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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Questions?  Comments?  Concerns?  Class dismissed.

Public Policy: Immigration

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Public Policy: Drug Legalization

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

News of the Day - 4/5/2010

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

And This is the Problem

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My Perfect School: Disciplinary Procedures

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My Perfect School: School Managers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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


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

The Legislative Tricks to Pass Health Care Legislation

If you agree with the tactics being used by Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and President Obama to pass health care legislation then stop reading and go hang yourself.  What we are seeing right now in Washington, D.C. is the tyranny of the majority tearing up the clear language of the Constitution.  The Democrats have used every unconstitutional trick in the book to pass this bill that the majority of American citizens do not want.  Let me outline the tactics used by the left in the passage of this bill.

First, three different health care reform bill were written by three different committees in the House of Representatives.  While there were republicans on every committee, from what I understand, they were given no chance to have input on the crafting of these bills.  Many video can be found of Republican law makers, some of the former doctors, berating the bills being written and how it will not do what it is intended to do.

Next, after the bills have been written, Speaker Pelosi, takes these three bills and splices them together in a 1,900 page monstrosity of legislation.  She only allows the passage of one amendment, from a Democrat, to be voted upon before the house.  She keeps the Representatives in session all day on Saturday to have the vote and she still barely gets it passed.  I believe the final vote was 220-215.  She needed 218.  And this is with a overwhelming majority of seats in the House belonging to Democrat party members.

Harry Reid though will not be outdone by his House counterpart.  There are two bills that come out of the Senate and are stitched together to form the final bill to come out of the Senate.  The Republicans do a good job of holding the line on filibustering the final vote.  A filibuster is a legislative tactic to delay the final vote on any piece of legislation.  It is a within the rules of the Senate for the senators to do such a tactic.  While the filibuster is going on, Reid entices Sen. Landrieu of Louisiana to vote for the bill with a $300 million bribe of money for her state, written in the bill.  Also he give Sen. Nelson of Nebraska a bribe of money in the bill so his state does not need to pay for Medicare for the next ten years.  Both of these are clear violations of the U.S. Constitution.  They violate the following clause:

No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another. (Art.I, Sec. 9)

Also Reid and his cronies threaten not only Sen. Lieberman but his wife.  They try to get her kicked off as chairman of a charitable board she serves on.  Shame on you Reid!  Shame!

Finally, the filibuster is broken, but Reid still holds the U.S. Senate in continuous session until Christmas Eve day in order to vote.  The House has already adjourned for the Christmas holiday, which also seems to be a clear violation of the Constitution as well under this clause:

Neither House, during the Session of Congress, shall, without the Consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other Place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting.

I'd be interested to see the record of the vote that the House allowed the Senate to stay in session long after they had been adjourned.  I doubt it exist or if a that vote even happened

We come back from Christmas and find out that the typical path of a bill will now be different.  Typically when a bill is passed by both houses they must meet together to finalize the language of the bill since both houses have to pass the exact same legislation.  This process would have had to include Republicans and Democrats from both houses.  After the conference meeting both houses would have vote on the bill again.  Also it would probably be covered on CSPAN..  We learn though that this will not be the process.  So now they are ignoring the rules that they made for the legislative process.  Reid, Pelosi and Obama sit down and hash out the final details.

Next comes the twist in the story, Scott Brown is elected senator to the state of Massachusetts, taking the place of the former senator, Ted Kennedy.  The Democrats in the Senate no longer have a filibuster proof majority.  Its time to scramble for any way to avoid voting on the bill again in the Senate.  Enter reconciliation.

Reconciliation is a legislative process in the Senate to change an already existing law to bring it in line with revenue, spending, or debt-limit on a budget resolution.  The key to the plan is that the law already needs to be passed for this option work.  This is where it gets interesting and more and more corrupt.  It has been used on many pieces of legislation in the past by both parties, but never on something this big or game changing in the U.S. government.

Here is where the entire process is starting to get tricky, corrupts and downright unconstitutional.  The House has yet to pass the Senate version of the bill.  The Senate has not even attempted to pass the House version of the bill.  We have two bills on the same topic that have only passed in one house.  The Constitution clearly states:

Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States (Art. I, Sec. 7)

That has not happened yet.  The meetings between the White House and Congressional Leadership (Pelosi and Reid) decided their best bet is the try and pass the Senate bill in the House, even though it is hugely unpopular in the House and the Senate, because of the bribes found in its language.  Then use Reconciliation to get rid of all the unpopular things in the bill (i.e. the Corn Husker Kickback and the Louisiana Purchase of 2009).  The Reconciliation bill in the House has already been written and the chair has said this is not the final version.  The problem is that we have not even had a vote on the Senate bill in the House.  Enter the Slaughter Solution.


