It's Time For A Political Reboot

O

h I am sooooo very sick of politics. So, this installment of Reboot America themed articles ( the first is here) will talk about the character of the people we elect. It is time, past time, to demand that our elected leaders be men and women of character. It is time to differentiate Statesmen from mere politicians. This will be a long read. So, gather your beverages, take a deep breath, and read on please.

In the sixties, I was a kid and we all wanted to be one of three things. We wanted to be President, an Astronaut, or a Marine. I got the best of the three deals. Today, I know kids who still idolize Astronauts and people in all kinds of uniform. I don’t know a kid that wants to be President. That’s pretty sad. I can’t prove it, but I think the stench of political corruption has finally permeated down to the point that even grade schoolers know that “politician” isn’t a word that inspires images of trust and selfless service.

The first thing I would propose is a Constitutional Amendment that mandates integrity and honorable character be demanded of our federally elected officials. I don’t mean something vague like “High Crimes and Misdemeanors” either. I mean an amendment along the lines of “Any elected Member of the United States Government, or Member of an Appointed Federal Judiciary suspected of violations of the current code of ethical conduct will be removed of his or her official duties during the duration of an investigation of said allegation. If said allegation is substantiated, the member shall be removed from office and where applicable referred to appropriate judicial proceedings for prosecution.”

The next thing we must lobby for is the complete revision of the rules used in each house of Congress to define and investigate ethics complaints. Like the Constitution itself, if you get to make the rules, you should at least try to live by them. Currently, the process of identification and investigation takes entirely too long. The Office of Congressional Ethics, for the 2nd Qtr of 2012, conducted 32 preliminary reviews. Of those 32, 10 were sent on to the actual House Ethics Committee for further review. The OCE was a great idea by Pelosi in order to drain the swamp as it were. But it is a ‘civilian’ committee with nothing more than the authority to tell the HEC that they should or should not pursue an investigation. So, what happened to those ten cases sent from OCE to HEC?

The House Ethics Committee has swallowed them up. There is no easy to find information of what or who the allegations pertained to or progress of investigations. The best I could easily find were three press releases on the HEC website. I read one of them and noted that Rep Waters was personally cleared of violating house rules. One of her employees was issued a “Letter of Reproof”. More on that later.

Finally, even in cases of egregious misconduct, House Members are rarely hit with more than a “Sanction”. For all it’s ominous sounds, a sanction is nothing more than a public slap on the wrist. From there it is up to the Justice Department to determine if they wish to pursue a criminal action.

For brevities sake I omitted the Senate. I strongly feel that we need an amendment to remove the self-policing action of either house, the judiciary, or the executive branch. The process needs to be brutally swift, decisive, and draconian on those who violate the peoples special trust and confidence.

Remember Rep. Waters employee who received a “letter of reproof”? I’d say that the wrong person was punished. I’d say that as a Leader, Rep Waters is responsible for everything done or not done in her name. I’d say that her employee is accountable to her, and to the law when required, but that she and she alone should bear the official blame.

To be a Leader, one must strive to be unique in that matters of character do not surface. Each of the uniformed services clearly sets a standard for every leader from the most junior (Corporals, Petty Officers) to the most senior (Generals, Admirals). Amazingly the standard is the same. If we can expect such a high level of performance from our 19 year old Corporals, we damn sure should expect it from our elected officials. Leadership Traits for Congress as well as Leadership Principles for Congress explores the military leadership standard and how it can translate to better elected leaders. I submit that if we are people of integrity we will want to hold our elected leaders as close to these standards as humanly possible regardless of party affiliation. I actually dare you to read the two articles, then do a mental matchup and see how your current Presidential favorite stacks up. If he or she doesn’t measure up; do you have the moral courage to not vote for him or her? Remember, voting in the lesser of two evils is still supporting evil.

The final part of this reboot involves the President of the United States personally. He or She really isn’t the long term leader of the nation. That is Congress. He or She cannot really influence the law. That is the Judiciary. But, He or She has their finger on the button. The POTUS is the person who determines when, where, and how your friends and neighbors die all over the globe. The POTUS determines when, where, and how our enemies and the noncombatants they hide behind die all over the globe. The POTUS has the power to unconditionally pardon mass murderers if he so chooses. Someone with that much immediate power must be held to an even higher standard than those under his command.

I propose another Constitutional Amendment. This time it is for a vote of no confidence and removal from office to be initiated by the States themselves. I envision any state drafting a letter of no-confidence. Then the letter is sent to all the other state legislatures via the senior of the two Senators. Why? Because per the Constitution, the Senate is the voice of the States as opposed to the people.

