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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Questions?  Comments?  Concerns?  Class dismissed!

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

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

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

The Good

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Bad

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Ugly

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Questions?  Comments?  Concerns?  Class dismissed.

Public Policy: Abortion

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

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

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

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


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

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

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



The Right to Privacy


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Questions?  Comments?  Concerns?  Class dismissed.

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

This weekend in Tuscon, Arizona Jared Loughner went to an event for Congressional Representative Gabrielle Giffords.  The end result six people dead, including a federal judge, and twenty or more injured, including the Giffords.  Here is what bothers me the most about this story; accusations immediately get thrown by the mainstream media that some group or person is to blame other than the man who committed the crime.

As usual a group (the Tea Party, conservatives, the GOP) or a popular individual (Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly) is blamed for the tragic events because of their "hateful rhetoric."  The main stream media always throws that accusation out without ANY proof of said rhetoric on the right.  No one has called for the deaths of duly elected senators or representatives, but if you use the word targeted you must be talking about using guns to take them out.  What specific hateful rhetoric are they referring to?  Stop the government take over of the health insurance industry.  Stop spending us into more and more debt.  Elect a new representative to this district in the upcoming election.

This article from the New York Times by Paul Krugman says it all.  He automatically assumes it is a political motivated.  He even went so far as to assume that the guy was a Tea Partier or drew inspiration from Sarah Palin's "cross hairs" list.  Where is the proof of these accusation?

This video shows the thoughts of many in the mainstream media about the GOP, the political right or anyone who is a conservative and here again he provides no proof to such statements.

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

In fact, Keith Olberman did a special comment this past week where he asked Glenn Beck to appologize for his rhetoric.  The problem is that Beck specifically has said that violence will destroy the Republic.  Back in April 2010, he called for all of his listeners, viewers, and supporters to take the pledge of non-violence used by Martin Luther King, Jr. and his followers.  Here is Glenn saying it specifically on the air on his television program.

Meanwhile on the other side of the political spectrum you see countless example of violent rhetoric being spewed out of their mouths.  Take for example the words of all of these people on the political left calling for violent protest and riots in America.

Sorry got on a bit of tangent there but back to the main idea of this article.  The blaming of one group or individual for the actions of another.

No one should not draw conclusions from the actions of one person that a group or another person influenced them to do such a thing, until solid proof is given to support that fact whether it be blaming Glenn Beck and the Tea Party for crazy people who may be in their ranks.  Or blaming all Muslims, especially those who want to live in the United States peacefully, for the attacks of September 11th.  Does everyone remember what you do when you assume?  You make an a** out of you and me.  Can everyone stop blaming everyone else for the actions of the crazy people out their.

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

I challenge all Americans, left or right, regardless if you’re a politician, pundit, painter, priest, parishioner, poet or porn star to agree with all of the following.

I denounce violence, regardless of ideological motivation.

I denounce anyone, from the Left, the Right or middle, who believes physical violence is the answer to whatever they feel is wrong with our country.

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

I denounce those from the Left, the Right or middle, who call for riots and violence as an opportunity to bring down and reconstruct our system.

I denounce violent threats and calls for the destruction of our system – regardless of their underlying ideology – whether they come from the Hutaree Militia or Frances Fox Piven.

I hold those responsible for the violence, responsible for the violence.  I denounce those who attempt to blame political opponents for the acts of madmen.

I denounce those from the Left, the Right or middle that sees violence as a viable alternative to our long established system of change made within the constraints of our constitutional Republic.

I will stand with anyone willing to sign that pledge.  Today I make a personal choice.  I urge leaders of both sides and all walks of life to join me as all Americans joined hands on 9.12.2001.

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

To my Facebook readers:  Remember to subscribe to my blog on my website (The Government Teacher) to receive an email when I update it with new content.  You will actually be able to read it before it posts on Facebook.  Thanks and have a nice day.

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

Today's lesson focuses in on Sections 1 and 2 of Article III of the Constitution.  This section focuses on the judicial branch, which includes the final court of appeals in the U.S., the Supreme Court of the United States (or SCOTUS if you like abbreviations).  So lets jump right in.