The Slaughter Solution or Rule is a legislative process could be part of the rules for debate and voting on the Senate Health Care Reform Bill.  It will work something like this.  The Rule committee in the House would create a rule that states, if the House approves of the changes to the Senate bill by the Reconciliation bill then the Senate bill will be deemed passed.  The House only need to pass the rule to pass the legislation.  Make sense?  I know I am confused too.  To simplify, the House would only vote to approve the rule, and then they would not need to vote on the Senate bill.  This is where they violate the Constitution the most.  Again from Article I, Section 7:

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

The slaughter rule is a clear violation of this part of the Constitution.  It allows a bill to pass to the President for final approval without a vote to pass the bill in the House.

The hypocrisy of both sides disgust me right now.  Republicans have used this rule before to pass legislation, which is why they are not speaking up.  The Democrats criticized this use of power by the Republicans just a few years ago.  Everyone is guilty, no one is innocent.

I encourage everyone to stop the tyranny of Congress and the President to pass a this legislation that the process alone has clearly violated the Constitution.  Now is the time to stop and go back to square one to start over.  Take some time and look at the rules you created and reform them to be more open like you promised us 12+ months ago.  Get rid of the backroom deals and the legislative tricks used to pass laws.  Write the rules encourage dialogue and debate on every piece of legislation.  Its time for change, but all I see is more of the same:  corruption.

Men and women, please call your representatives in congress.  Let them know you stand behind them to stop this corruption.  Tell them that you will not stand for these legislative tricks.  Call them now!

News of the Day - 3/15/2010

A number of news articles from the last few days that deserve comment.  So here we go.

FCC TO EXPAND BROADBAND ACCESS
The FCC (Federal Communication Commission) is planning on expanding using its power as a federal regulatory agency to spread broadband access across the United States, primarily into rural area.  I again must age old question.  Under what authority of the U.S. Constitution can the FCC force the spread of broadband access?  They can't.  The FCC is a borderline unconstitutional body that regulates what people can and cannot say on television and radio broadcasts, in direct violation of the 1st Amendment.  It is not the job of the federal government to provide this service to the citizens.  You might be able to make the argument that state and local governments could force companies to provide access, as long as their state constitutions allow for the regulation of utilities.  I know this may leave some people out in the cold for not getting faster internet in their homes, but if they decided to put it in, what is to stop them from regulating the information going through those lines.  The whole concept of, I paid for it so I get to choose what you use it for.


NEW YORK CITY TO BAN SALT IN RESTAURANTS
So the Nanny State itself, New York City, is planning on banning the use of salt in restaurants.  Really?  Really?  Does anyone know that we do need salt to live?  Ever heard the phrase, "the man is worth his salt?"  It was used because that is how Roman Soldiers were often paid, in salt.  It is a useful mineral that preserves food and makes it taste better too.  This is just another example of the nanny state run amok.  I am sick and tired of the government telling me what things I can and can't do or have because it might be dangerous for myself.  Or telling me I have to do this "for the children."  First they tax the crap out of cigarette smokers.  Then they go after trans fats and soda.  Now its salt.  What's next?  Limiting my TV time?  Forcing me to exercise? We are doing all these things for the children, but its making us all children to increasingly oppressive governments (State and local are involved in this too).


MONEY WASTED IN THE STIMULUS
This is not so much of a news story but a blog posting of Sean Hannity.  It lists the 102 most wasteful uses of ARRA (American Recovery & Reinvestment Act of 2009), otherwise know as the stimulus package.  I wish I could say I am surprised by the amount of money our government wastes, but I am not.  These wasteful uses are just the tip of the iceberg.  Every congressman and woman each year submits pet projects like these to the government as earmarked appropriations.  They typically show up on appropriations bills.  Every year we waste close to $18 billion on this type of spending.  Its time for the current President, and all of them in future, to grow some balls and flex that veto power for this wasteful spending.


MORE REASONS FOR THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS
There is also a second story I might comment on during this analysis.  So ABC news has found out that some restraining orders are not very effective at stopping harassment.  In fact, sometimes they non enforcement of them sometimes results in the death of the people who went to the courts for help.  This is just another reason why the right of the people to bear arms should not be infringed.  The police are the to protect and serve, but even they cannot get to a house in time, all the time.  When the only thing that stands between you and your assailant is the police, you are placing way to much trust for your safety in another government organization.  This is one reason why the second amendment exists, so that law abiding citizens can protect themselves from those who would want to harm our life, liberty and property.  Also, in Vegas, a man has been arrested for shooting at two men who were trying to jack his truck.  I pray the district attorney drops the charges against the man.  Or if he is put on the jury nullifies law and declares him not guilty.


As always I welcome your comments and/or questions.

The U.S. Constitution - Lesson #9: Powers Denied to Congress

Sorry to my loyal readers for being flaky over the last few weeks.  I have been getting burned out of talking about politics and school stuff.  Makes me think to hard about our country's and my current situation too much.  Sorry also for not posting my Constitution lesson last week.  I had an awesome date weekend with my wife that I did not want to interrupt for anything.  But now I am back.

