Zera's Blog

A Citizen's View from Main Street

Harry Reid Will Ask Obama To Recess Appoint All Nominees If GOP Delays Continue



By rejecting their constituti­onal responsibi­lities to provide advice and consent on these nomination­s, by substituti­ng extreme obstructio­n for reasons unrelated to the qualificat­ions and merits of the individual nominee, by doing this for pure political brinksmans­hip, the republican­s have created a constituti­onal crisis.

They have defied the constituti­on to the point that the government therein defined can no longer function. President Obama took drastic action to minimize the damage, but this particular crisis will persist as long as conservati­ve extremists remain in the Senate in sufficient numbers to sustain a filibuster­.

The filibuster was never meant to be used as the republican­s are using it. It is supposed to be a lever, not a straightja­cket.

The oath to support and defend the Constituti­on carries the implied oath to support “This Constituti­on, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States”. Even the ones republican­s hate.

Without that support, we are not a nation of laws. Without that support, we do not have a constituti­onal government­.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

What I have been wondering is why Reid and the other Democrats have been going along with the pro-forma sessions in the first place. If they refused to not recess, and the House wanted to, then there would be disagreement between the two and Article II sec. 3 could be invoked. This would let the President dictate the time of recess and reconvening.

Advertisements

February 19, 2012 Posted by | Administration, GOP, Governance | , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Richard Cordray’s Recess Appointment Gives Consumer Agency Full Power


In principle, I think that recess appointmen­ts are obsolete in these days of modern transporta­tion, communicat­ions, and longer sessions of Congress. But that depends on a properly functionin­g Senate. Obstructio­nist republican­s have thrown that out the window.

The reason for a recess appointmen­t is to fill major empty positions in the administra­tion (on a temporary basis) when the Senate is not available to confirm an appointmen­t and convening them for confirmati­on would leave the position open too long.

In this case, it is the intention of the republican­s to leave the position unfilled. This is a direct rejection of their oath of office to support and defend the Constituti­on, particular­ly the President’­s Constituti­onal obligation to administer the law. This has created a Constituti­onal Crisis.

By blocking the nomination for reasons unrelated to the qualificat­ions of the nominee, they have perverted the “advise and consent” authority of the Constituti­on, and created the very emergency situation that the recess appointmen­t exists to resolve.

Some claim that the language of the law prohibits recess appointments for the position of Director. The authority of the recess appointment is part of the Constitution, and cannot be revoked without a Constitutional Amendment.

Pro forma sessions are not addressed in the Constitution. There is precedent for using them to block a specific appointment, but that precedent includes objections based on controversy over the qualifications of a specific nominee – not the position or the law. This obstruction is without precedent, and an unprecedented response may be necessary to maintain a Constitutional government.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

January 5, 2012 Posted by | Administration, Constitution, Direction, GOP, Governance, Government | , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

112th Congress HJRes78 – A Citizens United Amendment


Ii I analyze any more Democrat Bills, I will have to come up with a new category for them.

The Joint Resolution:


[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]
[H.J. Res. 78 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. J. RES. 78

  Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to 
   clarify the authority of Congress and the States to regulate the 
      expenditure of funds for political activity by corporations.
_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 12, 2011

  Ms. Edwards (for herself and Mr. Conyers) introduced the following 
 joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

  Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to 
   clarify the authority of Congress and the States to regulate the 
      expenditure of funds for political activity by corporations.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled   (two-thirds of each House 
concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an 
amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be 
valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when 
ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States:

                              ``Article--

    ``Section 1. Nothing in this Constitution shall prohibit Congress 
and the States from imposing content-neutral regulations and 
restrictions on the expenditure of funds for political activity by any 
corporation, limited liability company, or other corporate entity, 
including but not limited to contributions in support of, or in 
opposition to, a candidate for public office.

    ``Section 2. Nothing contained in this Article shall be construed 
to abridge the freedom of the press.''.

                                 <all>

Analysis

Section 1:

This is similar to my second proposed amendment in that it works to deny Constitutional protection to corporate political spending. This is probably the least disruptive method from a legal standpoint, but it retains the “regulating the hand that feeds” conflict of interest problem.

It does not include organized religion, which should not be engaging in political campaigns but do anyway.

