The U.S. Constitution - Lesson #7: Legislative Process

Today's lesson on the U.S. Constitution focuses on Article I, Section 7  which explains in the barest details of how a law is passed by Congress and the President.

All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.

All bills for raising taxes MUST start in the House of Representatives.  The reason behind this methodology was because representatives were voted on by the general electorate.  If the representatives vote to raise taxes the people can vote them out of office in the next election.

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

With that statement the entire law making process is explained by the Constitution.  A bill must be passed by both the House and the Senate and must be presented to a President. All the other steps I teach in my classes are a result of previous provisions in the U.S. Constitution.  Specifically, Article I, Section 5 Clause 2, which states:  "Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings..."  Each house outlines the procedures for how their house is to pass a bill .  This is where the filibuster and cloture rules from the Senate and the Rules committee in the House were created.

If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it.

This phrase describes the check of power the President has on the Congress's law making power.  The President being the chief law enforcer has final approval of all laws.  Considering that he also has an oath to uphold the Constitution, as the Supreme Law of the land, he then is the first check on protecting the Constitution against unlawful changes through legislation.  There are numbers of Presidents who vetoed lots of legislation the most prevalent are Andrew Jackson, Andrew Johnson and my personal favorite, Grover Cleveland.  He was known to veto many private bills that came through Congress to give some person tax payer dollars.  Here is a key example I want to share with you readers which comes from Glenn Beck's, "Arguing with Idiots (6-7).

"In 1887, Congress passed a bill appropriating money to Texas farmers who were suffering through a catastrophic drought.  These days, that funding would not only be authorized, it would probably be done so under an emergency program that gave more money to the farmers than they ever dreamed of.  But not in 1887.  Not with Grover Cleveland as President.  Here is how he responded:  I feel obligated to withhold my approval of the plan, as proposed by this bill, to indulge a benevolent and charitable sentiment through the appropriation of public funds for that purpose. I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution, and I do not believe that the power and duty of the General Government out to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit.  A prevalent tendency to disregard the limited mission of this power and duty should, I think, be steadfastly resisted, to the end that the lesson should be constantly enforced that thought the people support the government the government should not support the people.  That friendliness and charity of our countrymen can always be relied upon to relieve their fellow-citizens in misfortune.  This has been repeatedly and quite lately demonstrated.  Federal aid in such cases encourages the expectation of paternal care on the part of the government and weakens the sturdiness of our national character, while it prevents the indulgence among our people of that kindly sentiment and conduct which strengthens the bonds of common brotherhood." (Note to self:  Need to find books and read more about Grover Cleveland, a pure constitutionalists, a politician after my own heart)

The President may either sign the bill showing his approval of the law, or he may veto it to show his disapproval.  The Constitution does indicate that the President must tell why he vetoed the law, which will be entered into the journal of the house in which the bill originated.  They can then reconsider the bill which means one of two things.  First, that they rewrite the law and re-pass it according to the President's objections and sending it to him for his final approval.  Or they may...

If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by Yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively.

Both houses of Congress must pass the vetoed bill again by a two-thirds margin.  This congressional override is a check on the power of the President to veto legislation.  But it does require what is known typically as a super majority.  In the House it requires 287 members to vote in favor of the bill; in the Senate it requires 67.  Therefore a bill must be extremely popular to be overridden.  Only about 4% of all Presidential vetoes have been overridden.  A very effective check on over legislating by the Congress.

Also another key limitation on this clause is that the Congress MUST record in its journal who which member voted Yea and Nay.  This is so the people may know precisely who voted for and against the bill.

If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.

This provision in the Constitution provides a check on the President's power to approve or disapprove of a law by including a time limit for his actions on any given bill.  If the president could just ignore bills by Congress then he would have an uncontrolled amount of power over the legislative process.  The time limit of ten days also makes sure the president has time to review the legislation before signing or vetoing a law.  He cannot just ignore laws presented to him by Congress.

I would argue the bills passed by Congress in our modern era are to long to be reviewed by the President. Bills that are hundreds, if not thousands, of pages in length are too long for the President to properly review them prior to his approval.  Also the president receives hundreds, if not not thousands, of bills each year to approve.  That is his key job, review the legislation and approve it if it is Constitutional.  The extreme length and number of bills passed by Congress has hindered the President from doing this key job.  It is time to enact reform so that our bills are easy to read and understand for all people of our nation.  But that is a longer discussion for a different day.

Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the Same shall take Effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the Rules and Limitations prescribed in the Case of a Bill.

This final clause states that the President's approval must be given on ANY bill that is passed by both house of Congress.  The only exception to this clause is when they vote to adjourn.  If the President had the power to adjourn the Congress indefinitely it would give that office a huge amount of power  over the legislative process.  Though he does has some limited power to adjourn and call Congress to session, but we will discuss more of that when we get to Article II.

I hope you enjoyed the lesson for today.  As always feel free to comment or question.  Class dismissed.

The Constitution: Living Document or Original Intent

I added this post today in an effort to "catch up" since I missed my posting yesterday on account of celebrating my wife's birthday.  Enjoy.

Often times I have heard that the U.S. Constitution is a living document whose meaning changes depending on the age of which we are currently living.  This idea cannot be further from the truth.  There are several competing beliefs of how we interpret the strict constructionist, and loose constructions.  Strict constructionists are often times called following the "Original Intent" of the founders. It is my belief that our Constitution and its amendments must be read with the original intent of the founders in a strict constructionists manner.   My arguments are as follows.

First, an example from literature.  J.R.R. Tolkien, author of the "Lord of the Rings" books, often said in personal writings and quotes that the book it was story that has many themes and values portrayed within it, but its not to be read as an religious or political allegorical text.  Should we go beyond the intent of the author when interpreting and analyzing this fine piece of literature?  I would argue that we should not.  We have his own words defending the meaning, themes and values of the text.  To go beyond that and make up some new analysis that is counter to the author's intent is a false interpretation of the text.  This is how we should also read our Constitution.

The Constitution was completed on September 17, 1787 and submitted to the states for their ratification.  Over the next few years it was ratified by all thirteen original colonies and one additional state.  During that time period prior to the American Revolution and during the ratification of the Constitution, there was a vast amount of writing about the Constitution and governmental theory.  Most of these theories and writings exist today thanks to the invention of the movable type printing press about two hundred years before by Gutenberg (Funny story:  The main network printer at my college for my first few years was called Gutey.  I swear it took me a couple of semesters to get it).  Thanks to the printing press these documents still exist today but are rarely studied in our classrooms.  They give us the fullest picture of what was the intent of the founders when they wrote the Constitution.  The most prevalent documents I want to refer to are the "Federalist Papers."

"The Federalists Papers" were written by James Madison, John Jay (Future chief justice of the Supreme Court) and Alexander Hamilton.  These documents defended the Constitution and its ratification by the states.  It explains why it was needed and some key points that the Anti-Federalists made during the ratification process.  These 87 articles give us the clearest picture as to what our constitution means.  It is these documents we must consult first, when trying to interpret the Constitution.  Why should we ignore the very words used to defend the Constitution in the first place?  They are our road map to understanding the original document.

Secondly, we must look at the historical background behind when the words were written.  I use this specifically to refer to this historical background of the Amendments.  Since most of the amendments were written well after the founding of our nation.  I want to use the 14th Amendment as an example.  I want to focus my time on the very first clause of the document since it is the most applicable to us today.  The other clauses deal primarily with the confederate states after the Civil War and have very little influence on us today.

The first clause of that Amendment reads as such: 

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The historical fact behind the ratification of this amendment are as such.  Previously the Radical Republican had passed the Civil Rights Act of 1886 which made all people born in the United States, except Native Americans, citizens of the U.S.A.  They were fearful of the Supreme Court declaring the law unconstitutional so they codified this in the constitution in this amendment.  The intent was so that Blacks would be citizens of the U.S., since the Dred Scot Decision ruled that blacks, whether slave or free, were not citizens of the United States.  That was the original intent.

