The Legislative Tricks to Pass Health Care Legislation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

News of the Day - 3/15/2010

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

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


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


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


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


As always I welcome your comments and/or questions.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My School: I don't want to teach AP

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

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

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

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

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

The Idiocy of Sarah Palin

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let me know what you think.

News of the Day - 3/5/2010

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My Perfect School: U.S. History Curriculum

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

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

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

History Skills - implemented throughout the entire year.

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

Original American Cultures ( Prehistory - 1400)

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

American Exploration & Colonization ( 1400 – 1600s )

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

British Colonial History ( 1607 – 1763 )

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

American Revolutionary War ( 1760 – 1781 )

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

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

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

Antebellum America ( 1790 – 1850 )

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

The Civil War ( 1850 – 1877 )

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

Post-Antebellum America ( 1850 – 1918 )

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

The Great War ( 1914 – 1918 )

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

Post World War America ( 1918 – 1941 )

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

World War II ( 1939 – 1945 )

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

Baby Boomer Generation ( 1945 – 1972 )

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

Modern America ( 1970s - Present )

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

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

Public Policy: Health Insurance Reform

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Comments.  Suggestions?  Did I miss anything?

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

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

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

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

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

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

The U.S. Constitution - Lesson #8: Powers of Congress

Welcome to class once again ladies and gentlemen. Today's lesson is the one that I am looking forward to the most because it deals with the largest collection of powers in the U.S. Constitution:  Article I, Section 8.  So lets jump right into it.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

The very first power of the U.S. Congress is the power to lay and collect taxes.  If you read the language carefully it says for what purpose those taxes are to be raised:  pay debts (we have close to $12 trillion now), provide for the common defense (military and other defense related organization), and promote general welfare.  Most people, including our representatives, thinks that the general welfare wording here and in the preamble gives them authority to tax and spend on anything that can be covered in the term general welfare, like education, unemployment benefits, retirement plans, health insurance and even more.  The problem with that mentality is that you have not just taken a government limited by the expressed powers of the Constitution to an unlimited government.

The other thing most people do not recognize in this clause is that the taxes collected by Congress must be uniform in nature.  Specifically it refers to duties, imposts, excises, which are all forms of taxes.  Unfortunately the current tax system in the United States is far from uniform.  This is not just referring to the progressive income tax but also taxes on import, exports and vice or sin taxes.

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

This clause is pretty self-explanatory and explains why we are in such a hole right now as a nation.  There was a goal in the 1990s to pass a balanced budget amendment that would have effectively changed this clause.  I feel it has merit though I understand the reasoning why it has never passed.  The government does need some power to borrow money in tough economic times, even if that is counter to the natural order of things.  In good times you must save, so that when the tough times come you have the surplus to draw on. 

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

This is where Congress again decides to grab most of its power in this modern era.  The true intent of this clause is the allow Congress to regulate the business done between the states.  During the Confederation Period, the states had trade wars between each other.  The Congress needed this power to stop the states from harming each other with unfair trade practices.

This clause is one reason why I feel the health care legislation current being debated by Congress is unconstitutional.  Health insurance is only bought at the state level.  Each state sets its own regulations.  For the COngress to  have to power to regulate health insurance companies they would need to be involved in interstate commerce, which they are not.  I buy my health insurance from a company in Nevada, not Illinois.  Now if Congress wanted to write a law allowing companies to sell across state lines in accordance with the laws of health insurance laws that of state, then they have the authority to offer up more regulation over that industry.

The fact that the Congress has power to regulate trade with "Indian Tribes" is where they get the authority to write and pass legislation on the Native American tribes in the United States.

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

This give the Congress the sole power to regulate both naturalization of new citizens and bankruptcies.  It was under this clause that the Congress passed among other legislation like the Chinese Exclusion Act.  Even though it was horribly discriminatory they had the authority to do so.

Debt and bankruptcy were big issues during the Confederation period.  It was the main reason behind the events of Shay's Rebellion.  Also many other citizens in other states rose up against the courts and legislators to seek relief from creditors.  This clause made bankruptcy law the sole power of the federal government.  They can pass the laws that affect everyone in the U.S. equally.

