News of the Day: 01/10/2011 - Arizona Shooting

This 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.

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.

This article from the New York Times by Paul Krugman 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?

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.

By the way Mr. Robinson, the political right in this country is not anti-government, but in favor limited government.

In fact, Keith Olberman did a special comment 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 pledge of non-violence used by Martin Luther King, Jr. and his followers.  Here is Glenn saying it specifically on the air on his television program.

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.

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.

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.

We should all take a page of out of Glenn Beck's book who made a very good response to the attacks this Monday and issued a challenge.  I won't put it all up here but here is his challenge:

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.

I denounce violence, regardless of ideological motivation.

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.

I denounce those who wish to tear down our system and rebuild it in their own image, whatever that image may be.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Those are my thoughts on the events that transpired past coming weekend.  Questions?  Comments?  Concerns?

To my Facebook readers:  Remember to subscribe to my blog on my website (The Government Teacher) 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.

The U.S. Constitution - Lesson #14: Federal Court Structure & Jurisdiction

Today'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.

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 ordain and establish.

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.

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.)

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 Article I, Section 8, Clause 9.  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?

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.

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.

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.

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 Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; 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.

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 Chisholm v. Georgia.  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.

"Cases... arising under this Constitution..."  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)

"The laws of the United States and Treaties made... under their authority."  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.

"Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers, and Consuls"  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.

"Cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction"  This specifically refers to cases of crimes on the high seas which Congress can legislate in Article I, Section 8, Clause 10.  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).

"To Controversies between to which the United State shall be a party; to Controversies between two or more states.. between citizens of different states."  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.

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.

My Perfect School: Mission Statement

So 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.  

It is the purpose and mission of (insert school name here), within the context of the Christian gospel (included if its a Lutheran school), 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.

 There are several main parts of the mission statement I want to expound to you my readers.

to provide for our students, parents, and teachers an excellent educational environment,

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.

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

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.

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.

all members share a common responsibility in providing the best educational outcomes for all individual members of this community.

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.

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.

within the context of the Christian gospel

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.

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.

The Fatal Flaws and Failings of Collaborative Commonality in Assessments and Lessons Plans

I 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. 

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.  

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. 

Any questions, comments, concerns?  Class dismissed.

Public Policy: Energy

The inspiration for this blog article is the postings of some of my friends on facebook to boycott oil companies by not buying oil on some date.  This has been attempted numerous times over the last ten years, mostly through email chain letters.  The fact of the matter is though is that it does absolutely nothing.  You can  never get enough people to make it worth something.  And what happens if I really need gas that day?  What we need is a common sense energy policy for the U.S. not boycotts.  Here is my energy policy for the United States for your enjoyment.

1.  End all subsidies, tax credits and deductions for energy sources.  If we want to know what it really costs to produce gasoline and other fuels for our cars we should end all subsidies.  I don't care if they go to big oil or big ethanol.  This is a good idea in general, but lets apply it to this sector of the economy.  This will make prices go up, but with those prices going up the market will then shift to more fuel efficient cars on their own.  Those who want to own gas guzzlers are free to do so and pay that much for fuel which is their right.

2.  Lower taxes on big oil.  People make a big deal about the billions of dollars of profits made by big oil companies.  The fact of the matter is that oil companies only make an eight cent profit of every dollar bought in gasoline.  The different levels of government make between twenty to thirty cents off of every dollars bought in gasoline.  So who really profits from big oil?  Big oil or big government.  This will make fuel more affordable to everyone because high oil prices affect the poorer classes more than the rich, since their resources are more limited.  Also, it will bring down the price of all other goods since gasoline is used to transport them to market.  It will be a boon to our economy.

3.  Utilize our own resources.  We have vast untapped resources of oil within the United States.  We need to use these now, instead of sending our money to people who use that money to fund our enemies (i.e. Saudi Arabia and al-qaeda).  The vast majority of these resources are in places people never go or see (i.e. ANWR).  We can utilize technology to convert coal to gasoline, just like Hitler did when he had an oil embargo on him.  We need to be self-sufficient.  We need to drill here and drill now.  Also, oil is used for more than just gasoline, so we will almost always need some source of that resource.

4.  Technology must catch up.  Electric cars are coming, but right now they suck!  No one wants to buy them.  Also, their is no infrastructure to support their widespread use.  This requires years of investment and research by all levels of economy for it to be implemented.  Electric trucks need enough power to pull heavy loads.  We need the technology for rapid charging of the batteries, because no one will wait hours to get their car charged on a cross country trip, when they can fill up with gas in 10 minutes.  We need mechanics trained in the maintenance of these vehicles.  We need the battery technology to store the power generated by solar, wind and other sources because solar only works when the sun is out.  All of these advances must not rely on the government for funding either.  To rely on government funding is to mask the true costs of these technologies.  The free market will decide which of these will succeed and fail.