Also a key point I want to make in the language of this text.  The first phrase makes it clear that the people born in the U.S. or naturalized must be under the jurisdiction or authority of the U.S.  Illegal aliens are not technically under the U.S. jurisdiction, they are citizens of another country, under the jurisdiction of that nation.  Which is why we deport them when we discover them.  The anchor babies of illegals, according to the original intent of this amendment, should not be considered natural born citizens of our nation. 

Also, this amendment has been used to incorporate the rights found in the Bill of Rights to apply to the states.  But if you look closely at the language you will that the states may not abridge the rights of CITIZENS.  Illegals aliens are not citizens and therefore are not afforded the same rights as citizens of the U.S. Constitution.  They do deserve due process and equal protection of the laws, but not the same rights.

The point I was trying to make is that the original intent of the writers of the Constitution and its additional amendments should be consulted and used to understand the language and use of the Constitution.  Just like we should consider the words of J.R.R. Tolkien when interpreting "The Lord of the Rings."

During this whole debate on health care reform the idea of unconstitutionality has been thrown around by both sides of the aisle.  What scares me is when I hear people say that we can find a way to defend it in the constitution later; lets just get it passed now.  These people take an oath to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, both foreign and domestic.  When they have to look to defend a law later then we have serious problems of how we understand the Constitution.  Like where is it authorized that the government can regulate schools, give money to foreign nations, or mandate we buy something? 

The fact of the matter is none of these powers are expressly given to Congress in the Constitution, nor can they be reasonably implied if you understand implied powers correctly.  (Check out this blog posting on that topic for more information).  It is time we returned to the tried and true principles and powers granted in the U.S. Constitution, that we ask all leaders to follow it to the letter, and vote only for people who will truly defend it. 

Thanks for listening and have a nice day. As always comments are welcome.

News of the Day - 2/10/2010: Dhali Lama & Terror Attacks

Sorry to my loyal readers for a lack of a post yesterday.  I got home and instantly got to celebrating with my wife the date of her birth.  It was a good night for all.  We went to Famous Dave's for dinner, shared cake with the family and her twin sister, and then just veged on the couch for the rest of the evening watching tv shows on spies and doctors.  But today's it back to the grind of writing for my readers.  A couple of news stories today that I want to call your attention too.

ATTACK ON IRS... A TERRORIST ATTACK
So yesterday a deranged anti-government individual flew his plane into an IRS building in Austin, Texas.  The crux of the article is whether or not this "lone wolf" attack was a terrorist attack.  I like how Fox news gets opinions from both sides on this issues, from both a liberal (Center for American Progress) and conservative (Heritage Foundation) think tanks.  I guess the fair and balanced part of their news reporting is not entirely untrue.  But both sides and the White House agreed that it should not be labeled a terrorist attack until the appropriate investigation had been completed.  What irks me is how quickly the main stream media and others called it domestic terrorism and related this gentleman to Timothy McVeigh.  BUT when Major Hassan in Fort Hood has multiple contacts with Al Queda operatives and extremist Muslim clerics and jihadists, there is no way it could possibly be a terrorist attack of any kind.  It just seems to me we are trying to appease this backwards thinking, civil rights abridging, violent religious sect.  Let's call a spade a spade no matter what we think on the issue or people.

CHINA PROTESTS OBAMA VISIT WITH DHALI LAMA
The President finally sat down with fellow Nobel Peace Prize winner, the spiritual and political leader of the Chinese occupied province of Tibet.  China was none to happy about this.  You see they took over Tibet in the 1950s.  The Dhali Lama can not even go back because he will likely be imprisoned and killed by the Chinese government.  This is the danger of our out of control debt.  China hold a lot of power over our heads by controlling so much of our debt.  In fact they started selling it off, possibly as punishment for this meeting.  What's next? Them requesting that we leave Iran alone since they get a large amount of their oil from them.  Or maybe allow their military ships to dock in our ports.  Or just stop the CIA from having operations in China.  The same situation was true when J.P Morgan bailed out the U.S. Government TWICE!  The U.S. government made it a point to pay him back ASAP because they did not one individual to have that much power over the government.  It is the same idea with our debt to other nations.  It is dangerous.  Also we are close to having our national debt be equal too if not more than our yearly Gross Domestic Product.  So we owe as much as we make in a single year, as a nation.  Scary stuff.

Thanks for reading.  Hope you have a great weekend.  The next lesson on the U.S. Constitution will be up tomorrow as scheduled.

My Perfect School: Houses v. Classes

At my high school some of the best moments I remember were spirit weeks and pep rallies.  We really one had two a year:  one during fall sports and one during winter sports.  During spirit weeks we would have class competitions to earn points.  The same would be true for the pep rallies if you won a game you won points for your class.  The class with the highest points at the end of spirit week would then possess the school mascot for the next semester.  My class (Class of 2000 -- Represent!) won it three semesters in a row our last three years at the school.  This is a system I would like to incorporate in one of two ways:  by Multi-class Houses or by graduating Classes.

Here is the deal every quarter or semester the groups would have various spirit days, and other competitions.  Spirit days earns you points for "dressing up" appropriately for that day.  One competition I have thought of is an intramural competition of sports.  Each quarter would have a different sport and the classes would compete against each other kind of like the Quiditch Cup at Hogwarts in the Harry Potter series.  Each win would earn you points for your class.  At the end of the quarter or semester you have the pep rally with more class competitions.  Another competition could be like a quarter long scavenger hunt or something else like that.  At the end of the quarter or semester you would have a pep rally with more games that earn a grouping more points.  The group with the most points at the end of all the competitions wins and possess the mascot until the next grading period. 

Here are my areas of which I want input from my readers.  Should I do this by graduating classes or by a house system?  I like the graduating class system because that is how we did it, but you can't really establish long trains of wins.  Also it is more favored to the upper class men than the freshmen.  The House idea would be cool where each house has multiple students from each grade level.  They would be assigned a house at the start of their time in the school and remain in that house during their tenure at the school.  I am not sure how we would select for each house.  The key would be to key the houses as equally proportioned as possible in total numbers and in the different grade levels in each house.

I would like my readers comments on this posting.  Please give me some help.  Which one should be used:  Houses or Classes?  Thanks in advance.

Public Policy: The Transporation Safety Administration

Today I want to deal with a specific part of our federal government's policy, specifically relating to how we keep the friendly skies, as well as other modes of transportation, safe for consumers in the United States.  This posting is in direct response to this story I saw today.

The first part of any reform to the transportation safety is to consolidate all national transporation administrations, like the TSA, FAA, NTSB, and others, into one single administrative structure to oversee and enforce federal laws relating to transportation safety.  This would be done through a law passed by Congress.  The consolidation of these agencies into one would cut down on the overlapping jurisdictions, and staffing of separate agencies that essentially do the exact same things just with slightly narrow or specific jurisdictions. 

The benefits the the U.S. citizen for this reform would be decreased federal spending on repetitive administrations and agencies.  Also many federal employees would be laid off, which could seek employment in the private sector.  Those left would be the most qualified to investigate, test, and enforce laws in our national privatized transportation network.

Secondly, I would authorize, through this new law, the complete elimination of the U.S. government from providing security for airports, trains and other modes of transportation inside the United States.  The law would require that the private airports and/or airliners provide for their own security.  The newly consolidated Transportation Safety Agency would serve to test these companies to make sure their security is up to snuff and provide the data to the consumers.  This alone would eliminate hundreds of thousands of government workers and free up federal money to be used elsewhere.  I am not sure if I would get rid of the federal air marshals but I would definitely provide in the law for passenger airliners to authorize individuals to be company air marshals on any and/or all flights. 

There are both costs and benefits for this reform.  The costs would include the individual airports providing security by charging their carriers additional fees to use that airport, which would get passed on to the consumer.  Or if the individual carriers were to provide the security at their own gates this cost would also be passed upon to the consumer.  The benefit would be that customers could choose which carrier to use, that they feel is the most security conscious.  Just like consumers have voted with their dollars with all the fees many carriers are implementing to stay in the black.  The other benefit is that passengers with a history in the company may be able to bypass security altogether since they have a good security record.  It also places the safety of passengers on the head of the airline companies.  If something goes wrong its their problem, not a problem with the government; the government makes enough mistakes as it is this would remove them from the equation.