Today's lesson focuses on the ninth section of article one.  It deals with the powers that are specifically denied to the U.S. Congress.  You can read it here.  But lets get started. 

The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

This is another location where smart readers of the Constitution will find that it talks, indirectly about slavery, specifically the slave trade into the United States.  During the Constitutional Convention, slavery was the second largest issue discussed and compromised on.  Many founders wanted to end the importation of African slaves into the U.S., but just as many did not.  The compromise they reached is this clause.  It consisted of two parts.  First, that the Congress could not prevent the states from importing slaves until 1808.  Second, that all slaves that were imported into the states would be taxed at ten dollars a piece.

The good news is at the start of the Congressional session in 1808, they banned the importation of slaves into the United States.  So the first chance they had to end that brutal practice; they did it.  The bad news is the institution of slavery still existed for another 55-57 years.

The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

The habeas corpus is one of the oldest civil liberties in the history of the world.  This right is to prevent the unlawful detainment of a person by a government; specifically it is used on prisoners.  Prisoners who file a writ of habeas corpus are asking for the reasons for their detainment.

One large issue that has come up regarding this right is the the rights of the enemy combatants being held in Guantanamo bay, Cuba.  Many have filed writs of habeas corpus, challenging why they are being held without trial.  First, the rights guaranteed in the Constitution, are there to protect the U.S. citizens from the government.  They are not there to protect illegals or our enemies.  Secondly, notice the language of the clause, "unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it."  It is safe to say that the U.S is invaded with an unknown number of terrorist would would want to harm our citizens.  Now this does not mean I am supporting abandoning this right of our citizens.  What this means is the terrorists who have been captured and are being held by the U.S. do not have a guarantee of hebeas corpus.  It is selectively being withheld on those who would be a danger to the U.S. if released; "the public safety."

Lastly, constitutional scholars are not really sure who has the power to suspend habeas corpus: the Congress or President.  Arguments could be made for either side.  The President could have the power since it is his job to enforce the laws.  Scholars make that argument since President Lincoln suspended it during the Civil War.  I know the history behind the suspension was the imprison some of his critics but constitutionally Lincoln was in the right.  The Civil War was a time of rebellion.  Congress could also be seen as the people responsible for suspending that right since it is listed in its article.  I will leave it up to the Supreme court to decide on that interpretation. 

No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

This clause deals with two specific types of laws that cannot be passed by Congress or the states (which is what we will deal with in the next lesson).  Bills of Attainder are laws that inflict punishments on a person through a law without a trial.  During the investigations of ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now), many in Congress tried to remove their funding from the federal budget.  Why a private organization is receiving federal tax dollars is beyond my comprehension, but that is a different subject for a different time.  The Supreme Court ruled that the law defunding of ACORN was in fact a bill of attainder.  The problem with that ruling is, the Constitution primarily protects individuals from the government.  This clause also refers to criminal punishments, not civil or funding.

Ex post facto laws are laws that make punishments for crimes retroactive.  The best example from recent memory is the 90% tax on the bonuses paid to AIG executives at the start of last year.  I am not sure if the law actually passed but if it did that would be a prime example of an ex post facto law.  It is punishing today something that was fine yesterday.  A lot of states are applying new income taxes retroactively as well.  These are clear violations of the Constitution.

No capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.

This clause of the Constitution has been amended by the 16th Amendment. Taxes were only to be apportioned in the U.S. according to the census.  I wish the progressives had never ratified that amendment.  I understand why direct taxes on individuals were prohibited by the Constitution.  You cannot boycott a tax on your income or apportioned directly to you.  That was one of the largest tools in the colonists tool box leading up to the Revolution.  They could avoid the taxes laid on them by Parliament without representation by not buying the British made goods that were taxed.  Also this made the states responsible for taxing the citizens to pay the tax bills of the federal government.  It gave local control to taxing powers.

No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.

This clause was the result of another key compromise during the Constitutional convention.  Congress was given the power to regulate commerce between the states in the Constitution.  In return for that power Congress could not tax exports between the states or to another country.

No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.

This clause was there to prevent both the Congress from favoring any state or port in the United States.  It also prevents states from charging each other when they trade with each other.  Lastly it prevents Congress for writing regulations that favor one state over another.  This is another case of the Constitution being violated in recent memory.  During the debate on the U.S. Senate's health care bill there were several deals made to buy votes.  One called the Corn Husker Kickback, gave Nebraska money for Medicare for the vote of Ben Nelson.  Another, called the Louisiana Purchase, gave $300 million to the state of the same name so their senator would vote for the bill.  If these were to be passed by Congress and signed by the President, there are two ways that the states can challenge these laws in the Supreme Court.

No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.