Big Oil is a problem with the lobbyist they have in Congress, but lobbying is a problem in general in our government.  I am not against lobbying our government for legislation.  Special interests groups are the modern day factions that James Madison talked about in Federalists #10.  Lobbying regulations must be drawn up to prevent undue influence on our representatives.  But that is a another problem for another day.  Hey there's another topic for my blog.  Gonna have to do some research on that before I open my mouth on that one.

Any questions, comments, concerns.  Class dismissed!

2011 New Year Resolutions

So its New Year's Eve and I guess that means I should make some resolutions for the next year.  Here are mine.

1. Lose more weight:  Since the end of July 2010 I have lost about 30 pounds.  I saw my weight at 230 pounds and only some of my clothes were fitting right.  Shirts bulging, pants pinching, and feeling depressed about the whole thing.  I started watching what I eat by using a calorie counter online.  My friend Grace also had a competition to see who could lose the most by New Years.  From July until today I have reached down as far as 195 pounds.  I want to lose at least 15 more pounds or more to get me down to my college weight or below.  I would also like to put on some more muscle mass as well.
2. Write more.  I will be more consistent with this blog in the new year.  I am not sure of the schedule yet, but it will be three or four days a week instead of trying to do it everyday or hit and miss. I want to make this blog a money maker for me and my wife.  I am not sure exactly how to do that, but I want to learn how.  I also want to write some more American History / Government books for children.  Possibly submit them to a publisher.
3. Invest more.  My dad gave me a book several years ago that I finally read called "Rich Dad, Poor Dad," by Robert Kiyosaki.  It totally changed my perspective on money in this day and age.  I then read "The Millionaire Maker" by Loral Langemeier.  I have continued to read more on financial literacy.  I want to take some money and invest it to make more money in passive income for my family.  I know its doable.
4. Move to back to the Midwest.  This would involve finding a job back in that area.  I am going to send out more resumes to Lutheran high schools and fill out applications for as many Illinois school districts as I can.  I want to get out of this city.  No offense to those born and raised in Vegas, but its not for me, Katie or Samantha.
5. Eliminate debt.  Within the next month the car will be paid off.  The credit card is next.  We have paid a ton of money to our debt in the last 18 months.  Its time to eliminate most of  it.  Possibly pay more off on our student loans.

What are your new years resolutions?  Please feel free to share.

New Year, New Topics

To my loyal readers,

I know I suck at posting blogs in a regular fashion.  Thanks for sticking with me.  I want to get better at this but I do need feedback.  I have ideas of how I can be more consistent in writing and additional writing topics to my repetorie.  Here is what I have so far in terms of posts.

News of the Day:  These are articles in which I summarize and analyze the important news stories of the day.  Is their a news story in which you want to get my feedback?  Send them to me.

Public Policy:  In these articles I look at a particular area of public policy in governance and give my common sense solutions and views on those policies.  I am open to suggestions as to what public policy issues I can address.  Please send me your ideas.
 
My Perfect School:  In this article I describe some of the basic principles and ideas that will be used when I get the opportunity to build my perfect school.  I would like other teachers who would want to contribute ideas to send them to me and/or serve as a guest writer to explain their ideas.  Please feel free to contribute your ideas.

Government Lessons:  These articles address some topic in which I want to teach my readers about.  These lessons have been focused on the U.S. Constitution.  In the comping months and weeks I will be bring that series to a close.  Other things I have considered is teaching about "The Federalists Papers" or other political and government writings.  If their are topics or writings you would like to see me address please let me know.

Those are my biggest categories of posts in the last year.  Here are a few more ideas I have.

Book Reviews:  Those of you who know me know that I read a lot.  Maybe its time I reviewed the books that I read.  Tell me what you think.

The News Cycle:  In this article I would address the key news stories of the current news cycle.  This would be a derivative of my News of the Day articles.  More like a week in review.

Personal Posts:  I have avoided personal articles mostly because I like being all business.  I fear posting this stuff because I don't want to share to much about my personal life and embarrass myself, the people I know and love, or where I work.  That could be a dangerous road to walk.