Thirdly, in conjunction with the CIA, FBI and other agencies responsible for federal criminal investigations and apprehension, I would make available the entire no fly and terrorist watch list to the passenger airliners to cross check their passenger manifests against.  If someone gets flagged they can do several things.  One, alert the authorities of when and where they intend to fly so they may be apprehended.  Two, they could allow them to fly but request that a federal air marshal be on the flight for the safety of all individuals.  Third, they could allow greater scrutiny on that passengers security check before boarding the flight.

The benefits of this are super enormous.  As we found out on Christmas Day the system to stop terrorists from traveling to the U.S. is to cumbersome to work fast enough to stop the Crotch Bomber.  If individual airlines working inside the U.S. had access to this information they could instantly disqualify a person from flying on their planes.  Another thing they could do was put them up to greater security scrutiny before letting them fly on their private airline.  People could scream all they want about discrimination but its the right of the company to determine who they do business with and how they do business with them (We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone.).  Also, it side steps the fourth amendment of unreasonable search and seizures without probable cause since it is a private company and not the government. 

On a side note, I think some of the security measures in airports are a violation of our fourth Amendment rights.  How can it be seen as reasonable for an individual like myself to be search like he is going to commit a crime on a plane.  Its the job of the government to show probable cause before they search an individual; there is no search before that time.  It should be the job of the companies and the government to work together to identify those people who should be search based on probable cause.  A person who is on the no fly list has enough probable cause to be search before boarding a flight.  Just another way our freedoms are slowly being taken away from us. 

Fourth, any lawsuit brought against a passenger airline or transportation company would be granted exclusive jurisdiction in the federal courts.  There would also be legal limits on the amounts that would be paid out in any successful lawsuit.  The benefit here brings tort reform to one specific area.  Also, since some modes of travel cross state lines, that would grant the federal courts jurisdiction over any such case.

That is all I have for today's post.  I would love to see your comments on this topic.  Have a great day.

News of the Day - 2/15/2010 - Schools, Stimulus, AGW & VP Biden

Another rapid fire news day.  This seems to be a preferred format since I can briefly comment on several stories each day.  Also, if there is a juicy story that requires a longer post I can do that as well so here... we... go.

SCHOOLS FACE CUTS AS STIMULUS RUNS OUT
From the AP we hear that public schools are facing more and larger cuts this year.  The main reason: government spending from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 has now run out.  So now schools have to do with less than before.  My own district is suffering with having to make around $100 million cuts for the next school year.  The Superintendent has allowed us to email suggestions to his office.  I have already done so and told the students to send me ideas to send to him. 

The fact of the matter is that government spending made the problems worse.  Now deeper cuts have to be made to offset the money given last year.  Throwing money at the problem never solves it, it just makes the solution harder to find since the money briefly filled the hole.  It is time of public education to take a serious look at its bureaucratic structure and eliminate all the unnecessary waste.  I don't hear of very many private schools going out of business.  The main reason could be that they don't rely on government money to make ends meet so they have to justify each expenditure wisely.  There are too many bureaucrats in most large public school districts.  There are too many under qualified and over paid consultants and administrators who do not do anything to improve students education.  Cuts need to begin there not at the school level. 

On a second note, the superintendent of the Clark County School District complimented the fact that there are now 38 more empowerment schools in the district.  An empowerment school has more freedom to address issues important to that community.  Now someone tell me why all the schools in CCSD are not empowerment.  Education needs to be dealt with and supported by the community and parents.  Unfortunately not enough care anymore, at least at my school.  Moving on.

NO GLOBAL WARMING IN 15 YEARS
Coming straight from the horse's mouth is the fact that there has not been global warning in 15 years.  I thought if we were the sole cause of Anthropomorphic Global Warming (AGW) then our continued buring of green house gasses the earth's temperature would continue to clime.  I guess not.  I have not really ever addressed AGW on my blog so here is a first.  Here are my major issues with the climate change crowd. 

First, climate change happens, with or without human interaction.  There were vast changes to the climate before the burning of greenhouse gases, so how do we know WE are the ones causing it?

Second, climatologists have often threatened science magazine and journals to not publish works by their critics and then criticize when the critics have no publish works.  Why the gestapo tactics if your are correct?

Thirdly, the pure hypocrisy of the true believers.  Many of them say we need to make changes to the way we live but don't make any changes themselves.  They want to cap emissions but they have a larger carbon footprint than anyone else on the planet.  Something interesting I saw years ago was a comparison of Gore's and Bush's houses.  President Bush's house in Texas was heated by geothermal systems and powered by solar.  To compare Gore burns a significant amount of green house gasses to power his house.  Also, I love the quote of then Senator Obama saying we can't run our thermostats at 72 degrees if we want, but he keeps the White House super cold so that people must wear sweaters, while I pay the bill.  I think they calculated that all the travel to Coopenhagen would burn more green house gases than sixty developing nations.  It's a practice of do as I say, not as I do.  That right there is the biggest argument for why I fight against this scare science tactics.

BIDEN MOTORCADE ACCIDENT AT OLYMPICS
Ok what is going on with President Biden's motorcade?  This is the third accident in a year for his motorcade.  Someone needs to see what they heck is going on. 

That's all the news for today.  Have a great day.

For My Wife - Our Story... Thus far

So I missed Friday, and never posted anything additional on Saturday.  Sorry to my loyal readers that I missed a day.  Since yesterday was St. Valentine's Day, I have something I will share with the world at large.  I wrote this for my wife and gave it to her yesterday.

    Our Story, Thus Far
    By:  Adam J. Bulava

    On the occasion of our first Valentine’s Day as husband and wife

You made the first move, and did it real smooth.
Though I had my head shaved, you saw I was well behaved.
When the first movie we saw was so bad, but I sang the song by Santan(a)
Auditioning made you very nervous, though I thought you did fabulous.
Driving in the dark of night, with the gold coins forever in our sight.
Church on Good Friday, which reminded you of being Catholic on Sunday.
Meeting my best friend and mother, being glad I didn’t meet another.
Trip to Chicago at Thanksgiving, to know my family was only the beginning.
Four days at Christmas making you cry, just because you didn’t want to say goodbye.
A week on the plains with family and friends, wishing those days would never end.
A wedding and Star Wars in St. Paul, on our own with no one to call.
Buying a ring to put on your finger, while you were drunk hoping you would remember
Learning to dance while planning our day, making lots of decisions along the way.
Invites and dress, tuxes and a shower, waiting and waiting for that one hour.
Looking down the aisle seeing you in white, marriage with your friend finally in sight.
Saying I will and kissing my best friend, our feet hurt so bad we wanted it to end.
Honeymoon in Cali spending our time at the zoo, seeing everything anew.
Moving to our brand new home, finding a brother for our kitty who was all alone.
Starting a search for the next chapter in our life, searching for jobs in the Midwest in the Heights.

The U.S. Constitution - Lesson #6: Elections and Proceedings

Sorry for the lack of a posting on Friday afternoon.  I will make it up to my loyal readers later today.  But today's lesson on the U.S. Constitution focuses on Article I, Section 4 & Section 5, since four is so small.  Again this will be dealt with clause by clause.

Section 4.  The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Place of choosing Senators.

This lays out not specifically a power of Congress but of the states, which Congress may regulate if needed.  This is another example of Federalism (separation of power between the federal and local governments) inside of our Constitution.  Each state holds its own elections and writes its own laws and regulations for elections.  The right and powers to vote is granted by the state governments, not the federal government, to the citizens of the state.

This is where congress gets the authority to write laws regarding the federal campaign contributions.  Earlier this year the Supreme Court struck down regulations in a recent campaign finance reform law.  They also overturned previous decisions of the Court on corporate donations to political campaigns.  Unfortunately most people have no idea of what the facts or decision of Citizens United v. FEC is about.  I did a blog a few weeks on this very topic.  Check it out for more information.

The major misunderstanding people have in an election, especially a presidential election is that there is no national election; there are fifty state elections.  The electoral college is another way of proving this because it is up to the state legislatures to determine how electors are choosen for the presidency.  I will deal more on this later when I address Article II, Section 1, Clauses 3 & 4.