Once this letter is received, each state legislature and Governor will debate it and either approve, ignore, or reject it. If a supermajority of States approve the letter of no confidence then it is delivered to the Congress stating that the President has been declared unfit for continued service. At that point the Amendment would grant the House of Representatives the option of drafting Articles of Impeachment. If the House declined or ignored the States declaration (silence equaling contempt or consent), then the States themselves would convene its’ own version of the Senate court to try the President with the ultimate penalty being removal from office. It would require a three-fourths majority to convict. And, as in the case of impeachment trials now, would not be subject to judicial review.

There’s a point to the alternate impeachment amendment, or simply revising the relevant parts of Article I, II, and III. It’s purpose would be to ensure that a partisan Congress could not ignore egregious violations from the executive by virtue of numbers in office and political party affiliation.

I would leave you with one last thought. It is often said we get the government we deserve. It is said that the government is a reflection of the people and the times. If this is true; what does it say about us?

If there is not a Disqus comment box at the end of this post, click the title and one will appear.

Technorati Tags: character ethics integrity politics
 

Tweet This Now!

Americans Elect 2012 Review and Comments

I'm always spouting off about being or getting involved. Even if you don't agree with me you should be engaged in your world and the movers and shakers. A new, to me anyway, method is Americans Elect 2012. I looked it up and signed up just to see what it was all about.

Essentially the site is going to do the things needed to get a non-partizan candidate for President and Vice-President on the ballot in all fifty states. It will do this by havign registered voteres sign up, answer questions about thier views, and vote in an online convention. The winner of the vote will be placed on the ballot in all fifty states. The site believes it will break the gridlock of partisan politics.

Overall I think the site has merit. I think that if their sales pitch actually works it could, over time, become a focus of a growing debate. So, I will see it through just to find out if I am right or not.

After answering 136 questions (there are more but my clicker was asking for overtime cash) I stumbled across one that floored me. Remember that everyone on the site is supposed to be a registered voter. That means they care and actually participate in the process. Your answer, weighted based on priorites you establish, is factored into all the other answers so you get a national and state average.

The Question was: Which of the statements below is closest to your personal view?

The results were:

Option and % Of Answers	Answers
A 13%	It is very important to stick to principles
B 18%	It is more important for politicians in Congress to stick to the principles and values on which they campaigned
C 67%	It is more important for politicians in Congress to work with members of the other party and make consensus policy
D 2%	Unsure

That tells me that I am wasting my breath talking about character. It appears to me that 67% of the registered voters who have been to the site would knowingly elect crooks and liars as long as they reach across the aisle and come to a consensus.

It's no wonder that an Ethics Challenged for Speaker who moonlighted as a Serial Adulterer is gaining in the polls.

Tweet

What's It Going To Take?

Are you ready for the end of the election yet? I mean, it's pretty obvious that the world is going down the pot in an ugly swirling motion. This is the year that the best the Republicans care to offer is a Serial Adulterer and Ethics Deficient Congressman, or the perfect coif of the Obamacare Architect. Yeah things are shaping up good for the shining city on the hill.

We've managed to add language to the NDAA which trashes the Bill of Rights. Our Supreme Court has decided against religion. The super pacs are in charge of the political debate. And, the average American hasn't figured out that it is time to get angry.

The OWS crowd can't seem to get unified in anything but anger at the rich and demands that they be accommodated. The Tea Party is in danger of being marginalized even though they had a great start.

And, the average American still hasn't figured out that it is time to get angry.

What's it going to take?

Tweet

Ron Paul is Right. Politifact Got It Wrong.

I wrote about the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012. In my opinion, the Senate made a huge mistake. Politifact has decided that Ron Pauls comments regarding this legislation are mostly false.

Go ahead and read it for yourself. By page 428 you will notice that the Secretary of Defense merely need submit a waiver which states you are a national security risk. That paragraph ensures that the provision stating that this entire process doesn't apply to US Citizens is null and void.

Politifact got it wrong.

Tweet

RIP for the Bill of Rights

It's official, we the people are screwed without getting kissed. Our Senate voted 93 to 7 to pass a bill that allows you and I to be scooped up on a whim. Don't believe me. Read it for yourself on page 426 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012

If you are still here, you are probably shaking your head in disbelief. This is so blatantly anti-Constitutional that the entire Senate should be taken out and beaten.

Tweet

Should Electric Cigarettes Be Banned?

It's time to do a change up on this blog. So instead of politics, let's look at your personal liberties and the politics of fear. Folks that is "FEAR". Absolute shrill, high pitched, 60's or 80's scream queen crazy fear.

I am an e-cigarette "vaper". I smoked for about thirty years give or take. I remember when all public transportation had smoking areas in the back of the bus or plane. I remember when my high school had a designated smoking area. I also remember falling out and the Platoon Sergeant saying "Smoke em if you got em" or "The smoking lamp is lighted". It's a bygone era.