All revenue spent by the U.S. government must be authorized by law.  Any time the government wants to spend money it needs to be approved by Congress and the President   This is what Senator Bunning was fighting against when he filibustered the extension of unemployment benefits.  Congress has over the last four years pass the pay-as-you-go rules twice, but they never live up to it.  This is meant to serve as a check of the legislature over the executive, since he cannot spend money without approval from Congress.  When Lt. Col. Oliver North sold weapons to Iran to fund the contras in Nicaragua, his actions violated this clause.

No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State.

This clause was intended to prevent an American nobility from being created in the U.S.  In recent history though we have seen this violated time and time again.  Just before his death, former senator Ted Kennedy was knighted by the Queen of England.  Being knighted is a title of nobility.  Now I am sure he had the permission of Congress, but it still is a dangerous step down a slippery slope.

The idea of limited government is one of the major themes of our history and our Constitution.  This section was intended to provide specific limits on the U.S. Congress.  Unfortunately I am seeing more and more our country forsaking the ideals and principles of limited government.  I have provided plenty of examples of the Congress overstepping this part of the Constitution or flat out ignoring it, specifically from this section of the Constitution.  Readers, I beg of you read your Constitution.  Know what it means!  The Congress and Presidents have been trampling on this document for years.  It is not just Barak Obama, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi, but it goes back to Wilson, FDR and Teddy Roosevelt.  Keep the words of James Madison, Father of the Constitution, close to you heart:

I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.

In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. 

It will be of little avail to the people that the laws are made by men of their own choice if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood.

 Sound familiar?  Read!  Know your past, to understand your present, and predict the future.  Class dismissed.

My School: I don't want to teach AP

In my five years of teaching I have had the great opportunity to work with some teacher who are very good at what they do.  A lot of the teachers I respect moves teach AP (Advanced Placement) classes.  Specifically AP U.S. Government and AP U.S. History.  AP classes are classes that are challenge and prepare students to take the College Board AP tests.  If a student passes the test with a particular score, numbered one through five (Five being the high score), they get college credit.

My respect for these teacher comes from the fact that they have to teach a large amount of content in a truncated schedule.  U.S. History is the worst because you have to cover from the Colombian Explorations to modern American history.  That is tough in a regular U.S. History class, but to cover it in the detail need to pass the AP test is a staggering accomplishment.  That is why I suggested making U.S. History a two year course.  With the second year being AP U.S. History.  You can find my defense of this curriculum here.  They also teach to a test which they don't write.  They have no idea what specific information will be tested upon during that academic year.  Both of those are reasons why I would think long and hard before teaching an high school AP class.

Don't get me wrong teaching the upper echelon of high school students would be an honor and a privilege.  It is the restraints on me as a teacher which I would not like.  If anyone knows me, they know that I value you my academic freedom as a teacher.

As an AP teacher I would required to teach to the AP test.  A very large and national common assessment.  I think we all know how I feel about common assessments, especially tests.  All of my tests would have to be multiple choice test with essay components that line up with AP standards.  But over the last few years I have experimented with several different assessment methods and found several that I like and that have been very successful in my classrooms.  If I taught AP courses I would be unable to utilize them because they would not be getting students ready for the AP test.

I value my academic freedom as teacher more than I would enjoy teaching AP classes.

The Idiocy of Sarah Palin

Over the last two years, since the vice-presidential nomination of Sarah Palin for the Republican Party I have seen more hate mail and nasty jokes about this one person than anyone else.  In fact, I often feel a sense of being in a hostile work environment because of the in bad form jokes made against her.  Most of the attacks made on the former governor seem to play on the same common theme:  she's an idiot or that the country or even the world would go to hell in a hand basket with her as president.  To the haters I would like to ask these simple questions:  What makes her an idiot?  What do you think she would have done as Vice President or even President that would have been a disaster for the United States?

In this posting I would like to confront some of the major issues I have with people's problems with Sarah Palin.

Russia From My House Quote
Many times people spout the idiocy of Sarah Palin based on the fact that she said she can see Alaska from my house.  Well that would be incorrect.  That line was spoken in by Saturday Night Live's Tina Fey as satire of a different quote of Sarah Palin. The actual quote is:   

“They’re our next door neighbors and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska.” – ABC News interview, Sept. 11, 2008

The fact of the matter is that there are places in Alaska where a person can see Russia.  She's not an idiot for saying that, she's just stating a fact of geography.  Which leads to my next point.

Foreign Policy Experience
It has often been said that Sarah Palin has no foreign policy experience.  While she may not have met with any real heads of state, the fact that Alaska borders Canada and is across the Bering Sea and Strait from Russia, does give her access to ambassadors and other foreign envoys.  She certainly has more experience than say a Junior senator from the state of Illinois who only served 191 days in that office before upgrading to the office of President.

