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.
Friday, March 5, 2010
Thursday, March 4, 2010
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.
Critical Period ( 1776 – 1789 ) - briefly covered due to overlap in U.S. Government.
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.
- Compare and contrast the different Native tribes and societies of the American continents.
- Identify common elements of native tribes on the American continents
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- Evaluate the significant causes, people places, battles, events, results and consequences of the World War II.
- 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.
- 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.
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?
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?
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
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.)
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.)
Saturday, February 27, 2010
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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!
Friday, February 26, 2010
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.
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.
Thursday, February 25, 2010
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!
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!
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
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.
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.
Monday, February 22, 2010
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.
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.
Saturday, February 20, 2010
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.
"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...
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.
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.
I hope you enjoyed the lesson for today. As always feel free to comment or question. Class dismissed.
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.
Friday, February 19, 2010
The Constitution: Living Document or Original Intent
I added this post today in an effort to "catch up" since I missed my posting yesterday on account of celebrating my wife's birthday. Enjoy.
Often times I have heard that the U.S. Constitution is a living document whose meaning changes depending on the age of which we are currently living. This idea cannot be further from the truth. There are several competing beliefs of how we interpret the strict constructionist, and loose constructions. Strict constructionists are often times called following the "Original Intent" of the founders. It is my belief that our Constitution and its amendments must be read with the original intent of the founders in a strict constructionists manner. My arguments are as follows.
First, an example from literature. J.R.R. Tolkien, author of the "Lord of the Rings" books, often said in personal writings and quotes that the book it was story that has many themes and values portrayed within it, but its not to be read as an religious or political allegorical text. Should we go beyond the intent of the author when interpreting and analyzing this fine piece of literature? I would argue that we should not. We have his own words defending the meaning, themes and values of the text. To go beyond that and make up some new analysis that is counter to the author's intent is a false interpretation of the text. This is how we should also read our Constitution.
The Constitution was completed on September 17, 1787 and submitted to the states for their ratification. Over the next few years it was ratified by all thirteen original colonies and one additional state. During that time period prior to the American Revolution and during the ratification of the Constitution, there was a vast amount of writing about the Constitution and governmental theory. Most of these theories and writings exist today thanks to the invention of the movable type printing press about two hundred years before by Gutenberg (Funny story: The main network printer at my college for my first few years was called Gutey. I swear it took me a couple of semesters to get it). Thanks to the printing press these documents still exist today but are rarely studied in our classrooms. They give us the fullest picture of what was the intent of the founders when they wrote the Constitution. The most prevalent documents I want to refer to are the "Federalist Papers."
"The Federalists Papers" were written by James Madison, John Jay (Future chief justice of the Supreme Court) and Alexander Hamilton. These documents defended the Constitution and its ratification by the states. It explains why it was needed and some key points that the Anti-Federalists made during the ratification process. These 87 articles give us the clearest picture as to what our constitution means. It is these documents we must consult first, when trying to interpret the Constitution. Why should we ignore the very words used to defend the Constitution in the first place? They are our road map to understanding the original document.
Secondly, we must look at the historical background behind when the words were written. I use this specifically to refer to this historical background of the Amendments. Since most of the amendments were written well after the founding of our nation. I want to use the 14th Amendment as an example. I want to focus my time on the very first clause of the document since it is the most applicable to us today. The other clauses deal primarily with the confederate states after the Civil War and have very little influence on us today.
The first clause of that Amendment reads as such:
Also a key point I want to make in the language of this text. The first phrase makes it clear that the people born in the U.S. or naturalized must be under the jurisdiction or authority of the U.S. Illegal aliens are not technically under the U.S. jurisdiction, they are citizens of another country, under the jurisdiction of that nation. Which is why we deport them when we discover them. The anchor babies of illegals, according to the original intent of this amendment, should not be considered natural born citizens of our nation.
Also, this amendment has been used to incorporate the rights found in the Bill of Rights to apply to the states. But if you look closely at the language you will that the states may not abridge the rights of CITIZENS. Illegals aliens are not citizens and therefore are not afforded the same rights as citizens of the U.S. Constitution. They do deserve due process and equal protection of the laws, but not the same rights.
The point I was trying to make is that the original intent of the writers of the Constitution and its additional amendments should be consulted and used to understand the language and use of the Constitution. Just like we should consider the words of J.R.R. Tolkien when interpreting "The Lord of the Rings."
During this whole debate on health care reform the idea of unconstitutionality has been thrown around by both sides of the aisle. What scares me is when I hear people say that we can find a way to defend it in the constitution later; lets just get it passed now. These people take an oath to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, both foreign and domestic. When they have to look to defend a law later then we have serious problems of how we understand the Constitution. Like where is it authorized that the government can regulate schools, give money to foreign nations, or mandate we buy something?
The fact of the matter is none of these powers are expressly given to Congress in the Constitution, nor can they be reasonably implied if you understand implied powers correctly. (Check out this blog posting on that topic for more information). It is time we returned to the tried and true principles and powers granted in the U.S. Constitution, that we ask all leaders to follow it to the letter, and vote only for people who will truly defend it.