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

Congress has the sole power to print money, which it does a lot of in this day and age.  But it also tells us how much it is worth.  If you look at a modern dollar bill it says Federal Reserve Note.  This is because the Federal Reserve Banks try to regulate  the worth of our money.  It used to say, Gold or Silver certificate, when our money was actually backed by something valuable.  A dollar was not an amount of currency but a weight in gold or silver.  You cold take the dollar to a bank and get back real gold or silver.  Contracts could be paid in gold and silver.  Early in American history banks typically issued their own bank notes because gold and silver were still the only real currency in the U.S. 

Also Congress can set weight and measures, which is why we are still on the English system of inch, feet, miles, lbs, quarts, pints, gallons, barrels, bushels, etc.

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

Enter the Secret Service, whose original and ongoing job is to protect the integrity of our currency.  This was the original criminal law in the U.S. The Secret Service was also responsible for investigating other criminal acts prior to the invention of the FBI.

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

The power to create the United States Postal Service, but it goes beyond that as well.  The post roads section of this clause open up this power even more.  Considering that the USPS does not carry all mail it means they do have some legislative power over companies like UPS, Fed Ex and DHL.  They carry post, it can be implied that they can be legislated by Congress.  Also because mail can be carried in planes, trains and automobiles, it stands to reason they have a reasonable (key word) amount of legislative authority in those areas as well, but ONLY when they carry post (mail).  Like the can enforce fuel efficiency standards on USPS vehicles, but not mine, unless I am forced to carry mail.  Also because every road in the U.S. is capable of carrying post, they may have reasonable legislative authority on the roads as well. 

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

 This clause is to protect inventors and artists so that their work may not be stolen.  This is where the government gets the authority to prosecute people who have downloaded music illegally from Napster and other services.  Key term in this clause is limited times.  Generally the length for a copyright is three generations.  Anything after three generations is part of the public domain.  Recently Disney had to go to court to get their copyright of Disney characters renews because it was about to pass the third generation.  Also there seems  to be some abuse on this clause in the realm of drug companies renewing patents to prevent generic brands from making their way to market.

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

This give the Congress the authority to create additional courts under the Supreme Court of the United States. 

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

This is one of the few times the Constitution give Congress the power to enact specific criminal laws against the United States, piracy being the key one in this provision.  This is why the pirates captured last year for kidnapping the captain the Meersk Alabama is being tried in our federal courts.

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

The war powers of our government are split between the Congress and the President.  The Congress declares war against another nation and the president commands the military strategy.  There really have only been five declared wars by Congress (Extra points if you can name all of them).

Letter of marque authorize private shops to attack an enemy vessel during a war without being punished as a pirate.  Also Congress can authorize the seizure of property of the enemy.  They did this during both world wars with Germany corporations in the United States.  The U.S. has done this in modern times when they froze the assets of groups in the U.S. funding terrorism.

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years; To provide and maintain a Navy;

This allows the Congress raise a standing professional army, which the American colonists feared due to their experiences under British rule.  Until the Civil War most states submitted their militias for military service.  These militias were loyal to the states not the U.S.  The limit on this power is that no appropriate for the military can be longer than two years.  Another protection from our standing army is the oath all soldiers take:

"I, _____, do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

A soldier swears first to defend the Constitution, not to a king, the Congress or even the President of the United States.  The Constitution is above the orders of the President.  There is an organization out there that is made up of people currently serving in the military, and law enforcement officers.  This nonpartisan organization promises that they will not any obey order that goes against the U.S. Constitution.

The power to make a use a military draft to raise an army can be implied by these provisions.  Technically the times that a draft has been used to raise an army has not really been effective.  During the Civil War, World War I, World War II, and Vietnam most soldiers joined the military voluntarily.

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

This gives Congress the authority to write rules, regulations and laws for the U.S. military.  In today's day that is the Uniform Code of Military Justice.  Soldiers are judged by a military courts create by Congress.  If they commit a crime as a soldier they are tried their not in our federal or state civil system.