With the eCig I can vape away without hurting anyone else. And as an American I should be able to. Remember, our liberties should only stop when they infringe on someone else. It's that simple, and thanks to the rule makers and a myriad of agencies both public and governmental; that complex.

I blog all the time about doing due diligence on political candidates and causes. So, here is a chance to do due diligence on someones civil liberties. Should vaping (e-cigarette use) be allowed in public places or should it be banned along with tobacco cigarettes? Do you know what an electric cigarette is? Do you know how to form an educated opinion? Or, are you merely part of the 80 percent that will go along with the first media outlet or website report? I'm going to ask you to do something no blogger should ever ask; Namely, after reading this entry, leave my blog and read the two links I provide that issue a pro and con. Then come back and comment or not. In any event, thanks for stopping by.

Here is the first side of the story. It is filled with authoritative statements that sound damning. I almost quit my electronic cigarette in fear and went back to smoking; NOT. If you don't know how to do your due diligence, this would be the group forming opinions that your congressman or local mayor might make their decisions on. Think of all the other regulations both public and private levied on your liberties. This is how it goes down. You don't have to agree with either piece. But any restriction on your right to choose how to live your life needs a really hard look.

Action on Smoking and Health (ASH), America’s first antismoking organization, strongly supports the need for legislation to prohibit the use of e-cigarettes, e-cigars, and e- pipes [e-cigs] in workplaces, public places, and other areas where smoking is not permitted in order to protect the overwhelming majority of the public who do not use such devices from exposure to chemicals in the e-cig vapors, and the potential attendant health risks to nonusers.

On the other hand, there is a rebuttal. And, it actually comes from Australia. It addresses each of the allegations and arguments made in the anti e-cig piece. Most people who vape (as opposed to smoke, since we exhale vapor without particulate matter) already know a lot more about their product than I knew about cigarettes as a smoker. So, I am need you, the average joe, to read and form an opinion one way or the other. But, even more important I am need you to have an informed opinion you can discuss with others. I don't mind if someone disagrees with me. I do mind if I did my homework and they didn't. Onward.

The first organisation to respond to SMOKESCREEN’s initial concerns was ASH Australia. Some of the information they provided causes us to rethink some of our positions and change our focus according. Unfortunately much of their correspondence led us to believe that ASH was more focused on the anti-tobacco ideology rather than the solid science of Tobacco Harm Reduction.

After reading the latest news from ASH America there is no longer any doubt at all. Check out our deconstruction on their article “Why Ban Use of E-Cigarettes in No-Smoking Area”. Let’s try and ignore the bad english and regular spelling mistakes and just focus on what we do best – the raw science.

There it is. The pro and con just waiting for you to decide and maybe research a bit more. Go for it, I promise that the internet will still be there when you're done :)

The first quoted website, ASH, came from here.
The second site, Smokescreen , came from here.

Technorati Tags: civil liberties electronic cigarette ecig e-cig

Income Tax Injustice: Invasion of Privacy

The Income Tax is the single largest invasion of privacy perpetrated against the American people in our short history. I know you don't believe me. I know that most people are worried about government intrusion and spying on citizens. But, actually, by law you are required to yield up your most intimate secrets. J. Edgar Hoover would be so pleased.

Who are you? This question is answered in the opening of all the tax forms. Without going any deeper into the form let's look at just a few questions we can ask and answer.

1. How many people live in your home?
2. What are their names, ages, genders, and SSN's?
3. How long have they lived with you?
4. How long have you been married?

Pretty scary huh? It almost makes the census obsolete. And since the IRS holds your information a minimum of seven years...

If anyone other than the IRS asks you can tell them to go to the devil. After all this is America right? Don't we have a reasonable expectation of privacy? Isn't invasion of privacy considered to be anti-American? Sure, as long as we don't try to apply that standard for the government.

Based on the (required by law) truthful answers you provide you can also answer these questions.

1. How many income producing sources do you personally have?
2. How many income producing sources does your household have?
3. Do you or any members of your household have health insurance? If yes, how much does it cost?
4. Regardless of your health insurance situation; Does any member of your family have a recurring medical issue?
5. Did you or your spouse change jobs? Get a raise? How is your business faring in these times?

Assuming that your head is not in the sand, it should be clear that the income tax poses an unacceptable degree of intrusion into your private life. We've only scratched the surface. These are not the only questions that can be asked. Just lay out your last ten tax returns. Compare all the information on them and you will see many other questions that will pop right out. Now imagine a person with an ax to grind being able to get to all this information on you. Think on it, sleep well.

Next post: What if you try to opt out?