Thanks for listening and have a nice day. As always comments are welcome.
Often times I have heard that the U.S. Constitution is a living document whose meaning changes depending on the age of which we are currently living. This idea cannot be further from the truth. There are several competing beliefs of how we interpret the strict constructionist, and loose constructions. Strict constructionists are often times called following the "Original Intent" of the founders. It is my belief that our Constitution and its amendments must be read with the original intent of the founders in a strict constructionists manner. My arguments are as follows.
First, an example from literature. J.R.R. Tolkien, author of the "Lord of the Rings" books, often said in personal writings and quotes that the book it was story that has many themes and values portrayed within it, but its not to be read as an religious or political allegorical text. Should we go beyond the intent of the author when interpreting and analyzing this fine piece of literature? I would argue that we should not. We have his own words defending the meaning, themes and values of the text. To go beyond that and make up some new analysis that is counter to the author's intent is a false interpretation of the text. This is how we should also read our Constitution.
The Constitution was completed on September 17, 1787 and submitted to the states for their ratification. Over the next few years it was ratified by all thirteen original colonies and one additional state. During that time period prior to the American Revolution and during the ratification of the Constitution, there was a vast amount of writing about the Constitution and governmental theory. Most of these theories and writings exist today thanks to the invention of the movable type printing press about two hundred years before by Gutenberg (Funny story: The main network printer at my college for my first few years was called Gutey. I swear it took me a couple of semesters to get it). Thanks to the printing press these documents still exist today but are rarely studied in our classrooms. They give us the fullest picture of what was the intent of the founders when they wrote the Constitution. The most prevalent documents I want to refer to are the "Federalist Papers."
"The Federalists Papers" were written by James Madison, John Jay (Future chief justice of the Supreme Court) and Alexander Hamilton. These documents defended the Constitution and its ratification by the states. It explains why it was needed and some key points that the Anti-Federalists made during the ratification process. These 87 articles give us the clearest picture as to what our constitution means. It is these documents we must consult first, when trying to interpret the Constitution. Why should we ignore the very words used to defend the Constitution in the first place? They are our road map to understanding the original document.
Secondly, we must look at the historical background behind when the words were written. I use this specifically to refer to this historical background of the Amendments. Since most of the amendments were written well after the founding of our nation. I want to use the 14th Amendment as an example. I want to focus my time on the very first clause of the document since it is the most applicable to us today. The other clauses deal primarily with the confederate states after the Civil War and have very little influence on us today.
The first clause of that Amendment reads as such:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.The historical fact behind the ratification of this amendment are as such. Previously the Radical Republican had passed the Civil Rights Act of 1886 which made all people born in the United States, except Native Americans, citizens of the U.S.A. They were fearful of the Supreme Court declaring the law unconstitutional so they codified this in the constitution in this amendment. The intent was so that Blacks would be citizens of the U.S., since the Dred Scot Decision ruled that blacks, whether slave or free, were not citizens of the United States. That was the original intent.
Also a key point I want to make in the language of this text. The first phrase makes it clear that the people born in the U.S. or naturalized must be under the jurisdiction or authority of the U.S. Illegal aliens are not technically under the U.S. jurisdiction, they are citizens of another country, under the jurisdiction of that nation. Which is why we deport them when we discover them. The anchor babies of illegals, according to the original intent of this amendment, should not be considered natural born citizens of our nation.
Also, this amendment has been used to incorporate the rights found in the Bill of Rights to apply to the states. But if you look closely at the language you will that the states may not abridge the rights of CITIZENS. Illegals aliens are not citizens and therefore are not afforded the same rights as citizens of the U.S. Constitution. They do deserve due process and equal protection of the laws, but not the same rights.
The point I was trying to make is that the original intent of the writers of the Constitution and its additional amendments should be consulted and used to understand the language and use of the Constitution. Just like we should consider the words of J.R.R. Tolkien when interpreting "The Lord of the Rings."
During this whole debate on health care reform the idea of unconstitutionality has been thrown around by both sides of the aisle. What scares me is when I hear people say that we can find a way to defend it in the constitution later; lets just get it passed now. These people take an oath to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, both foreign and domestic. When they have to look to defend a law later then we have serious problems of how we understand the Constitution. Like where is it authorized that the government can regulate schools, give money to foreign nations, or mandate we buy something?
The fact of the matter is none of these powers are expressly given to Congress in the Constitution, nor can they be reasonably implied if you understand implied powers correctly. (Check out this blog posting on that topic for more information). It is time we returned to the tried and true principles and powers granted in the U.S. Constitution, that we ask all leaders to follow it to the letter, and vote only for people who will truly defend it.
Thanks for listening and have a nice day. As always comments are welcome.
News of the Day - 2/10/2010: Dhali Lama & Terror Attacks
Sorry to my loyal readers for a lack of a post yesterday. I got home and instantly got to celebrating with my wife the date of her birth. It was a good night for all. We went to Famous Dave's for dinner, shared cake with the family and her twin sister, and then just veged on the couch for the rest of the evening watching tv shows on spies and doctors. But today's it back to the grind of writing for my readers. A couple of news stories today that I want to call your attention too.
