In Defense of the Original Intent

FACEBOOK READERS:   Please go to my blog site (http://ajbulava.blogspot.com) and sign up to be a follower.  You will receive an email in your inbox when I update.  Also Facebook postings do not include any videos pictures or links that may be embedded in the articles so you might be missing out on some good content.  Thanks!

A few days ago a well respected colleague took the time to read this blog. He sent an message to ask a few questions regarding the method of interpretation known as Originalism or Original Intent.  To start here is a short lesson on the major schools of though on the interpretation of the U.S. Constitution.

Methods of Constitutional Interpretation
The following information was paraphrased or directly quoted from “We the People: The Citizen and the Constitution” textbook by the Center for Civic Education which had many writers, contributors and editors, to many to list here.

Textualism – Also know as strict constructionist, this method “involves looking at the meaning of the words in the Constitution and giving each word, phrase, or clause its ordinary meaning.”  This method is meant to keep the text neutral in its interpretation by the federal courts.  It is meant to keep the judges from placing their own values on the document.  This makes “the law certain and predictable” (180).

Original Intent – Also, know as Originalism and related to the previous interpretation method, this answers the question of how to interpret unclear words, phrases and clauses.   The use of this method seeks “to understand what the Founders meant when they wrote” the Constitution.  The concept is that the Founders chose these words carefully when they debated the Constitution to produce an “enduring... framework.”  This is meant to also help sustain the neutrality and stability in the law (180-181)

Fundamental Principles – Concepts such as the separation of powers, checks and balances, limited government, judicial review, rule of law, natural rights republicanism and many others are key principles in understanding the Constitution.  This method uses these principles “to interpret the meaning of the words, phrases and clauses that may be unclear” (181).

Modernism – Also know as instrumentalist, this method is the one which many people decry as being activist.  The people who follow this interpretation method subscribe to the idea that the Constitution is a living document, that it should be interpreted according to the “changing circumstances and contemporary needs” of the nation.  To not follow this method means that Constitution will need to be amended frequently or new conventions held to adapt the Constitution to the changing times.  Those who advocate for this method “argue that justices should not hold back social progress to outmoded understandings of the Constitution (181).

Vagueness of Constitutional Language
From my illustrious colleague:

I'm curious why you think the founders wrote Articles 1-3 as vague as they did if they had the intention of enumerating a narrow scope of powers for Congress? In other words, how is such a broad enumeration consistent with strict construction and originalism?

The Anti-Federalists made the argument in their articles that the document had listed many vague powers.  They specifically were concerned about, what are call implied powers, in the Necessary and Proper Clause.  (This topic has been addressed in other article but will devote some time to this concept later in the article to address a modern issue with Original Intent.)  But Founders did not think they were being extremely vague.  The Founders, knew what specifically they were talking about when they mentioned vague terms like commerce or general welfare.  The meaning of these words can be seen in their own writings during the ratification of the Constitution through the Federalists Papers, as well as other primary documents.  To say that no one knows what the Founding Fathers meant by a particular word or phrase is a straw man argument with no basis.  Lets look at the vague term of general welfare.

In Federalists Papers #41, James Madison says many people attacked the taxation power of Congress (Article I, Section 8, Clause 1) because c it allows Congress the “commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare.”  His first refutes this argument say that if no other enumerated powers be listed “the objection might have had some color.”   He continues: 

But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon? ... Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity.

He continues later in the same article that the same phrase, “general welfare” is used several times in the Articles of Confederation.  He continues:   

Construe either of these articles by the rules which would justify the construction put on the new Constitution, and they vest in the existing Congress a power to legislate in all cases whatsoever. But what would have been thought of that assembly, if, attaching themselves to these general expressions, and disregarding the specifications which ascertain and limit their import, they had exercised an unlimited power of providing for the common defense and general welfare? I appeal to the objectors themselves, whether they would in that case have employed the same reasoning in justification of Congress as they now make use of against the convention.

There are also numerous quotes of the Founding Fathers explaining their interpretation of the term general welfare.  For example, Jefferson often says that the use of the term general welfare to take from the productive and give to the unproductive is an ill interpretation of that Constitution.  Let us move onto the other questionable vague term in the Constitution:   commerce.

The Federalists Papers used the term commerce and trade almost interchangeably, and with good reason, they are synonyms for the same acts.  When you see these terms used with in the Federalist Papers it generally refers to the trade of goods between states, the exchange of goods.  Take this quote from Federalists Papers #42 as an example.  Madison is addressing the powers granted to the Constitution and while they are necessary.  He states:

A very material object of this power was the relief of the States which import and export through other States, from the improper contributions levied on them by the latter. Were these at liberty to regulate the trade between State and State, it must be foreseen that ways would be found out to load the articles of import and export, during the passage through their jurisdiction, with duties which would fall on the makers of the latter and the consumers of the former.

The problem they were trying to solve in the Commerce clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3) was the impending trade wars between the states with their tariffs.  It was not about regulating economy of the nation, as a whole or in parts.  This clause was about preventing the states from regulating trade that goes through their territory to another state.  This is defended by the fact that the states are forbidden in the Constitution to raise import or export taxes for their revenue.  Its not about regulating businesses its about regulating the states to prevent them from hindering trade between each other.

The terms discussed previously are most vague in the Constitution.  A brief review of the other specific enumerated powers in the Congress (Article I, Section 8), and other parts of the Constitution shows that the Founders were surprisingly specific in the enumeration of powers, not vague.  And even their were more terms that were left intentionally vague, we have countless records of the Founders own words to draw upon to interpret what they meant.  If there are any other terms that anyone sees as vague in the Constitution and the enumeration of its powers, please comment so we can discuss what it means.

Responsible Flexible Government
From my respected colleague:

I agree we should always consider the intent and meaning at the framing, and that the job of the court is to interpret the law, not create it, but to end it at originalism seems inconsistent with the idea of "responsible government" as Madison called it.  My personal understanding is that the framers wanted to allow flexibility in regards to the powers of all three branches in order to make the document resilient as well as allow for Congress to meet the needs of the general welfare in the context of the time.  The founders new they were only human and couldn't see the future, some of them even doubted the survival of the union.

The Necessary and Proper clause was put into place to help the Constitution flexible but remain static in the powers and principles.  All laws made under the necessary and proper clause must have their power granted in the Constitution.  There is no inconsistency because you still must understand what those words meant in their original context before you can move forward and write laws from them.

Absolutism of Originalism

How can we see originalism as absolute in the face of these obvious errors [and/or] imperfections and not look for a more complete understanding of what our government can do within the scope of their power? The definition of "commerce" is a good example. The founders couldn't have imagined that people would buy and sell their junk on bay, but today that is an obvious part of our nations commercial activity.

Originalism is not the be–all, end–all of Constitutional interpretation, but it is a great place to start.  Just as Biblical scholars must first understand the original meaning of a passage of scripture, in the original language, before they can apply meaning to modern day event; so must we all consider the original intent of the Founders in the passages of the Constitution and the eventual amendments.  To ignore this intent would be foolish, especially since there are thousands of primary documents that explain to us who and what they thought on many of these vague terms.  Let me present to you a few examples how we can use all of them in our interpretation.

The original intent of the “assistance of counsel” in the 6TH amendment protected only the right to have a lawyer present, not the guarantee of it.  Today all citizens accept the fact that they are entitled to a lawyer for their defense in any criminal case, due to the judgement in Gideon v. Wainwright.  This decision is an activist decision using the interpretation methods of Modernism.  It creates a law that the states must follow though.  But it still uses the methods of original intent or fundamental principles to reach that decision.  If Founders saw the scene of American criminal justice and investigation today they would probably agree that people need a lawyer in a criminal defense, which in line with the founding principles of due process and a fair trial and therefore in line with their original intent as well.

Original intent and founding principles are still valid even when trying to expand the power of government through legislative means.  This is accomplished through the Necessary & Proper Clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 18).  Here is an example.  In the view of textualism, strict constructionists would make the argument that the creation of the U.S. Air Force or Coast Guard, is unconstitutional.  The Constitution only truly allows the creation of an army and navy.  Under the necessary and proper clause it is not.  First, because the creation of the Air Force was absolutely needed (necessary) and reasonable (proper) with the creation of airplanes and their uses in militaries around the world.  Secondly, because it is based on a power Congress already possessed in the Constitution, to raise and support and army and navy (Article I, Section 8, Clauses 12–13).  Congress must first find its authority in the Constitution before it can expand in necessary and proper ways.  It is also in line with the original intent and founding principles in protecting the nation and its citizens.