The Congress shall assemble at least once in every Year, and such Meeting shall be on the first Monday in  December, unless they shall by Law appoint a different Day.

This clause ensures that the legislature must meet at least once a year.  The major issue behind this clause was that the King of England could dissolve the Parliament at any time.  The King also had dissolved the colonial legislators.  This is one of the major reasons behind the revolution listed in the Declaration of Independence.  The bold text was changed by the 20th Amendment.

Section 5.  Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members, and a Majority of each shall constitute a Quorum to do Business; but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the Attendance of absent Members, in such Manner, and under such Penalties as each House may provide.

The Congress has occassionally used the listed here power to refuse to seat a duly elected member of the House or Senate.  The most recent example was after the election of President Obama.  Governor Blagoavich of Illinois appointed Roland Burris to the vacated seat of former senator Barak Obama when he was elected to the office of President.  The main point of contention was the federal corruption investigation into the governor about how he was going to choose which person would be the second senator from Illinois.  The Supreme Court has held though that Congress cannot withhold the seat of a person who has met all the Constitutional requirements for office.  Also they stated in a separate case that a member may only be expelled in the term a wrong was committed, it cannot be retroactive.

The Constitution sets the quorum to do business as a majority of members, which would be fifty-one percent of its members (218 in the House and 51 in the Senate).  The need for this limit on power is so that a small number of legislators could not pass laws.  A few years ago during the August break a large contingent of Republicans and some Democrats stayed behind in Washington when recess was called for the month, despite lots of work to do.  This clause prevents them from passing legislation.  Though I thought it would funny if they were able to get a quorum and do business; they never did.

Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, and, with the Concurrence of two-thirds, expel a Member.

This allows each house of Congress to make its own rules in how to pass legislation.  The power to create committees is an implied power of this expressed power.  The practice of filibuster (unlimited debate to kill legislation) is also found in the U.S. Senate because of this clause.  The filibuster is a necessary power and part of the founder's original intent for the Senate.  The House may quickly pass something because of the popular fervor for a specific piece of legislation.  This is because the House is the body of our federal government closest to the people.  The senate is there to cool down the legislation and make it better and palatable to the states (Since the Senate was to represent the states in our government).  Both parties have used it to their own advantage to kill good or bad legislation, or to stop presidential appointments.

This also is where Congress gets the power to punish its own members, like last year when Rep. Joe Wilson was censured (formal condemnation for an action) for yelling, "You lie!" during the President's address to a joint session of Congress about the stalled health care reform bills.

Each House shall keep a Journal of its Proceedings, and from time to time publish the same, excepting such Parts as may in their Judgment require Secrecy; and the Yeas and Nays of the Members of either House on any question shall, at the Desire of one fifth of those Present, be entered on the Journal.

This clause for a journal of proceedings is a limit on Congressional power since it requires both houses of Congress to record the results of their meetings.  Specifically it refers to the tallying of the votes in either house.  This is so that the people may know what their elected leaders are doing.  It requires that one fifth of the house must request that the yeas and nays of the members to be recorded in the journal.  This is an example of minority rights or power in the Constitution.  It only takes 20 people in the Senate and 87 in the House to get these votes recorded.  Typically in today's day and age though they do not need to call a vote to get them recorded.  With the voting machines in the House we know in an instant who voted what way on any piece of legislation.  Also in the Senate they almost always do a roll call vote so that those votes are also recorded.

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

This is to make sure that the legislative actions of Congress are coordinated between the two houses of the bicameral.  Also, it makes sure that joint actions was taken to move the place of where the legislature is seated.  This is a throwback to the Revolutionary War when the capital moved several times to avoid capture by the British.  Also it is to protect the people because of the power the king used to move colonial legislatures.

Well that is the end of today's lesson.  Please let me know if you have any questions or comments.  Thanks for listening and have a great weekend.  Class dismissed.

News of the Day - 2/11/2010: Rapid Fire Stories

This was a huge news day with a lot of stories to comment on.  I am going to do this posting rapid fire hitting on all the news stories that piqued my interest.  I will post the headlines with a link to the story.  I will provide a limited summary and my commentary on the facts presented.  So here we go!


FEDS PUSH FOR TRACKING CELLPHONES
The Justice Department and FBI want to have access to track a person's cell phone calls.  They want to be able to access the locations of previously made calls and to possibly track people in real time.  This is gross violation of the Fourth Amendment to our Constitution.  Police need probable cause (specific evidence that a specific person has committed a specific crime) to even tap a person's phone.  So under what authority do they have to track us with out the same standard of proof?  People want to complain about how our civil liberties were abridged under Bush; well Obama is going the same way.

IRAN GOES NUCLEAR ON REVOLUTION DAY
Today is the 31st anniversary of the Islamic Revolution in Iran when the American backed Sha was deposed.  Iran announced they have enough refined material to run nuclear power plants.  There were also counter protests to this announcement by the President of Iran.  It is dangerous for a nation like Iran (That has threatened to wipe Israel off the map and start a second holocaust) to have access to nuclear material.  They could produce weapons grade nuclear material and create atomic weapons that could be used on Israel and any other nations, like the United States (who has been called the Great Satan by Islamic extremists).  If I were President of the United States this would be my response to Iran.  "Iran has the right as a sovereign nation to pursue any method they wish for their energy needs and military defense.  But if any nuclear weapons created by Iran are used against the people of the world, the United States will respond with overwhelming and swift military action until the leaders of Iran and its capabilities to create these weapons are destroyed."


AIRPORT SCANNERS VIOLATE THE TEACHINGS OF ISLAM
Islamic leaders around the world are in an uproar because of the use of full body scanners violate the tenants of Islamic law as found in the Quran.  Personally, I think these full body scans are an unnecessary violation of a person's privacy and a violation of the Fourth Amendment.  The government has no probable cause to search people before they get on the plane.  I say disband the TSA and let private airlines or the airports handle their own security.  It would cut down on costs since wages would be more competitive. Also it has been found private companies have found more dumbie bombs than the TSA.  Also who cares what Muslims think of our methods of searching people.  You don't want to submit to a search, don't fly.


FORCED UNIONIZATION IN MICHIGAN
I am not fully clear on the details of this case but the broad implications are what frighten me.  To force a private company to unionize is unconstitutional and violates the natural right of anyone to contract.  This is what may happen under the proposed Employee Free Choice Act.  The law would take away the secret ballot in the unionization process.  Right now unions have to do a card check and get, I think, 50% of the current workers of a business to agree that a unions should be formed.  Then they have a secret election to make the final decision.  The proposed law would allow unions to be formed just by the card check system.  I have many problems with unions but they are allowed to form if they want.  I will deal with unions more in this blog at some future date.


OBAMA TO MAKE RECESS APPOINTMENTS
The President is mad because the opposition party is filibustering the people he is appointing to various offices inside the federal government.  He says he will use his power as President to make appointments when Congress goes on its President Day recess in the next few days.  Here are the key things to know about this story.  First, it is the power of Congress to confirm presidential appointments because they check the power of the Chief Executive.  Only the best and brightest are allowed to work for the government.  If the people Obama has already appointed is any indication of who these new appointments are, then I am glad they are being held up.  I don't want socialist, Marxist or other subversives in the halls of power.  Second, the President has every right to make those recess appointments since the Constitution gives him that authority.  It really won't earn him any brownie points with Congress, the opposition or independents, since it will seem like he is subverting the confirmation process.  I felt the same way when Bush did a recess appointment of Jon Bolton to be our ambassador to the U.N.  Thirdly, these appointments, if made, will be temporary.  They will only be legal appointments until Congress returns to session and they will eventually need to be confirmed.  Fourth, both parties are guilty of playing politics with presidential appointments, so shut up.


FIRST LADY FIGHTS OBESITY
The first lady, Michelle Obama, has made it her priority to fight obesity in the United States.  The article goes into long detail of how she and the president are going to fight it.  One tenant of the program is the regulate how many fast food restaurants can be in any neighborhood, specifically, low income neighborhoods.  Its not the job of the government to watch my weight.  They cannot tell me what to eat or drink.  That is my choice.  That is my freedom.  I have to live with those choices with higher risks of diabetes, other diseases and possibly higher health insurance rates.  It is the job of the individual and the parents, for children, to make choices about what to eat.  I hate the mentality of the government knows best.  Get out of my lunch box please.