ATTACK ON IRS... A TERRORIST ATTACK
So yesterday a deranged anti-government individual flew his plane into an IRS building in Austin, Texas. The crux of the article is whether or not this "lone wolf" attack was a terrorist attack. I like how Fox news gets opinions from both sides on this issues, from both a liberal (Center for American Progress) and conservative (Heritage Foundation) think tanks. I guess the fair and balanced part of their news reporting is not entirely untrue. But both sides and the White House agreed that it should not be labeled a terrorist attack until the appropriate investigation had been completed. What irks me is how quickly the main stream media and others called it domestic terrorism and related this gentleman to Timothy McVeigh. BUT when Major Hassan in Fort Hood has multiple contacts with Al Queda operatives and extremist Muslim clerics and jihadists, there is no way it could possibly be a terrorist attack of any kind. It just seems to me we are trying to appease this backwards thinking, civil rights abridging, violent religious sect. Let's call a spade a spade no matter what we think on the issue or people.
CHINA PROTESTS OBAMA VISIT WITH DHALI LAMA
The President finally sat down with fellow Nobel Peace Prize winner, the spiritual and political leader of the Chinese occupied province of Tibet. China was none to happy about this. You see they took over Tibet in the 1950s. The Dhali Lama can not even go back because he will likely be imprisoned and killed by the Chinese government. This is the danger of our out of control debt. China hold a lot of power over our heads by controlling so much of our debt. In fact they started selling it off, possibly as punishment for this meeting. What's next? Them requesting that we leave Iran alone since they get a large amount of their oil from them. Or maybe allow their military ships to dock in our ports. Or just stop the CIA from having operations in China. The same situation was true when J.P Morgan bailed out the U.S. Government TWICE! The U.S. government made it a point to pay him back ASAP because they did not one individual to have that much power over the government. It is the same idea with our debt to other nations. It is dangerous. Also we are close to having our national debt be equal too if not more than our yearly Gross Domestic Product. So we owe as much as we make in a single year, as a nation. Scary stuff.
Thanks for reading. Hope you have a great weekend. The next lesson on the U.S. Constitution will be up tomorrow as scheduled.
ATTACK ON IRS... A TERRORIST ATTACK
So yesterday a deranged anti-government individual flew his plane into an IRS building in Austin, Texas. The crux of the article is whether or not this "lone wolf" attack was a terrorist attack. I like how Fox news gets opinions from both sides on this issues, from both a liberal (Center for American Progress) and conservative (Heritage Foundation) think tanks. I guess the fair and balanced part of their news reporting is not entirely untrue. But both sides and the White House agreed that it should not be labeled a terrorist attack until the appropriate investigation had been completed. What irks me is how quickly the main stream media and others called it domestic terrorism and related this gentleman to Timothy McVeigh. BUT when Major Hassan in Fort Hood has multiple contacts with Al Queda operatives and extremist Muslim clerics and jihadists, there is no way it could possibly be a terrorist attack of any kind. It just seems to me we are trying to appease this backwards thinking, civil rights abridging, violent religious sect. Let's call a spade a spade no matter what we think on the issue or people.
CHINA PROTESTS OBAMA VISIT WITH DHALI LAMA
The President finally sat down with fellow Nobel Peace Prize winner, the spiritual and political leader of the Chinese occupied province of Tibet. China was none to happy about this. You see they took over Tibet in the 1950s. The Dhali Lama can not even go back because he will likely be imprisoned and killed by the Chinese government. This is the danger of our out of control debt. China hold a lot of power over our heads by controlling so much of our debt. In fact they started selling it off, possibly as punishment for this meeting. What's next? Them requesting that we leave Iran alone since they get a large amount of their oil from them. Or maybe allow their military ships to dock in our ports. Or just stop the CIA from having operations in China. The same situation was true when J.P Morgan bailed out the U.S. Government TWICE! The U.S. government made it a point to pay him back ASAP because they did not one individual to have that much power over the government. It is the same idea with our debt to other nations. It is dangerous. Also we are close to having our national debt be equal too if not more than our yearly Gross Domestic Product. So we owe as much as we make in a single year, as a nation. Scary stuff.
Thanks for reading. Hope you have a great weekend. The next lesson on the U.S. Constitution will be up tomorrow as scheduled.
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
My Perfect School: Houses v. Classes
At my high school some of the best moments I remember were spirit weeks and pep rallies. We really one had two a year: one during fall sports and one during winter sports. During spirit weeks we would have class competitions to earn points. The same would be true for the pep rallies if you won a game you won points for your class. The class with the highest points at the end of spirit week would then possess the school mascot for the next semester. My class (Class of 2000 -- Represent!) won it three semesters in a row our last three years at the school. This is a system I would like to incorporate in one of two ways: by Multi-class Houses or by graduating Classes.