Originalism Discredited

And a second question I have is how much you feel originalism is discredited by things like the 3/5 compromise, slaves as property, denial of suffrage for women and African American, etc.

First, to discredit an entire idea, movement or theory because of the flaws of a person or the errors of a generation is a flawed view of history.  Martin Luther was an anti–Semite.  Does his anti–Semitism discredit all his theology and actions of the Reformation?  There are reports that Martin Luther King, Jr. was an adulterous husband.  Does that discredit his work as a civil rights leader?  Lincoln was a bigot who thought blacks were not equal to rights.  Does that discredit the moves he took to free the slaves?  Only the reader can answer those questions.

Originalism is not discredited by the errors of the Founders, such as the Three–Fifths Clause or denying suffrage to women.  As heard numerous times in the “We the People” state competition, the most of the Founder abhorred the tradition and practice of slavery; many of them freed their slaves upon their deaths.  It was their original intent to end slavery in the United States.  The Constitution is not a document about slavery, but about the limits of government.  Another article on this site deals with that topic as well.  There are a few examples of both bad and good decisions that show Originalism is not discredited by the practice of slavery.  The arguments against discrediting the view of Originalism will focus on those of slavery.  These mostly surround the 1858 Dred Scott decision by the U.S. Supreme Court

The decisions of the Dred Scott was decision based on modernism or judicial activism, and does not draw any true authority in the Constitution or Originalism.  First, the thought of some people at the time was that African slaves were property, but this is not an idea supported by the Constitution.  Any references to slaves in the Constitution, like being referred to as “other persons” or their “importation,” still calls them people, not property.  They may have been seen that way by individuals, but any government action that treated them as such would be a misinterpretation of the Constitution.  Also, the fact that “all other persons” would be counted as Three–Fifths of a person, was only for apportionment of representatives in the House, it was never meant to imply they were only worth three–fifths of a person.  This was a compromise to get the Constitution approved by the convention, not a necessarily view of all the Founders.  Ben Franklin realized this early in our history that the Africans were not inferior to Europeans, which is why he and others created the first abolitionist groups in America.  To follow the view of the founder’s original intent and principles would be the eventual abolition of this peculiar institution, not continue it.

Secondly, the judgement that Dred Scott was not a citizens (since blacks were not citizens at the founding of the Constitution) is a flawed view of the Constitution with no basis in Originalism.  The Constitution makes no reference to the qualifications to be a citizen, until the 14TH Amendment.  That was left to the states to decide, under the principle federalism.  Citizenship was determined by the states, so the courts should have looked at the laws of citizenship in those states before making a judgement that Dred Scott was not a citizen.  In both cases, the original intent of the Founders was ignored by the court.

Another flaw under this decision was a misapplication of the principle of federalism.  The states had the authority to make slavery illegal, and at the time of the decision just more than half of them did.  Under the principle of federalism, Dred Scott should have been freed when he left his Missouri,  since he would be illegally held in bondage in any free state.  The free states Dred Scott lived in should have prosecuted his owner because of the violation of their slave statues.  This would have been in line with the Originalism and principles of the Founders.

WOW!  This was a long article (over 2,600 words).  Thanks for sticking with me today.  If you have any questions, comments regarding any of the information presented here today please do not hesitate to comment below.  Class dismissed!

The U.S. Constitution - Lesson #17: Amending the Constitution

FACEBOOK READERS:   Please go to my blog site (http://ajbulava.blogspot.com) and sign up to be a follower.  You will receive an email in your inbox when I update.  Also Facebook postings do not include any videos pictures or links that may be embedded in the articles so you might be missing out on some good content.  Thanks!

We are winding down in the Constitutional lessons.  Only a few more weeks before this crazy train ride, that started my blogging comes to an end.  I need some new ideas of what I could teach in my Saturday slot.  If their are any ideas please let me know.  I may continue on with the Bill of Rights, but I may not.  Either way this trip is coming to an end and I need a new one to start.

Today's lesson focuses on the fifth article of the Constitution and as the title proclaims, it is all about Amending the Constitution.  So lets get started. 

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments,

The Constitution provides two ways that an amendment may be proposed to it.  When I teach this material to my students I tell them to remember the magic number of two-thirds to remember the first step in the amendment process.  Both require two-thirds of something.  The first and most common way is for two-thirds, sometimes called a super majority, of both houses of Congress to pass the bill.  This is a high water mark to reach.  That requires 67 Senators and 291 Representatives to all agree to the same thing, which is just an unheard of event.  The founders though provided a secondary method just in case the Congress was unwilling or unable to propose amendments

The other method involves two-thirds of the states, specifically the legislatures, calling for a Constitutional convention, to propose amendments.  This method has never been used to amend the Constitution.  All twenty-seven amendments were proposed by Congress.  I think most people fear the repercussions of calling a constitutional convention.  The last time we did that the smartest people in the nation came together and created the document we are now studying.  Do you trust any of the people who are our "leaders" to possibly create a new constitution?  I don't. 

which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress;

The Constitution again provides two ways to ratify a proposed amendment in the last step; both methods require action by the state.  The other magic number I ask my students to remember when learning the amending process for our constitution is three-fourths.  The first way is the easiest and most commonly used method.  Three-fourths of the state legislatures must approve of the proposed amendment.  This does not need to be by a super majority, so a simple majority in thirty-eight states must approve of the amendment.

The other method is a bit more convoluted and depends a lot on state law.  The states can call conventions to specifically ratify the proposed amendment.  This is similar to how the Constitution was ratified.  Once thirty-eight states ratify the amendment either by legislatures or conventions the amendment becomes part of the Constitution. 

A quick note on the conventions route on steps one and two.  During the proposing step, the convention being used is a national convention with the states being called, similar to the 1787 Philadelphia Convention.  The conventions called in the ratifying step are state wide conventions that only happen inside the individual states.

Also another fact most people forget.  Congress is responsible for choosing the method of ratification for all amendments.  The only amendment to be ratified by state conventions was the twenty-first amendment that repealed Prohibition.

Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

Here again we find the fictional pro-slavery slant of the Constitution.  I have dealt with this issue at length in a previous lesson.  So I won't dwell on it more here.  This was only about protecting the state's right to import slaves.  Once the time frame elapsed the first thing the Congress did was end the slave trade in the U.S.  This also protects the equal suffrage of the states in the U.S. Senate.  It is unlikely that any state will ever do this but it is a good protection to have inside the Constitution.

That does it for this lesson.  Next week's lesson will focus on Article IV.  This is where we find the world famous and Anti-Federalist fearful Supremacy Clause.  Tuesday's article will address some concerns a colleague of mine has with the idea of Original Intent as a method for interpreting the Constitution.  It will be a long one so make sure you get your rest.

Questions?  Comments?  Concerns?  Class dismissed!

Public Policy: Reforming the Executive Bureacracy - Part I (EOP)

Today's Public Policy article will focus on one of the ways, if I was the President, reform the Executive Branch.  The key aspect of these reforms would be to do them through the legislative process as much as possible.  It is the job of Congress to send the different parts of the reform to be approved by legislative means instead of by Executive fiat.  Though if Congress should fail to act on such vital reforms to our bureaucracy I would use whatever constitutional authority granted to me to enact as many of these measures as possible.

Today's part of the discussion focuses in the area of the executive branch known as the Executive Office of the President.  Here is some background knowledge on this part of the government very few people know about.

Historical Background
The Executive Office of the President (EOP) was created in 1939 under the administration of President Roosevelt.  The Reorganization Act of 1939 created it and is responsible for the modern White House staff that we see today in the modern presidency of advisers, councils, and czars (or special advisers).    Prior to this law the President had very little staff to assist him with his work.  Jefferson had a secretary and clerk that he paid for out of his own pocket.  It was not until 1857 that the Congress appropriated money for any White House staff.  Most of the parts of the EOP were created by public law or executive orders and have expanded since 1939 to the size we see today.

The EOP was a idea of the Brownlow Committee which gave three suggestions.  First was the creation of aides to the President to help him with administrative tasks of the job.  Secondly, it suggested that the President have direct control over any administrative departments (i.e. Department of State or Defense).  Lastly, they suggested that the managerial offices of the Civil Service Administration, Bureau of the Budget, and the National Resources Board be part of the Executive Office.  Two of these three suggestions were incorporated into the final law.  The law gave Roosevelt the authority to make changes to the various agencies and corporations within cabinet level departments.  It also created six executive level assistance to the President.