Also, there is something to be said about her former security clearance as the governor of Alaska.  As governor she has is commander-in-chief of the Alaska National Guard, which includes the 49TH Missile Defense Battalion.  Its job is to protect the U.S. from potential missile attacks and is on permanent active duty.  She is also the commander of the Alaska State Defense Force which was incorporated as part of the Department of Homeland Security.  Both of these positions do rely on her to be briefed about issues of national security.  There are some doubts as the the extent of the power she had as the Alaska governor with these militia but the fact that she was commander of them while governor gives her credibility as a possible commander-in-chief of the whole U.S. military.

Banning Books in the Wasilla Library
There are indisputable facts that Sarah Palin did ask the librarian of the Wasilla about the possibility of banning or removing certain books from the collection.  The fact most people neglect to leave out is she never actually did it.  She never even attempted.  There was not even a list.  What people try and put out as a list includes books that were not even published yet.  Also every person in power has tried to censor books.  Even parents try to get libraries to remove certain books from the library.  I am not saying its right but it never gets far.  This does not make her an idiot.

Experience
There was a lot of talk of experience of any of the candidates.  In all honest Sarah Palin had the most experience to be President out of all the men running for office (McCain, Biden and Obama).  She spent the better part of 10 years as a chief executive of some form in the state of Alaska.  She was a mayor and governor for the state.  It was her responsibility to make sure the state had a balanced budget, that the state met its payroll obligations.  And she did so quite responsibly.  In fact she did so well that the economic downturn is not negatively affect Alaska as much as other states.  She created a surplus on state tax dollars and stashed them away for when bad times came.  Also the fact that Sarah took on the corrupt Republican party members in the Alaska legislature gives her experience.  She took on her own party long before she tried to take on her opposition. 

What gets me the most about Sarah haters is they seem to think she would bring about the end of America as we know it.  Yet I have not heard any arguments why.  She is not the candidate who said he would fundamentally transform the United States.  She is not the one who appointed communist and other extremely left wing nut jobs into high ranking positions in the White House.  She was just the governor of Alaska doing the best job she could for the people of her state, while Barak Obama and John McCain were campaigning and neglecting their duties as U.S. Senators for nearly two years.  I'd take her over either of them any day of the week.

News of the Day - 3/8/2010: Cut Congressional Pay

There is one big story I would like to comment on today.  

To prove to my critics that I am not a partisan hack, I would like to submit the following article for the praise and adoration of the Congresswoman Ann Kirkpatrick, (D-Ariz).  She has proposed a bill to Congress to enact a pay cut on members of Congress by five percent.  What is even a bigger surprise is she is walking the walk, not just talking the talk.  She has taken five percent of her salary every month and set it aside to pay down the national debt.

THIS IS A GREAT IDEA!!!  Personally I don't think it goes far enough though.  I think the pay of all government elected and appointed representatives, workers and staffer should be cut, drastically.  The pay of our elected and appointed leaders (members of Congress, the President, Cabinet members, judges, etc.) should be limited to the average yearly salary of an American citizen and index to the economy.  As the average wage goes up, so does their pay.  The pay of all other government employees and bureaucrats should be cut between 10-20% and their maximum salary capped off at around $70,000-$100,000.

On top of that the number of staffers and bureaucrats in the government should be severely reduced.  I think I saw numbers several months ago that about 25,000 people work for the U.S. Congress as staffers for individual members or staff for Congressional Committees.  I would cut down on the number of staffers that members of Congress are entitled too and are paid out of the federal budget.  I would limit each member of Congress to two staffers: a secretary to run their office and an personal aide.  If a member of Congress wants to hire additional staff they must pay for it out of their own wallets.  Also each congressional committee would be entitled to a staff of three to five individuals. 

This is just a preview to a couple of future posts.  I am currently working on the numbers of the 2011 federal budget.  I am adjusting the budget to see how much I could realistically cut out of the budget next year.  Also, over the last six months I have been working on a potential plan to cut the size of the federal bureaucracy and the executive branch.

Let me know what you think.

News of the Day - 3/5/2010

Another big day for news commentary.  A few articles to get done and not a lot of time to do it.  So here we go.

DROP NAVY SEALS CHARGES
This story write about how top Republican lawmakers are pushing for the U.S. military to stop the military court martial trials of three Navy SEALS.  Their crime, punching a suspected plotter of an insurgent attack on the Blackwater USA military contractors.  Their bodies were burned, dragged through the street and then hung from a bridge.  Even if he did not do these things, he is a terrorists.  If a punch in the nose is all he got when we was captured by our Navy Seals, he should be grateful.  I am sure any one of those men were more than willing to put a bullet in his head.  A larger issue at stake is why would our military believe anything our enemies tell them.  Should they not believe our soldiers first?  Also, the terrorists know that if they claim abuse that the media will be all over the news condemning these soldiers.  We are fighting against an extremist group of religious zealots who kill themselves to hurt us.  They show no mercy to us.  Why should be give them any quarter?  This leads me to the next story, again related to our military conflict or war with radical Islamic extremists.