Here is the deal every quarter or semester the groups would have various spirit days, and other competitions. Spirit days earns you points for "dressing up" appropriately for that day. One competition I have thought of is an intramural competition of sports. Each quarter would have a different sport and the classes would compete against each other kind of like the Quiditch Cup at Hogwarts in the Harry Potter series. Each win would earn you points for your class. At the end of the quarter or semester you have the pep rally with more class competitions. Another competition could be like a quarter long scavenger hunt or something else like that. At the end of the quarter or semester you would have a pep rally with more games that earn a grouping more points. The group with the most points at the end of all the competitions wins and possess the mascot until the next grading period.
Here are my areas of which I want input from my readers. Should I do this by graduating classes or by a house system? I like the graduating class system because that is how we did it, but you can't really establish long trains of wins. Also it is more favored to the upper class men than the freshmen. The House idea would be cool where each house has multiple students from each grade level. They would be assigned a house at the start of their time in the school and remain in that house during their tenure at the school. I am not sure how we would select for each house. The key would be to key the houses as equally proportioned as possible in total numbers and in the different grade levels in each house.
I would like my readers comments on this posting. Please give me some help. Which one should be used: Houses or Classes? Thanks in advance.
Here is the deal every quarter or semester the groups would have various spirit days, and other competitions. Spirit days earns you points for "dressing up" appropriately for that day. One competition I have thought of is an intramural competition of sports. Each quarter would have a different sport and the classes would compete against each other kind of like the Quiditch Cup at Hogwarts in the Harry Potter series. Each win would earn you points for your class. At the end of the quarter or semester you have the pep rally with more class competitions. Another competition could be like a quarter long scavenger hunt or something else like that. At the end of the quarter or semester you would have a pep rally with more games that earn a grouping more points. The group with the most points at the end of all the competitions wins and possess the mascot until the next grading period.
Here are my areas of which I want input from my readers. Should I do this by graduating classes or by a house system? I like the graduating class system because that is how we did it, but you can't really establish long trains of wins. Also it is more favored to the upper class men than the freshmen. The House idea would be cool where each house has multiple students from each grade level. They would be assigned a house at the start of their time in the school and remain in that house during their tenure at the school. I am not sure how we would select for each house. The key would be to key the houses as equally proportioned as possible in total numbers and in the different grade levels in each house.
I would like my readers comments on this posting. Please give me some help. Which one should be used: Houses or Classes? Thanks in advance.
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
Public Policy: The Transporation Safety Administration
Today I want to deal with a specific part of our federal government's policy, specifically relating to how we keep the friendly skies, as well as other modes of transportation, safe for consumers in the United States. This posting is in direct response to this story I saw today.
The first part of any reform to the transportation safety is to consolidate all national transporation administrations, like the TSA, FAA, NTSB, and others, into one single administrative structure to oversee and enforce federal laws relating to transportation safety. This would be done through a law passed by Congress. The consolidation of these agencies into one would cut down on the overlapping jurisdictions, and staffing of separate agencies that essentially do the exact same things just with slightly narrow or specific jurisdictions.
The benefits the the U.S. citizen for this reform would be decreased federal spending on repetitive administrations and agencies. Also many federal employees would be laid off, which could seek employment in the private sector. Those left would be the most qualified to investigate, test, and enforce laws in our national privatized transportation network.
Secondly, I would authorize, through this new law, the complete elimination of the U.S. government from providing security for airports, trains and other modes of transportation inside the United States. The law would require that the private airports and/or airliners provide for their own security. The newly consolidated Transportation Safety Agency would serve to test these companies to make sure their security is up to snuff and provide the data to the consumers. This alone would eliminate hundreds of thousands of government workers and free up federal money to be used elsewhere. I am not sure if I would get rid of the federal air marshals but I would definitely provide in the law for passenger airliners to authorize individuals to be company air marshals on any and/or all flights.
There are both costs and benefits for this reform. The costs would include the individual airports providing security by charging their carriers additional fees to use that airport, which would get passed on to the consumer. Or if the individual carriers were to provide the security at their own gates this cost would also be passed upon to the consumer. The benefit would be that customers could choose which carrier to use, that they feel is the most security conscious. Just like consumers have voted with their dollars with all the fees many carriers are implementing to stay in the black. The other benefit is that passengers with a history in the company may be able to bypass security altogether since they have a good security record. It also places the safety of passengers on the head of the airline companies. If something goes wrong its their problem, not a problem with the government; the government makes enough mistakes as it is this would remove them from the equation.
Thirdly, in conjunction with the CIA, FBI and other agencies responsible for federal criminal investigations and apprehension, I would make available the entire no fly and terrorist watch list to the passenger airliners to cross check their passenger manifests against. If someone gets flagged they can do several things. One, alert the authorities of when and where they intend to fly so they may be apprehended. Two, they could allow them to fly but request that a federal air marshal be on the flight for the safety of all individuals. Third, they could allow greater scrutiny on that passengers security check before boarding the flight.
The benefits of this are super enormous. As we found out on Christmas Day the system to stop terrorists from traveling to the U.S. is to cumbersome to work fast enough to stop the Crotch Bomber. If individual airlines working inside the U.S. had access to this information they could instantly disqualify a person from flying on their planes. Another thing they could do was put them up to greater security scrutiny before letting them fly on their private airline. People could scream all they want about discrimination but its the right of the company to determine who they do business with and how they do business with them (We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone.). Also, it side steps the fourth amendment of unreasonable search and seizures without probable cause since it is a private company and not the government.