Another idea I had was only posting on specific days (i.e. Mondays, Wednesdays, Fridays, etc.).  It would make it easier for me to make a due date if I had a day or two to come up with a topic and write about it.  The one thing I have learned from my favorite online comic strips is that they are consistent.  The key piece of advice he says to new web comic writers is to be on time.  Don't say you are going to post at midnight three days a week unless you can do it.  That is good advice to follow for anybody with followers.  Though I am not sure what days work best though.  Let me know what you think on the days would be best to have me post.

I have a few more ideas about articles but they have skipped my mind at this moment.  What would you, my readers, like to see coming out of this blog?  I want to know!  As always, thanks for reading. 

May you all have a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!

The U.S. Constitution - Lesson #13: Powers of the President

It's been a while since class has been in session but its time to get back to work.  Today's lesson focuses on Article II, sections 2 and 3.  Collectively these inform the citizens about the powers and responsibilities of the President of the United States.

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;

The very first power is where we see the President being the commander in chief of all military forces in the United States, including the state militias, which is now called the National Guard.  The power over the military is divided to protect the people and the government.  While congress has the power to declare war, regulate the military and provide funds for its running, they have no say over the command of the military.  So when the Democrats tried to lay out a time table for the removal of troops from Iraq they overstepped their Constitutional authority.

The President was given the power to command the military because military decision are best left in one person's hand.  You can't have Congress debating over military strategy because it would take to long.  That is why they could do nothing about the Surge.  They only thing Congress could do was cut off funding, which was within their authority.

he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices,

 As of right now we have 15 Executive Departments, the most recent being Homeland Security.  These are created by law in Congress.  These principle officers, or secretaries, are to provide the president with advice on how to enforce the laws passed by the United States Congress.  They also oversee their departments and assist with the enforcement of federal law.  They are sometimes called the Cabinet, but that informal term include others as well besides the heads of the executive departments.

and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

These are the president's clemency powers.  A pardon is legal forgiveness of a crime.  A reprieves is the postponement or lessening of a prison sentence.  This power is given to the president only over convictions of federal law, not state.  Impeachments cannot be pardoned because they are distinctly the power of Congress.  Also they only remove a person from office or prevent them from holding other federal offices.  The president could pardon a impeached official if they were officially charged and convicted of the federal crime that got them impeached.

A lot of talk in public policy over the last 5-6 years has been about comprehensive immigration reform.  One idea that has been thrown around by groups is that the Congress would grant amnesty to immigrants or aliens living in the United States against federal law.  The fact of the matter is though that the President does not need to wait on Congress to grant amnesty (A blanket pardon to a group of people) to illegal immigrants.  He has the power vested in him by the Constitution.  I think he just fears the backlash of such an action.

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and 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.

The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.

Their are several things going on in this clauses that I want to address, but they all have to do with the special connection made between the President and the Senate inside the Constitution.  Treaties require the advice and consent of the Senate because it is the job of the Senate to protect the rights of the states and their citizens.  The 2/3 majority is required because treaties affect the entire nation and our relationship to the world.  It would be wrong for treaties to be approved by a simple majority since they can have such far reaching effects on the country, states, and citizens.

The Senate is also required to approve of almost all Presidential appointments, unless the law which creates them says they may be appointed by someone else.  This clause is to protect the citizens from the President appoint his friends into power.  People may be worried that a person may buy an office with campaign contributions; this is designed to give a check on those types of appointments.  A key thing that people miss in this clause though is that these appointed positions MUST be created by law.  All of these czars and special advisers that Presidents have appointed that do not require Senate approval are unconstitutional positions.

The last phrase gives the power to make appointments to offices requiring Senate approval when they are out of session.  This was to make sure that the government can still fully function when Congress is not in session.  But their is a check on this power, they will only serve until the end of the next session of Congress.  It limits the power of the President in this regards.

Recently, both Presidents Obama and Bush have used this power to appoint a person who was not politically popular.  Bush did it with John Bolton as our ambassador to the UN and Obama did it with an appointment to a new health insurance bureaucracy under the law passed this year.  Both did this to avoid open debate and discussion on the person.  Obama's man did not even have a hearing prior to the session ending and the appointment being made when the Senate was out of session. 

He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient;

The President must communicate with Congress.  It is required in Article II of the Constitution.  For most of the history of the United States this communication was an annual letter or message to Congress.  There is no provision for it to be aired on television, just that it be presented to Congress.  Could be dangerous if this was done in private.

he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper;

This clause shows that the President has limited powers over Congress.  The chief among them being the power to call them into an emergency session.  This is not as important today as it was a hundred years ago.  Congress meets almost in continuous session over the two years they are elected.  The Senate is sometimes called back to approve of a presidential appointment, but rarely are both houses called back.