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

This give Congress the limited power of regulating the militias of the states but only the specific powers listed in this provision:  execute laws of the U.S. (like when Washington called for military to put down the Whiskey Rebellion) , suppress insurrections (like during the Civil War), and repel Invasions.  The Congress may only organize and regulate said militias when they are working specifically for the U.S. government.  In 1916 Congress passed a law making the state militias part of the national government.  I am not sure why that has not been challenged in the U.S. federal courts.  It is clearly an unconstitutional law and gives unprecedented power to the federal government over the states individual organized militias.

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;

Congress has the authority to control with legislation the federal district where the capital is located.  The residents of the District of Columbia did not really get any democratic self-rule until  1973.  The Congress this year tried to pass the D.C. Voting Rights Act which would give citizens of Washington, D.C. comparable representation in the House and the Senate.  This law never passed and is grossly unconstitutional if it did.  Residents of D.C. are not entitled to representation in Congress because only states have representatives.  One  solution to this problem could be to make D.C. a state.  Another would be to ceded the residential portion of D.C. back to Maryland , like what was done to the Virginia portion of the D.C in 1846.  Then those people would have representation in Congress.  D.C. was never intended to be a residential city, just a city to house the necessary government structure.

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

I have already dealt with this clause in a previous U.S. Constitution lesson on Expressed v. Implied Powers.  If you would like more information on this topic please click on this link:  The U.S. Constitution - Lesson #3: Expressed v. Implied Powers.

Whew!  That was a long lesson.  Next week we will look at the specific powers denied to Congress and the States.  I hope you all have a good weekend.  Send any questions my way.  Class dismissed!

News of the Day - 2/26/2010 - State, Jihad & the Wall

Another interesting day for news.  So lets get started

CANYON SPRINGS TO PLAY FOR THE NEVADA STATE CHAMPIONSHIP
This is my school!  I know Faith won several state championships when I was a teacher there, but I was a middle school teacher and didn't know any of the athletes.  I currently have three basketball players on the team.  I feel so proud for them.  Not just because of their success on the court but in the classroom.  Curtis, Adrian and Davion are excellent students as well.  Two of them are in my honors Government class earning top marks.  The other is in my Street Law elective.  Good job and good luck tonight.

JIHAD AGAINST SWITZERLAND
Because of the ban on minarets, sort of like a steeple on an Islamic mosque, a Muslim leader declared a jihad, holy war, Switzerland and its people.  You know, if Muslims did not over react to every thing about their faith then maybe they would have more advocates in the world.  Every time someone says something against the faith, its leaders or even looks at them wrong, they want to kill them.  This is not the vast majority of Muslims, especially those in the U.S., because many of them came here to get away from the for us or against us mentality of Islam.  The problem is that their holy book, the Koran, does tell them to kill all infidels, which basically is anyone who is not a Muslim.  That scares most people, just like when fundamentalist Christians talk about stoning gays and adulterers.  Muslims its time to stop listening to those extremists and speak out against them.  Christians its time to do the same thing against the extreme bigots in our faith.  I understand what the Bible says about certain behaviors, but we need to love the sinner, hate the sin.  Being a stupid bigot never won anyone over to the faith.


AWESOME SCHOOL SIMULATION
So this school did a full school simulation of living in East Germany to honor the anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall.  Simulations are always great ways of teaching material to students.  They almost never forget the experience.  What I think is so great is how real they got it and to the truth of the matter.  Yea for teaching the truth of the Iron Curtain.  If Communism was so great why did millions of people risk life and limb to get over the Wall, and flee to Western Europe and the U.S.? 

As always comments and questions are welcomed.  

Calling Me a Racists

So yesterday, a woman at my work posted on the staff chat thread that her church is selling calenders with President Obama on them.  That's kinda cool.  My church prays for him and all our political leaders (no matter how popular or unpopular they may be), during the prayers of the church.  So it's all good.