On a side note, I think some of the security measures in airports are a violation of our fourth Amendment rights. How can it be seen as reasonable for an individual like myself to be search like he is going to commit a crime on a plane. Its the job of the government to show probable cause before they search an individual; there is no search before that time. It should be the job of the companies and the government to work together to identify those people who should be search based on probable cause. A person who is on the no fly list has enough probable cause to be search before boarding a flight. Just another way our freedoms are slowly being taken away from us.
Fourth, any lawsuit brought against a passenger airline or transportation company would be granted exclusive jurisdiction in the federal courts. There would also be legal limits on the amounts that would be paid out in any successful lawsuit. The benefit here brings tort reform to one specific area. Also, since some modes of travel cross state lines, that would grant the federal courts jurisdiction over any such case.
That is all I have for today's post. I would love to see your comments on this topic. Have a great day.
The first part of any reform to the transportation safety is to consolidate all national transporation administrations, like the TSA, FAA, NTSB, and others, into one single administrative structure to oversee and enforce federal laws relating to transportation safety. This would be done through a law passed by Congress. The consolidation of these agencies into one would cut down on the overlapping jurisdictions, and staffing of separate agencies that essentially do the exact same things just with slightly narrow or specific jurisdictions.
The benefits the the U.S. citizen for this reform would be decreased federal spending on repetitive administrations and agencies. Also many federal employees would be laid off, which could seek employment in the private sector. Those left would be the most qualified to investigate, test, and enforce laws in our national privatized transportation network.
Secondly, I would authorize, through this new law, the complete elimination of the U.S. government from providing security for airports, trains and other modes of transportation inside the United States. The law would require that the private airports and/or airliners provide for their own security. The newly consolidated Transportation Safety Agency would serve to test these companies to make sure their security is up to snuff and provide the data to the consumers. This alone would eliminate hundreds of thousands of government workers and free up federal money to be used elsewhere. I am not sure if I would get rid of the federal air marshals but I would definitely provide in the law for passenger airliners to authorize individuals to be company air marshals on any and/or all flights.
There are both costs and benefits for this reform. The costs would include the individual airports providing security by charging their carriers additional fees to use that airport, which would get passed on to the consumer. Or if the individual carriers were to provide the security at their own gates this cost would also be passed upon to the consumer. The benefit would be that customers could choose which carrier to use, that they feel is the most security conscious. Just like consumers have voted with their dollars with all the fees many carriers are implementing to stay in the black. The other benefit is that passengers with a history in the company may be able to bypass security altogether since they have a good security record. It also places the safety of passengers on the head of the airline companies. If something goes wrong its their problem, not a problem with the government; the government makes enough mistakes as it is this would remove them from the equation.
Thirdly, in conjunction with the CIA, FBI and other agencies responsible for federal criminal investigations and apprehension, I would make available the entire no fly and terrorist watch list to the passenger airliners to cross check their passenger manifests against. If someone gets flagged they can do several things. One, alert the authorities of when and where they intend to fly so they may be apprehended. Two, they could allow them to fly but request that a federal air marshal be on the flight for the safety of all individuals. Third, they could allow greater scrutiny on that passengers security check before boarding the flight.
The benefits of this are super enormous. As we found out on Christmas Day the system to stop terrorists from traveling to the U.S. is to cumbersome to work fast enough to stop the Crotch Bomber. If individual airlines working inside the U.S. had access to this information they could instantly disqualify a person from flying on their planes. Another thing they could do was put them up to greater security scrutiny before letting them fly on their private airline. People could scream all they want about discrimination but its the right of the company to determine who they do business with and how they do business with them (We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone.). Also, it side steps the fourth amendment of unreasonable search and seizures without probable cause since it is a private company and not the government.
On a side note, I think some of the security measures in airports are a violation of our fourth Amendment rights. How can it be seen as reasonable for an individual like myself to be search like he is going to commit a crime on a plane. Its the job of the government to show probable cause before they search an individual; there is no search before that time. It should be the job of the companies and the government to work together to identify those people who should be search based on probable cause. A person who is on the no fly list has enough probable cause to be search before boarding a flight. Just another way our freedoms are slowly being taken away from us.
Fourth, any lawsuit brought against a passenger airline or transportation company would be granted exclusive jurisdiction in the federal courts. There would also be legal limits on the amounts that would be paid out in any successful lawsuit. The benefit here brings tort reform to one specific area. Also, since some modes of travel cross state lines, that would grant the federal courts jurisdiction over any such case.
That is all I have for today's post. I would love to see your comments on this topic. Have a great day.
Monday, February 15, 2010
News of the Day - 2/15/2010 - Schools, Stimulus, AGW & VP Biden
Another rapid fire news day. This seems to be a preferred format since I can briefly comment on several stories each day. Also, if there is a juicy story that requires a longer post I can do that as well so here... we... go.