The EOP Today
If you want to see the different agencies and advisory groups the President has at his disposal check out the White House website on the EOP.  Most of these positions are appointed directly by the President but very few require confirmation by the Senate, which could be seen as a violation of the Constitution based on the powers laid out in Article II, Section 2, Clause 2:

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.

According to this part of the Constitution all appointed position must be approved of by public law, so these special advisers or czars must be passed into law by Congress and approved of by the President.  Also they must all be confirmed by the Senate before taking office.  We have removed a very important check and balance to our system by creating an office in which the President may appoint anyone he wishes without any Senatorial oversight.  But I am getting off on a tangent.

The fact is that every President has added to this bureaucracy that is intended to help the President do his job of enforce the law.  I am not sure exactly why he needs all these advisers to do that job, since its not a job that requires advice, just action.  Their should be no debate on how a law should be enforced since the law should expressly say how it should be enforced and the punishments required.  The fact is though that it needs to be parried back and restrained by the Constitution again.

Reforms to the EOP
The Executive Office of the President (EOP) has many councils that are to advise the President about how to form policy.  But it is not the job of the President to form policy but to implement and enforce the policies passed by the Congress.  To create policy as the President is to overreach his Constitutional powers as the chief law enforcement officer of the United States.  Congress makes policy, the President enforces it and the courts interpret it in accordance to the Constitution; it is call the separation of powers.

Also, the President has access to a vast supply of resources and advice from people all over the globe and here in the United States when he requires advice.  The following councils will be eliminated and may be replaced by a single advisor (if he so chooses to have such an advisor) appointed by the Present which would also requires Senate approval.  All "czars" or special advisers must also be eliminated as well, unless they be approved by Senate confirmation.  The only councils I would leave in the EOP would be the following and most would be consolidated into different executive departments.

National Security Council - This office would be left in place but joined together with the Joint Chiefs of Staff.  Its job is to inform and advice the President on national security and foreign policy matters.  Since national security and defense is the job of the Department of Defense, it makes sense to consolidate this office within that department.

Office of Management and Budget - The job of this office is to help create the President's federal budget and assist in managing the other parts of the executive departments.  This part can stay but it must be staffed mostly by nonpolitical appointees.  This office serves a vital purpose in the government in the creation of the budget.

Intelligence Advisory Board - This office "provides advice to the President concerning the quality and adequacy of intelligence collection, of analysis and estimates, of counterintelligence, and of other intelligence activities."  Under this guise it would be consolidated with the department of defense along with the National Security Council.

White House Office - This office would be severely limited because it is their to serve the interests and needs of the President.  Their are a number of offices and agencies within it that I would also eliminate since they serve no constitutional purposes.  I know many will hate me for this but the Office of the First Lady would be one since she has not constitutional role to play in the government and its not the job of the people of the United States to pay for her staff.

In part two of this, series of articles, I will address the reforms that I would make to the overall structure of the Executive Departments, like the Department of Defense and State.

Questions?  Comments?  Concerns?  Class dismissed.

I'm Voting Republican Video

A couple months ago, prior to the election, I found this video.  Please take a look at the video if you have not seen it already to understand my response.

Its time to respond to the stupid, idiocy and ignorance of this video.

We don’t like shopping at small neighborhood stores. We don’t want the problem of choosing where to shop. And we just love cheap plastic crap from China.

No one forces you buy cheap goods from Walmart or any other store.  The fact of the matter is that Walmart provides hundreds, if not thousands, of jobs to hard working Americans.  They also provide goods to consumer citizens of lower income.  And they give over $400 million to charity each year.

I’m voting Republican because I don’t really want a cure for AIDS or for breast cancer.

Its not the job of the government to provide money for research.  Their are plenty of companies out their doing this research but it takes money.  These companies also deserve to make a profit for their research and development.

I’m voting Republican because I think new drugs should be made available immediately whether they’ve been tested properly or not. If the major pharmaceutical companies’ bottom lines are healthy, then I feel healthy too.

Drug testing is important but even if the FDA did not exist their would be consumer protections.  Its called civil law and tort lawsuits.  A drug company is not going to make a drug that kills potential customers because that hurts their bottom line.  Also they will test it because they know if it does something its not supposed to they will be sued by the users and cost them more money, which hurts their bottom line.

I’m voting Republican so that my little Caitlin can be in a classroom with at least 30 other children. That way she can be challenged by fighting for attention.

Thirty years ago our parents were in classrooms with that many kids and they honestly know more than our kids do now.

I’m voting Republican because women just can’t be trusted to make decisions about their own bodies. Never. Ever. Ever.

The choice to take away the life of another human being, especially an innocent child who had no choice in their creation, is not a right.  It's murder.

I’m voting Republican because I’ve already seen the great outdoors. Continuing our use of fossil fuels freely is far more important than preserving our natural wildlands.

Would you rather double or triple the amount we spend on gas and electricity because we have to buy oil from people who hate us or because the clean energy options are not cost effective?  Be my guest.  I will use the resources we have, until those cleaner sources are more efficient and cheaper.

We’re voting Republican because we like a conservative majority on the Supreme Court. We really like knowing that even if we’re separate, we’ll still be called equal.

Conservatives on the Supreme Court at least have a proper theory of understanding the Constitution.  They don't try and reinterpret it to mean what they want it to mean.  They don't try to change the Constitution through unconstitutional means.  It was the Republicans who freed the slaves, granted them equal and voting rights both in law and through Constitutional Amendments.  Racial segregation, Jim Crow laws and other racist policies were the product of the Democrats, not the Republicans.  It was the Republicans in Congress that passed the Civil Rights Acts of the 1960's, not the Democrats.  It was also a "conservative" court that overturned Plessy v. Furguson.

I’m voting Republican because I need to be told who I can love. I need the government to tell me. I need them to tell me how I can best show a lifetime commitment. And Republicans are just the folks to do that.

Most Republicans could not give a crap about who you love.  But I think we should pause before we give up thousands of years of tradition and take marriage (which has always been between a man and woman) and fundamentally change it.

I’m voting Republican because corporations should not have to pay to clean up environmental damage. The EPA is an outmoded idea. If people want clean water, buy it in a bottle.

The EPA, as part of the Executive Branch, is an enforcement agency, not a law making body.  When they expand regulations they are breaking the constitution that gives all law making power to Congress.

I’m voting Republican because I don’t want to know if the food I am eating has been genetically modified or exposed to radiation. I don’t want to have to live with that fear, you know? So if the label says it’s food, that’s good enough for me.

Studies have shown their is no problems with irradiated meat.  It would cut down on green house gasses since we could ship products in regular trucks.  Also, we have been genetically modifying our food for thousands of years, its called selective breeding.

I’m voting Republican because I really enjoy being screwed by the utility companies.

If utility companies were allowed to compete like other companies for business you wouldn't get screwed.  Right now with state ownership you are screwed because they have the monopoly.  They can raise rates and you the citizen have no recourse.

Because we need more minorities in prison.

Criminals go to prison not minorities. If their is a person who is in prison and they are a minority,  its not the because of Republicans, it because they are a criminal.

Because hybrid cars really suck.

They do.  No one buys them.  Even when you have the option between a gas car and the same car as a hybrid, people overwhelmingly choose the gas powered car.

Because I just don’t feel like I deserve health insurance.

Its your responsibility to provide it for yourself.  If you want health insurance, buy it, no one is stopping you.  Its not the job of the government or your job to provide it.

Because Texas needs more billionaires.

Texas can have as many billionaires as it wants.  They have a tax system that encourages the building of wealth.  That's why their economy is growing in this recession and people are moving their.

I’m voting Republican because sometimes the constitution is just one big inconvenient headache.

Both parties have had a habit in the last 100+ years of ignoring the Constitution.

I think the whole world should be run by one big corporation. I think it would be so much cozier.

If Republicans for corporations why did the Democrats in Congress bail out those evil banks and car companies that failed due to their own mismanagement?

Because all other countries are in fear to us. We should start as many wars as we need to keep it that way.

Countries should fear to attack us.  If other countries know that we will destroy them if they attack us, then they probably won't attack us.  I don't think we need to start wars, just end them when they decide to take a sucker punch at us.

So I can stay in Iraq... So I can go to Iran.

Iran and other nations are a threat to the world.  If you cannot recognize that then you are deaf, blind and dumb to the realities of the real world.  I am not suggesting we start a war, but we should be care of them.