To be fair, it does not include unions either. On the other hand, unions are associations of actual people, not “artificial persons”. They do not pose the same threat to our sovereignty as corporations. Perhaps someday an adjustment will need to be made, but that becomes a slippery slope problem.

Section 2:

The freedom of the press must be maintained, though the corporate media undermines the Fourth Estate through the corrupt use of ownership powers.

Constitutional Authority Statement:

[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 134 (Monday, September 12, 2011)]
[House]
[Pages H6097-H6098]

From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]

 By Ms. EDWARDS:
 H.J. Res. 78.

[[Page H6098]]

 Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant
 to the following:
 Article V of the Constitution.

Article V:

    • The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution,
    • or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments,
  • which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when
    • ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States,
    • or by Conventions in three fourths thereof,

    as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress;

  • Provided
    • that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article;
    • and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

Related Bills:


Conclusion

This is a simple and straightforward answer to Citizens United. Without a mandate, I think that there would be many partisan battles over regulation. Especially when one party confuses corporations with living people.

I also think it needs an enacting clause. Other than that, I like it.

November 8, 2011 Posted by | Campaign Finance, Citizens United vs FEC, Constitution, Legislation | , , , , | 1 Comment

112th Congress SJRes29 – A Citizens United Amendment


I usually reserve my analysis for the republican clunkers. This is the second time I have analyzed a Democrat Bill.

The Joint Resolution:


[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]
[S.J. Res. 29 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. J. RES. 29

    Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States 
     relating to contributions and expenditures intended to affect 
                               elections.
_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            November 1, 2011

   Mr. Udall of New Mexico (for himself, Mr. Bennet, Mr. Harkin, Mr. 
Durbin, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Merkley, Mr. Whitehouse, Mr. Begich, and Mrs. 
  Shaheen) introduced the following joint resolution; which was read 
          twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

    Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States 
     relating to contributions and expenditures intended to affect 
                               elections.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House 
concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an 
amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be 
valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when 
ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States 
within seven years after the date of its submission by the Congress:

                              ``Article--

    ``Section 1. Congress shall have power to regulate the raising and 
spending of money and in kind equivalents with respect to Federal 
elections, including through setting limits on--
            ``(1) the amount of contributions to candidates for 
        nomination for election to, or for election to, Federal office; 
        and
            ``(2) the amount of expenditures that may be made by, in 
        support of, or in opposition to such candidates.

    ``Section 2. A State shall have power to regulate the raising and 
spending of money and in kind equivalents with respect to State 
elections, including through setting limits on--
            ``(1) the amount of contributions to candidates for 
        nomination for election to, or for election to, State office; 
        and
            ``(2) the amount of expenditures that may be made by, in 
        support of, or in opposition to such candidates.

    ``Section 3. Congress shall have power to implement and enforce 
this article by appropriate legislation.''.

                                 <all>

Analysis

Section 1:

I see three problems with this section:

  1. It does not cover issues. While issues are not directly on the ballot, they are still an integral part of a political campaign.
  2. It does not cover Constitutional Amendments.
  3. The politicians setting the regulations, without direction or mandate, are the ones who benefit from the current state of campaign financing. This leaves plenty of room for continued influence peddling.

Section 2:

There are similar problems with this section:

  1. It does not cover issues.
  2. It does not cover Constitutional Amendments.
  3. It does not cover referenda.
  4. It does not cover local elections.
  5. It does not cover other Questions put to the voters, such as millage.
  6. It does not cover cross-state interference in local politics. The sovereignty of the individual states is being challenged by out-of-state money.

Constitutional Authority Statement:

None given (yet), but Article V of the Constitution covers it.

Article V:

    • The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution,
    • or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments,
  • which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when
    • ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States,
    • or by Conventions in three fourths thereof,

    as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress;

  • Provided
    • that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article;
    • and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

Related Bills:


Conclusion

I do not believe that this proposed amendment goes far enough to protect our democratic process from the influence of non-citizens or the excessive influence of the very rich.

November 6, 2011 Posted by | Citizens United vs FEC, Constitution, Legislation | , , , | 1 Comment

Michele Bachmann Talks Evolution, Intelligent Design At Republican Leadership Conference 2011


“I support intelligen­t design,” Bachmann told reporters in New Orleans following her speech to the Republican Leadership Conference­. “What I support is putting all science on the table and then letting students decide. I don’t think it’s a good idea for government to come down on one side of scientific issue or another, when there is reasonable doubt on both sides.”