BIDEN TAKES CREDIT FOR SUCCESS IN IRAQ
Vice President Joe Biden, on CNN, has claimed success in Iraq is due to President Obama's actions.  This a bold faced lie at best and revisionist history at its worst.  I never agreed with going to war in Iraq or the 2005 "Surge."  The fact of the matter is though that any success  in Iraq belong first to the boots on the ground of our military.  They are the ones make any differences.  President Bush is the one who took the country and made it safe again for normal citizens with the Surge tactic, recommended by General Petraeus.  The Iraqi war may be finishing on Obama's watch but it was Bush that laid the ground work for the final victory.


That is all I have for today.  Enjoy.  I welcome all comments, questions and discussion.  Have a nice day.

News of the Day - 2/10/2010: China and Our Debt

I saw this article today regarding a strategy of Chinato punish the United States for our actions.  I thought it was necessary to comment on it considering they own a lot of our debt in the form of U.S. bonds.

The basic premise behind this article is that the People's Liberation Army (PLA) of China are offering an option to punish the United States for selling arms to the disputed island nation of Taiwan.  The PLA is the national army of China.  The U.S. sold weapons to Taiwan and China is pissed since China considers Taiwan a break away province of mainland China.  There is other mentions of reorganizing Chinese military in light of these sales but its not the point I want to make.

Our debt and out of control spending is the largest threat to our national security and sovereignty.  Glenn Beck highlighted the problem with being bailed out on his show last week.  Please ignore the messanger and listen to the message.  He speaks truth whether you love him or hate him.

It was dangerous for the U.S. to be in debt to a single citizen.  It is even more dangerous for the U.S. to be in debt to other nations.  If China or any other debt holder of the U.S. does not like our actions they could just ask for a refund on the bonds, or sell them off to someone else.  They can have a huge impact on our nation's security and sovereignty by holding our debt.  We already have told the CIA to back of operations in China.  Why?  They are one of the biggest threats against us.  They attack the networks of U.S. companies and government agencies on a daily basis.  They are not our friends; they are our begrudging debt holders.

I am not trying to lay blame for any of this on Obama or Bush or even Clinton.  Deficit spend has been the norm since before FDR.  Government deficits are predicted to be in $700 billion in ten years from now.  It is time for the U.S. government to set an example and learn how to live within its means.  Cut unnecessary programs, agencies, and organizations.  Cut the salaries and staffs of all elected and appointed officials.  Return solvency to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, then find a way to end these socialist programs once and for all.  Return welfare programs back to the states and local communities.  Stop spending money on programs that are not constitutional.  Balance the budget and take any surplus to pay down our debt.

This is the basic message of the Tea Party movement.  This is not tied to any political party, race or creed.  It's about returning to the principles of our Constitution and bring fiscal responsibility back to our governments.  That is why I am a proud member of the Tea Party movement.  That is why all of us should be.

My Perfect School: School Curriculum

Today's edition of My Perfect School will focus on the curriculum of my school.  I will not go into a huge amounts of detail but describe the general guidelines that will determine which classes a student needs to graduate from my school.  This will be a high school curriculum.

Students would be required to meet the follow requirements to graduate from the school.  A credit equals a full year of study on a particular curricular area.  I will address the requirements for each curricular area.  One key feature of this curriculum is I try to give student as much choice as when possible.  If there are different classes a student could take to fulfill the requirements of the school, they should be given that option.  The largest place this occurs would be fine arts, technology, physical education and social studies.

Reading (3 Credits)
The first big curricular area is for students to have a class where they read and analyze literature.  Students would be required to take an American Literature and a World Literature course that coincides with their social studies counter parts.  The third credit would be satisfied by an elective reading course, like Literary Genres, where students must read and analyze the different forms of literary genres, like mystery, historical fiction, romance, and others.  Students could even do an independent reading course where they read a certain amount of books in the year and do book reports on them for a grade.

Writing (3 Credit)
I purposely separated the two parts of the English Language Arts programs in my school.  In most high schools English class is part reading and part writing.  I figured by separating them out we could have a better experience in both.  Writing would have two required classes.  One would focus on the mechanics of good writing and the types of essay writing.  The other would focus on the process of research and writing longer papers or a thesis.  Both classes would also be used to write, edit and revise essays assigned by the other classes of the curriculum which would be part of their assessment for the class.  Students could retake the course for the third required credit or they could take a writing elective.  One option would obviously be Journalism where the students produce a regular school newspaper.  Another would be to teach students to write in particular genres, which could be easily tied to the Literary Genre reading elective.

On a side note the AP courses that focus on reading and writing (Literature and Composition and Language and Composition) could be included as part of the curriculum.  I would recommend that students who take them will be given dual credit for those courses.  Upon passing the class, they would receive a credit for reading and writing since both are essential to those classes.

Math (3 Credits)
As one of the three essential Rs (Reading, Writing and Arithmetic) math would be a requirement to graduate,  many schools are going to four years of required math to graduate.  I feel that if the student complete three good years of math education they should be fine.  Students would be required to take Algebra and Geometry to graduate.  I would like to implement as well a proficiency math testing system which standardizes that the student's know how to do the math of each class before moving on to the next level.  After that they could take any one of many different math electives, like AP Statistics or Calculus.  I can imagine a classes like Every Day Math, where they learn how to do score bowling and balance a checkbook, or Math for Financial Literacy, where they apply math skills to financial objectives like the stock market.

History (4 Credits)
Students need four years of Social Studies.  One class would be devoted to World History and/or Geography, which would be liked directly to the World Literature reading class.  Students would be required to take two years of U.S. History.  The first year would be cover the history of Native American civilizations through the Reconstruction after the Civil War.  All students would take the same course level  so they all have the same basis of knowledge.  The second year of U.S. History would give the students more options.  Those students interested in taking AP U.S. History could apply for the class, which would have prerequisites.  They could take the generic U.S. History II course which would cover Western Expansion to Modern Day America.  Or there could be some specific U.S. History electives that students could elect to take as well.  Students would then be required to take a U.S. government course their senior year.  This could be the generic U.S. government, AP U.S. Government, possibly a class designed to compete in the "We the People..." competition or some other Government class.  The government class needs to be a year to address all the possible topics focusing primarily on the U.S. Constitution and its practice in today in the U.S.

Science (3 Credits)
This area is my weakest in terms of planning.  I am not sure how science classes are divided.  I do want students to have classes that show a diversity of science types.  For example, students should take a life science course and physical science course.  I am just not sure where some of them go or how they are differentiated. 

Fine Arts (2 Credits)
Students need to be well rounded individuals and that means the inclusion of some Fine Arts classes.  Typically a student may take as a Freshmen or sophomore a introduction to fine arts class that gives the student a taste of music, visual arts and theatre.  Students also could get credit for being involved in band or choir.  There are numerous options for classes and electives in this area of a students education.

Technology (1 Credit)
Students need some training in computers and technology.  There are many options from a course on using Microsoft Office, a computer aided drafting class, or robotics.

Physical Education  (3 Credits)
The requirements here are also necessary for a well rounded student.  Students would be required to take a health class which might be a full year or maybe a semester in length.  I would hope it would be a class with practical knowledge, not just scientific knowledge.  Students would also be required to take some classes that teach them about taking care of physical well being with exercise.  Students should get a choice in the classes they take though.  I can see the school having a weight training or exercise class.  A class that teaches students the rules and they play competitive sports, like most gym classes.  Students could also get credit for participating in interscholastic athletic teams, like playing on the Varsity team for the school sports.  The goal is to encourage students to be physically active and teach them how to do that safely and effectively.

Religion (3 Credits)
This requirement is added because I will more than likely in my future build a school that is a parochial or religious school.  Students would be required to take one class based on the Scriptures of the Old or New Testament.  They would also be required to take a course on the doctrine or theology of the church.  After that they would need electives to fulfill that last credit requirement.

