of "responsible government" as Madison called it. My personal understanding is that the framers wanted to allow flexibility in regards to the powers of all three branches in order to make the document resilient as well as allow for Congress to meet the needs of the general welfare in the context of the time. The founders new they were only human and couldn't see the future, some of them even doubted the survival of the union.</i></blockquote>The Necessary and Proper clause was put into place to help the Constitution flexible but remain static in the powers and principles. All laws made under the necessary and proper clause must have their power granted in the Constitution. There is no inconsistency because you still must understand what those words meant in their original context before you can move forward and write laws from them.<br />
<br />
<u>Absolutism of Originalism</u><br />
<blockquote><i>How can we see originalism as absolute in the face of these obvious errors [and/or] imperfections and not look for a more complete understanding of what our government can do within the scope of their power? The definition of "commerce" is a good example. The founders couldn't have imagined that people would buy and sell their junk on bay, but today that is an obvious part of our nations commercial activity.</i></blockquote>Originalism is not the be–all, end–all of Constitutional interpretation, but it is a great place to start. Just as Biblical scholars must first understand the original meaning of a passage of scripture, in the original language, before they can apply meaning to modern day event; so must we all consider the original intent of the Founders in the passages of the Constitution and the eventual amendments. To ignore this intent would be foolish, especially since there are thousands of primary documents that explain to us who and what they thought on many of these vague terms. Let me present to you a few examples how we can use all of them in our interpretation.<br />
<br />
The original intent of the “assistance of counsel” in the 6TH amendment protected only the right to have a lawyer present, not the guarantee of it. Today all citizens accept the fact that they are entitled to a lawyer for their defense in any criminal case, due to the judgement in Gideon v. Wainwright. This decision is an activist decision using the interpretation methods of Modernism. It creates a law that the states must follow though. But it still uses the methods of original intent or fundamental principles to reach that decision. If Founders saw the scene of American criminal justice and investigation today they would probably agree that people need a lawyer in a criminal defense, which in line with the founding principles of due process and a fair trial and therefore in line with their original intent as well.<br />
<br />
Original intent and founding principles are still valid even when trying to expand the power of government through legislative means. This is accomplished through the Necessary & Proper Clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 18). Here is an example. In the view of textualism, strict constructionists would make the argument that the creation of the U.S. Air Force or Coast Guard, is unconstitutional. The Constitution only truly allows the creation of an army and navy. Under the necessary and proper clause it is not. First, because the creation of the Air Force was absolutely needed (necessary) and reasonable (proper) with the creation of airplanes and their uses in militaries around the world. Secondly, because it is based on a power Congress already possessed in the Constitution, to raise and support and army and navy (Article I, Section 8, Clauses 12–13). Congress must first find its authority in the Constitution before it can expand in necessary and proper ways. It is also in line with the original intent and founding principles in protecting the nation and its citizens.<br />
<br />
<u>Originalism Discredited</u><br />
<blockquote><i>And a second question I have is how much you feel originalism is discredited by things like the 3/5 compromise, slaves as property, denial of suffrage for women and African American, etc.</i></blockquote>First, to discredit an entire idea, movement or theory because of the flaws of a person or the errors of a generation is a flawed view of history. Martin Luther was an anti–Semite. Does his anti–Semitism discredit all his theology and actions of the Reformation? There are reports that Martin Luther King, Jr. was an adulterous husband. Does that discredit his work as a civil rights leader? Lincoln was a bigot who thought blacks were not equal to rights. Does that discredit the moves he took to free the slaves? Only the reader can answer those questions.<br />
<br />
Originalism is not discredited by the errors of the Founders, such as the Three–Fifths Clause or denying suffrage to women. As heard numerous times in the “We the People” state competition, the most of the Founder abhorred the tradition and practice of slavery; many of them freed their slaves upon their deaths. It was their original intent to end slavery in the United States. The Constitution is not a document about slavery, but about the limits of government. Another <a href="http://ajbulava.blogspot.com/2010/04/us-constitution-lesson-11-slavery.html">article</a> on this site deals with that topic as well. There are a few examples of both bad and good decisions that show Originalism is not discredited by the practice of slavery. The arguments against discrediting the view of Originalism will focus on those of slavery. These mostly surround the 1858 Dred Scott decision by the U.S. Supreme Court<br />
<br />
The decisions of the Dred Scott was decision based on modernism or judicial activism, and does not draw any true authority in the Constitution or Originalism. First, the thought of some people at the time was that African slaves were property, but this is not an idea supported by the Constitution. Any references to slaves in the Constitution, like being referred to as “other persons” or their “importation,” still calls them people, not property. They may have been seen that way by individuals, but any government action that treated them as such would be a misinterpretation of the Constitution. Also, the fact that “all other persons” would be counted as Three–Fifths of a person, was only for apportionment of representatives in the House, it was never meant to imply they were only worth three–fifths of a person. This was a compromise to get the Constitution approved by the convention, not a necessarily view of all the Founders. Ben Franklin realized this early in our history that the Africans were not inferior to Europeans, which is why he and others created the first abolitionist groups in America. To follow the view of the founder’s original intent and principles would be the eventual abolition of this peculiar institution, not continue it.<br />
<br />
Secondly, the judgement that Dred Scott was not a citizens (since blacks were not citizens at the founding of the Constitution) is a flawed view of the Constitution with no basis in Originalism. The Constitution makes no reference to the qualifications to be a citizen, until the 14TH Amendment. That was left to the states to decide, under the principle federalism. Citizenship was determined by the states, so the courts should have looked at the laws of citizenship in those states before making a judgement that Dred Scott was not a citizen. In both cases, the original intent of the Founders was ignored by the court.<br />
<br />
Another flaw under this decision was a misapplication of the principle of federalism. The states had the authority to make slavery illegal, and at the time of the decision just more than half of them did. Under the principle of federalism, Dred Scott should have been freed when he left his Missouri, since he would be illegally held in bondage in any free state. The free states Dred Scott lived in should have prosecuted his owner because of the violation of their slave statues. This would have been in line with the Originalism and principles of the Founders.<br />
<br />
WOW! This was a long article (over 2,600 words). Thanks for sticking with me today. If you have any questions, comments regarding any of the information presented here today please do not hesitate to comment below. Class dismissed!Adam J. Bulavahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13891143755157356548noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5734204059533909551.post-14792989647015627512011-02-12T00:00:00.000-08:002011-02-12T00:00:02.669-08:00The U.S. Constitution - Lesson #17: Amending the Constitution<u><i><b>FACEBOOK READERS:</b></i></u> Please go to my blog site (http://ajbulava.blogspot.com) and sign up to be a follower. You will receive an email in your inbox when I update. Also Facebook postings do not include any videos pictures or links that may be embedded in the articles so you might be missing out on some good content. Thanks!<br />
<br />
We are winding down in the Constitutional lessons. Only a few more weeks before this crazy train ride, that started my blogging comes to an end. I need some new ideas of what I could teach in my Saturday slot. If their are any ideas please let me know. I may continue on with the Bill of Rights, but I may not. Either way this trip is coming to an end and I need a new one to start.<br />
<br />
Today's lesson focuses on the fifth article of the Constitution and as the title proclaims, it is all about Amending the Constitution. So lets get started.<i> </i><br />
<blockquote><i>The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments,</i></blockquote>The Constitution provides two ways that an amendment may be proposed to it. When I teach this material to my students I tell them to remember the magic number of two-thirds to remember the first step in the amendment process. Both require two-thirds of something. The first and most common way is for two-thirds, sometimes called a super majority, of both houses of Congress to pass the bill. This is a high water mark to reach. That requires 67 Senators and 291 Representatives to all agree to the same thing, which is just an unheard of event. The founders though provided a secondary method just in case the Congress was unwilling or unable to propose amendments<br />
<br />
The other method involves two-thirds of the states, specifically the legislatures, calling for a Constitutional convention, to propose amendments. This method has never been used to amend the Constitution. All twenty-seven amendments were proposed by Congress. I think most people fear the repercussions of calling a constitutional convention. The last time we did that the smartest people in the nation came together and created the document we are now studying. Do you trust any of the people who are our "leaders" to possibly create a new constitution? I don't.<i> </i><br />
<blockquote><i>which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress;</i></blockquote>The Constitution again provides two ways to ratify a proposed amendment in the last step; both methods require action by the state. The other magic number I ask my students to remember when learning the amending process for our constitution is three-fourths. The first way is the easiest and most commonly used method. Three-fourths of the state legislatures must approve of the proposed amendment. This does not need to be by a super majority, so a simple majority in thirty-eight states must approve of the amendment.<br />
<br />
The other method is a bit more convoluted and depends a lot on state law. The states can call conventions to specifically ratify the proposed amendment. This is similar to how the Constitution was ratified. Once thirty-eight states ratify the amendment either by legislatures or conventions the amendment becomes part of the Constitution. <br />
<br />
A quick note on the conventions route on steps one and two. During the proposing step, the convention being used is a national convention with the states being called, similar to the 1787 Philadelphia Convention. The conventions called in the ratifying step are state wide conventions that only happen inside the individual states.<br />
<br />
Also another fact most people forget. Congress is responsible for choosing the method of ratification for all amendments. The only amendment to be ratified by state conventions was the twenty-first amendment that repealed Prohibition.<br />
<blockquote><i>Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the <a href="http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A1Sec9Cl1">first</a> and <a href="http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A1Sec9Cl4">fourth</a> Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be <a href="http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#DEPRIVE">deprived</a> of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.</i></blockquote>Here again we find the fictional pro-slavery slant of the Constitution. I have dealt with this issue at length in a <a href="http://ajbulava.blogspot.com/2010/04/us-constitution-lesson-11-slavery.html">previous lesson</a>. So I won't dwell on it more here. This was only about protecting the state's right to import slaves. Once the time frame elapsed the first thing the Congress did was end the slave trade in the U.S. This also protects the equal suffrage of the states in the U.S. Senate. It is unlikely that any state will ever do this but it is a good protection to have inside the Constitution.<br />
<br />
That does it for this lesson. Next week's lesson will focus on Article IV. This is where we find the world famous and Anti-Federalist fearful Supremacy Clause. Tuesday's article will address some concerns a colleague of mine has with the idea of Original Intent as a method for interpreting the Constitution. It will be a long one so make sure you get your rest.<br />
<br />
Questions? Comments? Concerns? Class dismissed!Adam J. Bulavahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13891143755157356548noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5734204059533909551.post-88239265971076950332011-02-10T16:55:00.000-08:002011-02-10T16:55:52.929-08:00Public Policy: Reforming the Executive Bureacracy - Part I (EOP)Today's Public Policy article will focus on one of the ways, if I was the President, reform the Executive Branch. The key aspect of these reforms would be to do them through the legislative process as much as possible. It is the job of Congress to send the different parts of the reform to be approved by legislative means instead of by Executive fiat. Though if Congress should fail to act on such vital reforms to our bureaucracy I would use whatever constitutional authority granted to me to enact as many of these measures as possible.<br />
<br />
Today's part of the discussion focuses in the area of the executive branch known as the Executive Office of the President. Here is some background knowledge on this part of the government very few people know about.<br />