The second power is the power to adjourn Congress.  The only time he may adjourn the Congress is when their is a disagreement between the two houses for how long they will adjourn.  The are required to have the permission of the other house if they are to adjourn for more than three days.

he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers

The President is the chief diplomat of the United States, and represents us to the world.  This power is connected to his power to make treaties.  This powers was given to the President because some conversations between different head of state are confidential and require secrecy, which is easier with a singular executive.  Also it makes negotiations easier for treaties if all 100 members of the Senate are not until ratification of such treaties.

he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,

To execute the laws means to enforce them.  This is a reiteration of the very first line of Article II, which vests all executive power in the President.  When a president refuses to enforce the properly approved legislation of the U.S. Congress he is in violation of not only this clause of the Constitution, but also his oath of office.  Whether the President likes the law, supreme court decision or treaty, it is his job to enforce it equally among all citizens. 

and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.

This power is connected with the his power as commander in chief of the military.  Most major military officers do require Senate confirmation, like when General Petraus was appointed commander in Afghanistan following General McCrysal's resignation.  Though I am not sure from where they get that authority.

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

This last section of Article II, outlines that all civil officers can be removed from office if they have been impeached by the Congress.  They only real crimes defined as impeachable by the Constitution are Treason and bribery.  I wonder if taking money, trips, and other items from lobbyist, special interest groups and political action committees can be seen as bribery?

That is all I have for you today class.  Next week we will start to look at Article III of the U.S. Constitution that deals with the Judicial Branch.  Any questions, comments, concerns?  Class dismissed.

Public Policy: Reforming the U.S. Congress

It's been a long time since I have written anything so I figured I would give it another shot.  My topic today deals with how I would, as a member of Congress, seek to reform the Congress to make it more fiscally responsible.

1.  Cut pay of all members of Congress.  Members of Congress make AT LEAST $174,000/year.  That is not counting all the fringe benefits that they get, including health insurance, franking privileges, travel expenses and a bunch of others.  It is not right that members of Congress can get rich in public service.  With that intention in mind, I would cut Congressional pay down to the current poverty level, adjustable for inflation.  They would get a stipend to use for their health insurance, that they must buy on the open market.  They would get no retirement pension, since this is a temporary position, not a career.  They would get no other benefits or emolument, as the Constitution describes it.

2.  Cut Congressional Members personnel staff.  There are many members of Congress who have large numbers of staffers.  This comes usually with their rank in the House or the Senate.  All of these are paid by the tax payer.  Each member of Congress would be allotted one secretary for their D.C. office, and one personal aide that accompanies them while they are in Washington, D.C. They will be paid out of the treasury at the market rate for such positions.  They also will have stipend for their health insurance.  They will not get any retirement since this is a temporary position.  If members wanted additional staff in Washington or in their home state and/or district they must pay for it out of their own pocket (excluding campaign contributions).

3.  Cut Congressional Committee staffs.  There are over 25,000 people who work for the U.S. Congress most of them work for the individual committees that Congress creates to investigate bills.  The staff of these must be cut.  They will be paid the market rate for their positions out of the treasury.  I am not sure how many staffers are needed to run each committee but I can't imagine it would be more than ten people.

4.  Reform Government Printing Office.   This part of the U.S. Congress is the office that prints these thousand page bills, the federal budget and all other bills and necessary information for members of Congress and their staffs.  Effective immediately I would stop printing all documents on paper and send them to members of Congress via PDF or editable files to be downloaded on to their computers or other devices.  This would make the government more green and save the tax payers money by not having to buy paper.

Those are the major reforms I would make.  Are there any others that people would suggest.  I am open to new ideas.

Happy 234th Birthday U.S.A!!!

Its been a while I know, but I must honor the creation of the single most influential nation in the history of the modern world.  The only nation founded by choice.  The only nation where we make money and wealth.  The only nation where the poorest among us could become the richest with hard work and genius ideas.  The only nation that deliberately sat down and wrote out its system of government to last for ages.  The only nation to guarantee equal justice under the law in it constitution.  A nation that acknowledges that god is the source of rights, not the government or man. A nation made up of 50 sovereign states.  I present to you the document that created this nation.  The Declaration of Independence:

In Congress, July 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

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 — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. — The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.