I wonder if her class on the Constituti­on made it as far as the First Amendment. She simply does not believe in Separation of Church and State. This tells us, in turn, that she does not comprehend the reason for Separation – or, for that matter, the demands and limitations of democracy.

As far as scientific issues go, she’s wrong on that point too. A federal court ruled that intelligen­t design is NOT science, but religion presented as science. I guess that law degree from a faith-base­d “universit­y” isn’t really working for her. One would think that her time at William & Mary School of Law would have straightened her out on the law.

Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

June 18, 2011 Posted by | Candidates, Constitution, First Amendment | , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

112th Congress HR1255 – Government Shutdown Prevention Act of 2011


HR1255 provides a learning moment in the annals of American civics, for those who would learn…

It certainly leaves the tea party republicans no incentive to seek compromise or negotiate in good faith. In fact, it also gives them incentive NOT to raise the debt ceiling.

The Bill:

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]
[H.R. 1255 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. R. 1255

To prevent a shutdown of the government of the United States, and for
other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

March 30, 2011

Mr. Womack (for himself and Mr. Woodall) introduced the following bill;
which was referred to the Committee on Appropriations, and in addition

to the Committees on Oversight and Government Reform, House
Administration, and the Budget, for a period to be subsequently
determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such
provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

A BILL

To prevent a shutdown of the government of the United States, and for
other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the “Government Shutdown Prevention Act
of 2011”.

SEC. 2. FUNDING THE GOVERNMENT FOR THE REMAINDER OF FISCAL YEAR 2011.

(a) Deadline for Consideration of Legislation Funding the
Government for the Remainder of Fiscal Year 2011.–If the House has not
received a message from the Senate before April 6, 2011, stating that
it has passed a measure providing for the appropriations for the
departments and agencies of the Government for the remainder of fiscal
year 2011, the provisions of H.R. 1, as passed by the House on February
19, 2011, are hereby enacted into law.

(b) Publication of Act.–In publishing this Act in slip form and in
the United States Statutes at Large pursuant to section 112 of title 1,
United States Code, the Archivist of the United States shall include
after the date of approval, if applicable, an appendix setting forth
the text of the bill referred to in subsection (a).

SEC. 3. TREATMENT OF CERTAIN PAYMENTS TO MEMBERS OF CONGRESS AND THE PRESIDENT.

(a) Treatment of Members During a Government Shutdown.–The
Secretary of the Senate and the Chief Administrative Officer of the
House, respectively, shall not disburse to each Member or Delegate the
amount of his or her salary for each day that

(1) there is more than a 24-hour lapse in appropriations
for any Federal agency or department as a result of a failure
to enact a regular appropriations bill or continuing
resolution; or

(2) the Federal Government is unable to make payments or
meet obligations because the public debt limit under section
3101 of title 31, United States Code, has been reached.

(b) Treatment of the President During a Government Shutdown.–The
President shall not receive a disbursement of basic pay for any period
in which–

(1) there is more than a 24-hour lapse in appropriations
for any Federal agency or department as a result of a failure
to enact a regular appropriations bill or continuing
resolution; or

(2) the Federal Government is unable to make payments or
meet obligations because the public debt limit under section
3101 of title 31, United States Code, has been reached.

<all>

Analysis

First of all, it appears to be assigned to no less than 4 committees simultaneously. I’ve always understood that bills have to go from committee to committee sequentially. Otherwise, amendments could leave you with multiple versions of a bill – which cannot be. Unless, of course, no amendments are to be allowed – which in turn means that all discussion and debate is aimed not at the legislation, but at persuasion.

UPDATE: H. Res. 194 blocked any path for Democrats to alter the bill.

“All points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. The bill shall be considered as read. All points of order against provisions in the bill are waived.”

The “hear no evil, speak no evil” resolution.

UPDATE: H. R. 1255 has been passed by the House, making the number of simultaneous committees a rhetorical question.

“and for other purposes.”

Always a warning flag. It means that there is more to the bill than is reflected in the title.

Section 2:

“Deadline for Consideration of Legislation Funding the
Government for the Remainder of Fiscal Year 2011.–If the House has not
received a message from the Senate before April 6, 2011, stating that
it has passed a measure providing for the appropriations for the
departments and agencies of the Government for the remainder of fiscal
year 2011, the provisions of H.R. 1, as passed by the House on February
19, 2011, are hereby enacted into law.”