FTFGIMAD
Technorati Tags: Income tax, tax, privacy, invasion of privacy, taxation

Local Blogger Introduces Animal Farm 09

The Motto of my Blog is stated at the top banner and again in the bottom of the posts. Face the Facts, Get Involved, Make a Difference. FTFGIMAD is more than a catch phrase. Your label (lib, con, neolib, neocon, godless commie, pinko-pansy-communist-bedwetter etc) is your personal philosophy or core values. Being a realist means that you actually face the facts as they are (being reality based) and use your core values to try to attempt change. Here is a blog post from a guy in Lubbock Texas (just up the road from me) who professes to be a liberal and isn't afraid to slam the local government and quote a "conservative". Good to go dude.

Unofficial Lubbock Blog!: Fair and balanced...: "Yeah, I'm a 'liberal' but I'm a lot more fair and balanced than Rupert Murdoch's media whores (FOX)-- I'm posting a link to a column written by a CONSERVATIVE because there is too much truth in it to ignore. I've also got to admit that I'm disgusted by the Democratic majority and not very happy with the Obama administration (I hoped for some pure radicalism and I'm getting Bush-Lite). Here is the link: http://www.financialsense.com/editorials/quinn/2009/0727.html

This is a good read."

This is an excerpt from the link shown above. When you read it, do some comparisons with history. It doesn't matter what label you choose to crown yourself with. The loss of your civil liberties in the name of (fill in the blank) is egregious (that means bad for the 8th grade dropouts) in the extreme (very bad for the 9th grade dropouts).

"Animal Farm - 2009" by James Quinn. FSO Editorial 07/27/2009: "The United States has gradually degenerated from a Republic based on individual liberties to a socialized oligarchy run by an exclusive few. The country was founded upon the platform of individual rights. We declared our independence from Great Britain because of excessive regulation and taxation. Americans fought for the right to live their lives free from the subjugation of an overbearing governmental body. The Founding Fathers declared our independence with these immortal words:"

You're gonna have to read the rest on your own. Remember, Silence is Consent.
FTFGIMAD
Technorati Tags: animal farm, liberal, conservative, realist, ftfgimad

States Rights Revisited

There is a growing movement afoot called the Patrick Henry Caucus. If you read my blog with any kind of regularity then you know I advocate a smaller fed and a more independent state. And, within my state of Texas I like our state government and it's general relationship with the local government. Nothings perfect, but it is a dang sight better than the Fed/State relationship.

A group of State Legislators appeared on Mike Church's talk radio show and advocated getting together and creating "Tenth Amendment Resolutions". One of his guests, a Dr. Kevin Gutzman, author of Who Killed the Constitution? suggested that ten or fifteen states band together and simultaneously introduce legislation to say "We are not taking any Federal funding related to the No Child Left Behind law."

I like the idea. But something was nagging at me. So, I double checked my own trusty Constitution. Look at Art I, Sec 10. I think that Dr. Gutzmans' idea would be invalidated by the courts. Check it out and tell me what you think.

Section 10 - Powers prohibited of States

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

The part I am concerned with is the "No State shall, without the Consent of Congress,...enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State".

I'm a literal minded guy. So I read that exactly as written. No one can tell me that it is to be interpreted to apply to military actions either since the "lay any duty..." is in there. But since I am not (don't tell my wife) perfect all opinions would be welcomed.

The Un-United States? Not Hardly

If you follow political blogs and listen to talk radio you are inundated constantly with the mantra that the country is divided. The Republican Party is known as Repugs. The Democratic Party has been called the Demonrats and worse. If you immerse yourself in the shouting match on the internet you must be convinced that civil war is only moments away.

Well folks, you would be both right and wrong.

The fact is that by measurable standards a large percentage of the American people simply don't care about politics any further than it affects them personally. I call this the WIIFM effect.

This table shows the voter turnout for the elections from 2000 to 2008. It is a subset of the voter turnout stats going back to 1960. Take a look at the numbers. Look at the years where voter turnout exceeded 50% and correlate that to the major events of the time.

Year	Voting-age population	Voter registration	Voter turnout	Turnout of voting-age population (percent)
2008*	231,229,580	NA	132,618,580*	56.8%
2006	220,600,000	135,889,600	80,588,000	37.1%
2004	221,256,931	174,800,000	122,294,978	55.3
2002	215,473,000	150,990,598	79,830,119	37.0
2000	205,815,000	156,421,311	105,586,274	51.3

But, remember that tables and stats can be misleading. Take 2006 for example. Of the 220,600,000 potential voters only 135,889,600 or 61% actually registered. The turnout was 80,588,000 or 36.5%. I don't know how the source came up with 37.1% but that illistrates that the measuring process can be corrupted as well. To continue, of the 135,889,600 registered voters, 80,588,000 actually got out and voted. That is 59% of the registered voters.