<br />
<u>Historical Background </u><br />
The Executive Office of the President (EOP) was created in 1939 under the administration of President Roosevelt. The Reorganization Act of 1939 created it and is responsible for the modern White House staff that we see today in the modern presidency of advisers, councils, and czars (or special advisers). Prior to this law the President had very little staff to assist him with his work. Jefferson had a secretary and clerk that he paid for out of his own pocket. It was not until 1857 that the Congress appropriated money for any White House staff. Most of the parts of the EOP were created by public law or executive orders and have expanded since 1939 to the size we see today.<br />
<br />
The EOP was a idea of the Brownlow Committee which gave three suggestions. First was the creation of aides to the President to help him with administrative tasks of the job. Secondly, it suggested that the President have direct control over any administrative departments (i.e. Department of State or Defense). Lastly, they suggested that the managerial offices of the Civil Service Administration, Bureau of the Budget, and the National Resources Board be part of the Executive Office. Two of these three suggestions were incorporated into the final law. The law gave Roosevelt the authority to make changes to the various agencies and corporations within cabinet level departments. It also created six executive level assistance to the President.<br />
<br />
<u>The EOP Today</u><br />
If you want to see the different agencies and advisory groups the President has at his disposal check out the White House website on the <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop">EOP</a>. Most of these positions are appointed directly by the President but very few require confirmation by the Senate, which could be seen as a violation of the Constitution based on the powers laid out in Article II, Section 2, Clause 2:<br />
<blockquote><i>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.</i></blockquote>According to this part of the Constitution all appointed position must be approved of by public law, so these special advisers or czars must be passed into law by Congress and approved of by the President. Also they must all be confirmed by the Senate before taking office. We have removed a very important check and balance to our system by creating an office in which the President may appoint anyone he wishes without any Senatorial oversight. But I am getting off on a tangent.<br />
<br />
The fact is that every President has added to this bureaucracy that is intended to help the President do his job of enforce the law. I am not sure exactly why he needs all these advisers to do that job, since its not a job that requires advice, just action. Their should be no debate on how a law should be enforced since the law should expressly say how it should be enforced and the punishments required. The fact is though that it needs to be parried back and restrained by the Constitution again.<br />
<br />
<u>Reforms to the EOP</u><br />
The Executive Office of the President (EOP) has many councils that are to advise the President about how to form policy. But it is not the job of the President to form policy but to implement and enforce the policies passed by the Congress. To create policy as the President is to overreach his Constitutional powers as the chief law enforcement officer of the United States. Congress makes policy, the President enforces it and the courts interpret it in accordance to the Constitution; it is call the separation of powers.<br />
<br />
Also, the President has access to a vast supply of resources and advice from people all over the globe and here in the United States when he requires advice. The following councils will be eliminated and may be replaced by a single advisor (if he so chooses to have such an advisor) appointed by the Present which would also requires Senate approval. All "czars" or special advisers must also be eliminated as well, unless they be approved by Senate confirmation. The only councils I would leave in the EOP would be the following and most would be consolidated into different executive departments.<br />
<br />
<b>National Security Council</b> - This office would be left in place but joined together with the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Its job is to inform and advice the President on national security and foreign policy matters. Since national security and defense is the job of the Department of Defense, it makes sense to consolidate this office within that department.<br />
<br />
<b>Office of Management and Budget</b> - The job of this office is to help create the President's federal budget and assist in managing the other parts of the executive departments. This part can stay but it must be staffed mostly by nonpolitical appointees. This office serves a vital purpose in the government in the creation of the budget.<br />
<br />
<b>Intelligence Advisory Board</b> - This office "provides advice to the President concerning the quality and adequacy of intelligence collection, of analysis and estimates, of counterintelligence, and of other intelligence activities." Under this guise it would be consolidated with the department of defense along with the National Security Council.<br />
<br />
<b>White House Office</b> - This office would be severely limited because it is their to serve the interests and needs of the President. Their are a number of offices and agencies within it that I would also eliminate since they serve no constitutional purposes. I know many will hate me for this but the Office of the First Lady would be one since she has not constitutional role to play in the government and its not the job of the people of the United States to pay for her staff. <br />
<br />
In part two of this, series of articles, I will address the reforms that I would make to the overall structure of the Executive Departments, like the Department of Defense and State.<br />
<br />
Questions? Comments? Concerns? Class dismissed.Adam J. Bulavahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13891143755157356548noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5734204059533909551.post-6702112046662718662011-02-08T20:24:00.000-08:002011-02-08T20:24:48.789-08:00I'm Voting Republican VideoA couple months ago, prior to the election, I found this video. Please take a look at the video if you have not seen it already to understand my response.<i><br />
</i><br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.youtube.com/embed/FiQJ9Xp0xxU?feature=player_embedded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>Its time to respond to the stupid, idiocy and ignorance of this video.<br />
<blockquote><i>We don’t like shopping at small neighborhood stores. We don’t want the problem of choosing where to shop. And we just love cheap plastic crap from China.</i></blockquote>No one forces you buy cheap goods from Walmart or any other store. The fact of the matter is that Walmart provides hundreds, if not thousands, of jobs to hard working Americans. They also provide goods to consumer citizens of lower income. And they give over $400 million to charity each year. <br />
<blockquote><i>I’m voting Republican because I don’t really want a cure for AIDS or for breast cancer.</i></blockquote>Its not the job of the government to provide money for research. Their are plenty of companies out their doing this research but it takes money. These companies also deserve to make a profit for their research and development.<br />
<blockquote><i>I’m voting Republican because I think new drugs should be made available immediately whether they’ve been tested properly or not. If the major pharmaceutical companies’ bottom lines are healthy, then I feel healthy too.</i></blockquote>Drug testing is important but even if the FDA did not exist their would be consumer protections. Its called civil law and tort lawsuits. A drug company is not going to make a drug that kills potential customers because that hurts their bottom line. Also they will test it because they know if it does something its not supposed to they will be sued by the users and cost them more money, which hurts their bottom line. <br />
<blockquote><i>I’m voting Republican so that my little Caitlin can be in a classroom with at least 30 other children. That way she can be challenged by fighting for attention.</i></blockquote>Thirty years ago our parents were in classrooms with that many kids and they honestly know more than our kids do now. <br />
<blockquote><i>I’m voting Republican because women just can’t be trusted to make decisions about their own bodies. Never. Ever. Ever.</i></blockquote>The choice to take away the life of another human being, especially an innocent child who had no choice in their creation, is not a right. It's murder. <br />
<blockquote><i>I’m voting Republican because I’ve already seen the great outdoors. Continuing our use of fossil fuels freely is far more important than preserving our natural wildlands.</i></blockquote>Would you rather double or triple the amount we spend on gas and electricity because we have to buy oil from people who hate us or because the clean energy options are not cost effective? Be my guest. I will use the resources we have, until those cleaner sources are more efficient and cheaper.<br />
<blockquote><i>We’re voting Republican because we like a conservative majority on the Supreme Court. We really like knowing that even if we’re separate, we’ll still be called equal.</i></blockquote>Conservatives on the Supreme Court at least have a proper theory of understanding the Constitution. They don't try and reinterpret it to mean what they want it to mean. They don't try to change the Constitution through unconstitutional means. It was the Republicans who freed the slaves, granted them equal and voting rights both in law and through Constitutional Amendments. Racial segregation, Jim Crow laws and other racist policies were the product of the Democrats, not the Republicans. It was the Republicans in Congress that passed the Civil Rights Acts of the 1960's, not the Democrats. It was also a "conservative" court that overturned Plessy v. Furguson.<br />
<blockquote><i>I’m voting Republican because I need to be told who I can love. I need the government to tell me. I need them to tell me how I can best show a lifetime commitment. And Republicans are just the folks to do that.</i></blockquote>Most Republicans could not give a crap about who you love. But I think we should pause before we give up thousands of years of tradition and take marriage (which has always been between a man and woman) and fundamentally change it.<br />
<blockquote><i>I’m voting Republican because corporations should not have to pay to clean up environmental damage. The EPA is an outmoded idea. If people want clean water, buy it in a bottle.</i></blockquote>The EPA, as part of the Executive Branch, is an enforcement agency, not a law making body. When they expand regulations they are breaking the constitution that gives all law making power to Congress.<br />
<blockquote><i>I’m voting Republican because I don’t want to know if the food I am eating has been genetically modified or exposed to radiation. I don’t want to have to live with that fear, you know? So if the label says it’s food, that’s good enough for me.</i></blockquote>Studies have shown their is no problems with irradiated meat. It would cut down on green house gasses since we could ship products in regular trucks. Also, we have been genetically modifying our food for thousands of years, its called selective breeding.<br />
<blockquote><i>I’m voting Republican because I really enjoy being screwed by the utility companies.</i></blockquote>If utility companies were allowed to compete like other companies for business you wouldn't get screwed. Right now with state ownership you are screwed because they have the monopoly. They can raise rates and you the citizen have no recourse.<br />
<blockquote><i>Because we need more minorities in prison.</i></blockquote>Criminals go to prison not minorities. If their is a person who is in prison and they are a minority, its not the because of Republicans, it because they are a criminal.<br />
<blockquote><i>Because hybrid cars really suck.</i></blockquote>They do. No one buys them. Even when you have the option between a gas car and the same car as a hybrid, people overwhelmingly choose the gas powered car.<br />
<blockquote><i>Because I just don’t feel like I deserve health insurance.</i></blockquote>Its your responsibility to provide it for yourself. If you want health insurance, buy it, no one is stopping you. Its not the job of the government or your job to provide it.<br />
<blockquote><i>Because Texas needs more billionaires.</i></blockquote>Texas can have as many billionaires as it wants. They have a tax system that encourages the building of wealth. That's why their economy is growing in this recession and people are moving their.<br />
<blockquote><i>I’m voting Republican because sometimes the constitution is just one big inconvenient headache.</i></blockquote>Both parties have had a habit in the last 100+ years of ignoring the Constitution.<br />
<blockquote><i>I think the whole world should be run by one big corporation. I think it would be so much cozier</i>.</blockquote>If Republicans for corporations why did the Democrats in Congress bail out those evil banks and car companies that failed due to their own mismanagement?<br />
<blockquote><i>Because all other countries are in fear to us. We should start as many wars as we need to keep it that way.</i></blockquote>Countries should fear to attack us. If other countries know that we will destroy them if they attack us, then they probably won't attack us. I don't think we need to start wars, just end them when they decide to take a sucker punch at us.<br />
<blockquote><i>So I can stay in Iraq... So I can go to Iran.</i></blockquote>Iran and other nations are a threat to the world. If you cannot recognize that then you are deaf, blind and dumb to the realities of the real world. I am not suggesting we start a war, but we should be care of them.<br />
<br />
Here's a different video that makes the statement of the other side. If you want to know more about the statements made in this video check out the following the <a href="http://www.verticalblu.com/i-m-voting-democrat/im-voting-democrat.html">VerticleBlue</a> website. They explain every statement in the video with facts, because they are such stubborn things.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.youtube.com/embed/LPG25Wf0aa4?feature=player_embedded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>Adam J. Bulavahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13891143755157356548noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5734204059533909551.post-51752677890558402752011-02-05T00:00:00.000-08:002011-02-05T00:00:04.746-08:00The U.S. Constitution - Lesson #16: Releationships Among the States<u><i><b>FACEBOOK READERS:</b></i></u> Please go to my blog site (http://ajbulava.blogspot.com) and sign up to be a follower. You will receive an email in your inbox when I update. Thanks!<br />