Foreign Language
I am not sure if this should be a requirement for graduation.  I do feel it is important for students to learn a foreign language, but I think student need a wide range of choices in this class.  The school should be able to provide a teacher for certain popular language choices.  Students could also maybe complete an independent study of a language through the Rosetta Stone software or some other program.  They might also take a college level course of a specific language as well to get credit.

Community Service
Each student would also be required by the school to complete a standardized number of community service hours during each academic year to graduate.  While this does negate the idea of volunteering I feel its important that students give of their time to some organization that cannot necessarily pay them.  This will help them become better members of society. Students could complete these hours at any nonprofit they choose, like their churches or other organizations.  They could complete them at the school helping teachers or at school events.  The key is that this service is voluntary and unpaid.

College Courses
I would like for the school to partner with a local college or university so that students may take classes at the school for both high school and college credit.

Let me know what you think of this curriculum.  I welcome all comments, suggestions and questions.  Have a nice day.

My Perfect School: Grading Scale

Another entry in the my perfect school category for today.  Today I would like to focus specifically on the grading scale at my perfect school, meaning what is an A, B, C, D, and/or F.

At my perfect school there would only be three letter grades: A, B, and C.  If any student got lower than a C they would not get credit for the class, basically an F.  There would also be slight changes to the percentage ranges and the GPA scales.  An "A" in my school would be from ninety-five percent and above.  If an A is exceptional work the percentage range should be smaller.  A "B" at my school would be eight to ninety-four percent.  A "C" at my perfect school would fall between a sixty-five and seventy-nine percent.  Anything below a sixty-five percent would earn a student no credit or an "F."  I eliminated the "D" letter grade because most students who earn a "D" did not learn the know the information or could not show that they were proficient at the information.  They are "emergent," as one teacher told me.  The fact of the matter is though, a D student should not possibly pass a class.  A teacher once told me that a "D" is an "F" the teacher was to afraid to give (I don't think I give grades, but its a good analogy here.).

There would also need to be an adjustment to the grade point average (GPA) scale.  I am not sure exactly how it would break down but an "A" would be 3.5 and above.  A "B" would be between 2.5 and 3.5.  A "C" would be between 1.0 and 2.5.  A person earning no credit would not be given a GPA score.  I am not sure if these break downs are accurate for equality purposes but they will work for now.  The person's GPA would then be factored by their final percentage grades in any given class.  We could also just average the percentage grades of all their classes and determine their GPA from that percentage.  Any student taking an honors or AP class would receive a boost to their GPA of .25 grade points for just that class.  Also any student earning above one hundred percent in any class would have their GPA adjusted accordingly as well, probably .01 grade points for each percentage point above one hundred.  With some classes being pass/fail classes I not sure how I will factor those grades and credits into a students GPA.  I am sure there is some way colleges do it, but I am not sure. 

If any one has any idea comment or questions on this system please let me know.  Thanks for listening and have a nice day.

The U.S. Constitution - Lession #5: The U.S. Senate

Today's lesson on the U.S. Constitution focuses on the power of the U.S. Senate as found in Article I, Section 3.  Again I will deal with this section clause by clause.

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof, for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.

The concept key to the U.S. Senate is the idea of equal representation.  No matter how large or small the state is, in terms of its population, each state will get two senators.  This was part of the Great Compromise to satisfy the smaller states, who felt that both houses being based on population would negatively affect them.  The Senators serve a longer term than the members of the House or the President largely because of the extra activities the Senate is involved in besides law making. They need members who serve longer terms so that have experienced members at work all the time and not constantly worried about elections.

The section of text that is is bolded is no longer valid since since the ratification of the 17th Amendment.  The state legislatures were given the power to choose the state senators because the role of the Senate was to protect the rights of the state and its sovereignty under the Constitution.  The powers listed in the Constitution were to limit that of the federal government.  Anything else not specifically delegated to the national government or denied to the states, belonged to the state as their reserved powers.  This ideal and power was codified by the 10th Amendment.  With senators now being elected by the general electorate they have become more beholden to the people and not to the state itself, which also needs protection from a powerful federal government.  This is where the issues of states rights are to be determined.

Immediately after they shall be assembled in Consequence of the first Election, they shall be divided as equally as may be into three Classes. The Seats of the Senators of the first Class shall be vacated at the Expiration of the second Year, of the second Class at the Expiration of the fourth Year, and of the third Class at the Expiration of the sixth Year, so that one third may be chosen every second Year; and if Vacancies happen by Resignation, or otherwise, during the Recess of the Legislature of any State, the Executive thereof may make temporary Appointments until the next Meeting of the Legislature, which shall then fill such Vacancies.

 This clause designs the U.S. Senate as a continuous body (an elected body where all the seats are never up for election at the same time).  Every two years the Senate elects approximately only one third of its members.  This is to make sure that there are always experienced members inside that house.  The Class numbers do not mean anything than when the senator is up for reelection.  The Majority Leader of the Senate, Harry Reid of Nevada is a member of Class III, which means he is up for reelection in 2010.  The other senator from Nevada, John Ensign, is a member of the Class I, which means he is up for reelection in 2012.  Again the class number is just a number that determines when your term ends.

The bolded section again a part of this clause that was amended with the ratification of the 17th Amendment.  It is now changed that the executive may make a temporary appointment with the approval of the state legislature.  But ultimately the people need to elect a new senator at the next possible election.  This provision came into question both in Illinois and Massachusetts in the last year.  Roland Burris was appointed, by the now impeached Governor Rod Blagoavich, to President Obama's senate seat.  He will be up for reelection in November of this year.  Compare that to the situation with the late Ted Kennedy's seat.  Massachusetts had a law that said the state must hold a special election when a vacancy occurs in the Senate.  That law was changed this year, on Kennedy's behalf.  That led to the appointment of a temporary senator until the election of Sen. Brown just two weeks ago.

No person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.

This clause lists the constitutional qualifications for a person to be elected to the office of United States Senator.  The qualifications are set slightly higher than those of the House of Representatives to show the increased prestige and importance of this august body.

The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided.

This sets up the presiding officer of the Senate, which is actually part of the Executive Branch of our government.  In our modern day the Vice President does not sit in and preside over the U.S. Senate on a daily basis.  They only preside in modern America if it is the State of Union address, when they sit next to the Speaker of the House, or if the Senate will be voting on some measure that is sure to end up as a tie.  They will then cast the deciding vote.

The Senate shall choose their other Officers, and also a President pro tempore, in the absence of the Vice President, or when he shall exercise the Office of President of the United States.

By the practices and traditions of the Senate, the President Pro Tempore is typically the most senior member of the majority party in the Senate.  Currently that is Senator Robert Byrd, who incidentally is the oldest member of the Senate.  THough, typically the Senate Majority Leader wields more power in the Senate than the President Pro Tempore.

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

The next two clauses focus on the specific power of the Senate to be the trial court for all impeachments.  They can only act after the House of Representatives agrees on the charges against the officer of the government.  The Senate acts as the jury for the trial while members of the House prosecute the case along with the defense attorney for the accused.  It requires two thirds of the members to convict the impeached official, which is a similar standard to a typical jury.  There has to be an overwhelming majority to convict beyond a reasonable doubt.  Also the Chief Justice presides over presidential impeachments because it would be a conflict of interest if the Vice President were to be the presiding officer of his superiors impeachment trial.

Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

The only punishment that a person can receive from a guilty verdict in an  impeachment trial is to be removed from office and/or be prohibited from hold any other office in the U.S. government.  The people convicted of impeachment may also be punished in criminal or civil courts of the United States.

That does it for this lesson.  Next time we will look at Article I, Section 4, which outlines the election of Congressional members and when they meet.  If there are any questions, comments, feel free to post them.  Class dismissed.

News of the Day - 2/5/2010: Nevada Budget & CCSD

A fellow faculty member of my school posted the following article on Facebook yesterday.  I felt it fitting to address it in my daily blog post.