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.

Judicial power is the power to interpret the laws.  The power of interpretations falls on courts because they are unelected by the people and protected from both the Congress and the President so they can make the best decisions without any vindictive actions by either branch or the people because they ruled against them or the will of the majority.  This is the principle of judicial review, which is the power to declare the acts of the government as unconstitutional.  This means that the actions are either forbidden by the Constitution or they are not granted to the government in the Constitution.

The principle of judicial review is not specifically mentioned by name in the Constitution but it is implied in the other clauses of the document.  It was implied but not specifically debated at the Constitutional Convention, but it was anticipated before the ratification of the Constitution (Monk 90).  The case of Marbury v. Madison is where the idea of judicial review becomes true law.  But that is a story for another day.  (There is another   idea for my blog articles... reviewing cases that came before the Supreme Court.)

The first clause creates the Supreme Court of the United States.  It also provides the creation of other lower courts by the Congress of the United States (COTUS, another weird abbreviation).  This is a reiteration of the power granted to Congress in Article I, Section 8, Clause 9.  Over the years the Congress has done just that.  As it stands right now, there are 94 district courts throughout the United States, with at least one per state.  There are also 13 district courts of appeal that are made up of several state districts, which all lead eventually to the Supreme Court.  Their is also a number of other specific courts that handle a specific jurisdiction, like tax court, regulatory agency courts.  Why we need this many courts is beyond me, but moving on?

The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

Within the Constitution their are no listed qualifications listed to be a federal judge within the United States, but it does list the term of office.  Judges serve for life and their compensation (salary) cannot be diminished while they sit in that office.  This is meant to protect the judges and make them as independent as possible from any other branch or the people.  The lifetime appointment protects them from the electorate, who may elect new judges that will do what they want.  The judges can make the decisions that need to be made free from the politics and partisanship of the day.  Their pay is set so that the Congress cannot punish them for declaring their acts unconstitutional.

Many of the people of the United States and the Anti-Federalists feared unelected judges because they could easily substitute their view of the law in place of that of the majority of Americans.  This is what has people all up in arms in California.  A federal judge struck down the Constitutional amendment declaring marriage as between one man and one woman, Proposition 8, that had been voted on and passed twice by the people.  The judge had thwarting the will of the majority.  This specific issue will be discussed more when the class gets to Article IV of the Constitution.  So save your comments on that topic for that time.  Hopefully in about two or three weeks.

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

This paragraph is all of Section 2 of Article III.  It outlines the areas where federal courts have jurisdiction (power) in the United States.  The strike outs were parts of the Constitution that were altered by the eleventh amendment, in response to the 1793 cases of Chisholm v. Georgia.  The class will not specifically address those parts today but will deal with them later.  Let us take some time to identify the major areas in which the federal courts have judicial jurisdiction.

"Cases... arising under this Constitution..."  This is in reference to the interpretation of the Constitution and violations of it.  Another lesson in the future will deal with the different methods by which the federal courts interpret the federal constitution.  One point to make though is that the Supreme Court and other federal courts do not pass judgment on hypothetical cases or give advisory opinions, telling government officials whether an act is constitutional or not.  In fact this idea was rejected by the Constitutional convention (Monk 98)

"The laws of the United States and Treaties made... under their authority."  It is obvious that it is the job of the federal courts to rule on the laws of the United States and its treaties.  Under the Articles of Confederation the states were responsible for enforcing federal laws.  In practice this meant that federal laws were largely unenforced.

"Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers, and Consuls"  These people are citizens of foreign countries, so it makes common sense (which is not that common, nowadays) that the federal courts have first crack at them.  The accusations against said people affects our relationships with foreign nations, which is the exclusive domain of the federal government and not the states.

"Cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction"  This specifically refers to cases of crimes on the high seas which Congress can legislate in Article I, Section 8, Clause 10.  Since the bodies of water that surround the United States belong to no state, it stands to reason the federal courts have jurisdiction in these locations.  Generally this has also come to refers to cases about shared bodies of water in the United States.  For example, rivers that act as the boundary between two states (Mississippi River ), or lakes that touch more than one state (Lake Michigan or Lake Mead).