Here's a different video that makes the statement of the other side.  If you want to know more about the statements made in this video check out the following the VerticleBlue website.  They explain every statement in the video with facts, because they are such stubborn things.

The U.S. Constitution - Lesson #16: Releationships Among the States

FACEBOOK READERS:   Please go to my blog site (http://ajbulava.blogspot.com) and sign up to be a follower.  You will receive an email in your inbox when I update.  Thanks!

Today's lesson on the Constitution will focus on the fourth Article.  This article specifically looks at the states  and what protections the federal government provides for them in the Constitution.  In this article I will also deal with the contentious topic of homosexual marriage as it relates to this Article.

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

This section of the article is to provide that each of the states honor the legal agreements made in other states such as their laws, record  and court rulings.  Congress is also given the authority to establish standards to validate these acts.  The biggest example I most often provide is that my marriage certificate and birth certificate are still valid forms of identification if I move to another state.  This is where the issue of same sex marriage becomes tricky and while I may not support the idea or practice of same sex marriage, my view of it light of the Constitution is different.  First some history about same sex marriages in federal law.

In the 1996, Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).  This law defined marriage under federal law, as that between a man and woman.  It also gave the states the authority to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages from other states.  So far this law has not been challenged and is still the law of the land.  Their are several ways though this law is unconstitutional.

First, their is no authority in the Constitution for the federal government to define marriage or any other relationship.  This would mean that this authority belongs to the states via the 10th Amendment.  The states therefore can define marriage any way they see fit.  Some states have elected to validate same-sex marriages.  Others, like my present state of Nevada, have chosen to define marriage as a relationship between one man and one woman.  This is the joy of federalism.  Each state can do as it sees fit within the bounds of its authority and sovereignty.  But there is another part to this law that must be dealt with and discussed.

The second part of this law defends the principle that the states may refuse to acknowledge same-sex marriages from other states.  This also is a clear violation of this part of the Constitution and allows the states to ignore this first part of the Constitution.  If the states can ignore these marriages, why can't they ignore the others?  This law must be struck down as unconstitutional since it clearly violates the Constitution.  In a perfect world, this is how I would see it working in the Supreme Court.

The court would reaffirm the ideas of federalism, that each state may allow or disallow same-sex marriages as they see fit.  The crux of the argument would be that if a state does not allow gay marriages they still have to recognize same-sex marriages from other states as valid.  Meaning they have to be granted the same, rights, responsibilities and privileges granted to other married couples in that state.

There is one way this law could be seen as valid and constitutional.  The clause states that Congress can prescribe by law the manner in which the acts shall be proved.  Under this language a good lawyer could argue that Congress has the authority to set limitations or restrictions, like the ones in DOMA, on the states.  The only problem with that argument is that it does not provide equal justice under the law as required by the 14th Amendment since how other states treat same-sex married couples would be different depending in which state they live.

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

This clause does not allow the state to unfairly discriminate against citizens of other states.  Though state can make reasonable distinction between citizens and visitors.  We mostly see this in place as differences between in-state and out-of-state tuition costs of public universities.

A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime.

This clause deals with the the power of extradition that is generally granted to the state executives (governors).  The Supreme Court held, in 1861, that it could not compel a governor to extradite a prisoner, but that was reversed by a Supreme Court case in 1987 (Monk 107).

No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, But shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.

This clause is no longer valid due to the ratification of the 13th Amendment, ending slavery.  This clause was inserted at the behest of the southern states during the Constitutional Convention.  It is known as the Fugitive Slave clause.  Several states tried to get around this clause by enacting laws meant to protect free blacks from slave catches; most of them were unsuccessful.

New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.

This clause provides for the creation of new states and protects those already formed under the Constitution.  Though as a matter of history, the creation of West Virginia was a clear violation of this clause.  In 1863 the citizen of the western counties formed a legislature that approved of the split and Congress gave its seal of approval too.  After the Civil War Virginia gave its support to, though the acceptance of that split was probably a condition of its re-admittance into the Union. 

The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.

This is a repeat of the authority given to Congress in Article I, Section 8, Clause 17.  The Congress has all authority over disposing the territory of the U.S. If you read the history of how Nevada was created you would see this in action.  Nevada was part of the Utah territory for a long time.  Eventually, the Congress split it into two territories for the purpose of making a unique states.  The influence of the Mormons was the largest reason for the split.

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

The first guarantee in this clause provides each state with a Republican form of government.  This has been read by most scholars and by the founding fathers as meaning a representative government where the power is derived from the people.

The second guarantee is the protection of invasion.  This was written in the Constitution as a direct result of Shay's Rebellion which had just occurred months before the Convention.  What most people don't realize is that the slow movement of the federal government after Hurricane Katrina was because of this clause.  President Bush could not just send in the Coast Guard and other parts of the government, like FEMA.  He had to wait until he had authorization from the state governor or its legislature.  This was meant to protect the states from a military take over by the federal government. So Kayne, Bush does not hate black people, he just choose to follow the Constitution, for once.

That is all we have for today.  Next week I will address the Article V of the Constitution that deals with the amendment process in the United States.  Until then enjoy my other postings.  If you have not noticed I am scheduling my posts for Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday. Once they are posted on the site, usually around midnight of those days, they will be posted to Facebook as soon as that site decides to check my feed and update it.  To stay up to date on my postings it is safer to just go to my site (http://ajbulava.blogspot.com) and sign up to be a follower.  When you do that you will emailed any time I post.  I hope you have a wonderful weekend.

Questions? Comments?  Concerns?  In that case, class dismissed!

Public Policy: Foreign Aid & Policy

FACEBOOK READERS:   Please go to my blog site (http://ajbulava.blogspot.com) and sign up to be a follower.  You will receive an email in your inbox when I update.  Thanks!

After farming out a few topics for today's posts I decided on a derivative of one of those ideas.  The situation in Egypt this week is enough to give the U.S. pause to consider the way we handle our foreign policy.  Why do we support a dictator like Mubarak in Egypt and other parts of the world?  Why do we choose the lesser of two evils?  What should be the principles behind our foreign policy?

Support of Classical Liberal & Republican Democratic Ideals
The U.S. promise support and defend any nation that shows, by its actions, to be a committed to the ideas of classical liberalism that protects the natural rights of humans.  Also countries that are truly republican governments with democratic ideals.  Republican governments are those with a charter that acts as fundamental and higher law.  It also means that the country has a form of representative government with democratic principles where they people's vote counts.  Any country does not support those ideals by repressing the natural rights of the individuals or of groups will not be supported by the United States in anyway, shape or form.  All ambassadors and embassies will be closed in such nations, available to be reopened when positive changes have been made.  We will not actively undermine or bring down these regimes but will not openly support them either.  It time to stop supporting the lesser of two evils.

Avoid Entangling Alliances
The U.S. has stood the test of time as being a lone wolf in the world for the vast majority of its history.  But since the end of World War II we have been a large member in NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization).  This has brought us close to war with Soviet Russia several times.  The policy of an attack on one is an attack on all is not a good principle for any country to follow and is dangerous to American sovereignty; much like the Americans worried about the ideal of collective security in the Treaty of Versailles after World War I.  If a country that fits the country above is invaded or threatened by its neighbors we will stand with that nation and help defend it.

Foreign Monetary Aide
I know am not the only American citizen that gets pissed off when we spend billions of dollars on helping other nations.  Money that is given to the government from American taxpayer should be used to protect, defend and assist Americans, not help prop out dictators halfway across the world.  I would insist on eliminating all monetary foreign aide given to any nation.  This would also help bring down our deficit, but eliminating billions from the federal budget every year.  The only money that should be given to the department of state is to support our ambassadors and embassies, a limited staff for each.

Military Reductions
The cold war is over.  Japan is no longer a threat.  North and South Korea are still at each other throats despite our military presence in the region.  Germany is reunited.  Why do we have so many military bases around the world?  Its time to pull our military back and remove them from places where they are no longer needed.  It's time to draw down the professional military machine.  The navy should patrol our waters from incursions of other countries and protect our commercial vessels around the world.  The Air Force can protect our friendly skies.

I will end this article with my view on the situation in Egypt.  Honestly I have not followed the situation as closely as some.  I am scanning the headlines mostly.  What worries me most about this popular uprising is the other groups that maybe co-opting the movement for their own benefit.  Chief among them, the Muslim Brotherhood.  The group wants to establish a single Islamic caliphate of all Arab countries, with the basis on sharia law.  This could be dangerous to the Christians and other people in the region who are not Muslims.  It would also be very dangerous of Israel, one of the true liberal republican democracies in the middle east.  If these uprisings succeed in bring republican democratic values along with the protection of natural rights, then this could be a very good thing.