A colleague of mine made a remark that I would like to buy 20 of each size (wallet and full size).  I thought that was totally hilarious.  I sent him an email saying I appreciated the joke.  I decided I would share the laugh with my co-workers.  I LOL'ed and then added:  "I need some more kindling for my fireplace."  I will admit after I wrote that I was wondering how long it would take before someone took what I wrote COMPLETELY out of context.

This morning there was a comment on the thread from one co-worker that she didn't think it was funny and I should keep my thoughts to myself and my mouth closed.  A little later while on the thread another co-worker told me to keep my racists thoughts to myself.  I had to hold myself back from writing a scathing response to the libel and slander against my name.  But I held my tongue.  There was another funny response with one of them talking about burning Bush calenders for eight years and now having to pay high power bills

In the end, I did apologize the the women who had originally posted the sales pitch, because it was taken down a tangent that was not intended.  A joke was made about me, that I thought was funny, so I thought it would be appropriate to respond humorously.  My joke was not to wish any ill will on President Obama or the lady's church. The co-worker who made the joke about me apologized as well since he knew I would respond to his joke.  I got support for numerous other employees during the course of the day.  No one of them thought that I was a racist in my comment.  People from all sides of the political spectrum were defending me.  It felt kind of nice.  One even offered to contact people in Cincinnati to help me out if I needed it.  I felt kind of flattered at that one.

That's the story of me being called a racists.  The bigger issue to be brought up in this story is that of the race or victim card.  Just because you don't like the black president doesn't make you racist.  Just because you want immigration laws enforced does not make you racist.  Just because you blame whitey for holding you down does not make you racist.  Racism or other discriminatory beliefs is not an attitude belonging to only one groups of people.  

But there are genuine times when companies, individual or groups are being racists, bigots or discriminatory against others.  Those ignorant people need to be ridiculed and driven to extinction in this day and age.  We must use peer pressure and pressure of our society against people who think, talk and act like that.  We need to make it completely and totally unacceptable to be racist against anyone in the United States.  We are the melting pot and the salad bowl of the world.  There are people of every race, color, nationality, ethnic group, sexual orientation, religion, and identity in the U.S.  All are equally America.  That is what makes us strong. 

As always I welcome comments and questions.  Have a great day!

News of the Day - 2/25/2010 - Reconciliation, Sales & Tea Party Independence

Today is another rapid fire news day.  Sorry for missing my post yesterday, I was not feeling it.  Plus I am starting to feel some burn out from writing everyday.  Any comments of going only three or four days a week?  Let me know my loyal readers.  Here are the stories of the day:

DEMOCRATS 2005: NUCLEAR OPTION POWER GRAB
This is a collection of videos from some legislation trying to be passed in 2005 by the Republican controlled Senate.  Reconciliation, aka the Nuclear Option, is a procedural rule in the U.S. Senate to block the use of a filibuster on a particular bill.  They can only use it once a year and it can only technically be used on something related to the federal budget.  For more extensive information check out this link.   The Democrats are currently working on trying to pass the health care legislation by the House, the Senate or now by President Obama through this process.  The hypocrisy of the democrats on this issues is unbelievable.  In this modern day of technology it makes me glad we have CSPAN, YouTube, TMZ and other organization who keep track of this information.  Whether its Republicans or Democrats these media outlets keep them honest.

EXPANDING GUN RIGHTS
The main idea behind this story is that most states are starting to expand gun owner rights.  The people on the other side are worried because no serious gun legislation has come out of D.C. since Obama's election.  Correct me if I am wrong but I believe the right to own firearms is not a federal issue.  The Second Amendment says that "the right of the people to own arms shall not be infringed."  That means the government, specifically the federal government, cannot prevent a normal everyday citizen from owning a firearm.  The state on the other hand can enact specific legislation regarding firearms as part of their reserved powers under Amendment 10 in the Constitution.  I think it's great that more people can own weapons.  They are essential for protection of a person within their own home and out in public. 