"To Controversies between to which the United State shall be a party; to Controversies between two or more states.. between citizens of different states."  This provision was the prevent any possibility of prejudice of the state courts against the another state, citizens of another state or the federal government.

Their are two more sections in this article of the Constitution but I will leave them for another day.  Are their any questions, comments or concerns from the class?  Class dismissed.

My Perfect School: Mission Statement

So I  was a little bored today when I was giving quizzes in my classes so I thought I would put down on paper the mission statement for the school I will build one of these days.  

It is the purpose and mission of (insert school name here), within the context of the Christian gospel (included if its a Lutheran school), to provide for our students, parents, and teachers an excellent educational environment, in which all members will be held individually accountable, to teach and train the community members in the knowledge and skills needed to be responsible citizens of their own community, and all member share a common responsibility in providing the best educational outcomes for all individual members of this community.

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

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

An excellent educational environment is not just the job of the teachers and administrators of a school.  It is the job of all members of the school community.  Teachers need to maintain high expectations and appropriate activities to help students learn.  Students need to work hard and do their best to meet those expectations.  Parents need to support the teachers and look out for the best interest of their students.

all members will be held individually accountable, to teach and train the community members in the knowledge and skills needed to be responsible citizens of their own community

One of the key ideas behind my school is individual accountability on all levels.  Students must be accountable for themselves and their grades.  Parents need to be held accountable in their job to help their students to succeed.  Teachers also are accountable to make sure they are doing what is best for the student to learn.  We are all individually accountable for our actions, no matter how much students may work together to learn, or teacher collaborate to make good lessons, or parents work together to make the school better.  At the end of the day you are only judged by your merits and work.  No one else can be to blame for your lot in life than yourself and your own choices.  That is what I mean by individual accountability.

The other part of this phrasing refers to the knowledge and skills.  Schools are not just about teaching facts, but processes.  Math is not just 2+2=4, but how do we get to that.  English is not just about the essay but how to write it.  Government is not just about reading documents but being able to analyze and break them down and interpret them for today.  Good skills are just as vital in schools than the facts built around those skills.

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

The  other key phrase behind my school is common responsibility.  While we may be held individually accountable for our actions we are our brother's keeper.  This means it is the responsibility of the teacher to make sure grades are accurate and the students are aware of them.  Also to assist students to better themselves and their grades to as best as they can be.  It is the student's responsibility to know what their grade is and to seek out help when he/she might need.  It is the parent's responsibility to be involved in their students education and to seek out help for them when the cannot advocate it for themselves.  Also to make sure the school is teaching knowledge and skills that are relevant to our communities.  All members of the school share in the responsibility of the educational outcomes of the school.

The emphasis on community is to bring out the idea of teaching civic virtue.  The community could be the school, our town, state or even the nation as a whole.  We need to teach our kids that sometimes the good of the community goes above our individual wants, needs and rights.

within the context of the Christian gospel

Depending on the type of school I build, this may or may not be included in the mission statement.  I believe all life should be lived in the context of Christian Law and Gospel, but in a public charter school these ideas will probably be frowned upon.  Though their is nothing wrong with using the law on a student who has not been responsible.  Just as their is nothing wrong with showing some grace, with appropriate consequences to a student who shows true remorse at their actions.

Its taken awhile to formulate this into a real statement, but that is the mission of my school.  The largest emphasis is on the idea of individual accountability and common/shared responsibility.  Let me know what you think.  Have a nice day and weekend.

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

I love it when I can use alteration in a title of something I am writing.  If that annoys, then I am sorry for the title today of this posting. 

Over my first five years as a teacher their has been a huge movement towards common assessments and/or lesson plans.  This is a method by which the teacher who teach the same subject mean and plan common lessons and tests for their students.  Though if I really understand the concept, its that everyone in the department collaborates on all the subjects.  Taking the combined wisdom of the entire department and making the best objectives, lessons and assessments.