I am sure their are other topics and aspects of foreign policy that I have forgotten.  If you feel I have left something out please let me know.  Other than that if their are no questions, comments or concerns?  Class dismissed.

Football = Socialism

FACEBOOK READERS:   Please go to my blog site (http://ajbulava.blogspot.com) and sign up to be a follower.  You will receive an email in your inbox when I update.  Thanks!
 
Today a friend of mine posted an excerpt from an article on the Huffington Post written by comedian Bill Maher.  In this article, the comedian and TV personality makes a comparison between the NFL and socialism.  I hope to answer most of the flaws in the article in my blog today.  Please excuse the bad language.  As a fearsome defender of the first amendment I felt it was inappropriate to censor the speaker.  Enjoy and as always I welcome you comments.

New Rule: With the Super Bowl only a week away, Americans must realize what makes NFL football so great: socialism. That's right, for all the F-15 flyovers and flag waving, football is our most successful sport because the NFL takes money from the rich teams and gives it to the poor teams... just like President Obama wants to do with his secret army of ACORN volunteers. Green Bay, Wisconsin has a population of 100,000. Yet this sleepy little town on the banks of the Fuck-if-I-know River has just as much of a chance of making it to the Super Bowl as the New York Jets - who next year need to just shut the hell up and play.

First major flaw in this whole op–ed piece is the glossing over Maher makes about ACORN.  Eleven states have filed charges against the organization due to fraudulent voter registration practices.  Also, on several occasions, as shown by the video investigations of a few college students, they actively encourage people to break the law.

Now, me personally, I haven't watched a Super Bowl since 2004, when Janet Jackson's nipple popped out during half time, and that split-second glimpse of an unrestrained black titty burned my eyes and offended me as a Christian. But I get it - who doesn't love the spectacle of juiced-up millionaires giving each other brain damage on a giant flat-screen TV with a picture so realistic it feels like Ben Roethlisberger is in your living room, grabbing your sister?

If any conservative pundit had made comments like this one they would be deemed a racists by Jesse Jackson or the Reverand Al Sharpton.  Why does Bill Maher get away with it?  But I am getting off topic. Moving on...

It's no surprise that some 100 million Americans will watch the Super Bowl next week - that's 40 million more than go to church on Christmas - suck on that, Jesus! It's also 85 million more than watched the last game of the World Series, and in that is an economic lesson for America. Because football is built on an economic model of fairness and opportunity, and baseball is built on a model where the rich almost always win and the poor usually have no chance. The World Series is like Real Housewives of Beverly Hills. You have to be a rich bitch just to play. The Super Bowl is like Tila Tequila. Anyone can get in.

This argument is more about the policies of a government than that of the economic system.  The economy works by its own natural rules that the government thinks that they can control.  Whenever they try and control the economy they usually fail and create a bubble that eventually burst.  Also to say that the total viewers of on major sporting event against another is any indication of preferences of their governance is dishonest.

Or to put it another way, football is more like the Democratic philosophy. Democrats don't want to eliminate capitalism or competition, but they'd like it if some kids didn't have to go to a crummy school in a rotten neighborhood while others get to go to a great school and their Dad gets them into Harvard. Because when that happens "achieving the American dream" is easy for some, and just a fantasy for others.

What is stopping a kid from taking the education provided for him at the taxpayers expense and doing well by it?  Nothing!  There are plenty of good students in bad schools, that go to good colleges and good careers in the future.  There are plenty of bad students in good schools too.  A bad school or neighborhood is not the fate of a child.  If they work hard, even in a bad school they can succeed.  People like W.E.B. DuBois, Booker T. Washington, and George Washington Carver all came out of a system of extreme segregation and still succeed better than some of their white counterparts.  Why?  Because they worked for it and wanted it.  Every child has an opportunity for an education.  What you do with that opportunity is up to the individual.  That is what our system is built on, individual initiative and work.  Its not the job of the government to provide equal opportunities or things.

The American Dream has never been easy.  Ask the millions of immigrants who have come to this county.  The American Dream is not about equal opportunity but about equal rights, equality before the law, and working hard to make your life today better than it was yesterday.

That's why the NFL runs itself in a way that would fit nicely on Glenn Beck's chalkboard - they literally share the wealth, through salary caps and revenue sharing - TV is their biggest source of revenue, and they put all of it in a big commie pot and split it 32 ways. Because they don't want anyone to fall too far behind. That's why the team that wins the Super Bowl picks last in the next draft. Or what the Republicans would call "punishing success."

If no team falls behind, then why were the Detroit Lions 0-16 a few seasons ago?  If any team can make it why do I always see the Patriots in the playoffs?

In a capitalistic society wealth is shared and to a much higher and greater degree.  It is called charity.  The U.S. citizens give more money to charity than any other nation on the earth.  Even the “evil empire” of  Wal–mart gives a large portion of their profits to charity.  In fact, they are the largest charitable organization in the world.  The rich give more money to charity than you make them out to be even after they are forced to give a large portion of the wealth to the government to be given give out to others as forced charity.  The Founding Fathers believed in thrift, saving, and frugality so that you as a citizen could help out those who need it, but its your choice.

Also the members of the NFL choose to run their league in such a manner, it is their choice.  I think we would all agree that for the owners of the NFL to go to Major League Baseball or any other professional sport and tell them how to run their league would be wrong and immoral.  It’s the same with governance.  I am a sovereign individual with all powers inherent to myself.  And I am allowed to give them up to a government as I see fit.  I pay taxes for the government to protect me and my rights, which is the proper role of government as described by the Founding Fathers and political philosophers during the age of Enlightenment.  For another person or the government to tell me what I do with the money I worked for and earned is wrong, unless I can do the same to them.  That is what Progressive policies do.  They take from the productive and give to the unproductive. 

Baseball, on the other hand, is exactly like the Republicans, and I don't just mean it's incredibly boring. I mean their economic theory is every man for himself. The small market Pittsburgh Steelers go to the Super Bowl more than anybody - but the Pittsburgh Pirates? Levi Johnston has sperm that will not grow up and live long enough to see the Pirates in a World Series. Their payroll is about $40 million, and the Yankees is $206 million. They have about as much chance at getting in the playoffs as a poor black teenager from Newark has of becoming the CEO of Halliburton. That's why people stop going to Pirate games in May, because if you're not in the game, you become indifferent to the fate of the game, and maybe even get bitter - that's what's happening to the middle class in America. It's also how Marie Antoinette lost her head.

Just because more people watch the Super Bowl does not mean that there is an economic lesson in the way the Major League Baseball and the NFL are managed.  Honestly, I think baseball is boring.  Obviously a lot of people do because few people watch it.  This is does not mean its an endorsement of a governmental or economic system.  I doubt people don’t watch baseball because of the governance system.  If you can prove to me otherwise I will recant such a statement.  Also this does not include the factors for why Cubs fans watch every year.  The main argument is flawed because it fails to account for those underdog stories, like the Red Sox or other teams.

Competitive sports is built on the premise that the best teams with the best players and coaches win.  What makes it exciting is when the worst team on its best day beats the best team on its worst day.  Americans love a underdog story, which is why we are so compelled by the stories of those poor black students from Newark who work their butts off to be successful against all odds.  Kind of like the Detroit Pistons when they beat the L.A. Lakers in 2004.  I loved when that happened.

Look at the people we celebrate.  Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerburg, Rockefeller, Carnegie, and others who came from nothing and made something that literally changed the world.  And then most of them took their wealth and gave it back to the betterment of society.  It was Carnegie who said it is dangerous for so much wealth to be concentrated in so few hands.  Which is why he gave away all of his fortune and encouraged other “robber barons” to do the same.  They did not need government to tell them to do this.

So, you kind of have to laugh - the same angry white males who hate Obama because he's "redistributing wealth" just love football, a sport that succeeds economically because it does exactly that. To them, the NFL is as American as hot dogs, Chevrolet, apple pie, and a second, giant helping of apple pie. But then again, they think they're macho because their sport is football, when honestly - is there anything gayer than wearing another man's shirt?

Another gay joke and no one will bat an eye.

I will end this article with a few quotes from Thomas Jefferson that the problem with Progressive government social welfare/safety net programs.  These are all part of the Progressive/socialist mantra of redistribution of wealth:

I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.