1. He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
2. He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
3. He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
4. He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
5. He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
6. He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
7. He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
8. He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.
9. He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
10. He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our People, and eat out their substance.
11. He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
12. He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.
13. He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
14. For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
15. For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from Punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
16. For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
17. For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
18. For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
19. For transporting us beyond seas to be tried for pretended offences:
20. For abolishing the free system of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
21. For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the forms of our Governments:
22. For suspending our own Legislature, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
23. He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
24. He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
25. He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
26. He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
27. He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions we have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have we been wanting in attention to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do.

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

Public Policy: The Post Office

An interesting topic of discussion for today's Public Policy debate:  the Post Office.  This power is conferred on Congress in Article I, Section 8:  "Congress shall have the power... to establish post offices and post roads.  If anyone knows me I am a stickler for the Constitution and the federal government only doing things that they are authorized to do under the U.S. Constitution.


The United States Postal Service is technically a government corporation.  This is a business that is run by the federal government to provide a specific service.  They are regulated and sometimes receive federal funds as part of their budget.  Unfortunately the mail service we have is not always the best.  I can speak from experience as I have several letters and packages "Lost in the mail," via the USPS.  My main purpose of the public policy is for the free markets to decide the fate of this service.

I would through legislative means break up the USPS and break some of those parts from the federal government.  I would retain the USPS as a regulatory body for all post services throughout the United States.  They would set the regulations for delivery of mail.  This would mostly of establishing zip codes and standards for the delivery of post to anyone in the U.S.  They could also be called upon to help search and protect the citizens from the mailing of hazardous materials.

The business aspect of the post office, all the branch offices would be privatized.  They would be required to run the sweat of their brow and the services they provide.  But also the other private companies that handle post (UPS, FedEx, DHL, and others) would be given greater freedom to compete with the USPS on even ground.  They could send letters and other things through the mail following the same regulations established by the government regulatory agency.

That does mean, in the short term, prices for post would go up through the post office.  The price of mailing a letter might go up.  But if they are forced to compete against the other mail carriers in the U.S. their service and the service of other companies would go up.  Think of the freedom of choice you would have now.  You as a consumer could decide which service delivers your mail (for a nominal fee if you like).  Each company could provide different services and rates to fully compete against each other from your business.  Since the government will not have a monopoly on delivering mail this will drive prices down in the long term.

This idea may not work, but they do it in other countries.  In Australia, the Post Office is still part of the government but they must run based only on the money they bring in.  This makes them more efficient, offers better and faster service, and spawns more competition among the companies that handle post.

Thoughts?  Comments?  Questions?  Points I missed?  Let me know.

The U.S. Constitution - Lesson #12: President of the United States

Today's lesson gets us back into the text of the Constitution and its meaning for us today.  Recently we had finished Article I of the Constitution, which focused on the powers of the Legislative Branch of government, the U.S. Congress.  Today we move on to the first section of Article II, which is the Executive Branch, or the President of the United States.

The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice-President chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows:

This clause state the executive power, the power to enforce the laws will be in a single President with a Vice President.  Both will serve a term of four years.  There was a large debate during the Constitution convention on the make up of the Executive.  There were calls for a committee of three to five individuals, a triumvirate of sorts.  The argument for a single is that only one person is responsible for executing the laws.  If there were three or four or five executives then you would have too much debate and discussion over the simple task of enforcing the laws passed by Congress, which needs to be a deliberative body.

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

Here begins the explanation of the most confusing part of the American government: the electoral college.  Set out in this clause is how the states will determine the electors who will vote and elect the President.  In practical terms of election of the president is not a single national election, but 50 individual state elections.  First the electors are chosen by the state legislatures, removing all doubt that the election for president is not one of popular vote but of the votes of the state electors.  Each state will have the same number of electors as it does in Congress, so Nevada has three members of the House and two Senators, so it has five electoral votes.  It does prohibit any elected official for the U.S. government from being an elector.

In modern times this is how they electors are chosen.  When you cast your vote for the President and Vice-President, you are casting your vote not for those candidates, but the slate of electors chosen by that political party that have pledged their vote for that candidate.  My vote did not technically go for John McCain and Sarah Palin in 2008. It went to the five Republican electors for the state of Nevada.  Who then in turn, if chosen, by majority vote, will cast their electoral votes for those two individuals.  Everyone understand so far?  Good moving on.