There are two issues here:

  1. “the provisions of” is not terribly explicit. If they had at least stated “DIVISIONS A through C”, it would have shown at least a little legislative skill. I seriously doubt the legitimacy of a law that references or attempts to enact the language of another bill, which never became law in it’s own right.
  2. This is the same sort of back-door legislative legerdemain that the republicans cried foul over, but without the cover of House/Senate rules. This is not the “deem and to pass” procedure despite the apparent similarities. The self-executing rule is a House rule that can only effect the authority of the House. It cannot speak for the Senate. The Senate already said no to the language of H. R. 1, so trying to enact it through the back door carries a decidedly anti-constitution stigma.

“(b) Publication of Act.–In publishing this Act in slip form and in
the United States Statutes at Large pursuant to section 112 of title 1,
United States Code, the Archivist of the United States shall include
after the date of approval, if applicable, an appendix setting forth
the text of the bill referred to in subsection (a).”

This is a sure sign that they know they are not doing this right, and need to tell the Archivist how to clean up their mess.

Section 3 has it’s problems as well:

shall not disburse to each Member or Delegate the amount of his or her salary for each day that”

Let’s check the Constitution:

“No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of representatives shall have intervened.”

U.S. Const., Amend. XXVII

Oops, those “Read the Bill”/”Require each bill to identify the specific provision of the Constitution that gives Congress the power to do what the bill does.” people just gave themselves an egg facial.

UNCONSTITUTIONAL!

“The President shall not receive a disbursement of basic pay for any period in which”

Another trip to the Constitution:

“The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be increased nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them.”

U.S. Const. Art. II, sec. 1

The republicans aren’t even bringing their “C” game. If this is their best effort at “shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution”, then they need classes from non-conservatives. Whatever they learned from the conservatives does not pass muster. Or maybe they just do not understand the meaning of “shall”.

shall (merriam-webster)

“used in laws, regulations, or directives to express what is mandatory”

UNCONSTITUTIONAL!

“the Federal Government is unable to make payments or meet obligations because the public debt limit under section 3101 of title 31, United States Code, has been reached.”

This is the most insidious part of all. Even if an appropriations bill is passed into law, they could still shove H.R.1 down our throats just by thwarting efforts to raise the debt ceiling.

What is their justification?

By Mr. WOMACK:
H.R. 1255.
Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant to the following:
Section 2 is enacted pursuant to the rulemaking powers provided in clause 2 of section 5 of article I of the United States Constitution in furtherance of the appropriation power provided in clause 7 of section 9 of article I of the Constitution and spending power provided in clause 1 of section 8 of article I of the Constitution.
Section 3(a) is enacted pursuant to the rulemaking powers provided in clause 2 of section 5 of article I of the United States Constitution. Section 3(a) is consistent with article XXVII in that it does not vary the compensation of Members and Senators but only seeks to regulate its disbursement during certain periods.
Section 3(b) is enacted pursuant to clause 18 of section 8 of article I of the United States Constitution. Section 3(b) is consistent with clause 7 of section 1 of article II of the United States Constitution in that it does not vary the compensation of the President but only seeks to regulate its disbursement during certain periods.

And what do those clauses say?

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

U.S. Const, Art I, sec 5 – second clause

This clause has no applicability to section 2 of H.R. 1255. Law cannot be enacted by House rules. If H.R. 1 had been incorporated into H.R. 1255, then this would be a stand-alone bill. As it is, I do not see any “deemed to pass”  type language here. This is of particular concern because the Senate has already rejected the language of H.R. 1.

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

U.S. Const, Art I, sec 9 – seventh clause

No problem here.

“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;”

U.S. Const, Art I, sec 8 – first clause

No problem here either.

Personal Note: The preamble states promote the general Welfare while this clause states provide for the general Welfare – interesting variation in language.

Concerning section 3 of H.R. 1255:

The rules made by each House to proscribe the punishment of it’s Members do not withstand provisions in the Constitution.

It is not clear that “punish its Members” includes economic actions. Furthermore, “punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour” applies only when there is – DISORDERLY BEHAVIOR. Burning a budget on the House floor would be disorderly behavior, failing to pass one is not.