The article lists the options that are before Superintendent Walt Ruffles of Clark County School District as the state faces a near one billion dollar short fall of the budget for the next fiscal year.  The governor Jim Gibbons has called for a ten percent cut to all parts of the state's budget to cut the short fall. The Superintendent of the Clark County School District (CCSD) has said that action would mean cutting over 2,000 across teachers in the district.  There are other options listed in the article as well to help, from cutting days from the school, which would also mean cutting the pay of teachers to compensate, which would require changing our contract.

Personally I think the superintendent is using scare tactics to try and protect his school district.  There are plenty of options out there to cut money from the CCSD budget.  The first would be to eliminate all nonessential positions inside the central administrative structure of CCSD.  There is a website that shows the salaries of people who work for the state, country and the school district.  There are so many consultant that have nothing to do with the education of the child that would save the district millions.  The administration could also cut the pay of themselves or initiate a pay freeze on the district.

Another option I have is to bid out some of the work done by district employees to private companies.  Specifically I am referring to the busing of students to and from school.  Building maintenance and other building support services could be hired out to private contractors and probably save the district some money.

They mention the possibility of shortening the school year as an option as well.  The article says by law we need to have 180 instructional days.  This is an out right lie in the story.  By my count CCSD schools have 176 instructional days and four teacher in-service or professional development days.  I would object to cutting more days from school especially since many of my days are taken away from me because of proficiency testing, credit checks, pictures and every other excuse under the sun.  We cannot afford to lose more instructional days.

There are other options to cover the budget short fall that don't include raising taxes and fees, but I don't want to get into those now.

Another thing that bothered me recently related to this topic.  It annoys me when people think there are certain jobs that are safe in a recession.  People like that are delusional.  All jobs are subject to reductions and cuts in pay during a recession.  People who don't understand that idea are deluding themselves and don't understand basic economic theory and practice.  I know I can lose my job because of a recession especially if I am the low man on the totem pole, which I am.

Comments, questions and topic suggestions are always welcome.  Have a nice day.

News of the Day - 2/4/2010: Justice Thomas Speaks Out

I was not sure today if I wanted to comment on the chosen article for today.  After listening to Roger Hedgecock on my way home I thought it was important to address the topic of the recent U.S. Supreme Court case of Citizens United v. FEC.  Here is the article in question.

The article summarizes when Justice Thomas made a speech and answered questions at a law school in Florida.  From what I understand Supreme Court Justices never speak openly like this.  And when they do they never take questions.  So this shows the justice had something to get off his chest.  He answered several question on the recently decided case of Citizens United v. FEC.  He also gives a the students a history lesson behind some of the law regarding campaign contributions.

For a summary on the case in question please use the following link

First, contrary to what President Obama said during his State of the Union address Citizens United v. FEC does not end the limitations that corporations can give to individuals.  There has always been limitations on those contributions.  It specifically states that a corporation may spend its money in a political way other than to an individual, like on commercials, as an independent expenditure; like the video in question during this case.  Also they cannot be censored by a certain time frame before the election, specifically 30 days before a general election or 60 days before a primary election.

Side bar:  Here is an interesting point of history, that Justice Thomas points out, is the restrictions on corporations giving money to individual candidates goes back to Tillman Act.  Tillman wrote the law because of a corporation in his state would give money to support the freedom of blacks from slavery by giving money to the Republican nominee.  So this act which limited corporate campaign contributions was implemented as a way of censorship against abolitionists and Republicans since more Republicans were abolitionists.  Everyone clear on that.  It was stop corporations from funding Republicans who were against slavery.  So much for equal protection under the law. 

Also if a union or other organization of people can spend money on a candidate then why can't a corporation be allowed the same rights.  Unions are allowed to donate money, advertisement and the like without these restrictions, so the law does not provide equal protection under the law.  A petition posted by my friend states that no corporation should be allowed to give without the consent of its owner.  The law should apply equally to unions.  Meaning a union cannot give money to a candidate without the expressed approval of its members.  I did not support the Clark County Education Association giving money to Obama.  The laws need to apply equally to all people and groups, not single out a particular person or group.

Secondly,  President Obama state that the overturning of a specific portion of the McCain-Feingold law would allow for foreign corporations or citizens to give to campaigns.  This also is not true.  McCain-Feingold specifically prohibits contributions from foreign nations, legal foreign residents, and foreign corporations.  This part of the law was kept intact by the Supreme Court.  Also, the President technically broke this law during his campaign.  His aunt (who is a foreign national whose visa has expired and has been living in the United States illegally for years) contributed, according to Obama's own campaign financial records $260 to his campaign in 2008.  Obama broke the law in question when he accepted that donation.  Technically he could be impeached for that offense (High crimes and misdemeanors).  Also there is numerous reports that part of his campaign was financed by people in other countries by untraceable gift cards through the internet.

I am not sure if this clears up the issue with anyone but I have finally addressed this topic.  If you have questions or comments feel free to respond.  Have a nice day.
.

My Perfect School: Common Assessments

A few weeks ago I wrote a blog on the grading policies in My Perfect School.  That was on the division and weighting of summative and formative assessments in the classroom.  I want to continue along this same path of other items that could and would be addressed in the grading policy of my perfect school.

Common Assessments.  This topic has been all the rage in the five years I have been a teacher.  I used to be for it but now I seeing how this is not a best practice.  The idea of common assessments is that teachers of the same classes (Algebra, Biology, Government, etc.)  would collaborate and create assessments that are exactly the same to each other.  Generally this applies to summative assessments like unit test, exams and quizzes.  The theory sounds good but the practice is fraught with problems.

The first problem comes with the fact that teaching style dictates assessment style.  A teacher who teaches directly out of textbook will use the tests of the textbook.  Someone teaches through discussion can assess through that same methodology.  Assessment must match methods or visa versa.

The second issue I have is the path it takes education down.  A common test means we must teach common material and facts (which I have no problem with).  This can lead us to common lesson plans, planned down to even the day, hour and minute of a class period.  It turns educators into cookie cutter teachers.  It removes our academic freedom to be the teachers that make us great.  This also kill flexibility of the teacher.

Thirdly, a lot emphasis in today's educational atmosphere is on differentiation and multiple intelligences.  If we have common assessments, where is the differentiation?  We are now forcing all our diverse students to fit into the same mold.  We are making cookie cutter students.

Lastly, I have heard this statement  to  many times when it comes to common assessments.  "Let's just use the questions out of the test bank that came with our books."  The book used in any class is a resource for learning not the end all be all of the content.  Also that means I must now have my students read every page out of the book so they have a chance to pass the test.  Its teaching to the book, not the objectives.  Plus books, especially history books, have lots of errors in them and they never explain things as fully as they should.  I wish they would take out the wasted paper used for section assessments and chapter reviews since that is not the purpose of a school text book, but that is a totally separate topic.

Personally, I have used an assessment model the last two years that has worked brilliantly.  Common assessments will force my student to take tests that are not in any like the ways they are assessed on a daily basis in my class.  My methods work too.  My first year the typical multiple choice and matching tests got me students who would more often than not do poorly on them.  Now I quiz on individual objectives with short answer questions.  Almost all student pass the quizzes.  My final exam my first year had an average score in the sixty percentile range.  Last two years they have been in the eighties.  Lastly, my students have told me time and time again that they like the assessments.  Why should I have to change what work and is successful because other teachers don't know how to assess accurately what the student knows?  Also I don't think my assessment methods should be forced on others.

In my perfect school common assessments would be a rare occurrence.  The one thing that I might suggest as a possible required common assessment is projects in similar classes.  Teachers of the same subject should have the same projects so that when a child transfers classes they have some assignments.  Judged and graded in the exact same way.

I will address the idea of collaboration in my next Perfect School post because it is linked very closely to this topic.  I welcome your comments, questions and suggestions.  Have a nice day.

Public Policy: Reforms to the Tax Code

Yesterday my blog on Public Policy attempted to describe the way our current tax system works by using a narrative.  Today I will address some of the more popular reforms people have suggested for our tax code.