SCHOOLS FACE CUTS AS STIMULUS RUNS OUT
From the AP we hear that public schools are facing more and larger cuts this year. The main reason: government spending from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 has now run out. So now schools have to do with less than before. My own district is suffering with having to make around $100 million cuts for the next school year. The Superintendent has allowed us to email suggestions to his office. I have already done so and told the students to send me ideas to send to him.
The fact of the matter is that government spending made the problems worse. Now deeper cuts have to be made to offset the money given last year. Throwing money at the problem never solves it, it just makes the solution harder to find since the money briefly filled the hole. It is time of public education to take a serious look at its bureaucratic structure and eliminate all the unnecessary waste. I don't hear of very many private schools going out of business. The main reason could be that they don't rely on government money to make ends meet so they have to justify each expenditure wisely. There are too many bureaucrats in most large public school districts. There are too many under qualified and over paid consultants and administrators who do not do anything to improve students education. Cuts need to begin there not at the school level.
On a second note, the superintendent of the Clark County School District complimented the fact that there are now 38 more empowerment schools in the district. An empowerment school has more freedom to address issues important to that community. Now someone tell me why all the schools in CCSD are not empowerment. Education needs to be dealt with and supported by the community and parents. Unfortunately not enough care anymore, at least at my school. Moving on.
NO GLOBAL WARMING IN 15 YEARS
Coming straight from the horse's mouth is the fact that there has not been global warning in 15 years. I thought if we were the sole cause of Anthropomorphic Global Warming (AGW) then our continued buring of green house gasses the earth's temperature would continue to clime. I guess not. I have not really ever addressed AGW on my blog so here is a first. Here are my major issues with the climate change crowd.
First, climate change happens, with or without human interaction. There were vast changes to the climate before the burning of greenhouse gases, so how do we know WE are the ones causing it?
Second, climatologists have often threatened science magazine and journals to not publish works by their critics and then criticize when the critics have no publish works. Why the gestapo tactics if your are correct?
Thirdly, the pure hypocrisy of the true believers. Many of them say we need to make changes to the way we live but don't make any changes themselves. They want to cap emissions but they have a larger carbon footprint than anyone else on the planet. Something interesting I saw years ago was a comparison of Gore's and Bush's houses. President Bush's house in Texas was heated by geothermal systems and powered by solar. To compare Gore burns a significant amount of green house gasses to power his house. Also, I love the quote of then Senator Obama saying we can't run our thermostats at 72 degrees if we want, but he keeps the White House super cold so that people must wear sweaters, while I pay the bill. I think they calculated that all the travel to Coopenhagen would burn more green house gases than sixty developing nations. It's a practice of do as I say, not as I do. That right there is the biggest argument for why I fight against this scare science tactics.
BIDEN MOTORCADE ACCIDENT AT OLYMPICS
Ok what is going on with President Biden's motorcade? This is the third accident in a year for his motorcade. Someone needs to see what they heck is going on.
That's all the news for today. Have a great day.
SCHOOLS FACE CUTS AS STIMULUS RUNS OUT
From the AP we hear that public schools are facing more and larger cuts this year. The main reason: government spending from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 has now run out. So now schools have to do with less than before. My own district is suffering with having to make around $100 million cuts for the next school year. The Superintendent has allowed us to email suggestions to his office. I have already done so and told the students to send me ideas to send to him.
The fact of the matter is that government spending made the problems worse. Now deeper cuts have to be made to offset the money given last year. Throwing money at the problem never solves it, it just makes the solution harder to find since the money briefly filled the hole. It is time of public education to take a serious look at its bureaucratic structure and eliminate all the unnecessary waste. I don't hear of very many private schools going out of business. The main reason could be that they don't rely on government money to make ends meet so they have to justify each expenditure wisely. There are too many bureaucrats in most large public school districts. There are too many under qualified and over paid consultants and administrators who do not do anything to improve students education. Cuts need to begin there not at the school level.
On a second note, the superintendent of the Clark County School District complimented the fact that there are now 38 more empowerment schools in the district. An empowerment school has more freedom to address issues important to that community. Now someone tell me why all the schools in CCSD are not empowerment. Education needs to be dealt with and supported by the community and parents. Unfortunately not enough care anymore, at least at my school. Moving on.
NO GLOBAL WARMING IN 15 YEARS
Coming straight from the horse's mouth is the fact that there has not been global warning in 15 years. I thought if we were the sole cause of Anthropomorphic Global Warming (AGW) then our continued buring of green house gasses the earth's temperature would continue to clime. I guess not. I have not really ever addressed AGW on my blog so here is a first. Here are my major issues with the climate change crowd.
First, climate change happens, with or without human interaction. There were vast changes to the climate before the burning of greenhouse gases, so how do we know WE are the ones causing it?
Second, climatologists have often threatened science magazine and journals to not publish works by their critics and then criticize when the critics have no publish works. Why the gestapo tactics if your are correct?