<br />
Today's lesson on the Constitution will focus on the fourth Article. This article specifically looks at the states and what protections the federal government provides for them in the Constitution. In this article I will also deal with the contentious topic of homosexual marriage as it relates to this Article.<br />
<blockquote><i>Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.</i></blockquote>This section of the article is to provide that each of the states honor the legal agreements made in other states such as their laws, record and court rulings. Congress is also given the authority to establish standards to validate these acts. The biggest example I most often provide is that my marriage certificate and birth certificate are still valid forms of identification if I move to another state. This is where the issue of same sex marriage becomes tricky and while I may not support the idea or practice of same sex marriage, my view of it light of the Constitution is different. First some history about same sex marriages in federal law.<br />
<br />
In the 1996, Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). This law defined marriage under federal law, as that between a man and woman. It also gave the states the authority to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages from other states. So far this law has not been challenged and is still the law of the land. Their are several ways though this law is unconstitutional.<br />
<br />
First, their is no authority in the Constitution for the federal government to define marriage or any other relationship. This would mean that this authority belongs to the states via the 10th Amendment. The states therefore can define marriage any way they see fit. Some states have elected to validate same-sex marriages. Others, like my present state of Nevada, have chosen to define marriage as a relationship between one man and one woman. This is the joy of federalism. Each state can do as it sees fit within the bounds of its authority and sovereignty. But there is another part to this law that must be dealt with and discussed.<br />
<br />
The second part of this law defends the principle that the states may refuse to acknowledge same-sex marriages from other states. This also is a clear violation of this part of the Constitution and allows the states to ignore this first part of the Constitution. If the states can ignore these marriages, why can't they ignore the others? This law must be struck down as unconstitutional since it clearly violates the Constitution. In a perfect world, this is how I would see it working in the Supreme Court.<br />
<br />
The court would reaffirm the ideas of federalism, that each state may allow or disallow same-sex marriages as they see fit. The crux of the argument would be that if a state does not allow gay marriages they still have to recognize same-sex marriages from other states as valid. Meaning they have to be granted the same, rights, responsibilities and privileges granted to other married couples in that state.<br />
<br />
There is one way this law could be seen as valid and constitutional. The clause states that Congress can prescribe by law the manner in which the acts shall be proved. Under this language a good lawyer could argue that Congress has the authority to set limitations or restrictions, like the ones in DOMA, on the states. The only problem with that argument is that it does not provide equal justice under the law as required by the 14th Amendment since how other states treat same-sex married couples would be different depending in which state they live.<br />
<blockquote><i>The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.</i></blockquote>This clause does not allow the state to unfairly discriminate against citizens of other states. Though state can make reasonable distinction between citizens and visitors. We mostly see this in place as differences between in-state and out-of-state tuition costs of public universities.<br />
<blockquote><i>A Person charged in any State with <a href="http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#TREASON">Treason</a>, Felony, or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having <a href="http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#JURIS">Jurisdiction</a> of the Crime.</i></blockquote>This clause deals with the the power of extradition that is generally granted to the state executives (governors). The Supreme Court held, in 1861, that it could not compel a governor to extradite a prisoner, but that was reversed by a Supreme Court case in 1987 (Monk 107).<br />
<blockquote><em class="change">No Person held to Service or <a href="http://www.usconstitution.net/constmiss.html">Labour</a> in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or <a href="http://www.usconstitution.net/constmiss.html">Labour</a>, But shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or <a href="http://www.usconstitution.net/constmiss.html">Labour</a> may be due.</em></blockquote>This clause is no longer valid due to the ratification of the 13th Amendment, ending slavery. This clause was inserted at the behest of the southern states during the Constitutional Convention. It is known as the Fugitive Slave clause. Several states tried to get around this clause by enacting laws meant to protect free blacks from slave catches; most of them were unsuccessful.<br />
<blockquote><i><a href="" name="C1">New</a> States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new States shall be formed or erected within the <a href="http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#JURIS">Jurisdiction</a> of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.</i></blockquote>This clause provides for the creation of new states and protects those already formed under the Constitution. Though as a matter of history, the creation of West Virginia was a clear violation of this clause. In 1863 the citizen of the western counties formed a legislature that approved of the split and Congress gave its seal of approval too. After the Civil War Virginia gave its support to, though the acceptance of that split was probably a condition of its re-admittance into the Union.<i> </i><br />
<blockquote><i><a href="" name="C2">The</a> Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.</i></blockquote>This is a repeat of the authority given to Congress in Article I, Section 8, Clause 17. The Congress has all authority over disposing the territory of the U.S. If you read the history of how Nevada was created you would see this in action. Nevada was part of the Utah territory for a long time. Eventually, the Congress split it into two territories for the purpose of making a unique states. The influence of the Mormons was the largest reason for the split.<br />
<blockquote><i>The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a <a href="http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#REPUBLIC">Republican</a> Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.</i> </blockquote>The first guarantee in this clause provides each state with a Republican form of government. This has been read by most scholars and by the founding fathers as meaning a representative government where the power is derived from the people.<br />
<br />
The second guarantee is the protection of invasion. This was written in the Constitution as a direct result of Shay's Rebellion which had just occurred months before the Convention. What most people don't realize is that the slow movement of the federal government after Hurricane Katrina was because of this clause. President Bush could not just send in the Coast Guard and other parts of the government, like FEMA. He had to wait until he had authorization from the state governor or its legislature. This was meant to protect the states from a military take over by the federal government. So Kayne, Bush does not hate black people, he just choose to follow the Constitution, for once.<br />
<br />
That is all we have for today. Next week I will address the Article V of the Constitution that deals with the amendment process in the United States. Until then enjoy my other postings. If you have not noticed I am scheduling my posts for Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday. Once they are posted on the site, usually around midnight of those days, they will be posted to Facebook as soon as that site decides to check my feed and update it. To stay up to date on my postings it is safer to just go to my site (http://ajbulava.blogspot.com) and sign up to be a follower. When you do that you will emailed any time I post. I hope you have a wonderful weekend.<br />
<br />
Questions? Comments? Concerns? In that case, class dismissed!Adam J. Bulavahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13891143755157356548noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5734204059533909551.post-70025694337180457822011-02-03T00:00:00.000-08:002011-02-03T00:00:10.905-08:00Public Policy: Foreign Aid & Policy<u><i><b>FACEBOOK READERS:</b></i></u> Please go to my blog site (http://ajbulava.blogspot.com) and sign up to be a follower. You will receive an email in your inbox when I update. Thanks!<br />
<br />
After farming out a few topics for today's posts I decided on a derivative of one of those ideas. The situation in Egypt this week is enough to give the U.S. pause to consider the way we handle our foreign policy. Why do we support a dictator like Mubarak in Egypt and other parts of the world? Why do we choose the lesser of two evils? What should be the principles behind our foreign policy?<br />
<br />
<u>Support of Classical Liberal & Republican Democratic Ideals</u><br />
The U.S. promise support and defend any nation that shows, by its actions, to be a committed to the ideas of classical liberalism that protects the natural rights of humans. Also countries that are truly republican governments with democratic ideals. Republican governments are those with a charter that acts as fundamental and higher law. It also means that the country has a form of representative government with democratic principles where they people's vote counts. Any country does not support those ideals by repressing the natural rights of the individuals or of groups will not be supported by the United States in anyway, shape or form. All ambassadors and embassies will be closed in such nations, available to be reopened when positive changes have been made. We will not actively undermine or bring down these regimes but will not openly support them either. It time to stop supporting the lesser of two evils.<br />
<br />
<u>Avoid Entangling Alliances</u><br />
The U.S. has stood the test of time as being a lone wolf in the world for the vast majority of its history. But since the end of World War II we have been a large member in NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization). This has brought us close to war with Soviet Russia several times. The policy of an attack on one is an attack on all is not a good principle for any country to follow and is dangerous to American sovereignty; much like the Americans worried about the ideal of collective security in the Treaty of Versailles after World War I. If a country that fits the country above is invaded or threatened by its neighbors we will stand with that nation and help defend it.<br />
<br />
<u>Foreign Monetary Aide</u><br />
I know am not the only American citizen that gets pissed off when we spend billions of dollars on helping other nations. Money that is given to the government from American taxpayer should be used to protect, defend and assist Americans, not help prop out dictators halfway across the world. I would insist on eliminating all monetary foreign aide given to any nation. This would also help bring down our deficit, but eliminating billions from the federal budget every year. The only money that should be given to the department of state is to support our ambassadors and embassies, a limited staff for each.<br />
<br />
<u>Military Reductions</u><br />
The cold war is over. Japan is no longer a threat. North and South Korea are still at each other throats despite our military presence in the region. Germany is reunited. Why do we have so many military bases around the world? Its time to pull our military back and remove them from places where they are no longer needed. It's time to draw down the professional military machine. The navy should patrol our waters from incursions of other countries and protect our commercial vessels around the world. The Air Force can protect our friendly skies.<br />
<br />
I will end this article with my view on the situation in Egypt. Honestly I have not followed the situation as closely as some. I am scanning the headlines mostly. What worries me most about this popular uprising is the other groups that maybe co-opting the movement for their own benefit. Chief among them, the Muslim Brotherhood. The group wants to establish a single Islamic caliphate of all Arab countries, with the basis on sharia law. This could be dangerous to the Christians and other people in the region who are not Muslims. It would also be very dangerous of Israel, one of the true liberal republican democracies in the middle east. If these uprisings succeed in bring republican democratic values along with the protection of natural rights, then this could be a very good thing.<br />
<br />
I am sure their are other topics and aspects of foreign policy that I have forgotten. If you feel I have left something out please let me know. Other than that if their are no questions, comments or concerns? Class dismissed.Adam J. Bulavahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13891143755157356548noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5734204059533909551.post-62380821468720618022011-01-31T23:50:00.000-08:002011-01-31T23:50:00.413-08:00Football = Socialism<u><i><b>FACEBOOK READERS:</b></i></u> Please go to my blog site (http://ajbulava.blogspot.com) and sign up to be a follower. You will receive an email in your inbox when I update. Thanks! <br />
<br />
Today a friend of mine posted an excerpt from an article on the Huffington Post written by comedian <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-maher/new-rule-football-sociali_b_815673.html">Bill Maher</a>. In this article, the comedian and TV personality makes a comparison between the NFL and socialism. I hope to answer most of the flaws in the article in my blog today. Please excuse the bad language. As a fearsome defender of the first amendment I felt it was inappropriate to censor the speaker. Enjoy and as always I welcome you comments.<br />