To take from one because it is thought that his own industry and that of his father's has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association -- the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.

 Questions?  Comments?  Concerns?  Class dismissed.

The U.S. Constitution - Lesson #15: Supreme Court Jurisdiction & Treason

FACEBOOK READERS:   Please go to my blog site (http://ajbulava.blogspot.com) and sign up to be a follower.  You will receive an email in your inbox when I update.  Thanks!

So during the last, I stopped about midway through the the Section 2 of Article III.  I totally skipped the parts dealing with the original and appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.  I will address those last two clauses of Article III before I move on to the last section of this article.  And away we go.

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. 

This clause of the Constitution lays out the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.  Original jurisdiction is the authority to hear a case before any other court.  The Supreme Court has this authority in only two cases.  The first would be that where an ambassador or any other foreign representative is a party.  My research does not reveal to me why this areas is an important jurisdictional areas for the Supreme Court, but I can fancy a informed guess.  It would appear to me that an foreign representative would be hard pressed to find an unbiased jury in any state where they were charged with a federal crime.  The Supreme Court does not work by jury trials so they can look at the law and not the passions of the states and their citizens.  Also, with the advent of diplomatic immunity, I do not foresee many cases going before the Supreme Court on this issue.

The other area in which the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction is when a state is a party to an issue.  This may include if the federal government also has an issue with a state in question.  Though I am not sure why the Supreme Court does not instantly hear the case of U.S. v. Arizona over SB 1070.  If anyone has an answer to that let me know.

In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

The Supreme Court has the authority to review all  other cases with this clause in the Constitution.  The Congress though has the authority to alter this by law.  The case of Marybury v. Madison outlined this principle very well.  The Judiciary Act of 1789 purposely changed the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.  When Marbury then sued to get his judgeship from James Madison at the Supreme Court they struck down his case because the law changed the Constitution; it went against the Constitution by changing the courts original jurisdiction.

The long and short of it is that the Congress has granted the Supreme Court since 1925 to have discretionary jurisdiction over appeals.  They can choose what cases they want to hear on appeal from the state supreme courts and the federal courts of appeals.  Over the course of a year the Supreme Court gets over 7,000 writs of certioari abut only hears and makes judgments on about 100 every session.

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

This clause in the constitution protects every citizen a right to a jury trial where the crime was committed.  This is also protected in the 6th Amendment to the Constitution.  The restriction on the location of the trial was in direct response to the British sending American colonist oversees for trials in England for crimes committed in the colonies.  This is meant to prevent the government from putting a citizen on trial away from the community in which it was committed.

The last phrase is very interesting for us today.  If a crime was not committed in any state then the trial may be in the location as Congress may direct by law.  I would imagine that this means any terrorist caught oversees could be tried in military tribunals out of the civil courts.  But this also means they could pass a law forcing these trials to be held in our civil court.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

Treason is the only crime to be mentioned specifically in the Constitution.  It also sets a very high standard by which a person must be convicted of treason.  Why we haven't tried to convict the American Taliban we have found over the years of treason is beyond me.  I am sure there is enough evidence to do so.

The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

The corruption of blood is an ancient term that most do not understand in our Constitution.  The basic idea behind the term is that the government could not revoke the inheritance of the descendants of a traitor.  Meaning if you inherited something from your dad, who was a traitor, the government could not take it away from you.  To take it a step further, a child could not be punished for the treason acts of their parents.

That does it for Article III.  Next week we will start to look at Article IV that outlines the major parts that make our government a federalist system.  I will also address, that while I may not agree with gay marriage politically or in the Biblical sense, that the Supreme Court must strike down the Defense of Marriage Act.  I'll see you all next week.

Questions?  Comments?  Concerns?  Class dismissed!

2011 State of the Union: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly.

FACEBOOK READERS:   Please go to my blog site (http://ajbulava.blogspot.com) and sign up to be a follower.  You will receive an email in your inbox when I update.  Thanks!

As promised, today's article will focus on the Presidents State of the Union address that he made on Tuesday night.  Overall I was impressed with some of the things he said and wants to implement, but we will see if he actually follows through.  The statements presented are direct quotes from the President's speech.  They are not presented in any chronologically order but according to the following way.  "The Good" focuses primarily on the points made in the President's speech that I support.  "The Bad" focuses on the points made by the President that I would disagree with.  "The Ugly"are parts of the speech where the President is just plain wrong or characterizes the facts wrong.  I hope you enjoy.

The Good

We need to get behind this innovation. And to help pay for it, I'm asking Congress to eliminate the billions in taxpayer dollars we currently give to oil companies. I don't know if you've noticed, but they're doing just fine on their own. So instead of subsidizing yesterday's energy, let's invest in tomorrow's.

 I can support this statement by the President for one reason.  We need to stop subsidies to ALL energy producers, oil, coal, gas, and green.  Only by knowing the true price of a product can the market actually decide on whether it should succeed or not.  If solar and wind power is cheaper it will win.  But don't subsidize it to hide the true cost.

That responsibility begins not in our classrooms, but in our homes and communities. It's family that first instills the love of learning in a child. Only parents can make sure the TV is turned off and homework gets done. We need to teach our kids that it's not just the winner of the Super Bowl who deserves to be celebrated, but the winner of the science fair; that success is not a function of fame or PR, but of hard work and discipline.

As a teacher I agree with this statement.  There is much to be said on the effect of socio-economic status (SES) has on a child's education.  But the parents need to be responsible to make sure their kids know how to read and do their homework.  This can be done whether your rich or poor.

So tonight, I'm asking Democrats and Republicans to simplify the system. Get rid of the loopholes. Level the playing field. And use the savings to lower the corporate tax rate for the first time in 25 years – without adding to our deficit.

Here, Here, Mr. President!  The tax code is too complex.  Also corporate taxes are rarely paid by the company but by the consumer in higher prices for the products and services they provide.

To reduce barriers to growth and investment, I've ordered a review of government regulations. When we find rules that put an unnecessary burden on businesses, we will fix them. But I will not hesitate to create or enforce commonsense safeguards to protect the American people.

I agree with the President on this in principle.But how many regulations are now being made with the  implementation of his health insurance and financial legislation passed this year.  How many regulations would be put in place because of a Cap and Trade legislation he wants to get passed?  These all hurt businesses.

This means further reducing health care costs, including programs like Medicare and Medicaid, which are the single biggest contributor to our long-term deficit. Health insurance reform will slow these rising costs, which is part of why nonpartisan economists have said that repealing the health care law would add a quarter of a trillion dollars to our deficit. Still, I'm willing to look at other ideas to bring down costs, including one that Republicans suggested last year: medical malpractice reform to rein in frivolous lawsuits.

Good Mr. President, go after the waste, abuse and fraud in and you will find hundreds of billions in savings.  I am surprised he is going after the trial lawyers, but more power to him.  It has been touted that 25-40% of health care costs are related to frivolous medical malpractice lawsuits.  That would not only help out the government but the regular Joe by lowering his costs in health care free of the government.

We live and do business in the information age, but the last major reorganization of the government happened in the age of black and white TV. There are twelve different agencies that deal with exports. There are at least five different entities that deal with housing policy. Then there's my favorite example: the Interior Department is in charge of salmon while they're in fresh water, but the Commerce Department handles them in when they're in saltwater. And I hear it gets even more complicated once they're smoked.

I have been saying this for years.  I have a plan currently in process that I might post to this site in pieces over the next few months.

Because you deserve to know when your elected officials are meeting with lobbyists, I ask Congress to do what the White House has already done: put that information online. And because the American people deserve to know that special interests aren't larding up legislation with pet projects, both parties in Congress should know this: if a bill comes to my desk with earmarks inside, I will veto it.

The Obama did object to Bush trying to hide the ledgers that stated who he was visiting with.  Though when he came into office he defended the policy.  I would like to know this information.  Also I hope he can stand behind his pledge to veto earmarked legislation.  Bush promised that every year but was too much of a chick shit to actually do it.  If he did this he would have my respect, right off the bat.

And if we truly care about our deficit, we simply cannot afford a permanent extension of the tax cuts for the wealthiest 2% of Americans.... In fact, the best thing we could do on taxes for all Americans is to simplify the individual tax code.

Another great idea that people have been touting for years.  Let's get it done.