Thirdly, the pure hypocrisy of the true believers. Many of them say we need to make changes to the way we live but don't make any changes themselves. They want to cap emissions but they have a larger carbon footprint than anyone else on the planet. Something interesting I saw years ago was a comparison of Gore's and Bush's houses. President Bush's house in Texas was heated by geothermal systems and powered by solar. To compare Gore burns a significant amount of green house gasses to power his house. Also, I love the quote of then Senator Obama saying we can't run our thermostats at 72 degrees if we want, but he keeps the White House super cold so that people must wear sweaters, while I pay the bill. I think they calculated that all the travel to Coopenhagen would burn more green house gases than sixty developing nations. It's a practice of do as I say, not as I do. That right there is the biggest argument for why I fight against this scare science tactics.
BIDEN MOTORCADE ACCIDENT AT OLYMPICS
Ok what is going on with President Biden's motorcade? This is the third accident in a year for his motorcade. Someone needs to see what they heck is going on.
That's all the news for today. Have a great day.
For My Wife - Our Story... Thus far
So I missed Friday, and never posted anything additional on Saturday. Sorry to my loyal readers that I missed a day. Since yesterday was St. Valentine's Day, I have something I will share with the world at large. I wrote this for my wife and gave it to her yesterday.
Our Story, Thus Far
By: Adam J. Bulava
On the occasion of our first Valentine’s Day as husband and wife
You made the first move, and did it real smooth.
Though I had my head shaved, you saw I was well behaved.
When the first movie we saw was so bad, but I sang the song by Santan(a)
Auditioning made you very nervous, though I thought you did fabulous.
Driving in the dark of night, with the gold coins forever in our sight.
Church on Good Friday, which reminded you of being Catholic on Sunday.
Meeting my best friend and mother, being glad I didn’t meet another.
Trip to Chicago at Thanksgiving, to know my family was only the beginning.
Four days at Christmas making you cry, just because you didn’t want to say goodbye.
A week on the plains with family and friends, wishing those days would never end.
A wedding and Star Wars in St. Paul, on our own with no one to call.
Buying a ring to put on your finger, while you were drunk hoping you would remember
Learning to dance while planning our day, making lots of decisions along the way.
Invites and dress, tuxes and a shower, waiting and waiting for that one hour.
Looking down the aisle seeing you in white, marriage with your friend finally in sight.
Saying I will and kissing my best friend, our feet hurt so bad we wanted it to end.
Honeymoon in Cali spending our time at the zoo, seeing everything anew.
Moving to our brand new home, finding a brother for our kitty who was all alone.
Starting a search for the next chapter in our life, searching for jobs in the Midwest in the Heights.
Our Story, Thus Far
By: Adam J. Bulava
On the occasion of our first Valentine’s Day as husband and wife
You made the first move, and did it real smooth.
Though I had my head shaved, you saw I was well behaved.
When the first movie we saw was so bad, but I sang the song by Santan(a)
Auditioning made you very nervous, though I thought you did fabulous.
Driving in the dark of night, with the gold coins forever in our sight.
Church on Good Friday, which reminded you of being Catholic on Sunday.
Meeting my best friend and mother, being glad I didn’t meet another.
Trip to Chicago at Thanksgiving, to know my family was only the beginning.
Four days at Christmas making you cry, just because you didn’t want to say goodbye.
A week on the plains with family and friends, wishing those days would never end.
A wedding and Star Wars in St. Paul, on our own with no one to call.
Buying a ring to put on your finger, while you were drunk hoping you would remember
Learning to dance while planning our day, making lots of decisions along the way.
Invites and dress, tuxes and a shower, waiting and waiting for that one hour.
Looking down the aisle seeing you in white, marriage with your friend finally in sight.
Saying I will and kissing my best friend, our feet hurt so bad we wanted it to end.
Honeymoon in Cali spending our time at the zoo, seeing everything anew.
Moving to our brand new home, finding a brother for our kitty who was all alone.
Starting a search for the next chapter in our life, searching for jobs in the Midwest in the Heights.
Saturday, February 13, 2010
The U.S. Constitution - Lesson #6: Elections and Proceedings
Sorry for the lack of a posting on Friday afternoon. I will make it up to my loyal readers later today. But today's lesson on the U.S. Constitution focuses on Article I, Section 4 & Section 5, since four is so small. Again this will be dealt with clause by clause.
This is where congress gets the authority to write laws regarding the federal campaign contributions. Earlier this year the Supreme Court struck down regulations in a recent campaign finance reform law. They also overturned previous decisions of the Court on corporate donations to political campaigns. Unfortunately most people have no idea of what the facts or decision of Citizens United v. FEC is about. I did a blog a few weeks on this very topic. Check it out for more information.
The major misunderstanding people have in an election, especially a presidential election is that there is no national election; there are fifty state elections. The electoral college is another way of proving this because it is up to the state legislatures to determine how electors are choosen for the presidency. I will deal more on this later when I address Article II, Section 1, Clauses 3 & 4.
The Constitution sets the quorum to do business as a majority of members, which would be fifty-one percent of its members (218 in the House and 51 in the Senate). The need for this limit on power is so that a small number of legislators could not pass laws. A few years ago during the August break a large contingent of Republicans and some Democrats stayed behind in Washington when recess was called for the month, despite lots of work to do. This clause prevents them from passing legislation. Though I thought it would funny if they were able to get a quorum and do business; they never did.