We saw this after Hurricane Katrina, the local police confiscated without warrants the weapons of law abiding
citizens.  What happened next, criminals moved into these neighborhoods and started rampant crime sprees, because they know the citizens were unarmed.  As long as they are properly licensed for their firearms, proof that you know how to use the weapon, then there is no issue.  An armed populace is safer since a criminal (who probably has a gun, purchased illegally) does not know who may or may not have a weapon.  Just like having an alarm on a house.  It helps prevent break in.

TEA PARTY DECLARES INDEPENDENCE
This article goes into details of how the organizers of the Tea Party movement in the U.S. have declared their independence from any political party.  The Tea Party movement, while conservative in nature, is not tied to Republicans, Democrats or any other party or organization.  Those who have tried to co-opt the movement or use if for their own ends have found themselves ridiculed by the true believers.  The Tea Party Movement, of which I am a follower, is mostly about several key principles:  1)  following the U.S. Constitution  2)  stopping the out of control spending of our government 3) making our government smaller.  I think the vast majority of U.S. citizens can agree on the majority of those principles. 

As always I welcome your response.  Have a nice day.

My Perfect School: Interscholasitic Athletics

Today's blog posting will focus on the role of interscholastic athletics in my perfect school.  Interscholastic athletics are varsity sports played between different schools.  This is another area where additionally input and comments from the readership of my blog would be beneficial to me.

An athletics at my program would be handled in one of several ways.  I will preview them here for your thoughts  My first would be to have absolutely no athletics program.  The other option would be to have only a varsity program for the available sports which would be funded outside of school tuition.

As a two sport, six time varsity letterer, I understand the place of athletics in school.  I also know there are plenty of opportunities for students to participate in sports outside of school.  Why should the school fund the athletic abilities of students for only their benefit.  A key aspect of any athletic program in my school would for it to be self-sustaining.  I do not want money spent by parents and other to be used on anything but anything that does not directly associate with academics and student learning.

The first options would be to have no athletic program.  As I have stated before there are plenty of opportunities for students to participate in these activities without taking away from their educational experience.  As a teacher I now fully understand the numerous disruptions cause the learning environment created in the school.  I know that many athletes are the the better performing students in the school, so there is less of a problem with failing academics for most athletes.


It sends a bad message to kids when we take time out of our day consistently to praise the skills of a specific class of students, i.e. pep rallies.  Also, they are allowed to miss classes for these competitions.  Which sets them apart from other students.  Because of their involvement in a specific volunteer activity they are allowed to skip out of classes or school.  This sends a message I don't want to make at my school.

Also, I would take an idea in a previous post on house or class competitions and expand it here.  Those athletically inclined students could participate the intramural athletic events throughout the year for their house or class.  These intramural activities would be gender neutral, both boys and girls would be allowed to participate on the same teams. 

There are several items I would want to make sure our program if we decided to have a sports program  First, the school would only have a varsity sports program.  I see the need for a possible sports program, but to have three teams that are nothing more than a practice squad and which have no bearing on state competitions is pointless.  A coach can add people on to his squad as part of the practice squad which he can draw upon to use in games, if necessary

Secondly, the student athletes grades need to be the best in the school.  I would require that a student maintain a C or even as high as a B average in all of their classes.  Each athlete would be responsible for getting weekly grade checks from their teachers.  If they fall below in any of the classes they are to use the next week to pull up their grades.  They would be excluded from practice to ensure this happens.  If a athlete forgets to get it completed they are disqualified from any practices of games until they have them completed.  If that means they miss the bus for Friday's game, then so be it.  It teaches them responsibility.

Thirdly, the funding of the athletics program would be outside of the school's traditional budget.  If students and parents really wanted the program, I would place the responsibility upon them to secure funding for that sport.  This would be done through a team or school athletic boosters club.  I will not have a single dollar given in education go towards any other program.

Fourth, any competition times would have to be arranged so students are not taken out of athletic classes unless ABSOLUTELY necessary.

I would like comments from all the readers about what you think of my athletic program ideas.  Please comment early and often.  Thanks and have a great day.

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.