CLOSING GITMO FOR MILITARY TRIALS
This story focuses in on the fact that President Obama is starting to back off of the suggestion that some terrorist being held at our base at Guantanamo Bay need to be subject to our criminal justice system.  I have not avoided this topic but have not found the time to write about it until today.  KSM and other terrorist should be tried by military courts or tribunals.  Here are the reasons why.

First, they are not criminals, they are members of an  organized military organization.  They are defined as enemy combatants because they are not linked to any one single nation.  In the 1940s when Germany dropped off non-uniformed soldiers on Long Island, those captured were tried in military tribunals, not our criminal courts.  Secondly, there is no way they can get a fair trial in the U.S.  Let me count the ways.  First, they have confessed to being involved in specific plots against the U.S., but those confessions were coerced, though they have also made them in open court before military courts.  According to criminal law a coerced confession is not admissible in trial.  Also, the methods use to gain intelligence and evidence on these men would also not hold up in an American criminal trial.  So, there is no real evidence that can be admitted to any U.S. criminal court.  Thirdly, there is not a jury in the entire U.S. that would be be unbiased against them.  It has nothing to do with them being Muslims and everything to do with the giant hole in the ground they left behind.  This moves me on to the next story.

ISLAM IS NOT A RELIGION OF PEACE
Anyone who has really studied the religion of Islam is not surprised by this story.  I post it so that we can all realize against whom we are fighting against.  We are fighting against a religious people who favor killing and conquest as their method of evangelism.  Look at your history books; Islam was nothing until the idea of Jihad entered the religion.  They spread it all across the middle east, northern Africa, Turkey, the Balkan peninsula, and Spain using military might.  And if you did not convert, you were killed.  Now I do not think all Muslim, especially many who come to the U.S. are going to ask me to convert or be killed.  In fact most of them came here because we offer them the choice to worship as they please.  But there are people in this country who are Muslim that want to change this nation.  The Muslim leaders around the world do believe us to be the "Great Satan" and are at war with us whether we like it and accept it or not.

U.S. CONGRESS CONDEMNS TURKEY
Back after World War I, Turkey (called the Ottoman Empire at the time) killed a lot of ethnic Armenians in the Balkan peninsula.  The Congress has decided, again, to condemn the actions of turkey during that time (they first passed this resolution in 2007 when the democrats they first took control of the U.S. House).  This is just a complete waste of time.  The U.S. government condemning a nation over something that was done close to 100 years ago by a government and people who are no longer alive or active.  What purpose does it serve?  Turkey should make a point and condemn the U.S. for driving native Americans off of their lands, and over 300+ years of slavery.  There are other things that other could condemn as well from our past.  I guess the lesson learned here is "Those with glass houses should not throw stones."

There was one more story to comment on but the link disappeared.  It explained how Sen. John Kerry wants to end the discrimination against homosexuals from giving blood.  I can get behind that idea.  The main reason the ban was instituted was because of GRIDS (Gay Related Immuno-Deficient Syndrome) or what we call today, HIV-AIDS.  It was thought to be only part of the gay community so they were denied to privilege to give blood so it would not spread to others.  Today there are so many tests that our blood is run through before it goes into another person that it really does not matter who gives.  So what's the big deal.

I was going to also comment on the story of the young woman in San Diego who was raped and killed by a convicted and released sex offender.  I have decided to save my thoughts on that for another posting related to the death penalty.  As always your comments and suggestions are welcome.

My Perfect School: U.S. History Curriculum

Today's posting on my perfect school focuses in on a subject matter I currently teach:  U.S. History.  While I am biased I feel U.S. History and Government are the most important subjects a student must learn in their education.  This is because it is the history of us as a people.  It is the understanding of our Constitution, our government, and rights.  In the area of history the saying, "Those who cannot remember the past, are condemned to repeat it" comes to my mind when studying history.  Too much of our recent history is a repeat of history less than 70 years old.  We need to remember the past so we can learn from it, correct the mistakes of it (as best as possible), and make sure they never happen again.

My view of U.S. History is one of it being a survey course.  Students should be expected to learn about specific movements, events, people, places and facts, but teachers cannot teach students everything there is to know about U.S. History.  The goal of teaching a high school U.S. History course is for them to come out of it knowing a little bit more, maybe a lot more than they did walking in to class.

Also my objectives are very broad because with each major event or movement in this history of the U.S. so many topics can be taught, discussed, and learned.  This gives the teacher and student the academic freedom to teach about specific things that may interest them on the topic.  Here are the objectives:

History Skills - implemented throughout the entire year.