The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two
persons, of whom one at least shall not lie an Inhabitant of the same State
with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and
of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and
transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to
the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence
of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the
Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes
shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of
Electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such Majority, and
have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall
immediately choose by Ballot one of them for President; and if no Person have a
Majority, then from the five highest on the List the said House shall in like
Manner choose the President. But in choosing the President, the Votes shall be
taken by States, the Representation from each State having one Vote; a quorum
for this Purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two-thirds of the
States, and a Majority of all the States shall be necessary to a Choice. In
every Case, after the Choice of the President, the Person having the greatest
Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice President. But if there
should remain two or more who have equal Votes, the Senate shall choose from
them by Ballot the Vice-President.

Here is where it can get complicated because of all the language in this one clause.  The electors, chosen by the state legislatures, will meet in the capital city.  There they will vote for two people for President.  One of them must be from outside that state.  This actually caused a problem in the 2000 election.  Vice-Presidential candidate Dick Chaney, was set to move his to Texas prior to the election, unfortunately if he did that he would not have been able to be received the electoral votes from Texas, since both Bush and Cheney would then be from Texas.  If it weren't for that we could have easily had President George Bush and Vice-President Joe Lierberman.  But moving on...

All the votes from that state would then be sent to the President of the Senate, technically the current Vice-President, and those votes will be opened and counted in a joint session of Congress.  The person with the most votes would be declared the President, the person with the second highest votes the VP.  Under this system you could have political enemies serving in the same White House.  In fact that did happen between 1797-1801 when President John Adams, of the Federalists Party, served concurrently with Vice-President Thomas Jefferson, of the Democratic-Republicans.  That situation did not last long as I will talk about in a minute.

If there was a tie or no majority then the House of Representatives would vote, by state, on a slate of candidates that had the highest number of votes.  It was important that the House vote by state.  While, at present, California may have an a lot of power in presidential elections in the electoral college, in the event of a tie they have no more power than Rhode Island or Alaska.  This again shows that in fact the people do not elect the President, the states do.

Keep in mind also this method changed about eleven years after the Constitution was ratified.  It was changed by the 12TH Amendment.  Here it is

The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate;

There is a bit more to the amendment but listed above are the major changes to this method.  The 12Th Amendment makes it so that when the electors vote they have two separate ballots, one for President and one for Vice President.  The creation of political parties made this change necessary during the election of 1800.  Let me explain.

During the election of 1800, Vice President Thomas Jefferson, ran for President against the his sitting boss, President John Adams.  Jefferson choose Aaron Burr to run as his Vice-Presidential candidate as part of the new Democratic-Republican party.  Jefferson instructed the electors that would be chosen for him by the state legislatures that they should vote for both Jefferson and Burr (The popular vote is still about 24 years away in American history.).  What happened?  Obviously a tie between Jefferson and Burr.  So the vote went into the House of Representatives and it took 36 votes to make Jefferson our third President.  Mostly because the Federalists were trying to prevent Jefferson from becoming President and voting for Burr.  Here we see the beginnings of partisan politics.  This problem created by political parties necessitated the change to the electoral system.  With the ratification of the 12TH Amendments party politics and partisan elections were ingrained and included, in our Constitution, against the wishes of the now dead Father of our Country, George Washington.  He had this to say about political parties in  his farewell address: 

In contemplating the causes which may disturb our Union, it occurs as matter of serious concern that any ground should have been furnished for characterizing parties by geographical discriminations, Northern and Southern, Atlantic and Western; whence designing men may endeavor to excite a belief that there is a real difference of local interests and views. One of the expedients of party to acquire influence within particular districts is to misrepresent the opinions and aims of other districts. You cannot shield yourselves too much against the jealousies and heartburnings which spring from these misrepresentations; they tend to render alien to each other those who ought to be bound together by fraternal affection.

There can be a lot said about this method of electing the President.  I welcome a hearty debate on the electoral college in my comments. Bring it on!  But moving on.  There is more to tell.

The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.

It already has been stated that Congress has the power to alter the dates of the elections (Article I, Section 4, Clause 1).  Since this is not a general election Congress is also granted the power of when electors should be chosen.  This along with the general election day is the first Tuesday in November, after the first Monday.  They have also set by the the date when the electoral votes must have been certified and submitted to Congress.  I believe it is December 20TH.  This is why the case of Bush v. Gore was argued and decided so quickly after the 2000 election.  They had to do it so that the electoral votes could be submitted in the manner prescribed by law.  There is another topic of debate we could address in the comments with this posting:  the Supreme Court case of Bush v. Gore.