At my last school I came in at the planning phase of common assessments.  At my current school they have been pushing this also for the last few years with somewhat mixed results.  And this year they want us to have common lesson plans and tests for almost everything.  I disagree with this practice, as you can probably tell by my title.

One argument made by one supervisor is that this will be help prevent teacher shopping by students to find the “easier” teacher.  This is to prevent one teacher from being to hard and another from being to easy.  This does not fix the problem though.  Their will always be teachers who are harder and easier.  Some teachers hold their students to different standards than others, both academically and behaviorally.  So unless can control all the other factors that make teacher’s unique you will not be successful.  Also, if a teacher is to “easy” isn’t the job of administration to adequately observe and evaluate said teachers so they can be brought up to the higher level?

Another argument is that we all need to be on the same page in case students have to transfer classes.  I agree with the theory that teachers of the same classes should be teaching the same concept at roughly the same time.  But in practice this rarely happens for multiple reasons.  The students may not have understood the concept so the teacher has to teach the material again to make sure students understand.  School events like assemblies, emergency drills or other school events may have prevented content from being taught that day in a specific class.  Any of these or others can cause a misalignment of content between the teachers teaching the same class. Also that different teacher’s can teach the same material and content using different methods.  Therefore the actual content can be understood differently by students in different classes, sometimes even with the same teacher.  Common assessments can only effectively work if all teachers teach the same content in exactly the same way.

Another reason behind this model is that its best for the students.  In the years that I have been working within this model the discussions I have been involved in show me that it is rarely about what is best for the student.  It is about what is best for the teachers.  What is easiest and makes the least amount of work for them?  Things like: "Lets just use the test from last year," or "what chapter in the book are we supposed to be teaching" lead the discussion.  This stifles creativity and critical analysis of the content we are teaching and how we are assessing that content.

The same is true for common lessons or objectives.  It usually comes down to a textbook, since that is the one thing that is common between all teachers.  Therefore it becomes the basis for all teaching and learning.  How much can I cover from this chapter?  Did you cover this section?  Its not about what you taught but what chapter in the book you have used.  So you tell me which was more important, the student’s learning or the teacher’s workload?

One flaw in the system of common lesson plans and assessments is that it discourages teacher and student creativity.  With common assessments teachers have to use the same test which they then all teach too and all the students have to take.  There is no allowance made for the student who does not test well.  There is no accommodation for multiple intelligence or differentiated instruction assessments.  Both of which administration say they want us to use within our classroom.  The teacher is not free to step away from the assigned content based on student interests or design tests that may be better for their students.  Common assessments tries to create cookie cutter students, when we are told over and over that we must treat them differently.

Another major flaw in the common assessment model is that it makes it easier for the students to cheat on these assessments.  This can be clearly seen in a teacher’s classroom where they teach the same class all day.  Students in those classes know when the test is and ask their friends to see the test or what was on it from a previous period.  What makes us think that it will not happen between classes of teachers who teach the same classes?

Common assessments and lesson plans are but a small aspect of a bigger problem within education.  The bigger issue in this discussion is the over regulation of a teacher’s practices by school administration, and the different levels of government.  This over regulation has come about because no one is willing to actually critically evaluate teachers.  Instead of critically analyzing the teaching methods and assessment methods of a teacher administration assign them the task of creating common assessments and lessons, assuming that they will create effective lesson plans and assessments.  

If you want more on evaluation of teachers check out the My Perfect School posting from January 22, 2010.  Also if you are reading this from Facebook please hop over to the original site (http://ajbulava.blogspot.com) and sign up as one of my followers.  Every time I post a new article it will email you. 

Any questions, comments, concerns?  Class dismissed.

Public Policy: Energy

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

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

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

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

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

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

Any questions, comments, concerns.  Class dismissed!

2011 New Year Resolutions

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

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

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

New Year, New Topics

To my loyal readers,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers

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

he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,

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

and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.

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

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

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

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

Public Policy: Reforming the U.S. Congress

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new guards for their future security — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. — The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.

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

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

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

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

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