<blockquote><i>New Rule: With the Super Bowl only a week away, Americans must realize what makes NFL football so great: socialism. That's right, for all the F-15 flyovers and flag waving, football is our most successful sport because the NFL takes money from the rich teams and gives it to the poor teams... just like President Obama wants to do with his secret army of ACORN volunteers. Green Bay, Wisconsin has a population of 100,000. Yet this sleepy little town on the banks of the Fuck-if-I-know River has just as much of a chance of making it to the Super Bowl as the New York Jets - who next year need to just shut the hell up and play.</i></blockquote>First major flaw in this whole op–ed piece is the glossing over Maher makes about ACORN. Eleven states have filed charges against the organization due to fraudulent voter registration practices. Also, on several occasions, as shown by the video investigations of a few college students, they actively encourage people to break the law.<br />
<blockquote><i>Now, me personally, I haven't watched a Super Bowl since 2004, when Janet Jackson's nipple popped out during half time, and that split-second glimpse of an unrestrained black titty burned my eyes and offended me as a Christian. But I get it - who doesn't love the spectacle of juiced-up millionaires giving each other brain damage on a giant flat-screen TV with a picture so realistic it feels like Ben Roethlisberger is in your living room, grabbing your sister?</i></blockquote>If any conservative pundit had made comments like this one they would be deemed a racists by Jesse Jackson or the Reverand Al Sharpton. Why does Bill Maher get away with it? But I am getting off topic. Moving on...<br />
<blockquote><i>It's no surprise that some 100 million Americans will watch the Super Bowl next week - that's 40 million more than go to church on Christmas - suck on that, Jesus! It's also 85 million more than watched the last game of the World Series, and in that is an economic lesson for America. Because football is built on an economic model of fairness and opportunity, and baseball is built on a model where the rich almost always win and the poor usually have no chance. The World Series is like Real Housewives of Beverly Hills. You have to be a rich bitch just to play. The Super Bowl is like Tila Tequila. Anyone can get in.</i></blockquote>This argument is more about the policies of a government than that of the economic system. The economy works by its own natural rules that the government thinks that they can control. Whenever they try and control the economy they usually fail and create a bubble that eventually burst. Also to say that the total viewers of on major sporting event against another is any indication of preferences of their governance is dishonest. <br />
<blockquote><i>Or to put it another way, football is more like the Democratic philosophy. Democrats don't want to eliminate capitalism or competition, but they'd like it if some kids didn't have to go to a crummy school in a rotten neighborhood while others get to go to a great school and their Dad gets them into Harvard. Because when that happens "achieving the American dream" is easy for some, and just a fantasy for others.</i></blockquote>What is stopping a kid from taking the education provided for him at the taxpayers expense and doing well by it? Nothing! There are plenty of good students in bad schools, that go to good colleges and good careers in the future. There are plenty of bad students in good schools too. A bad school or neighborhood is not the fate of a child. If they work hard, even in a bad school they can succeed. People like W.E.B. DuBois, Booker T. Washington, and George Washington Carver all came out of a system of extreme segregation and still succeed better than some of their white counterparts. Why? Because they worked for it and wanted it. Every child has an opportunity for an education. What you do with that opportunity is up to the individual. That is what our system is built on, individual initiative and work. Its not the job of the government to provide equal opportunities or things.<br />
<br />
The American Dream has never been easy. Ask the millions of immigrants who have come to this county. The American Dream is not about equal opportunity but about equal rights, equality before the law, and working hard to make your life today better than it was yesterday. <br />
<blockquote><i>That's why the NFL runs itself in a way that would fit nicely on Glenn Beck's chalkboard - they literally share the wealth, through salary caps and revenue sharing - TV is their biggest source of revenue, and they put all of it in a big commie pot and split it 32 ways. Because they don't want anyone to fall too far behind. That's why the team that wins the Super Bowl picks last in the next draft. Or what the Republicans would call "punishing success."</i></blockquote>If no team falls behind, then why were the Detroit Lions 0-16 a few seasons ago? If any team can make it why do I always see the Patriots in the playoffs?<br />
<br />
In a capitalistic society wealth is shared and to a much higher and greater degree. It is called charity. The U.S. citizens give more money to charity than any other nation on the earth. Even the “evil empire” of Wal–mart gives a large portion of their profits to charity. In fact, they are the largest charitable organization in the world. The rich give more money to charity than you make them out to be even after they are forced to give a large portion of the wealth to the government to be given give out to others as forced charity. The Founding Fathers believed in thrift, saving, and frugality so that you as a citizen could help out those who need it, but its your choice. <br />
<br />
Also the members of the NFL choose to run their league in such a manner, it is their choice. I think we would all agree that for the owners of the NFL to go to Major League Baseball or any other professional sport and tell them how to run their league would be wrong and immoral. It’s the same with governance. I am a sovereign individual with all powers inherent to myself. And I am allowed to give them up to a government as I see fit. I pay taxes for the government to protect me and my rights, which is the proper role of government as described by the Founding Fathers and political philosophers during the age of Enlightenment. For another person or the government to tell me what I do with the money I worked for and earned is wrong, unless I can do the same to them. That is what Progressive policies do. They take from the productive and give to the unproductive. <br />
<blockquote><i>Baseball, on the other hand, is exactly like the Republicans, and I don't just mean it's incredibly boring. I mean their economic theory is every man for himself. The small market Pittsburgh Steelers go to the Super Bowl more than anybody - but the Pittsburgh Pirates? Levi Johnston has sperm that will not grow up and live long enough to see the Pirates in a World Series. Their payroll is about $40 million, and the Yankees is $206 million. They have about as much chance at getting in the playoffs as a poor black teenager from Newark has of becoming the CEO of Halliburton. That's why people stop going to Pirate games in May, because if you're not in the game, you become indifferent to the fate of the game, and maybe even get bitter - that's what's happening to the middle class in America. It's also how Marie Antoinette lost her head.</i></blockquote>Just because more people watch the Super Bowl does not mean that there is an economic lesson in the way the Major League Baseball and the NFL are managed. Honestly, I think baseball is boring. Obviously a lot of people do because few people watch it. This is does not mean its an endorsement of a governmental or economic system. I doubt people don’t watch baseball because of the governance system. If you can prove to me otherwise I will recant such a statement. Also this does not include the factors for why Cubs fans watch every year. The main argument is flawed because it fails to account for those underdog stories, like the Red Sox or other teams.<br />
<br />
Competitive sports is built on the premise that the best teams with the best players and coaches win. What makes it exciting is when the worst team on its best day beats the best team on its worst day. Americans love a underdog story, which is why we are so compelled by the stories of those poor black students from Newark who work their butts off to be successful against all odds. Kind of like the Detroit Pistons when they beat the L.A. Lakers in 2004. I loved when that happened.<br />
<br />
Look at the people we celebrate. Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerburg, Rockefeller, Carnegie, and others who came from nothing and made something that literally changed the world. And then most of them took their wealth and gave it back to the betterment of society. It was Carnegie who said it is dangerous for so much wealth to be concentrated in so few hands. Which is why he gave away all of his fortune and encouraged other “robber barons” to do the same. They did not need government to tell them to do this.<br />
<blockquote><i>So, you kind of have to laugh - the same angry white males who hate Obama because he's "redistributing wealth" just love football, a sport that succeeds economically because it does exactly that. To them, the NFL is as American as hot dogs, Chevrolet, apple pie, and a second, giant helping of apple pie. But then again, they think they're macho because their sport is football, when honestly - is there anything gayer than wearing another man's shirt?</i></blockquote>Another gay joke and no one will bat an eye.<br />
<br />
I will end this article with a few quotes from Thomas Jefferson that the problem with Progressive government social welfare/safety net programs. These are all part of the Progressive/socialist mantra of redistribution of wealth:<br />
<blockquote><i>I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.</i></blockquote><blockquote><i>To take from one because it is thought that his own industry and that of his father's has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association -- the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.</i></blockquote> Questions? Comments? Concerns? Class dismissed.Adam J. Bulavahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13891143755157356548noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5734204059533909551.post-21454586375991184242011-01-29T01:00:00.000-08:002011-01-29T01:00:07.661-08:00The U.S. Constitution - Lesson #15: Supreme Court Jurisdiction & Treason<u><i><b>FACEBOOK READERS:</b></i></u> Please go to my blog site (http://ajbulava.blogspot.com) and sign up to be a follower. You will receive an email in your inbox when I update. Thanks! <br />
<br />
So during the last, I stopped about midway through the the Section 2 of Article III. I totally skipped the parts dealing with the original and appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. I will address those last two clauses of Article III before I move on to the last section of this article. And away we go.<br />
<blockquote><i>In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original <a href="http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#JURIS">Jurisdiction</a>. </i></blockquote>This clause of the Constitution lays out the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. Original jurisdiction is the authority to hear a case before any other court. The Supreme Court has this authority in only two cases. The first would be that where an ambassador or any other foreign representative is a party. My research does not reveal to me why this areas is an important jurisdictional areas for the Supreme Court, but I can fancy a informed guess. It would appear to me that an foreign representative would be hard pressed to find an unbiased jury in any state where they were charged with a federal crime. The Supreme Court does not work by jury trials so they can look at the law and not the passions of the states and their citizens. Also, with the advent of diplomatic immunity, I do not foresee many cases going before the Supreme Court on this issue. <br />
<br />
The other area in which the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction is when a state is a party to an issue. This may include if the federal government also has an issue with a state in question. Though I am not sure why the Supreme Court does not instantly hear the case of U.S. v. Arizona over SB 1070. If anyone has an answer to that let me know.<br />
<blockquote><i>In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have <a href="http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#APPELLATE">appellate</a> <a href="http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#JURIS">Jurisdiction</a>, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.</i></blockquote>The Supreme Court has the authority to review all other cases with this clause in the Constitution. The Congress though has the authority to alter this by law. The case of Marybury v. Madison outlined this principle very well. The Judiciary Act of 1789 purposely changed the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. When Marbury then sued to get his judgeship from James Madison at the Supreme Court they struck down his case because the law changed the Constitution; it went against the Constitution by changing the courts original jurisdiction.<br />
<br />
The long and short of it is that the Congress has granted the Supreme Court since 1925 to have discretionary jurisdiction over appeals. They can choose what cases they want to hear on appeal from the state supreme courts and the federal courts of appeals. Over the course of a year the Supreme Court gets over 7,000 writs of certioari abut only hears and makes judgments on about 100 every session.<br />
<blockquote><i>The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of <a href="http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#IMPEACH">Impeachment</a>, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.</i></blockquote>This clause in the constitution protects every citizen a right to a jury trial where the crime was committed. This is also protected in the 6th Amendment to the Constitution. The restriction on the location of the trial was in direct response to the British sending American colonist oversees for trials in England for crimes committed in the colonies. This is meant to prevent the government from putting a citizen on trial away from the community in which it was committed.<br />
<br />
The last phrase is very interesting for us today. If a crime was not committed in any state then the trial may be in the location as Congress may direct by law. I would imagine that this means any terrorist caught oversees could be tried in military tribunals out of the civil courts. But this also means they could pass a law forcing these trials to be held in our civil court. <br />