So, in '06, when the pendulum began to swing back to the left only 61% of the eligible population bothered to register to vote. And of that 61% only 59% of them actually voted. If that were congress they would not have been able to break a filibuster.

It boils down to sixty-three and a half percent of the voting age population simply didn't care enough to vote. And of the ones who at least cared enough to register, almost half of them decided on election day that it just wasn't worth it.

Voters need an incentive to get out there. In '08 there was a higher percentage of turnout. Using the candidates promises and the debates, the WIIFM principle pointed to bigger government and less personal initiative. It also pointed to a population grown weary of an ongoing war. And, just to historically accurate it validated the electoral trend of removing the war-leaders when the public decided they'd had enough.

So, don't despair. On any given day it's just the extremists on both sides being loud and everyone else simply doesn't care.

Your mission, if you choose to accept it, is to get involved and make a difference. If not you, then who?

Technorati Tags: Republican, Democrat, Voter Statistics, Voter Turnout, voter apathy, partisan politics

Conspiracy Theories?

The House of Representatives has taken it upon themselves to openly punish political opponents via taxation. Today:

The House, responding quickly to public outrage over the bonuses after the giant insurer received up to $180 billion in U.S. aid, voted 328-93 to approve a 90 percent tax on bonuses for certain executives at companies getting government aid. -- Source

I wish I could cite the bill number, but the story didn't say. And a search of the word "bonus" in OpenCongress pulls six bills purporting to amend the tax code. AIG gets fed money and uses it to pay big bonuses. The people get pissed off. But, for some reason the people are not pissed at the fed for allowing it in the first place. And those same people cannot see the individual rotting at the root structure of the tree of liberty. Why? No one can see the tree for the forest of a congress that needs to get reelected?

Why am I pissed off? Why am I afraid that Mr. Obama and the Democrat Congress are in collusion to strip my country of the things that make us unique in the world? Why do I fear Eurofication? Please, Read on and Please Comment.

I am afraid because Mr. Obama has betrayed the special trust and confidence that should be held between the US Military & Vets and thier Commander-in-Chief. As mentioned in the previous blog post "Mr. Obama is Not My President" he is openly supportive of abrogating the US Governments moral responsibility to care for and pay for the care of her veterans with service connected disabilities.

I am afraid because HR45, Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009 will impose licensing of your second amendment rights from sea to shining sea. Once that is done, what will be licensed next? Your religion? Maybe the right to peaceably assemble? Perhaps the Free Press. Pravda anyone?

I am afraid because a punishment tax is about as King George III as you can get. When the majority of the House is so afraid of voter backlash that they immediately rush to impose a tax.... So much for moral courage. Apparently the fact that such an action is unconstitutional is merely another unique Americanism to be swept away.

Don't take my word for it. Instead read what Techlaw says.

Definition: A legislative act that singles out an individual or group for punishment without a trial.

The Constitution of the United States, Article I, Section 9, paragraph 3 provides that: "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law will be passed."

"The Bill of Attainder Clause was intended not as a narrow, technical (and therefore soon to be outmoded) prohibition, but rather as an implementation of the separation of powers, a general safeguard against legislative exercise of the judicial function or more simply - trial by legislature." U.S. v. Brown, 381 U.S. 437, 440 (1965).

"These clauses of the Constitution are not of the broad, general nature of the Due Process Clause, but refer to rather precise legal terms which had a meaning under English law at the time the Constitution was adopted. A bill of attainder was a legislative act that singled out one or more persons and imposed punishment on them, without benefit of trial. Such actions were regarded as odious by the framers of the Constitution because it was the traditional role of a court, judging an individual case, to impose punishment." William H. Rehnquist, The Supreme Court, page 166.

"Bills of attainder, ex post facto laws, and laws impairing the obligations of contracts, are contrary to the first principles of the social compact, and to every principle of sound legislation. ... The sober people of America are weary of the fluctuating policy which has directed the public councils. They have seen with regret and indignation that sudden changes and legislative interferences, in cases affecting personal rights, become jobs in the hands of enterprising and influential speculators, and snares to the more-industrious and less-informed part of the community." James Madison, Federalist Number 44, 1788.

Supreme Court cases construing the Bill of Attainder clause include:

• Ex Parte Garland, 4 Wallace 333 (1866).
• Cummings v. Missouri, 4 Wallace 277 (1866).
• U.S. v. Brown, 381 U.S. 437 (1965).
• Nixon v. Administrator of General Services, 433 U.S.425 (1977).
• Selective Service Administration v. Minnesota PIRG, 468 U.S. 841 (1984).