No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

Here is the infamous clause that states the qualifications for President of the United States The qualifications for the Vice-President are the same and are set in the 12TH Amendment. This is where the "Birthers" have take issue with our current President.  They claim President Obama is not a natural born citizen.  They do have some logical doubts, but some of them are nuts.  There is some doubt according to Philip Berg that when Obama immigrated to Indonesia with his mother that his father at the time, made him an Indonesian citizen.  Thereby renouncing his American citizenship and not making his natural born anymore.  There is also some question to the law at the time of the his birth and the age of his mother.  According to U.S. law a parent had to have been at least 19 years a citizen before she could confer citizenship on her child.  Records show she was 17 or 18 at the time of his birth, therefore he may not have been a true natural born citizen.  There is also anecdotal evidence of his grandmother (his father's mother) saying she was at the birth, even though it was in Hawaii.  She lived in Kenya.  There is the fact that some political figures of Kenya have even stated that America elected a Kenyan citizen.  Michelle Obama has said her husband's home country is that of Kenya.  Include in this the hysteria of a Manchurian candidate because of his far leftists political beliefs, the fact that he went to a Muslim school in Indonesia and  you are ripe to have a conspiracy theory on your hands.

This is how I look at it.  A)  Someone, somewhere had to have seen President Obama's birth certificate certifying he was an American citizen. If they saw it or it was fraudulent or said something different than we know then the conspiracy is bigger than we know and that is unlikely with how incompetent our government and political parties are.  B)  If he really wanted to shut these people up he could just show it and entirely discredit them.  For the record, I am sure there are Birthers in the Tea Party movement, but they are a small minority.

The reason behind the Natural born citizenship clause is so that a foreign power could not invade our country and become the chief executive.  This was to help prevent us from being ruled by a foreign power.  At one point before the writing and ratification of the Constitution were almost had a king, twice.  First it was offered to General George Washington following the end of the Revolutionary War.  He turned it down.  He is the most powerful example of an elected leader.  He always was willing to give up power.  He reluctantly served two terms as President.  Too many people now seek the office and I fear that corrupts them.  During the critical period between the end of the Revolution and the Constitution the president of the Congress under the Articles of Confederation ask the Prussian king to becomes American's king.  He declined due how we reacted to our first one.

In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death,
Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said
Office, the same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by
Law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of
the President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then act as
President, and such Officer shall act accordingly, until the Disability be
removed, or a President shall be elected.

This clause allowed for the Vice-President to take over as President upon the remomal of the President by any means.  It also gives the Congress the authority to provide for the selection of a new President if this were to occur.  The Vice-President would serve as President though until there be a new President.  Following the death of President Harrison there were questions of who and what would be done with the Presidency.  Vice-President John Tyler stepped into the Presidency and proclaimed that he was now the President with all this powers.  Thus the tradition of the VP serving out the remaining portion of the President's term was established.  This was also changed by the 20TH, and 25Th Amendments.  They also provided for it in the Presidential Succession Act of 1947.  This set the current secession of government officials in the following order:

1. Vice President
2. Speaker of the House
3. President PRo-Tempore of the Senate
4. Heads of the Executive Department in the order of their creation (Last in line: Secretary of Homeland Security)

The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be increased nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them.

This ensures that the President gets paid for his service.  Currently the President earns $400,000 a year, though the total financial benefit of being President is closer to $60 million dollars over their four year term.  It also prevents Congress from raising or lowering the President's pay during his term.  This is to prevent them from punishing the President for his actions.  Its a check on the Congresses power of the purse.

Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:  "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

This oath has been taken by every President since George Washington.  It is also very similar to the oath of office taken by members of Congress, the Supreme Court and other appointed officials in the government.  There was a small mix up in the wording of the oath of office during Obama's inauguration.  Chief Justice John Roberts chose to do the oath by memory, but Obama, being the Constitutional professor that he was, knew it and recited it correctly.  A day later they redid the oath in the Oval office just to make sure they got it right. 

It is the job of the President, in this oath, to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution.  It sad to say I fear our current and many former Presidents have failed at this oath.  Many have taken powers not given to them in the Constitution.  They have signed, instead of vetoed, laws that have no Constitutional authority.  They have refused to enforce vigorously the decisions of the Supreme Court.  The Constitution is the supreme law of the land and when the person charged with enforcing the law fails at that job we all lose a little bit of the liberty granted for us by our forefathers.

Class dismissed.

The Death of Compromise and the Rise of Partisanship

In the last few weeks I have been involved in some heated discussions, debates and arguments on my school's staff chat forum on our email program.  This week I decided to stop contributing to the discussion.  These discussions always seem to devolve into something that is not debate.  All of this has lead me to the conclusion that true debate, discussion and compromise is now dead in American politics.  It has been replaced by partisan politics proclaimed by political pundits.