<blockquote><i><a href="http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#TREASON">Treason</a> against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of <a href="http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#TREASON">Treason</a> unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.</i></blockquote>Treason is the only crime to be mentioned specifically in the Constitution. It also sets a very high standard by which a person must be convicted of treason. Why we haven't tried to convict the American Taliban we have found over the years of treason is beyond me. I am sure there is enough evidence to do so.<br />
<blockquote><i>The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of <a href="http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#TREASON">Treason</a>, but no Attainder of <a href="http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#TREASON">Treason</a> shall work <a href="http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#BLOOD">Corruption of Blood</a>, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.</i></blockquote>The corruption of blood is an ancient term that most do not understand in our Constitution. The basic idea behind the term is that the government could not revoke the inheritance of the descendants of a traitor. Meaning if you inherited something from your dad, who was a traitor, the government could not take it away from you. To take it a step further, a child could not be punished for the treason acts of their parents.<br />
<br />
That does it for Article III. Next week we will start to look at Article IV that outlines the major parts that make our government a federalist system. I will also address, that while I may not agree with gay marriage politically or in the Biblical sense, that the Supreme Court must strike down the Defense of Marriage Act. I'll see you all next week.<br />
<br />
Questions? Comments? Concerns? Class dismissed!Adam J. Bulavahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13891143755157356548noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5734204059533909551.post-63339619801391491502011-01-27T07:00:00.000-08:002011-01-27T07:00:09.265-08:002011 State of the Union: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly.<u><i><b>FACEBOOK READERS:</b></i></u> Please go to my blog site (http://ajbulava.blogspot.com) and sign up to be a follower. You will receive an email in your inbox when I update. Thanks!<br />
<br />
As promised, today's article will focus on the Presidents State of the Union address that he made on Tuesday night. Overall I was impressed with some of the things he said and wants to implement, but we will see if he actually follows through. The statements presented are direct quotes from the President's speech. They are not presented in any chronologically order but according to the following way. "The Good" focuses primarily on the points made in the President's speech that I support. "The Bad" focuses on the points made by the President that I would disagree with. "The Ugly"are parts of the speech where the President is just plain wrong or characterizes the facts wrong. I hope you enjoy.<br />
<br />
<u>The Good</u> <br />
<blockquote><i>We need to get behind this innovation. And to help pay for it, I'm asking Congress to eliminate the billions in taxpayer dollars we currently give to oil companies. I don't know if you've noticed, but they're doing just fine on their own. So instead of subsidizing yesterday's energy, let's invest in tomorrow's. </i></blockquote> I can support this statement by the President for one reason. We need to stop subsidies to ALL energy producers, oil, coal, gas, and green. Only by knowing the true price of a product can the market actually decide on whether it should succeed or not. If solar and wind power is cheaper it will win. But don't subsidize it to hide the true cost.<br />
<blockquote><i>That responsibility begins not in our classrooms, but in our homes and communities. It's family that first instills the love of learning in a child. Only parents can make sure the TV is turned off and homework gets done. We need to teach our kids that it's not just the winner of the Super Bowl who deserves to be celebrated, but the winner of the science fair; that success is not a function of fame or PR, but of hard work and discipline. </i></blockquote>As a teacher I agree with this statement. There is much to be said on the effect of socio-economic status (SES) has on a child's education. But the parents need to be responsible to make sure their kids know how to read and do their homework. This can be done whether your rich or poor.<br />
<blockquote><i>So tonight, I'm asking Democrats and Republicans to simplify the system. Get rid of the loopholes. Level the playing field. And use the savings to lower the corporate tax rate for the first time in 25 years – without adding to our deficit.</i></blockquote>Here, Here, Mr. President! The tax code is too complex. Also corporate taxes are rarely paid by the company but by the consumer in higher prices for the products and services they provide.<br />
<blockquote><i>To reduce barriers to growth and investment, I've ordered a review of government regulations. When we find rules that put an unnecessary burden on businesses, we will fix them. But I will not hesitate to create or enforce commonsense safeguards to protect the American people. </i></blockquote>I agree with the President on this in principle.But how many regulations are now being made with the implementation of his health insurance and financial legislation passed this year. How many regulations would be put in place because of a Cap and Trade legislation he wants to get passed? These all hurt businesses.<br />
<blockquote><i>This means further reducing health care costs, including programs like Medicare and Medicaid, which are the single biggest contributor to our long-term deficit. Health insurance reform will slow these rising costs, which is part of why nonpartisan economists have said that repealing the health care law would add a quarter of a trillion dollars to our deficit. Still, I'm willing to look at other ideas to bring down costs, including one that Republicans suggested last year: medical malpractice reform to rein in frivolous lawsuits. </i></blockquote>Good Mr. President, go after the waste, abuse and fraud in and you will find hundreds of billions in savings. I am surprised he is going after the trial lawyers, but more power to him. It has been touted that 25-40% of health care costs are related to frivolous medical malpractice lawsuits. That would not only help out the government but the regular Joe by lowering his costs in health care free of the government.<br />
<blockquote><i>We live and do business in the information age, but the last major reorganization of the government happened in the age of black and white TV. There are twelve different agencies that deal with exports. There are at least five different entities that deal with housing policy. Then there's my favorite example: the Interior Department is in charge of salmon while they're in fresh water, but the Commerce Department handles them in when they're in saltwater. And I hear it gets even more complicated once they're smoked. </i></blockquote>I have been saying this for years. I have a plan currently in process that I might post to this site in pieces over the next few months. <br />
<blockquote><i>Because you deserve to know when your elected officials are meeting with lobbyists, I ask Congress to do what the White House has already done: put that information online. And because the American people deserve to know that special interests aren't larding up legislation with pet projects, both parties in Congress should know this: if a bill comes to my desk with earmarks inside, I will veto it. </i></blockquote>The Obama did object to Bush trying to hide the ledgers that stated who he was visiting with. Though when he came into office he defended the policy. I would like to know this information. Also I hope he can stand behind his pledge to veto earmarked legislation. Bush promised that every year but was too much of a chick shit to actually do it. If he did this he would have my respect, right off the bat.<br />
<blockquote><i>And if we truly care about our deficit, we simply cannot afford a permanent extension of the tax cuts for the wealthiest 2% of Americans.... In fact, the best thing we could do on taxes for all Americans is to simplify the individual tax code.</i></blockquote>Another great idea that people have been touting for years. Let's get it done.<br />
<br />
<u>The Bad</u> <br />
<blockquote><i> Our schools share this responsibility. When a child walks into a classroom, it should be a place of high expectations and high performance. But too many schools don't meet this test... we launched a competition called Race to the Top... And Race to the Top should be the approach we follow this year as we replace No Child Left Behind with a law that is more flexible and focused on what's best for our kids. </i></blockquote>No Child Left Behind and any other federal education program is unconstitutional. They should be eliminated. The last thing education and schools need is another level of bureaucrats in the mix. As a teacher I know how much bureaucracy kills teachers and schools. <br />
<blockquote><i>And this year, I ask Congress to go further, and make permanent our tuition tax credit – worth $10,000 for four years of college. </i></blockquote>It is not the job of government to subsidize a college education. I know I got a government subsidized loan to go to college, but that does not mean it was right or constitutional for the government to do so.<i> </i><br />
<blockquote><i>Within 25 years, our goal is to give 80% of Americans access to high-speed rail, which could allow you go places in half the time it takes to travel by car. </i></blockquote>Mr. President the one national passenger train system has not made a profit in years. Americans don't want trains. Americans love the freedom of driving their cars not sitting on a train. If anything up date the interstate system to handle more and faster cars. Though infrastructure investment does not spur economic growth. Japan tried that for years with no luck at spurring permanent economic growth.<br />
<br />
<u>The Ugly</u><br />
<blockquote><i>Now, by itself, this simple recognition won't usher in a new era of cooperation. What comes of this moment is up to us. What comes of this moment will be determined not by whether we can sit together tonight, but whether we can work together tomorrow.</i></blockquote>With this quote early in his speech, the President talks like he has been a nonpartisan leader instead of ignoring most of the suggestions of the opposing party. This is the same president who over two years ago said to Republicans <a href="http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2009/01/23/obama-to-gop-i-won/">"I won"</a> when asked about compromise on his stimulus package. Where did this heart for bipartisanship come from? I know from where, the massive electoral switch that was made in November.<i> </i><br />
<blockquote><i>Thanks to the tax cuts we passed, Americans' paychecks are a little bigger today. </i></blockquote>You did not pass any tax cuts you merely extended the present tax rates to make sure you party did not get the blame for worsening the economy.<br />
<blockquote><i>What we can do – what America does better than anyone – is spark the creativity and imagination of our people. We are the nation that put cars in driveways and computers in offices; the nation of Edison and the Wright brothers; of Google and Facebook. In America, innovation doesn't just change our lives. It's how we make a living.</i></blockquote><blockquote><i>Our free enterprise system is what drives innovation. But because it's not always profitable for companies to invest in basic research, throughout history our government has provided cutting-edge scientists and inventors with the support that they need. That's what planted the seeds for the Internet. That's what helped make possible things like computer chips and GPS. </i></blockquote>In the first paragraph the President talks about all these innovations, none of which were created by the help of the government but by private investment. Research has moved to the universities because the government gives them money to do it. So why should a company spend money on research if they can save the money and buy it from the group that gets it's money from the government. The Internet is a product of the government, but private enterprise is what made it the freest market in the world.<br />
<blockquote><i>Take a school like Bruce Randolph in Denver. Three years ago, it was rated one of the worst schools in Colorado; located on turf between two rival gangs. But last May, 97% of the seniors received their diploma. Most will be the first in their family to go to college. And after the first year of the school's transformation, the principal who made it possible wiped away tears when a student said "Thank you, Mrs. Waters, for showing… that we are smart and we can make it." </i></blockquote>What President Obama fails to mention about this school is that they were able to free themselves from the district and state bureaucracy to make these changes. They were able to avoid the entrapment of the teacher's unions as well.<br />
<blockquote><i>Now, I strongly believe that we should take on, once and for all, the issue of illegal immigration. I am prepared to work with Republicans and Democrats to protect our borders, enforce our laws and address the millions of undocumented workers who are now living in the shadows.</i></blockquote>Why is it after two years you are finally open to actually enforcing the laws of this land? First step, stop the lawsuit against the state of Arizona.<br />
<blockquote><i>Now, the final step – a critical step – in winning the future is to make sure we aren't buried under a mountain of debt.</i></blockquote><blockquote><i>We are living with a legacy of deficit-spending that began almost a decade ago. And in the wake of the financial crisis, some of that was necessary to keep credit flowing, save jobs, and put money in people's pockets.</i></blockquote><blockquote><i>But now that the worst of the recession is over, we have to confront the fact that our government spends more than it takes in. That is not sustainable. Every day, families sacrifice to live within their means. They deserve a government that does the same.</i></blockquote><blockquote><i>So tonight, I am proposing that starting this year, we freeze annual domestic spending for the next five years.</i></blockquote>What I find funny is NOW he wants to freeze spending after he has added more to the debt than all Presidents from Washington to Reagan. NOW he wants to attack deficits after he has proposed deficits that are larger than all of the Bush deficits combined. Get real Mr. President. The fact is that your savings are a bit off. It will save us a combined $20 billion a year to freeze our spending. That is less than a drop in the bucket for our government spending.<br />