The Bad

Our schools share this responsibility. When a child walks into a classroom, it should be a place of high expectations and high performance. But too many schools don't meet this test... we launched a competition called Race to the Top...  And Race to the Top should be the approach we follow this year as we replace No Child Left Behind with a law that is more flexible and focused on what's best for our kids.

No Child Left Behind and any other federal education program is unconstitutional.  They should be eliminated.  The last thing education and schools need is another level of bureaucrats in the mix.  As a teacher I know how much bureaucracy kills teachers and schools.

And this year, I ask Congress to go further, and make permanent our tuition tax credit – worth $10,000 for four years of college.

It is not the job of government to subsidize a college education.  I know I got a government subsidized loan to go to college, but that does not mean it was right or constitutional for the government to do so. 

Within 25 years, our goal is to give 80% of Americans access to high-speed rail, which could allow you go places in half the time it takes to travel by car.

Mr. President the one national passenger train system has not made a profit in years.  Americans don't want trains.  Americans love the freedom of driving their cars not sitting on a train.  If anything up date the interstate system to handle more and faster cars.  Though infrastructure investment does not spur economic growth.  Japan tried that for years with no luck at spurring permanent economic growth.

The Ugly

Now, by itself, this simple recognition won't usher in a new era of cooperation. What comes of this moment is up to us. What comes of this moment will be determined not by whether we can sit together tonight, but whether we can work together tomorrow.

With this quote early in his speech, the President talks like he has been a nonpartisan leader instead of ignoring most of the suggestions of the opposing party.  This is the same president who over two years ago said to Republicans "I won" when asked about compromise on his stimulus package.  Where did this heart for bipartisanship come from?  I know from where, the massive electoral switch that was made in November. 

Thanks to the tax cuts we passed, Americans' paychecks are a little bigger today.

You did not pass any tax cuts you merely extended the present tax rates to make sure you party did not get the blame for worsening the economy.

What we can do – what America does better than anyone – is spark the creativity and imagination of our people. We are the nation that put cars in driveways and computers in offices; the nation of Edison and the Wright brothers; of Google and Facebook. In America, innovation doesn't just change our lives. It's how we make a living.

Our free enterprise system is what drives innovation. But because it's not always profitable for companies to invest in basic research, throughout history our government has provided cutting-edge scientists and inventors with the support that they need. That's what planted the seeds for the Internet. That's what helped make possible things like computer chips and GPS.

In the first paragraph the President talks about all these innovations, none of which were created by the help of the government but by private investment.  Research has moved to the universities because the government gives them money to do it.  So why should a company spend money on research if they can save the money and buy it from the group that gets it's money from the government.  The Internet is a product of the government, but private enterprise is what made it the freest market in the world.

Take a school like Bruce Randolph in Denver. Three years ago, it was rated one of the worst schools in Colorado; located on turf between two rival gangs. But last May, 97% of the seniors received their diploma. Most will be the first in their family to go to college. And after the first year of the school's transformation, the principal who made it possible wiped away tears when a student said "Thank you, Mrs. Waters, for showing… that we are smart and we can make it."

What President Obama fails to mention about this school is that they were able to free themselves from the district and state bureaucracy to make these changes.  They were able to avoid the entrapment of the teacher's unions as well.

Now, I strongly believe that we should take on, once and for all, the issue of illegal immigration. I am prepared to work with Republicans and Democrats to protect our borders, enforce our laws and address the millions of undocumented workers who are now living in the shadows.

Why is it after two years you are finally open to actually enforcing the laws of this land?   First step, stop the lawsuit against the state of Arizona.

Now, the final step – a critical step – in winning the future is to make sure we aren't buried under a mountain of debt.

We are living with a legacy of deficit-spending that began almost a decade ago. And in the wake of the financial crisis, some of that was necessary to keep credit flowing, save jobs, and put money in people's pockets.

But now that the worst of the recession is over, we have to confront the fact that our government spends more than it takes in. That is not sustainable. Every day, families sacrifice to live within their means. They deserve a government that does the same.

So tonight, I am proposing that starting this year, we freeze annual domestic spending for the next five years.

What I find funny is NOW he wants to freeze spending after he has added more to the debt than all Presidents from Washington to Reagan.  NOW he wants to attack deficits after he has proposed deficits that are larger than all of the Bush deficits combined.  Get real Mr. President.  The fact is that your savings are a bit off.  It will save us a combined $20 billion a year to freeze our spending.  That is less than a drop in the bucket for our government spending.

Conclusion
Their were some bad things, all related to programs that don't work  or are unconstitutional.  The Ugly aspects of his speech really worry me though because of just how wrong he is in those areas.  But if the president can deliver on the good promises he made in this speech he may even convince me to vote for him in 2012.  I know shocker!

Questions?  Comments?  Concerns?  Class dismissed.

Public Policy: Abortion

On this day every year, their are always huge marches on Washington, D.C.  The reason for the marches is that today is the anniversary of the Supreme Court Decision of Roe v. Wade.  Many people come to protest that decision by the court.  The court case that effectively made the state's right to regulate such a medical procedure unconstitutional.  Today the focus of the blog will be on this historic event and contentious issue.

A Brief History of Roe v. Wade
Norma McCorvey (know as Jane Roe in court filings) found out she was pregnant with her third child and wanted to abort the pregnancy.  Her friend convinced her that she admit that she was raped, since Texas allowed abortions in the case of rape or incest.  Her plan failed when their was no police report about the alleged rape.  She attempted to get an illegal abortion and found it closed by the police.  She then filed a suit in U.S. District court.  The district court ruled in the petitioner's favor due to the precedent set by Griswold v. Connecticut that said the state did not have a right to stop the use of contraceptives.  It reached the Supreme Court where it was argued twice.

Decision of the Supreme Court
The majority opinion of the Supreme Court had several arguments.  First that the Texas law on abortion was too vague.  The main arguments of the Justices spawned from the Ninth Amendment, which protects those rights not listed in that Constitution.  In this case, it fell in the realm of the right of privacy in personal medical decisions. As stated in the LC-MS Commission on Theology and Church relations document Abortion in Perspective, "the Court held that abortion could not simply be prohibited, such prohibition being a violation of the woman's constitutionally guaranteed right of personal privacy. The Court also held, however, that this right was not  unqualified but was limited by other important interests of the states, if such could be shown to be pertinent here" (11).

The Supreme Court found that a two interests in which the state may have a compelling interest to justify regulations on abortion.  First, the interest of the state to protect the health of the pregnant mother. Secondly an interest in protect the potential human life.  In the first interest the court said that mortality rates of abortions (i.e. how many people die while performing the procedure) are less than natural child birth.  So a state could only justify a regulation to protect the life of the mother, like it must be performed in a properly licensed facility.  In the second interest the court found that the state has no interest in protecting the life of the unborn unless it is viable outside of the mother.  The court imposed the trimester system in place to say where the state had an interest in regulating abortions; this was further modified in future decisions.  Currently the court holds that the state may regulate the use of abortions to protect the life of the unborn if they can life outside of the womb, even with medical devices.  As you see the decision does not protect the right to abortion on demand, but only states when the states can regulate the use of such a procedure.


My View on Abortion
Protection of Life
The main reason to be against abortion is the protection of the inalienable right to life as stated in the Declaration of Independence and other political philosophers in the period of the Enlightenment.  The child has a right to life and to live.  It is the job of the government to protect the life of all its citizens.  These unborn babies in the U.S. are technically citizens of the individual states and the United States.  The U.S. therefore has an qualified right to make and enforce laws that protect the life of this child.  Even a child conceived from rape or incest deserve to live which brings me to my next point.

Here is an interesting take on this way the decision is designed.  As medical technology increases, to be able to sustain life outside of the womb the states could regulate the use of abortions more.  Since the state has a interest in the protection of the life of the unborn if it can exist outside the womb, with assistance, earlier and earlier in a pregnancy than abortion regulations could made illegal earlier and earlier in a pregnancy.

Abortion Alternatives
If a parent does not want a child their are plenty of viable alternatives other than taking the life of the unborn.; adoption being the most likely.  This means in cases of rape and incest this means a mother has to live with that evil act for nine months.  It is obvious that the mother may not want to be reminded of this act later in life after the child is given up for adoption.  The states should write laws to protect the identity of the mother and father of those who put up their children for adoption.  So they may not be found by their child, if they do not want.  This will not end a child from looking and possibly finding their mother or father but it does provide them some protection.  The state, working through private charity, should also help support these women in their choice to protect the life of the child conceived through criminal and evil means.