See also, SBC v. FCC.

I am afraid because suddenly, after the election of course, the congress wishes to un-term-limit the office of the president. Amazingly, according to history, the last un-term-limited President was famous for rounding up American citizens of Asian decent and placing them in interment camps guarded by the US Army on American soil. So, it can't happen here right? Sure thing President-for-Life (fill in your blank).

How many other dangers are lurking in the Congressional minefield that we don't know about?

hrj5 Obama congress hr45 taxation bill of attainder unconstitutional Conspiracy+theories Conspiracy+theory

An Open Letter to my Senators

January 4, 2009

[recipient address was inserted here]


Dear [recipient name was inserted here],

I am writing to protest the statement that the Senate will not seat Roland
Burris due to the actions of the Governor that appointed him.

The Constitution is very clear on how vacancies are filled and I believe
that any attempt to circumvent the article is both Unconstitutional and
Anti-American.

Until such time as the Governor is impeached and removed from office his
appointment of Roland Burris is fully Constitutional.

Stand up for the Constitution and oppose this political theater for what
it is. Do not meekly accept the will of the Majority Leader over the law
of the land.

Very Respectfully,


MSgt Phillip Gwinn USMC/ret

NOT IN THE LETTER FROM THIS POINT.

ISSUE	QUOTE	SOURCE
Appointment of Senatorial Vacancies	When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct	17th Amendment

... The more they stay the same

The question before us today is whether to subscribe to limited self government ala the Constitution or succumb to a creeping brand of big brother.

This argument has been going on longer than I have been alive. I was born in 1964, and even then we were debating freedom v. government. During this election cycle we had a candidate who could have set us back on the path of small government and individual liberty. But, we chose John McCain and Barack Obama.

There is no perfect candidate. No one man or woman can occupy the white house and fix everything that is wrong or going wrong. And that is the beauty of our system. With the checks and balances set up by the constitution no one can become the American Caesar.

I found this video on Mikechurch.com. Watch and listen. It's only seven minutes but it shows that the more things change the more they stay the same. The message is just as real and the need is there. No matter who you vote for, here is the best standard to hold them to.

Basic Civics: Public Service Announcement

This is a public service announcement.

[Camera Zooms in on old Distinguished Politician talking to one of the newly elected]

[Old Pol] Boy, Ah say Boy, come on over heah. We need to talk.

[Young Pol] Yes Sir?

[Old Pol] Son, Ah need your help on a bill. Can Ah count on your support at the vote?

[Young Pol timidly] I don't know Sir, my constituants are not really for this issue....

[Zoom out and focus on the Old Pols pained, but indulgent expression as he strikes a pose]

[Old Pol] Son, you have no worries. Your constituents won't remember this vote. That's why it was timed to take place when the new freshmen were sworn in. Let me tell you the facts of life in Congress.

[Old Pol continues] First thing you need to know is that we incumbents get reelected 96 percent of the time. So, by breaking in, your job is secure pretty much no matter what you do.

[Young Pol] But, the uh voters in my district...

[Old Pol] Son, don't sweat the voters. Look out of 100 folks back home that are entitled to vote only 46 Percent will actually register and vote. So you can ignore 54 people altogether. Those are the sheep that will bleat when we herd em. But they don't amount to nothing. Now, out of those 46 folks, about 20 percent are ignorant and don't even pay attention. That leaves 36 folks. Out of them, you can write off about half to party line or single issues. So, all you really need to look out for is 18 out of every hundred folks.

[Young Pol] Wow. I had no idea. So it is all about numbers?

[Old Pol] Yep. And as a bonus, we get the media. Folks are conditioned to get their news in thirty second increments. So, if you make your press releases right, you can control how the info is spun. But, since you are going to help me with the bill.... Ah will be around to keep you afloat till you learn how this river runs. Fair 'nuff?

[Young Pol with relief evident on his face] Yes Sir. I'm with you. Thanks.

[Old Pol] No sweat son. Let's get out of this back room and into some sunshine. The cigar smoke is killin me. About that committee appointment, we've got big plans for you.....

[Zoom out as the pair exit the room]

This has been a public service announcement.

Basic Civics: The Legislature

Today folks we are going to get back to basic civics. Some of this stuff you won't find in any book. It is what we call "the truth". The truth will not set you free, but it will help you understand the great unwashed power mongers in DC.

Today we look at the three distinct branches of our federal government. Each is unique and actually designed to not compliment each other. It is the only government inefficiency that makes sense. Are you ready? In that case, read on...

The first of the three branches government is the Legislative Branch. Also known as Congress, there are two houses. The first house is the Senate. There are two Senators per state. The second is the House of Representatives. They are apportioned among the states based on population.