<br />
<u>Conclusion</u><br />
Their were some bad things, all related to programs that don't work or are unconstitutional. The Ugly aspects of his speech really worry me though because of just how wrong he is in those areas. But if the president can deliver on the good promises he made in this speech he may even convince me to vote for him in 2012. I know shocker!<br />
<br />
Questions? Comments? Concerns? Class dismissed.Adam J. Bulavahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13891143755157356548noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5734204059533909551.post-74899878576127625142011-01-25T16:38:00.000-08:002011-01-25T16:38:45.904-08:00Public Policy: AbortionOn this day every year, their are always huge <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/24/AR2011012402577.html">marches</a> on Washington, D.C. The reason for the marches is that today is the anniversary of the Supreme Court Decision of Roe v. Wade. Many people come to protest that decision by the court. The court case that effectively made the state's right to regulate such a medical procedure unconstitutional. Today the focus of the blog will be on this historic event and contentious issue.<br />
<br />
<b>A Brief History of Roe v. Wade</b><br />
Norma McCorvey (know as Jane Roe in court filings) found out she was pregnant with her third child and wanted to abort the pregnancy. Her friend convinced her that she admit that she was raped, since Texas allowed abortions in the case of rape or incest. Her plan failed when their was no police report about the alleged rape. She attempted to get an illegal abortion and found it closed by the police. She then filed a suit in U.S. District court. The district court ruled in the petitioner's favor due to the precedent set by Griswold v. Connecticut that said the state did not have a right to stop the use of contraceptives. It reached the Supreme Court where it was argued twice.<br />
<br />
<b>Decision of the Supreme Court</b><br />
The majority opinion of the Supreme Court had several arguments. First that the Texas law on abortion was too vague. The main arguments of the Justices spawned from the Ninth Amendment, which protects those rights not listed in that Constitution. In this case, it fell in the realm of the right of privacy in personal medical decisions. As stated in the LC-MS Commission on Theology and Church relations document <a href="http://www.lcms.org/graphics/assets/media/CTCR/Abortion_Perspective2.pdf">Abortion in Perspective</a>, "the Court held that abortion could not simply be prohibited, such prohibition being a violation of the woman's constitutionally guaranteed right of personal privacy. The Court also held, however, that this right was not unqualified but was limited by other important interests of the states, if such could be shown to be pertinent here" (11).<br />
<br />
The Supreme Court found that a two interests in which the state may have a compelling interest to justify regulations on abortion. First, the interest of the state to protect the health of the pregnant mother. Secondly an interest in protect the potential human life. In the first interest the court said that mortality rates of abortions (i.e. how many people die while performing the procedure) are less than natural child birth. So a state could only justify a regulation to protect the life of the mother, like it must be performed in a properly licensed facility. In the second interest the court found that the state has no interest in protecting the life of the unborn unless it is viable outside of the mother. The court imposed the trimester system in place to say where the state had an interest in regulating abortions; this was further modified in future decisions. Currently the court holds that the state may regulate the use of abortions to protect the life of the unborn if they can life outside of the womb, even with medical devices. As you see the decision does not protect the right to abortion on demand, but only states when the states can regulate the use of such a procedure.<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>My View on Abortion</b><br />
<u>Protection of Life</u><br />
The main reason to be against abortion is the protection of the inalienable right to life<b> </b>as stated in the Declaration of Independence and other political philosophers in the period of the Enlightenment. The child has a right to life and to live. It is the job of the government to protect the life of all its citizens. These unborn babies in the U.S. are technically citizens of the individual states and the United States. The U.S. therefore has an qualified right to make and enforce laws that protect the life of this child. Even a child conceived from rape or incest deserve to live which brings me to my next point.<br />
<br />
Here is an interesting take on this way the decision is designed. As medical technology increases, to be able to sustain life outside of the womb the states could regulate the use of abortions more. Since the state has a interest in the protection of the life of the unborn if it can exist outside the womb, with assistance, earlier and earlier in a pregnancy than abortion regulations could made illegal earlier and earlier in a pregnancy. <br />
<br />
<u>Abortion Alternatives</u> <br />
If a parent does not want a child their are plenty of viable alternatives other than taking the life of the unborn.; adoption being the most likely. This means in cases of rape and incest this means a mother has to live with that evil act for nine months. It is obvious that the mother may not want to be reminded of this act later in life after the child is given up for adoption. The states should write laws to protect the identity of the mother and father of those who put up their children for adoption. So they may not be found by their child, if they do not want. This will not end a child from looking and possibly finding their mother or father but it does provide them some protection. The state, working through private charity, should also help support these women in their choice to protect the life of the child conceived through criminal and evil means.<br />
<br />
<b></b><br />
<u></u><br />
<b></b><u>The Right to Privacy</u><br />
<br />
<br />
<u>Medical Exceptions</u><br />
Michael Savage said in his new book "Trickle Up Poverty," that he would make abortion illegal "with the exception of the physical survival or the mother-to be determined by two licensed medical doctors. This should be the policy of the states. I have expressed to my wife before we got married, that if while pregnant the doctors told me I could only save my wife or my child, I would choose my wife every time. And I would probably live with the guilt of that decision the rest of my life, knowing my decision probably ended the life of my child. I am open to exceptions in conception due to rape and/or incest, but I lean more towards not allowing them in those situations due to my other arguments from above.<br />
<br />
<u>Rights of the Father</u> <br />
Their is so much talk about the rights of the mother and her privacy; what about the rights of the father? A woman who gets pregnant with a long term boyfriend, or even a one night stand can make the choice to abort the child without so much as contacting him. The child is just as much his as it is the mothers. If the child is conceived by a sexual act with the mutual consent of both partners the rights of both parents should be respected. The rights of the father should be protected as much as the mothers. Obviously the rights of the father in an illegal sex act, such as rape and/or incest would not apply in this case.<br />
<br />
I hope you enjoyed reading. Next time (Thursday), I will have for you a breakdown and analysis of the President's State of the Union Address, which he makes on Tuesday night. I hope to read a lot of lively discussion on this topic. <i><u><b>Facebook friends</b></u></i>, come and subscribe to my blog on the original site (http://ajbulava.blogspot.com). Questions? Comments? Concerns? Class dismissedAdam J. Bulavahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13891143755157356548noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5734204059533909551.post-43516749417698461902011-01-12T17:26:00.000-08:002011-01-12T17:26:15.061-08:00Book Review: "Arguing with Idiots" -- In Defense of Capitalism (Chapter #1)So I decided to start a different feature of my blog by reviewing or summarizing books in part or in whole that I have read and may include some insights for us into government and life in this nation. I start today with the first chapter of Glenn Beck's #1 New York Times bestseller from 2009, "Arguing with Idiots: How to Stop Small Minds and Big Government." Today's will address his first chapter titled: In Defense of Capitalism: Giving the Free Market a Fair Shake.<br />
<br />
Glenn starts out with the story of Samuel Insull. A poor clerk immigrant from England who went on to become the largest power supplier servicing over ten million customers in thirty-two states with a market value of three billion dollars, a total net worth of one hundred billion dollars and being put on the cover of Time Magazine in 1929. Then the great depression came. The debt he had used to finance his company growth was now worthless and those who invested in his company lost their money. He was taken to trial for fraud but acquitted.<br />
<br />
This story is used to prove a point. Capitalism cannot provide you with anything, not a new house, a new job, or a nice retirement; that is your responsibility. However, it can foster the environment for those who want to work hard and succeed to have a better chance. Capitalism also provides for innovation and competition to produce better and cheaper products to improve our standards of living.<br />
<br />
<u><b>Argument #1 - Free-Market Capitalism failed.</b></u><br />
Capitalism did not fail; greed (the idea that returns can be had without risk) failed. In a true free-market system the government would have little if any involvement in the economy. And I am not suggesting throwing out government regulations regarding safety or health concerns. The argument is that its not the job of the government to encourage or discourage economic behavior of the citizens. For example in the housing market mortgage "rates would be set by market participants [mortgage lenders and borrowers), based on the risk and reward, with a clear, understanding that making bad loans would result in bankruptcy" (Beck 4). What has failed is the thought that "markets can be free when run by an increasingly activist government" (Beck 5).<br />
<br />
<u><b>Argument #2 - We are obligated to care for weakest and only government can do that.</b></u><br />
"Soulless capitalism," success without compassion, was bred by a government that tries to do that job of the responsible civic minded citizens to help each other. Problems are not solved effectively from the top-down but from the bottom up. The American's citizens response to Hurricane Katrina can prove what a better job we do on our own than government does to solve these problems. Over one billion was brought in by private charities to aid the people. FEMA handed out $6.3 Billion with a quarter of that going to fraudulent uses. Now if I give my money to a charity that wastes it, then I won't give money to them again, but I have no choice with the government. In another example, President Cleveland vetoed a relief bill in 1887 to help suffering farmers in Texas. He trusted the American people do to what was right and they did what was right. They donated ten times more money than what was asked for by Congress.<br />
<br />
<u><b>Argument #3 - We need a new capitalism with more government control.</b></u><br />
Business and government work on two different motivations. Businesses are in business to make wealth, closely watching expenses, making sure every dollar has a return. Government exist (in theory) to protect the citizens and their rights who they serve. Here are some examples of how partnerships of private public entities have worked out in the past.<br />
<br />
<i>Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac:</i> Created to buy mortgages from banks so they have more money to lend. It got so big it was weighting down the budget so they "quasi-government corporation." They had an<i> </i>unfair advantage by accessing lines of credit and exemption from taxes. Also they knew the government would not let them fail. We bought these companies in 2008 and put their liabilities right back on the books of the government.<br />
<br />
<i>The Postal Service: </i>Here is a series of weird things it must do. It receives no government appropriations so when you stamp price goes up that's why. They must also adhere to very strict regulations that say each piece of mail must pay for itself. It can borrow money, but increases in rates are decided by an independent commission. They have to adhere to federal guidelines in pay but are also have mandated monopoly on mail delivery. They have very little say over their own operation that is controlled by Congress. They can't close branches or change delivery dates to try and save money.<br />
<br />
<u><b>Argument #4 - We just need to streamline the bureaucracy.</b></u><br />
In this section Glenn outlines the various ways Presidents have tried to streamline the bureaucracies of the federal government, going back to 1905. Congress usually gets in the way and prevents the ideas of these commissions from being law. They only one that was successful was under President Carter.<br />
<br />
<u><b>Argument #5 - We need a temporary change until the emergency is over.</b></u><br />
When is the last time you have seen a government give back power that the people granted it for an emergency. Bush was given wartime powers that Obama has taken and used with the same disregard as his predecessor, even when he criticized Bush for using those powers. One example in the book is how Pennsylvania levied a tax on alcohol with revenues going to help the town of Johnstown after a devastating flood. The tax has never died in fact it has been raised. The lesson? Be careful of giving any government power or authority even if its temporary<br />
<br />
<u><b>Argument #6 - We just need some more regulations.</b></u><br />
Regulations are virtually impossible to get rid of once they are one he books. The biggest example is that of Hein Hettinga who, in 2003, wanted to sell milk for cheaper than his competitors to make more money. The problem came is that dairy farmers are governed by regulations set up in the 1930s to protect small farmers who sold raw milk. Does that really have any importance today? More regulations will just make our free markets worse.<br />
<br />
<u><b>Argument #7 - Politicians can learn to run a government like a business.</b></u><br />