The Right to Privacy


Medical Exceptions
Michael Savage said in his new book "Trickle Up Poverty," that he would make abortion illegal "with the exception of the physical survival or the mother-to be determined by two licensed medical doctors.  This should be the policy of the states.  I have expressed to my wife before we got married, that if while pregnant the doctors told me I could only save my wife or my child, I would choose my wife every time.  And I would probably live with the guilt of that decision the rest of my life, knowing my decision probably ended the life of my child.  I am open to exceptions in conception due to rape and/or incest, but I lean more towards not allowing them in those situations due to my other arguments from above.

Rights of the Father
Their is so much talk about the rights of the mother and her privacy; what about the rights of the father?  A woman who gets pregnant with a long term boyfriend, or even a one night stand can make the choice to abort the child without so much as contacting him.  The child is just as much his as it is the mothers.  If the child is conceived by a sexual act with the mutual consent of both partners the rights of both parents should be respected.  The rights of the father should be protected as much as the mothers.  Obviously the rights of the father in an illegal sex act, such as rape and/or incest would not apply in this case.

I hope you enjoyed reading.  Next time (Thursday), I will have for you a breakdown and analysis of the President's State of the Union Address, which he makes on Tuesday night.  I hope to read a lot of lively discussion on this topic.  Facebook friends, come and subscribe to my blog on the original site (http://ajbulava.blogspot.com).  Questions?  Comments?  Concerns?  Class dismissed

Book Review: "Arguing with Idiots" -- In Defense of Capitalism (Chapter #1)

So I decided to start a different feature of my blog by reviewing or summarizing books in part or in whole that I have read and may include some insights for us into government and life in this nation.  I start today with the first chapter of Glenn Beck's #1 New York Times bestseller from 2009, "Arguing with Idiots:  How to Stop Small Minds and Big Government."  Today's will address his first chapter titled:  In Defense of Capitalism:  Giving the Free Market a Fair Shake.

Glenn starts out with the story of Samuel Insull.  A poor clerk immigrant from England who went on to become the largest power supplier servicing over ten million customers in thirty-two states with a market value of three billion dollars, a total net worth of one hundred billion dollars and being put on the cover of Time Magazine in 1929.  Then the great depression came.  The debt he had used to finance his company growth was now worthless and those who invested in his company lost their money.  He was taken to trial for fraud but acquitted.

This story is used to prove a point.  Capitalism cannot provide you with anything, not a new house, a new job, or a nice retirement; that is your responsibility.  However, it can foster the environment for those who want to work hard and succeed to have a better chance.  Capitalism also provides for innovation and competition to produce better and cheaper products to improve our standards of living.

Argument #1 - Free-Market Capitalism failed.
Capitalism did not fail; greed (the idea that returns can be had without risk) failed.  In a true free-market system the government would have little if any involvement in the economy.  And I am not suggesting throwing out government regulations regarding safety or health concerns.  The argument is that its not the job of the government to encourage or discourage economic behavior of the citizens.  For example in the housing market mortgage "rates would be set by market participants [mortgage lenders and borrowers), based on the risk and reward, with a clear, understanding that making bad loans would result in bankruptcy" (Beck 4).  What has failed is the thought that "markets can be free when run by an increasingly activist government" (Beck 5).

Argument #2 - We are obligated to care for weakest and only government can do that.
"Soulless capitalism," success without compassion, was bred by a government that tries to do that job of the responsible civic minded citizens to help each other.  Problems are not solved effectively from the top-down but from the bottom up.   The American's citizens response to Hurricane Katrina can prove what a better job we do on our own than government does to solve these problems.  Over one billion was brought in by private charities to aid the people.  FEMA handed out $6.3 Billion  with a quarter of that going to fraudulent uses.  Now if I give my money to a charity that wastes it, then I won't give money to them again, but I have no choice with the government.  In another example, President Cleveland vetoed a relief bill in 1887 to help suffering farmers in Texas.  He trusted the American people do to what was right and they did what was right.  They donated ten times more money than what was asked for by Congress.

Argument #3 - We need a new capitalism with more government control.
Business and government work on two different motivations.  Businesses are in business to make wealth, closely watching expenses, making sure every dollar has a return.  Government exist (in theory) to protect the citizens and their rights who they serve.  Here are some examples of how partnerships of private public entities have worked out in the past.

Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac: Created to buy mortgages from banks so they have more money to lend.  It got so big it was weighting down the budget so they "quasi-government corporation."  They had an unfair advantage by accessing lines of credit and exemption from taxes.  Also they knew the government would not let them fail.  We bought these companies in 2008 and put their liabilities right back on the books of the government.

The Postal Service:  Here is a series of weird things it must do.  It receives no government appropriations so when you stamp price goes up that's why.  They must also adhere to very strict regulations that say each piece of mail must pay for itself.  It can borrow money, but increases in rates are decided by an independent commission.  They have to adhere to federal guidelines in pay but are also have mandated monopoly on mail delivery.  They have very little say over their own operation that is controlled by Congress.  They can't close branches or change delivery dates to try and save money.

Argument #4 - We just need to streamline the bureaucracy.
In this section Glenn outlines the various ways Presidents have tried to streamline the bureaucracies of the federal government, going back to 1905.  Congress usually gets in the way and prevents the ideas of these commissions from being law.  They only one that was successful was under President Carter.

Argument #5 - We need a temporary change until the emergency is over.
When is the last time you have seen a government give back power that the people granted it for an emergency.  Bush was given wartime powers that Obama has taken and used with the same disregard as his predecessor, even when he criticized Bush for using those powers.  One example in the book is how Pennsylvania levied a tax on alcohol with revenues going to help the town of Johnstown after a devastating flood.  The tax has never died in fact it has been raised.  The lesson?  Be careful of giving any government power or authority even if its temporary

Argument #6 - We just need some more regulations.
Regulations are virtually impossible to get rid of once they are one he books.  The biggest example is that of Hein Hettinga who, in 2003, wanted to sell milk for cheaper than his competitors to make more money.  The problem came is that dairy farmers are governed by regulations set up in the 1930s to protect small farmers who sold raw milk.  Does that really have any importance today?  More regulations will just make our free markets worse.

Argument #7 - Politicians can learn to run a government like a business.
The ideas of politicians bring to government about purposes of government are not easily changed.  Look at the generations of politicians manage the money given to them in taxes.  IN 1991 Connecticut had a shortfall of  $2.7 billion (created by fiscal irresponsibility) which they tried to fix by creating an income tax.  It has been raised over the years with other taxes added on as well.  And where are they now?  They still have massive deficits that are just going to get larger.  If you look deeper you see that their spending also increase by 147% over that same time period.  Government only really knows how to get bigger over time.

Argument #8 - Socialism does not work because it was never implemented correctly.
The Founding Fathers knew this about government:  That they could be good almost none of them ever were, even those started with good intentions.  They become to powerful and corrupt.  The people are the opposite though, over time they usually did the right things and made the right decisions.  If socialism worked well in the real world then we would be using.  Perfect socialism is a theory, that has never worked in practice.

Argument #9 - We should do socialism like the French.
This quote by an New York Times writer Roger  Cohen sums up best why this is a bad idea. 

     I lived about a decade, on and off, in France, and later moved to the United States.  Nobody in their right mind would give up the manifold sensual, aesthetic and gastronomic pleasure offered by French savoir-vivre for the unrelenting battlefield of American ambition were it not for one thing:  possibility.
     You know possibility when you breathe it.  For an immigrant, it lies in the ease of American identity and the boundlessness of American horizons after the narrower confines of European nationhood and the stifling attentions of the European nanny state, which often made it more attractive to not work than to work. (One France is Enough, March 4, 2009)

France found the best way to keep people working was with a huge amount of regulation.  Their are large procedures in place to hire or fire an employee.  But when you are locked in with an employee by regulations you are more likely to hire only the person who is best and not take a chance on a new person.  So the young are not well employed (since busiesses are careful on who they hire) which required another set or regulations to fix that problem.

The basic theme of this chapter is not that free-market capitalism has failed, but that government intrusion into free-market capitalism has failed.  By over regulating the different parts of the economy the government creates bubbles that are waiting to be burst when if left alone these markets correct themselves quicker than government can effectively respond.

I touched on some of the major points of Beck in this chapter but I recommend any one to read this chapter for more surprising and researched information.  The back of the book has hundreds of footnotes to show where he got his information.  I hope you all do so.  Have a nice day.

Questions?  Comments?  Concerns?  Class dismissed.