Congress is tasked with making all Federal Law within the USA. In fact, according to Article 1 of the Constitution, they are the only body that can write legislation.

Additionally, the specific abilities and limitations of Congress are listed in Article 1, Sections 8 & 9. This is important because it forms a basis of that balancing act known as Checks and Balances.

The simplest explanation is that creating law, the Congress is supposed to be the most forward looking of the branches of government. Any law is forever unless an expiration (sunset provision) is written into it. They, Congress, must consider the effect of that law on society in future decades.

Congress also has the role (specific to the Senate) of confirming key appointments of the President. This has the effect of ensuring that the White House cannot create a dictatorship by appointing in effect "the kings men".

For an example of how the Congress makes law that has a long term effect, all you have to do is look at one that is in progress.

The bottom line when considering a vote for a member of congress is "Are you prepared to have this person making laws for the rest of your life?"

Basic Civics: Founding Documents and History

The role of our historical documents as they relate to the founding of this great nation is an interesting study all on its' own. In fact, constitutional scholars and the judiciary reference the following on such a regular basis that knowing them is a must for a layman.

• Federalist & Anti-Federalist Papers:

  The Federalist Papers were written and published during the years 1787 and 1788 in several New York State newspapers to persuade New York voters to ratify the proposed constitution. -- Source

  
  

  In contrast to Hamilton, Madison and Jay who supported ratification of the Constitution of the United States, many others did not. While the former's works were more logically organized (and eventually won the debate), the Antifederalist writers were nonetheless articulate. Serious questions were raised which eventually led to some of the Federalist writings that served as answers to allegations of the Antifederalists.No serious student of the Constitution can be without both sides of the story. Some Antifederalist prophecies have strangely come true. Writings by "Brutus" and "A Federal Farmer," particularly relating to the "necessary and proper" clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 18), view the future under an unrestrained Congress. Although the "necessary and proper" clause was never meant to be a blanket grant of power, over the years, as the intentions of the Founding Fathers have passed further and further from our memories, all three branches of the federal government have assumed things that simply do not--and never did--exist. As the states have forgotten how to be a check against a Congress run amok, things are getting worse. -- Source

There are a couple of take-aways from this.

The papers (essays) were a debate. While some scholars assign holy-writ status to them, that isn't correct. Every law in the land is debated. Look at the speed limit sign. It clearly says: 55 mph. Yet, that speed limit was both supported and opposed. The arguments never made it into the final written law. Instead, the law was written with the arguments in mind or dismissed. Thus, you cannot speed and then tell the judge that "State Senator so-and-so" opposed this law on certain grounds. To consider the debate would place the debate in a position superior to the law. Thus, you cannot "interpret" the law and place an emphasis on "the intention of the writer". His or her intent is clearly spelled out: "Thou shalt not go faster than 55 mph on this highway".

The understanding of the essays is critical to understanding the context of the Constitution. But you cannot logically use the debates to determine "intent" and from there assign the law to a status of unConstitutional. You must use the literal wording and word meanings from the late 1700's. As an example of this danger, consider:

• The Danbury Letter: An infamous letter written by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists.

  The Danbury Baptists were a religious minority in Connecticut, and they complained that in their state, the religious liberties they enjoyed were not seen as immutable rights, but as privileges granted by the legislature - as "favors granted." Jefferson's reply did not address their concerns about problems with state establishment of religion - only of establishment on the national level. The letter contains the phrase "wall of separation between church and state," which led to the short-hand for the Establishment Clause that we use today: "Separation of church and state." - Source
  

The take away from all this is that this letter, which expressed the views of one man only, has played a pivotal role in church/state judicial actions. Yet the letter has no lawful authority whatsoever and the contents cannot be found in the Constitution. This kind of activism is decidedly anti-Constitutional and dangerous to your liberties.

Others: There are a score of documents both historical and modern that are outstanding reading if you wish to place the Constitution in context. Some of these documents also aid in understanding the Constitution and its relevance to modern times as well. But, a caution, like the above specific examples they are not superior to the Constitution and cannot be substituted for the literal text.

Beware the Media

As we noted above, the Federalist papers et al were actually essays published in a newspaper. They were editorials. Well written to be sure. And they were convincing enough to win the debate on Federalism. But, the fact remains that they were nothing more than the mass media of the day.

Today we have papers, television, blogs, forums and other gluts of the information age. No judge would dare to base his opinion on anything derived from any of the media. Yet, as noted, the Federalist papers are virtually holy-writ.