The ideas of politicians bring to government about purposes of government are not easily changed. Look at the generations of politicians manage the money given to them in taxes. IN 1991 Connecticut had a shortfall of $2.7 billion (created by fiscal irresponsibility) which they tried to fix by creating an income tax. It has been raised over the years with other taxes added on as well. And where are they now? They still have massive deficits that are just going to get larger. If you look deeper you see that their spending also increase by 147% over that same time period. Government only really knows how to get bigger over time.<br />
<br />
<u><b>Argument #8 - Socialism does not work because it was never implemented correctly.</b></u><br />
The Founding Fathers knew this about government: That they could be good almost none of them ever were, even those started with good intentions. They become to powerful and corrupt. The people are the opposite though, over time they usually did the right things and made the right decisions. If socialism worked well in the real world then we would be using. Perfect socialism is a theory, that has never worked in practice.<br />
<br />
<u><b>Argument #9 - We should do socialism like the French.</b></u><br />
This quote by an New York Times writer Roger Cohen sums up best why this is a bad idea.<i> </i><br />
<blockquote><i> I lived about a decade, on and off, in France, and later moved to the United States. Nobody in their right mind would give up the manifold sensual, aesthetic and gastronomic pleasure offered by French </i>savoir-vivre<i> for the unrelenting battlefield of American ambition were it not for one thing: possibility.</i><br />
<i> You know possibility when you breathe it. For an immigrant, it lies in the ease of American identity and the boundlessness of American horizons after the narrower confines of European nationhood and the stifling attentions of the European nanny state, which often made it more attractive to not work than to work.</i> (One France is Enough, March 4, 2009)</blockquote>France found the best way to keep people working was with a huge amount of regulation. Their are large procedures in place to hire or fire an employee. But when you are locked in with an employee by regulations you are more likely to hire only the person who is best and not take a chance on a new person. So the young are not well employed (since busiesses are careful on who they hire) which required another set or regulations to fix that problem.<br />
<br />
The basic theme of this chapter is not that free-market capitalism has failed, but that government intrusion into free-market capitalism has failed. By over regulating the different parts of the economy the government creates bubbles that are waiting to be burst when if left alone these markets correct themselves quicker than government can effectively respond.<br />
<br />
I touched on some of the major points of Beck in this chapter but I recommend any one to read this chapter for more surprising and researched information. The back of the book has hundreds of footnotes to show where he got his information. I hope you all do so. Have a nice day.<br />
<br />
Questions? Comments? Concerns? Class dismissed.Adam J. Bulavahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13891143755157356548noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5734204059533909551.post-58410605073558281482011-01-10T16:10:00.000-08:002011-01-10T16:10:39.403-08:00News of the Day: 01/10/2011 - Arizona ShootingThis weekend in Tuscon, Arizona Jared Loughner went to an event for Congressional Representative Gabrielle Giffords. The end result six people dead, including a federal judge, and twenty or more injured, including the Giffords. Here is what bothers me the most about this story; accusations immediately get thrown by the mainstream media that some group or person is to blame other than the man who committed the crime.<br />
<br />
As usual a group (the Tea Party, conservatives, the GOP) or a popular individual (Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly) is blamed for the tragic events because of their "hateful rhetoric." The main stream media always throws that accusation out without ANY proof of said rhetoric on the right. No one has called for the deaths of duly elected senators or representatives, but if you use the word targeted you must be talking about using guns to take them out. What specific hateful rhetoric are they referring to? Stop the government take over of the health insurance industry. Stop spending us into more and more debt. Elect a new representative to this district in the upcoming election.<br />
<br />
This article from the <a href="http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/08/assassination-attempt-in-arizona/?src=twt&twt=NytimesKrugman">New York Times by Paul Krugman </a>says it all. He automatically assumes it is a political motivated. He even went so far as to assume that the guy was a Tea Partier or drew inspiration from Sarah Palin's "cross hairs" list. Where is the proof of these accusation?<br />
<br />
This video shows the thoughts of many in the mainstream media about the GOP, the political right or anyone who is a conservative and here again he provides no proof to such statements.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.youtube.com/embed/pjnFiFDtoqo?feature=player_embedded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div><br />
By the way Mr. Robinson, the political right in this country is not anti-government, but in favor limited government.<br />
<br />
In fact, Keith Olberman did a <a href="http://www.theblaze.com/stories/keith-olbermann-compares-glenn-to-shooter-calls-on-beck-to-apologize-for-his-rhetoric/">special comment</a> this past week where he asked Glenn Beck to appologize for his rhetoric. The problem is that Beck specifically has said that violence will destroy the Republic. Back in April 2010, he called for all of his listeners, viewers, and supporters to take the <a href="http://everything2.com/title/Pledge+of+Non-Violence+written+by+Martin+Luther+King+Jr.">pledge of non-violence</a> used by Martin Luther King, Jr. and his followers. Here is Glenn saying it specifically on the air on his television program.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><object class="BLOGGER-youtube-video" classid="clsid:D27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000" codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=6,0,40,0" data-thumbnail-src="http://0.gvt0.com/vi/7dyiMuhvw_A/0.jpg" height="266" width="320"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/7dyiMuhvw_A&fs=1&source=uds" /><param name="bgcolor" value="#FFFFFF" /><embed width="320" height="266" src="http://www.youtube.com/v/7dyiMuhvw_A&fs=1&source=uds" type="application/x-shockwave-flash"></embed></object></div><br />
Meanwhile on the other side of the political spectrum you see countless example of violent rhetoric being spewed out of their mouths. Take for example the words of all of these people on the political left calling for violent protest and riots in America.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><object class="BLOGGER-youtube-video" classid="clsid:D27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000" codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=6,0,40,0" data-thumbnail-src="http://1.gvt0.com/vi/7Flv_sCxUek/0.jpg" height="266" width="320"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/7Flv_sCxUek&fs=1&source=uds" /><param name="bgcolor" value="#FFFFFF" /><embed width="320" height="266" src="http://www.youtube.com/v/7Flv_sCxUek&fs=1&source=uds" type="application/x-shockwave-flash"></embed></object></div><br />
Sorry got on a bit of tangent there but back to the main idea of this article. The blaming of one group or individual for the actions of another.<br />
<br />
No one should not draw conclusions from the actions of one person that a group or another person influenced them to do such a thing, until solid proof is given to support that fact whether it be blaming Glenn Beck and the Tea Party for crazy people who may be in their ranks. Or blaming all Muslims, especially those who want to live in the United States peacefully, for the attacks of September 11th. Does everyone remember what you do when you assume? You make an a** out of you and me. Can everyone stop blaming everyone else for the actions of the crazy people out their. <br />
<br />
We should all take a page of out of Glenn Beck's book who made a very good <a href="http://www.theblaze.com/stories/arizona-aftermath-beck-issues-challenge-to-american-people-politicians-and-media/">response</a> to the attacks this Monday and issued a challenge. I won't put it all up here but here is his challenge:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>I challenge all Americans, left or right, regardless if you’re a politician, pundit, painter, priest, parishioner, poet or porn star to agree with all of the following.</blockquote><blockquote>I denounce violence, regardless of ideological motivation.</blockquote><blockquote>I denounce anyone, from the Left, the Right or middle, who believes physical violence is the answer to whatever they feel is wrong with our country.</blockquote><blockquote>I denounce those who wish to tear down our system and rebuild it in their own image, whatever that image may be.</blockquote><blockquote>I denounce those from the Left, the Right or middle, who call for riots and violence as an opportunity to bring down and reconstruct our system.</blockquote><blockquote>I denounce violent threats and calls for the destruction of our system – regardless of their underlying ideology – whether they come from the Hutaree Militia or Frances Fox Piven.</blockquote><blockquote>I hold those responsible for the violence, responsible for the violence. I denounce those who attempt to blame political opponents for the acts of madmen.</blockquote><blockquote>I denounce those from the Left, the Right or middle that sees violence as a viable alternative to our long established system of change made within the constraints of our constitutional Republic.</blockquote><blockquote>I will stand with anyone willing to sign that pledge. Today I make a personal choice. I urge leaders of both sides and all walks of life to join me as all Americans joined hands on 9.12.2001.</blockquote>Those are my thoughts on the events that transpired past coming weekend. Questions? Comments? Concerns?<br />
<br />
To my Facebook readers: Remember to subscribe to my blog on my website (<a href="http://ajbulava.blogspot.com/">The Government Teacher</a>) to receive an email when I update it with new content. You will actually be able to read it before it posts on Facebook. Thanks and have a nice day.Adam J. Bulavahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13891143755157356548noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5734204059533909551.post-77116886433663994302011-01-08T10:15:00.000-08:002011-01-08T10:15:05.790-08:00The U.S. Constitution - Lesson #14: Federal Court Structure & JurisdictionToday's lesson focuses in on Sections 1 and 2 of Article III of the Constitution. This section focuses on the judicial branch, which includes the final court of appeals in the U.S., the Supreme Court of the United States (or SCOTUS if you like abbreviations). So lets jump right in.<br />
<blockquote><i>The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time <a href="http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#ORDAIN">ordain</a> and establish.</i></blockquote>Judicial power is the power to interpret the laws. The power of interpretations falls on courts because they are unelected by the people and protected from both the Congress and the President so they can make the best decisions without any vindictive actions by either branch or the people because they ruled against them or the will of the majority. This is the principle of judicial review, which is the power to declare the acts of the government as unconstitutional. This means that the actions are either forbidden by the Constitution or they are not granted to the government in the Constitution.<br />
<br />
The principle of judicial review is not specifically mentioned by name in the Constitution but it is implied in the other clauses of the document. It was implied but not specifically debated at the Constitutional Convention, but it was anticipated before the ratification of the Constitution (Monk 90). The case of Marbury v. Madison is where the idea of judicial review becomes true law. But that is a story for another day. (There is another idea for my blog articles... reviewing cases that came before the Supreme Court.)<br />
<br />
The first clause creates the Supreme Court of the United States. It also provides the creation of other lower courts by the Congress of the United States (COTUS, another weird abbreviation). This is a reiteration of the power granted to Congress in <a href="http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A1Sec8">Article I, Section 8, Clause 9</a>. Over the years the Congress has done just that. As it stands right now, there are 94 district courts throughout the United States, with at least one per state. There are also 13 district courts of appeal that are made up of several state districts, which all lead eventually to the Supreme Court. Their is also a number of other specific courts that handle a specific jurisdiction, like tax court, regulatory agency courts. Why we need this many courts is beyond me, but moving on?<br />
<blockquote><i>The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.</i></blockquote>Within the Constitution their are no listed qualifications listed to be a federal judge within the United States, but it does list the term of office. Judges serve for life and their compensation (salary) cannot be diminished while they sit in that office. This is meant to protect the judges and make them as independent as possible from any other branch or the people. The lifetime appointment protects them from the electorate, who may elect new judges that will do what they want. The judges can make the decisions that need to be made free from the politics and partisanship of the day. Their pay is set so that the Congress cannot punish them for declaring their acts unconstitutional.<br />
<br />
Many of the people of the United States and the Anti-Federalists feared unelected judges because they could easily substitute their view of the law in place of that of the majority of Americans. This is what has people all up in arms in California. A federal judge struck down the Constitutional amendment declaring marriage as between one man and one woman, Proposition 8, that had been voted on and passed twice by the people. The judge had thwarting the will of the majority. This specific issue will be discussed more when the class gets to Article IV of the Constitution. So save your comments on that topic for that time. Hopefully in about two or three weeks.<br />