As I was reading this weekend about the 1787 Constitutional Convention I realized how important compromise is to a republic.  During the writing of our constitution there were lots of compromises made to complete the document.  The Great Compromise gave us the make up of our U.S. Congress.  The 3/5 Compromise made it so slaves states would not be as powerful as they could have been, and even gave them incentive to free their slaves.  These compromises may not have been what one side or the other directly wanted but each side got something out the deal.

You even see compromise through out our history.  The Missouri Compromise kept the peace between the slave holding south and the free north for a short while.  The Compromise if 1850 again did the same.  Both sides were willing to give up one thing to receive another.  Compromise has been essential to our republic.  But where is it today.

Within my lifetime I have seen our nation become more and more polarized and our politicians become more and more partisan.  I see this even more so in the debates and legislation that has been since the election of President Barack Obama.  It has become the tactic of my way or the high way.  There was no input from the minority party on the Stimulus bill, Health Care Reform, Cap and Trade, or Immigration Reform.  They have been cut out entirely.  Just today Harry Reid says if Republicans are going to be with us we will move on without them.  What ever happened to compromise.

Democrats have some good ideas of how to fix some problems we have in the United States.  So do Republicans.  Take Health Care Reform.  Here is a compromise that could have been made.  Democrats wanted pre-existing conditions covered.  Great!  Republicans wanted more competition to allow people to buy across state lines.  Democrats wanted an individual mandate.  Republicans wanted qualifying medical expenses to be tax free.  Why can't we compromise on these things.

Its not all our nothing.  That is dangerous and tramples on the rights of the minority.  This is not about D's and R's its about sitting down and agreeing together that each side has good ideas.  That these ideas are not contradictory and would make the legislation better.

Instead we have Democrats going all or nothing without the Republicans.  And we have the Republicans filibustering just to be heard or to stop the legislation.

I am sick and tired of all the parties.  I wish this nation had listened to our greatest President over 200 years ago when he condemn political parties.  All they care about is gathering power to themselves.  Very rarely is it in the best interest of our nation.

Questions?  Comments?

News of the Day - 4/22/2010

Another great day for news.  So lets begin.

SOUTH PARK CENSORED BY ISLAMIC EXTREMISTS
This week Comedy Central fully censored South Park for its use of a characterization and the use of the name Muhammad, the prophet of the Islamic faith.  The main reason behind this censorship was that Islamic organizations in the U.S. and abroad threatened the life of the producers of the show.  Welcome to life under Sharia Law!  This happened on "South Park" several years ago when they tried to make fun of "Family Guy."  My real question is why do we kowtow down to these these violent extremists?  I wish I had an answer.  Where is the line in the sand for our nation, when we say "Screw you, we will say what we want about your religion and your people, and your prophet.  If you don't like it then go ahead and try and attack us again.  If you do, we will hunt every single extremist down, kill you all until all that is left are those that want to live in peace with the rest of the world."  We need to take a lesson from President Thomas Jefferson.  These Islamic extremist were attacking our ships and other European nations for years after the Revolution.  The U.S. paid tribute several times.  Finally he sent the U.S. Navy and Marines over to Tripoli and wiped out their base of operations.  Didn't hear from them again in 1993.  I maybe wrong on this but I am sick of the freedom of expression in the world being dictated by some people who just don't know how to take a joke.

TEA PARTY PROTESTERS PEACEFUL FOR POLICE
The Christian Science Monitor has discovered that the Tea Party Movement is actually a peaceful movement.  So much so that police have found they can relax their standards when they hold an event.  This information flies in the face of everything the liberal media says about the movement.  We are violent, and seditious racists who want to kill Democrats and being compared to the Timothy McVeigh.  While there are some nut jobs in the movement (I saw a 9/11 Truther at one event and asked him to leave.), that is not the majority of the people who are part of this movement.  The movement, as I have said before, is about two principles 1) Limited government under the Constitution 2) government fiscal responsibility.  I have not heard any speakers of the movement or those who support it like Rush, Beck, Hannity or other conservative commentators advocate the use of violence in our protests.  In fact, Glenn Beck just ask all of his listeners to commit to a nonviolence pledge that was used by Martin Luther King, Jr. in his campaigns during the Civil Rights movement.  As a person who has been to several events, none of them have been violent against any of our elected officials or the president.  There is not racism that can be seen in the vast majority of the people.  It would be interesting to compare the protests of the tea party to that of the anti-war protesters during the Bush administration and Vietnam.

Questions?  Comments?

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.