Today's media wield an enormous amount of political power. If you cannot figure out who they want for president, then you are blind or ignorant. Strike that, you may also be simply apathetic.
Apathy is how the media plays us all for fools by not delving deep into all aspects of the candidates. Apathy is how the media gets away with not noting the fact that laws we pass are not constitutional. Apathy is how the media can report one sided issues and not pursue it any longer than it takes to fill space on television. Instead of in depth reporting of issues in an unbiased manner, we are programmed to go for the quick sound byte.

Basic Civics: Pertinent Documents

I know we all took Civics back in the 8th Grade. Well, judging from the general state of the electorate in some respects, a review is called for. This post will address the documents used as the basis of our government.

The Declaration of Independence:

On the 4th of July in the year of our Lord One Thousand Seven Hundred and Seventy-Six, Independence from the rule of the British Empire under the reign of King George was declared.

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

With that opening, fifty-six men boldly told the world on behalf of the people of the colonies that Good King George could pound sand. Imagine today what would happen if such a concise statement were released to the world. Because, while it is a powerful story in and of itself, it really is the equal of a modern press release.

That "press release" has no legal authority in todays USA. It is a one-trick-pony. As the title boldly states, it is a DECLARATION of Independence. So, on the day it was released, it's mission was completed. The world was altered and the lives and fortunes of the signers were forever enshrined in history.

Homework: On the 4th of July, listen to channel 144 of Sirius Satellite Radio. Mike Church will be doing a documentary titled "The Road to Independence". If you can listen to the program and your heart doesn't swell with pride, you are either not an American or your blood runs so thin that you cannot be allowed to breed.

Extra Credit: Read about the Signers and see who paid dearly and who didn't for their act of "treason" against the Crown.

The Constitution of the United States of America:

The Constitution is the sole basis of all Law written in the USA. As legal documents go it is short, sweet, to the point, and often twisted out of shape. Let's get one thing straight. The document is a marvel of simplicity. There is a Preamble, Seven Articles, and Twenty-Seven Amendments. If I recall correctly it's about twenty full size pages and somewhere to the tune of 4500 words in the original.

The key point here is that the Constitution clearly tells us what the roles and responsibilities of the Federal Government are. In other words: You do not have to be a judge to actually read and understand the Constitution.

I carry mine on my old Palm Pilot. You can get a free pocket copy of the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution at the Heritage Foundation.

The Preamble is the "Mission Statement" of the Constitution.

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Homework: Read the Constitution. On Monday read the Preamble and Article 1. On Tuesday read Articles 1 and 2. Then 2 and 3 and so forth. On the first reading, simply soak it in like a Superman Comic Book. On the second reading, really dig it. Get it into your mind. When you have completed the readings, then re-read it again from front to back. As you are doing this, note where each item in the preamble is discussed in the Constitution proper.

Extra Credit: Where in the Constitution do we find the authority to establish the following: The Departments of Energy, Homeland Security, Commerce, and Interior.

Extra Extra Credit: The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA)is a part of what department and why is it or is it not Constitutionally authorized.

The Law:

A Law is Legislation properly passed by congress & signed by the President. All law must logically point back to the Constitution. For example, all laws relating to national defense point back to the clauses within Articles One and Two. A Federal Law concerning the humane treatment of animals could be argued to be unconstitutional since the constitution is silent on the subjet. Silence means that the power to make law on that subject is left to the states.

Currently there is a bill in Congress which would require the Congress to cite which of the enumerated powers specifically authorizes the Congress to make law on that subject.

Homework: Check out the Enumerated Powers Act. Why do you think it will or will not ever become law? Here is one persons view. Do you support that view or oppose it? Why?

For more discussion of the relationship of the Constitution to the Laws passed by Congress, read "Men in Black: How the Supreme Court Is Destroying America" by Mark Levin. You can also listen to his talk show. Fair Warning: The word Acerbic in the most current dictionary redirects to a wikipedia entry titled "Mark Levins Sense of Humor". Learn the phrase, "Get off the phone..."

Regulation

The next rung down the ladder is Regulation. The process of the law is not normally written in the law. Instead, we write regulations which tell us how to apply the law. Regulations must clearly point back to a law which in turn must point back to the US Constitution. The idea is that as needs change we can simply change the regs to allow for it. Regulation allows standardization of process. It makes it easy to ensure compliance with the law.

Uh huh, and Santa Clause is a skinny Rastafarian. The above is regulations greatness if they were written by perfect men who had no need for power or ambition. What we actually get is a spaghetti pile of rules that often conflict and each has the power of law if not the title. Even worse, there is no requirement for congress to be involved, no requirement for debates, etc. In many cases, the authorizer is an appointed civil servant. Beware of Regulations.

That is enough for now. In a day or two, we will cover historical documents related to the above. But for now this will do. Everyone needs to know and understand these concepts in order to be a minimally qualified citizen who can vote without consulting Cleo the phychic.