<blockquote><em class="change">The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime <a href="http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#JURIS">Jurisdiction</a>; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; <strike>between a State and Citizens of another State</strike>; between Citizens of different States; <strike>between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.</strike></em></blockquote>This paragraph is all of Section 2 of Article III. It outlines the areas where federal courts have jurisdiction (power) in the United States. The strike outs were parts of the Constitution that were altered by the eleventh amendment, in response to the 1793 cases of <i>Chisholm v. Georgia</i>. The class will not specifically address those parts today but will deal with them later. Let us take some time to identify the major areas in which the federal courts have judicial jurisdiction.<br />
<br />
<i>"Cases... arising under this Constitution..."</i> This is in reference to the interpretation of the Constitution and violations of it. Another lesson in the future will deal with the different methods by which the federal courts interpret the federal constitution. One point to make though is that the Supreme Court and other federal courts do not pass judgment on hypothetical cases or give advisory opinions, telling government officials whether an act is constitutional or not. In fact this idea was rejected by the Constitutional convention (Monk 98)<br />
<br />
<i>"The laws of the United States and Treaties made... under their authority."</i> It is obvious that it is the job of the federal courts to rule on the laws of the United States and its treaties. Under the Articles of Confederation the states were responsible for enforcing federal laws. In practice this meant that federal laws were largely unenforced.<br />
<br />
<i>"Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers, and Consuls</i>" These people are citizens of foreign countries, so it makes common sense (which is not that common, nowadays) that the federal courts have first crack at them. The accusations against said people affects our relationships with foreign nations, which is the exclusive domain of the federal government and not the states.<br />
<br />
<i>"Cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction"</i> This specifically refers to cases of crimes on the high seas which Congress can legislate in <a href="http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A1Sec8">Article I, Section 8, Clause 10</a>. Since the bodies of water that surround the United States belong to no state, it stands to reason the federal courts have jurisdiction in these locations. Generally this has also come to refers to cases about shared bodies of water in the United States. For example, rivers that act as the boundary between two states (Mississippi River ), or lakes that touch more than one state (Lake Michigan or Lake Mead).<br />
<br />
<i>"To Controversies between to which the United State shall be a party; to Controversies between two or more states.. between citizens of different states."</i> This provision was the prevent any possibility of prejudice of the state courts against the another state, citizens of another state or the federal government.<br />
<br />
Their are two more sections in this article of the Constitution but I will leave them for another day. Are their any questions, comments or concerns from the class? Class dismissed.Adam J. Bulavahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13891143755157356548noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5734204059533909551.post-3819132330232025252011-01-07T16:46:00.000-08:002011-01-07T16:46:41.942-08:00My Perfect School: Mission StatementSo I was a little bored today when I was giving quizzes in my classes so I thought I would put down on paper the mission statement for the school I will build one of these days. <br />
<blockquote>It is the purpose and mission of <i>(insert school name here)</i>, within the context of the Christian gospel <i>(included if its a Lutheran school)</i>, to provide for our students, parents, and teachers an excellent educational environment, in which all members will be held individually accountable, to teach and train the community members in the knowledge and skills needed to be responsible citizens of their own community, and all member share a common responsibility in providing the best educational outcomes for all individual members of this community.</blockquote> There are several main parts of the mission statement I want to expound to you my readers.<br />
<blockquote><i>to provide for our students, parents, and teachers an excellent educational environment,</i></blockquote>An excellent educational environment is not just the job of the teachers and administrators of a school. It is the job of all members of the school community. Teachers need to maintain high expectations and appropriate activities to help students learn. Students need to work hard and do their best to meet those expectations. Parents need to support the teachers and look out for the best interest of their students.<br />
<blockquote><i>all members will be held individually accountable, to teach and train the community members in the knowledge and skills needed to be responsible citizens of their own community</i></blockquote>One of the key ideas behind my school is individual accountability on all levels. Students must be accountable for themselves and their grades. Parents need to be held accountable in their job to help their students to succeed. Teachers also are accountable to make sure they are doing what is best for the student to learn. We are all individually accountable for our actions, no matter how much students may work together to learn, or teacher collaborate to make good lessons, or parents work together to make the school better. At the end of the day you are only judged by your merits and work. No one else can be to blame for your lot in life than yourself and your own choices. That is what I mean by individual accountability.<br />
<br />
The other part of this phrasing refers to the knowledge and skills. Schools are not just about teaching facts, but processes. Math is not just 2+2=4, but how do we get to that. English is not just about the essay but how to write it. Government is not just about reading documents but being able to analyze and break them down and interpret them for today. Good skills are just as vital in schools than the facts built around those skills.<br />
<blockquote><i>all members share a common responsibility in providing the best educational outcomes for all individual members of this community.</i></blockquote>The other key phrase behind my school is common responsibility. While we may be held individually accountable for our actions we are our brother's keeper. This means it is the responsibility of the teacher to make sure grades are accurate and the students are aware of them. Also to assist students to better themselves and their grades to as best as they can be. It is the student's responsibility to know what their grade is and to seek out help when he/she might need. It is the parent's responsibility to be involved in their students education and to seek out help for them when the cannot advocate it for themselves. Also to make sure the school is teaching knowledge and skills that are relevant to our communities. All members of the school share in the responsibility of the educational outcomes of the school.<br />
<br />
The emphasis on community is to bring out the idea of teaching civic virtue. The community could be the school, our town, state or even the nation as a whole. We need to teach our kids that sometimes the good of the community goes above our individual wants, needs and rights.<br />
<blockquote><i>within the context of the Christian gospel</i></blockquote>Depending on the type of school I build, this may or may not be included in the mission statement. I believe all life should be lived in the context of Christian Law and Gospel, but in a public charter school these ideas will probably be frowned upon. Though their is nothing wrong with using the law on a student who has not been responsible. Just as their is nothing wrong with showing some grace, with appropriate consequences to a student who shows true remorse at their actions.<br />
<br />
Its taken awhile to formulate this into a real statement, but that is the mission of my school. The largest emphasis is on the idea of individual accountability and common/shared responsibility. Let me know what you think. Have a nice day and weekend.Adam J. Bulavahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13891143755157356548noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5734204059533909551.post-50373561815115488092011-01-05T16:41:00.000-08:002011-01-05T16:41:52.993-08:00The Fatal Flaws and Failings of Collaborative Commonality in Assessments and Lessons PlansI love it when I can use alteration in a title of something I am writing. If that annoys, then I am sorry for the title today of this posting. <br />
<br />
Over my first five years as a teacher their has been a huge movement towards common assessments and/or lesson plans. This is a method by which the teacher who teach the same subject mean and plan common lessons and tests for their students. Though if I really understand the concept, its that everyone in the department collaborates on all the subjects. Taking the combined wisdom of the entire department and making the best objectives, lessons and assessments.<br />
<br />
At my last school I came in at the planning phase of common assessments. At my current school they have been pushing this also for the last few years with somewhat mixed results. And this year they want us to have common lesson plans and tests for almost everything. I disagree with this practice, as you can probably tell by my title.<br />
<br />
One argument made by one supervisor is that this will be help prevent teacher shopping by students to find the “easier” teacher. This is to prevent one teacher from being to hard and another from being to easy. This does not fix the problem though. Their will always be teachers who are harder and easier. Some teachers hold their students to different standards than others, both academically and behaviorally. So unless can control all the other factors that make teacher’s unique you will not be successful. Also, if a teacher is to “easy” isn’t the job of administration to adequately observe and evaluate said teachers so they can be brought up to the higher level?<br />
<br />
Another argument is that we all need to be on the same page in case students have to transfer classes. I agree with the theory that teachers of the same classes should be teaching the same concept at roughly the same time. But in practice this rarely happens for multiple reasons. The students may not have understood the concept so the teacher has to teach the material again to make sure students understand. School events like assemblies, emergency drills or other school events may have prevented content from being taught that day in a specific class. Any of these or others can cause a misalignment of content between the teachers teaching the same class. Also that different teacher’s can teach the same material and content using different methods. Therefore the actual content can be understood differently by students in different classes, sometimes even with the same teacher. Common assessments can only effectively work if all teachers teach the same content in exactly the same way.<br />
<br />
Another reason behind this model is that its best for the students. In the years that I have been working within this model the discussions I have been involved in show me that it is rarely about what is best for the student. It is about what is best for the teachers. What is easiest and makes the least amount of work for them? Things like: "Lets just use the test from last year," or "what chapter in the book are we supposed to be teaching" lead the discussion. This stifles creativity and critical analysis of the content we are teaching and how we are assessing that content.<br />
<br />
The same is true for common lessons or objectives. It usually comes down to a textbook, since that is the one thing that is common between all teachers. Therefore it becomes the basis for all teaching and learning. How much can I cover from this chapter? Did you cover this section? Its not about what you taught but what chapter in the book you have used. So you tell me which was more important, the student’s learning or the teacher’s workload?<br />
<br />
One flaw in the system of common lesson plans and assessments is that it discourages teacher and student creativity. With common assessments teachers have to use the same test which they then all teach too and all the students have to take. There is no allowance made for the student who does not test well. There is no accommodation for multiple intelligence or differentiated instruction assessments. Both of which administration say they want us to use within our classroom. The teacher is not free to step away from the assigned content based on student interests or design tests that may be better for their students. Common assessments tries to create cookie cutter students, when we are told over and over that we must treat them differently.<br />
<br />
Another major flaw in the common assessment model is that it makes it easier for the students to cheat on these assessments. This can be clearly seen in a teacher’s classroom where they teach the same class all day. Students in those classes know when the test is and ask their friends to see the test or what was on it from a previous period. What makes us think that it will not happen between classes of teachers who teach the same classes?<br />
<br />
Common assessments and lesson plans are but a small aspect of a bigger problem within education. The bigger issue in this discussion is the over regulation of a teacher’s practices by school administration, and the different levels of government. This over regulation has come about because no one is willing to actually critically evaluate teachers. Instead of critically analyzing the teaching methods and assessment methods of a teacher administration assign them the task of creating common assessments and lessons, assuming that they will create effective lesson plans and assessments. <br />
<br />
If you want more on evaluation of teachers check out the My Perfect School posting from January 22, 2010. Also if you are reading this from Facebook please hop over to the original site (http://ajbulava.blogspot.com) and sign up as one of my followers. Every time I post a new article it will email you. <br />
<br />
Any questions, comments, concerns? Class dismissed.Adam J. Bulavahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13891143755157356548noreply@blogger.com0