• Read, interpret and create time lines, maps, and other charts to display information
• Read, summarize and analyze historical information from various sources.
• Develop vocabulary related to the study of U.S. History.
• Defend oral and written positions on past and current events of U.S. History
• Work individually and in groups to acquire and present information.

Original American Cultures ( Prehistory - 1400)

• Compare and contrast the different Native tribes and societies of the American continents.
• Identify common elements of native tribes on the American continents

American Exploration & Colonization ( 1400 – 1600s )

• Describe the significance of the voyages and goals of the different European explorers.
• Examine the colonial locations and goals of the countries that colonized the American continents
• Define and give examples of the Columbia Exchange.

British Colonial History ( 1607 – 1763 )

• Compare & contrast the features, culture, history, economics of the British American colonies;  individually and by region.  
• Evaluate the roles of religion, slavery, trade and education in the British colonies.

American Revolutionary War ( 1760 – 1781 )

• Evaluate the significant causes, people, places, battles, events, results and consequences of the Revolutionary War.

Critical Period ( 1776 – 1789 ) - briefly covered due to overlap in U.S. Government.

• Evaluate the Articles of Confederation and the issues related to them.
• Judge the compromises and major debates during the Constitutional Convention.
• Debate the issues involved in ratifying the U.S. Constitution.

Antebellum America ( 1790 – 1850 )

• Summarize the foreign and domestic policy actions of the U.S. of this time period.
• Explain the significance of the Louisiana Purchase.
• Explain the issues and roles of key people that led to the development of political parties
• Give examples of successful and unsuccessful social/economic reforms and religious movements
• Give examples of conflicts the U.S. had with native American tribes until 1850
• Explain the significant causes, people places, battles, events results and consequences of the War of 1812.
• Explain the development of factories and significant inventions of early U.S. industrialization 
• Explain the influence of immigration on the U.S. during this time period.
• Locate and explain the significance of major trails and other transportation systems.
• Evaluate the significant causes, people places, battles, events results and consequences of the Mexican-American War, including the war for Texan independence.

The Civil War ( 1850 – 1877 )

• Evaluate the significant causes, people, places, battles, events, results and consequences of the Civil War.
• Compare and contrast the different plans for the Reconstruction of the South after the Civil War.
• Evaluate the significance of the laws, amendments, policies, court cases and people during the Reconstruction.
• Identify the reason and results of the impeachment of President Andrew Johnson.

Post-Antebellum America ( 1850 – 1918 )

• Summarize the foreign and domestic policy actions of the U.S. of this time period.
• Give examples of conflicts and policies of the U.S. towards native American tribes in the western United States
• Describe reasons behind the western migration of U.S. citizens after the Civil War.
• Explain the significance of mining, farming, cattle ranching, and railroads on Western expansion.
• Explain the influence of immigration on the U.S. during this time period.
• Give examples of how everyday life for U.S. citizens changed during this time period.
• Give examples of successful and unsuccessful social, economic, and political movements during this period
• Identify the leaders and explain the major goals, methods and successes of the Progressive movement.
• Give examples of how everyday life for U.S. citizens changed during this time period.
• Explain the significant interactions and policies between the U.S. and other world countries.
• Explain the significant causes, people places, battles, events results and consequences of the Spanish-American War.

The Great War ( 1914 – 1918 )

• Explain the significant causes, people places, battles, events, results and consequences of the Great War. 
• Identify Wilson’s 14 Points for the Treaty of Versailles and why they were rejected by the U.S.

Post World War America ( 1918 – 1941 )

• Summarize the foreign and domestic policy actions of the U.S. of this time period.
• Give examples of successful and unsuccessful social, economic, and political reform movements during this period.
• Explain the significant causes, effects and policies that led to the Great Depression.
• Explain and evaluate the significant policies and results of those polices enacted by Hoover and Roosevelt to end the Great Depression.
• Give examples of how everyday life for U.S. citizens changed during this time period.

World War II ( 1939 – 1945 )

• Evaluate the significant causes, people places, battles, events, results and consequences of the World War II.

Baby Boomer Generation ( 1945 – 1972 )

• Summarize the foreign and domestic policy actions of the U.S. of this time period.
• Explain the significant causes, people places, battles, events, results and consequences of the Korean War.
•  Explain the significant people, goals and events related to U.S. space exploration.
• Explain the significant causes, people, places, battles, events, results, and consequences of the Vietnam War.
• Explain the significant people, places, methods, events, laws and policies during the Civil Rights movement.
• Give examples of successful and unsuccessful social, economic, and political reforms during this period.
• Give examples of how everyday life for U.S. citizens changed during this time period.

Modern America ( 1970s - Present )

• Summarize the foreign and domestic policy actions of the U.S. of this time period.
• Explain and evaluate the reasons behind the impeachment of Presidents Nixon and Clinton.
• Explain the significant causes, people places, battles, events, results and consequences of the Gulf War and the War on Terror.
• Give examples of successful and unsuccessful social, economic, and political reform movements during this period.
• Give examples of how everyday life for U.S. citizens changed during this time period.