This also is where Congress gets the power to punish its own members, like last year when Rep. Joe Wilson was censured (formal condemnation for an action) for yelling, "You lie!" during the President's address to a joint session of Congress about the stalled health care reform bills.
Well that is the end of today's lesson. Please let me know if you have any questions or comments. Thanks for listening and have a great weekend. Class dismissed.
Section 4. The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Place of choosing Senators.This lays out not specifically a power of Congress but of the states, which Congress may regulate if needed. This is another example of Federalism (separation of power between the federal and local governments) inside of our Constitution. Each state holds its own elections and writes its own laws and regulations for elections. The right and powers to vote is granted by the state governments, not the federal government, to the citizens of the state.
This is where congress gets the authority to write laws regarding the federal campaign contributions. Earlier this year the Supreme Court struck down regulations in a recent campaign finance reform law. They also overturned previous decisions of the Court on corporate donations to political campaigns. Unfortunately most people have no idea of what the facts or decision of Citizens United v. FEC is about. I did a blog a few weeks on this very topic. Check it out for more information.
The major misunderstanding people have in an election, especially a presidential election is that there is no national election; there are fifty state elections. The electoral college is another way of proving this because it is up to the state legislatures to determine how electors are choosen for the presidency. I will deal more on this later when I address Article II, Section 1, Clauses 3 & 4.
The Congress shall assemble at least once in every Year, and such Meeting shall be on the first Monday in December, unless they shall by Law appoint a different Day.This clause ensures that the legislature must meet at least once a year. The major issue behind this clause was that the King of England could dissolve the Parliament at any time. The King also had dissolved the colonial legislators. This is one of the major reasons behind the revolution listed in the Declaration of Independence. The bold text was changed by the 20th Amendment.
Section 5. Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members, and a Majority of each shall constitute a Quorum to do Business; but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the Attendance of absent Members, in such Manner, and under such Penalties as each House may provide.The Congress has occassionally used the listed here power to refuse to seat a duly elected member of the House or Senate. The most recent example was after the election of President Obama. Governor Blagoavich of Illinois appointed Roland Burris to the vacated seat of former senator Barak Obama when he was elected to the office of President. The main point of contention was the federal corruption investigation into the governor about how he was going to choose which person would be the second senator from Illinois. The Supreme Court has held though that Congress cannot withhold the seat of a person who has met all the Constitutional requirements for office. Also they stated in a separate case that a member may only be expelled in the term a wrong was committed, it cannot be retroactive.
The Constitution sets the quorum to do business as a majority of members, which would be fifty-one percent of its members (218 in the House and 51 in the Senate). The need for this limit on power is so that a small number of legislators could not pass laws. A few years ago during the August break a large contingent of Republicans and some Democrats stayed behind in Washington when recess was called for the month, despite lots of work to do. This clause prevents them from passing legislation. Though I thought it would funny if they were able to get a quorum and do business; they never did.
Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, and, with the Concurrence of two-thirds, expel a Member.This allows each house of Congress to make its own rules in how to pass legislation. The power to create committees is an implied power of this expressed power. The practice of filibuster (unlimited debate to kill legislation) is also found in the U.S. Senate because of this clause. The filibuster is a necessary power and part of the founder's original intent for the Senate. The House may quickly pass something because of the popular fervor for a specific piece of legislation. This is because the House is the body of our federal government closest to the people. The senate is there to cool down the legislation and make it better and palatable to the states (Since the Senate was to represent the states in our government). Both parties have used it to their own advantage to kill good or bad legislation, or to stop presidential appointments.
This also is where Congress gets the power to punish its own members, like last year when Rep. Joe Wilson was censured (formal condemnation for an action) for yelling, "You lie!" during the President's address to a joint session of Congress about the stalled health care reform bills.
Each House shall keep a Journal of its Proceedings, and from time to time publish the same, excepting such Parts as may in their Judgment require Secrecy; and the Yeas and Nays of the Members of either House on any question shall, at the Desire of one fifth of those Present, be entered on the Journal.This clause for a journal of proceedings is a limit on Congressional power since it requires both houses of Congress to record the results of their meetings. Specifically it refers to the tallying of the votes in either house. This is so that the people may know what their elected leaders are doing. It requires that one fifth of the house must request that the yeas and nays of the members to be recorded in the journal. This is an example of minority rights or power in the Constitution. It only takes 20 people in the Senate and 87 in the House to get these votes recorded. Typically in today's day and age though they do not need to call a vote to get them recorded. With the voting machines in the House we know in an instant who voted what way on any piece of legislation. Also in the Senate they almost always do a roll call vote so that those votes are also recorded.
Neither House, during the Session of Congress, shall, without the Consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other Place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting.This is to make sure that the legislative actions of Congress are coordinated between the two houses of the bicameral. Also, it makes sure that joint actions was taken to move the place of where the legislature is seated. This is a throwback to the Revolutionary War when the capital moved several times to avoid capture by the British. Also it is to protect the people because of the power the king used to move colonial legislatures.
Well that is the end of today's lesson. Please let me know if you have any questions or comments. Thanks for listening and have a great weekend. Class dismissed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)