Flat Tax.  The flat tax would be a tax rate that everyone regardless of income level would have to pay.  Everyone in the country would pay the same percentage regardless if you earned $10,000 or $100,000,000 a year.  This would simply the tax code and make filing each year simple.  A set percentage would be take out of your check each week.  Any other earnings could also possibly be taxed and recorded through statements, like the ones I get from my bank at the end of the year with the amount of interest I receive in savings or checking accounts.  You could file your taxes on a single sheet of paper.  If you paid more taxes this year than was required than the government would send you a check.  If you paid too little you would send a check.  Simple and easy

Fair Tax.  This tax has several different names.  I have heard one person call it a transaction tax.  It could be called also a consumption tax.  In essence, it is a sales tax.  The government would set a certain rate to tax items that a person buys.  One key item I would try to add to this would be to tax exemptions for specific things:  like food, housing, utilities, and clothes.  These are essentials to life that no one can live without.  Just as the lords of old could not tax the serfs before they were clothed, fed and housed so the tax would apply to us.  You also choose when you are taxed in this system.  If you don't like what the government is doing then you do without some wants for a while to send them a message: a boycott.  It makes sense that the founding fathers restricted direct taxes on individuals when they wrote the Constitution.  You cannot boycott an income tax without breaking the law.

State Collection.  This is the original method used by the federal government to collect taxes.  If you look at the Constitution in Article I, Section 2, Clause 3.  It shows that taxes from the federal government would be apportioned to the states based on their population.  So a less populace state like Alaska would pay less taxes than California.  The state would then use whatever methods they saw fit to raise said taxes to pay to the federal government.

No matter what system we use it needs to be applied equally to all people in the United States.  Also, the government needs to know how to stay within its limits.  No tax system will work effectively if the government continually spends more money than it brings in through taxes.  We could take a lesson from the Bible and the story of Joseph and the famine in Egypt.  When the government runs a surplus we must put that money aside for the future, so that when we run into rough times we can draw upon that surplus.

That's all I have for today.  I welcome all comments, suggestions and questions.

Public Policy: Our Current Tax System

This posting it would seem to be most appropriate on April 15, the day our tax returns are due, but a discussion on facebook prompts it to be written now.  This public policy posting will deal with how the U.S. distributes the tax burden and the possible ways to improve the complex system. First a story.  I found this online last summer and its the perfect way of understanding out current progressive tax system.

 The Way Our Tax System Works

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this: The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing. The fifth would pay $1. The sixth would pay $3. The seventh would pay $7. The eighth would pay $12. The ninth would pay $18. The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.  So, that's what they decided to do.

The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20."Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.
 
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?' They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay. And so: The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings). The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings). The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings). The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings). The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings). The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).
 
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.
 
"I only got a dollar out of the $20,"declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man," but he got $10!"
 
"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!"
 
"That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!"
 
"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"
 
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
 
The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!
 
And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier. For those who understand, no explanation is needed. For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.

This story show in simplistic detail how our tax system work.  Each person pays depending on how much money they earn pays a proportional amount of money so that they poorest pay little or nothing into the system and the richest pay the highest proportion of their income out of all of us.  But there are other things to consider when figuring taxes too like tax credits, refunds, exemptions, and deductions.  People get a deduction for charitable contributions, home mortgage interest, and children.  We all get a standard deduction; I don't even know what that means.  Some people this year got and $8,000 tax credit for buying a new home.   Others got tax credit for buying a more fuel efficient car.  The tax breaks and loopholes are almost impossible to document unless you have studied the 80,000 pages that make up the U.S. Tax Code.

All of these make the tax code horribly complex that even the man who runs the IRS does not do his own taxes.  Its time to simplify the tax code.  The next post will focus on the most popular solutions.  See you tomorrow.

The U.S. Constitution - Lesson #4: The U.S. House of Representatives

This lesson of our Constitution focuses on Article I, Section 2, the powers of the U.S. House of Representatives.  I will deal with this section, clause by clause.

The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature. 

This part establishes the time and qualifications for elections for the members of the "People's House."  The house was designed to be the house that represented the will of the people; that is why their term is so short.  It makes them more accountable to the electorate that voted for them.  This also sets up the first qualifications for the right to vote (suffrage) in our government.  The states would determine the qualifications for the voters for the House of Representatives by the qualifications needed to vote for the largest part of the state's legislature.  At the time that was primarily, white land owning men.  While I agree with the idea and practice universal suffrage, I sometimes wonder if there ought to not be some property or tax qualification for our electorate.

No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.

This clause clearly lays out the qualifications of the members of the House of Representatives.  One topic absent from the Constitution (prior to the 22nd Amendment) is the that of term limits.  Our founding father did fear a permanent class of career politicians running the government.  If they could see us now they would be shocked to see men like Ted Kennedy and John McCain who have made a career in the Congress.  But term limits do exist, in the spirit of the Constitution; they are called elections.

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

This clause establishes two things.  The first is that representatives will be determined by the population of the states.  The second is that taxes will be apportioned only directly to the states based on their population; its the first taxing power of the Congress.  The government would tax the states and the states would tax the individuals to send that revenue to the federal government.

Some people see this also and say it advocates slavery and cannonizes it within our Constitution.  It does not  no such thing if you read the language.  There is no mention of slavery by in this clause.  The counting of three-fifths of all other persons refers to slavery, but does not advocate it or support it in the language of the constitution, it only states how they will be counted in determining representation.

This came about because of the three-fifth Compromise at the Constitutional Convention in 1787.  If it had not been for the three-fifths compromise the slaves state could have easily over powered the free states in every and all elections for president and within the House of Representatives.  Also, if they had not reached this agreement it is quite possible the slave state would have started their own confederation or nation and we would have been at odd with them for decades if not years to come over this same issue.  The founders did not fight the battle of slavery at this point in history because they though slavery would ultimately die out on its own.  Little did they know that it would take a Civil War and 620,000 American lives to free our black brothers and sisters from bondage, but hindsight is 20/20.

Also, this part of the U.S. Constitution was made null and void by the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

The actual enumeration shall be made within three years after the first meeting of Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent term of ten years, in such manner as they shall by law direct.

This clause sets up the practice and power of the decennial census.  Here we see one of the first expressed powers of Congress.  They are to direct by law the enumeration of the people in the states.  Congress has practiced this expressed power by creating the U.S. Census Bureau.  The creation of that agency is the implied action of the expressed power, which I talked about in the my last lesson.

The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to choose three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five and Georgia three.

This last part of clause three sets up the proportion by which the population shall be allotted representatives in the House.  The one for every thirty thousand is not practical by today's standards.  If this was followed, our House of Representatives would have over ten thousand elected members to that house.  While the practice of setting representation by law is strictly unconstitutional it was a change for the better.  To make it more practical an amendment should have been offered saying that Congress has the power add or subtract from its membership as long as the representatives are still apportioned according to population and that each state is guarantee at least one representative.  The one representative rule could even possibly be expanded as well.

When vacancies happen in the Representation from any State, the Executive Authority thereof shall issue Writs of Election to fill such Vacancies.

Since the House of Representatives is the "People's House."   It only makes sense that they should decide on any and all vacancies that occur.  Though the people are dependent upon governors of their states to ensure the elections occur.

The House of Representatives shall choose their speaker and other officers; and shall have the sole power of impeachment.

This lays out the leadership positions within the House of Representatives.  The Speaker of the House is the be their leader and oversee the legislative proceedings.  Today the speaker is a much more powerful position than it was at the writing of the Constitution.  I wonder how the Founding Fathers would view the position of Speaker today.

Also in this last clause we see the power of impeachment given to the House of Representatives.  To impeach an elected official means to accuse them of some wrong doing, whether it be criminal or civil.  The House may only go so far as making the accusation of the civil officer.  Most textbooks has been shown the impeachments of Andrew Johnson, Bill Clinton and the near impeachment of Richard Nixon as their examples of this process, but any civil officer under the authority of the U.S. Constitution is subject to impeachment.  Most impeachments in history have been of federal judges.  One U.S. senator has been impeached but the House and the Senate typically deal with these problems on their own since they have that power written into that Constitution.

That does it for today class.  Next time we will look at Article I, Section 4 on the structure and power of the U.S. Senate.  Any questions?  Comments  Concerns?  In that case... class dismissed.