I welcome the input of fellow U.S. History teachers on this subject matter.  Is there anything in particular that I missed or should be added.  Please let me know.  Also any other teachers that would wish to contribute to this blog posting about their subject matter I would appreciate the input.  Shoot me an email and we can work out a option to be a guest contributor to this blog.  Thanks and have a nice day.

Public Policy: Health Insurance Reform

Ok another posting on public policy, specifically about reforming the health insurance industry.  I believe I have discussed this before on this blog but this will be more generalized ideas as opposed to specific language to be found in a piece of legislation.

Competition.  Citizens and legal residents can purchase health insurance from any provider in the state in which they live.  No state may disallow any health insurance provider from operating within it borders as long as they follow the statues of that state.  Anti-Trust protections for any health care companies would also be removed.

Consumer Choice:  No state or government entity may require a set level of health insurance coverage on any person or company.  Consumers can choose to participate in their employers insurance coverage plans or receive the employers contribution to health insurance as income, and taxed as such.  Consumers can cherry pick the type of coverage they want to receive from any health insurance provider, including employer provided health insurance.  Companies must show all the options to consumers when they start their policy with the company and the affect it has on their premiums.  Consumers can alter their coverage at any given time of their policy, as long as their premiums are paid (Exception: See Preexisting Condition).  Health insurance policies are valid for any hospital, clinic, or doctor within the United States or in another country.  A health care provider cannot discriminate based on the health insurance policy provider.  Health Insurance policy providers cannot discriminate where a policy holder receives health care.

Treatment:  All health care decisions will be made ONLY by doctors and patients.  Health insurance providers may not deny payment for specific treatments unless they are not covered in the health insurance policy. 

Costs Disclosure:  The costs of all treatment options must be disclosed to patients before treatment begins.  Included in this cost disclosure would be the amount covered by the insurance provider and by the patient.

Tax Exempt:  Any valid health care and/or medical costs would tax exempt through the U.S. Tax Code, including contributions to health care savings accounts. 

Dropping Coverage:  No health insurance provider may drop a patient as long as their premiums are current.  

Preexisting Conditions:  Health insurance providers must prove the policy holder knew of the preexisting condition before they can deny payment for said treatment.  The burden of proof is on the insurance provide to prove the preexisting condition was known to the patient.  A patient may not change their health insurance policy after discovering a condition not covered in their current insurance policy.


Comments.  Suggestions?  Did I miss anything?

News of the Day - 3/2/2010 - Guns, Bunning

Another interesting day in the news.  So lets get to it.

CHICAGO GUN BAN TO BE HEARD IN SUPREME COURT
Chicago has one of the strictest gun bans in the entire U.S. Basically a citizen may not own or possess any firearm, handgun or automatic weapons inside the city limits of Chicago.  Last year the Supreme Court ruled in District of Columbia v. Heller, that the second amendment guarantees the individual the right to own and possess firearms.  This did not immediately strike down restrictive gun laws at the state or local level because D.C. is a federal territory under the control of Congress.  So the NRA and other gun rights activists brought the city of Chicago to court on the same grounds.  Here is the debate with the 2nd Amendment:  Should regular law abiding citizens be prevented and prosecuted for own, possessing and using firearms in the defense of their life, liberty or property?  Discuss.

SENATOR BUNNING IS THE ONE MAN FILIBUSTER
Senator Bunning from Kentucky is pulling off a one man filibuster in the Senate (Former students define filibuster in your own words.)  He is holding up the passage of a bill that would extend unemployment benefits for those out of work.  He reasoning?  We don't have $10 billion to pay for this bill.  I am glad someone is standing up for principles of fiscal responsibility.  Also since when is it the job of the federal government to provide unemployment benefits to people out of work?  Where in the Constitution do you find ANY authorization?  It's the states who take money for unemployment insurance.  Its their job to provide the determination of how long benefits should last.  You know I feel for the people who are out of work, but giving them more money is not the answer.  They need to get off their butts and find jobs, even if its "below them" to work at Walmart, Target or even McDonald's.

CONVICTED TEACHERS STILL COLLECTING PAYCHECKS
This is not so much an article but a feature on FoxNews.com about nine teachers who are still being paid while being convicted of crimes.  This is the biggest argument I can make against tenure and teacher's unions.  How can the state and districts justify to the tax payers paying accused criminals money out of the state coffers.  It just makes me sick.  What I find even more interesting is each of the individuals is accused of a sex crime against children.  How do these people get into and stay in this system?  Seriously!

I welcome comments, questions, discussion and debate on all of these topics.  Feel free to leave a note.  Have a great day  (SIDENOTE:  I am not in any trouble regarding the racist incident last week.  The school administration is handling it now.)