This section is intended to impair the people who would have to take action to start funding the government again. While most of them have their own funds to live on, not all have that kind of personal reserves. Just ask Sean Duffy. Not paying Congress or the President while they are working to fund the government could impair that effort. These are the people who MUST be on the job when nobody else is, if we are to have a government – and a country.

Also, there is no language to make up the missed payments. The bill explicitly states “shall not disburse” – which means that, contrary to Mr. Womack’s assertion, this does indeed “vary the compensation”.

There is no “article XXVII” in the Constitution. I presume this constitutional scholar means U.S. Const, amend XXVII. (Amendment 27)

Nit Pick: “Members and Senators” should be “Members of each House” if they want to be consistent with the clauses they reference. Otherwise, it should be “Senators and Members of the House” or some such. This is just mixing titles and designations.

“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.”

U.S. Const, sec 8, eighteenth clause

This is a curious citation because the only application relevant to (3)(b) would be in support of paying the Debt, yet (3)(b) is about NOT paying a debt.

Again, there is no language to make up the missed payments. The bill explicitly states “shall not receive a disbursement” – which means that, contrary to Mr. Womack’s assertion, the President’s Compensation would indeed be “diminished during the Period for which he shall have been elected.

Lastly, the bill would have to be passed in both the House and Senate, and signed into law, on or before 8 April 2011, or it could not be anything but an unconstitutional ex post facto (retroactive) law.

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

U.S. Const, art I, sec 9, third clause

That would be a third strike on constitutionality alone.

Conclusion

With legislative sleight-of-hand, two unconstitutional provisions, a poison pill, and two ticking time bombs, this cannot be seen as a serious bill written by responsible people. It can only be seen as a propaganda tool to be used against the unwary. The most nefarious aspect is that it leaves republicans, especially the Tea Party caucus, NO reason to compromise or even negotiate in good faith. Further, it provides considerable reason NOT to raise the debt ceiling and let the government go broke. The negative consequences of this would be enormous.

You have been warned!

You have Rep. Steve Womack (R-AR) and Rep. Rob Woodall (R-GA) to thank for wasting your time, my time, and the limited time of the House of Representatives.

UPDATE: H. R. 1255 was passed by the House with 15 Republicans and all Democrats voting against it.

UPDATE: The republicans are still pushing this through the Senate.

UPDATE: With the passing of another continuing resolution, and particularly with passage of the pending budget bill, this bill would come into conflict with the deals already brokered. This bill is now beyond repair.

112th Congress H.R. 1255

March 31, 2011 Posted by | Constitution, Government, Legislation, Strangelove | , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

One Nation Under Allah


If the Christian fundamenta­lists and extremists hadn’t spent the last few decades tearing down the Wall of Separation­, this would not even be an issue. Now that they have opened the door to theocracy, they are afraid of who else may walk through. Their mistake.

As to foreign laws, they have no standing in American courts. They are sometimes used as references in an attempt to glean wisdom from the experience­s of others, but they are not enforcible here except as part of a treaty.

“This Constituti­on, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constituti­on or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithsta­nding.”

A treaty is not a foreign law, it is a law that we agree to share with other countries. It does not have the force of law until ratified, at which time it becomes part of American law.

Ignorance, paranoia, and xenophobia notwithsta­nding.

We went through this over INTERPOL not too long ago.

I could be wrong, but I believe that any modificati­on to a treaty cannot have the force of law here unless ratified by the Senate.

I also believe that a binding resolution is not a modificati­on of a treaty, but a statement obligating a country to make a law of their own to implement the policy in the resolution­.

I could not find the text of the resolution you are concerned about, but what I did find on the UN website indicated a non-bindin­g resolution­. Without the text, I cannot form an opinion on it, even to confirm that it actually seeks to criminaliz­e anything – or simply discourage­.

My conclusion is:
A UN resolution­, binding or not, is not a treaty and has no force of law here. Should we write a law to implement a UN resolution­, the usual rules for lawmaking would apply.

It would take a new constituti­onal amendment to override the First Amendment, and that’s not going to happen.

Art. 2, sec. 1, UN charter:
The Organizati­on is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.

Art. 2, sec. 7, UN charter:
Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentiall­y within the domestic jurisdicti­on of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter

OIC, 2005:
http://new­s.bbc.co.u­k/2/hi/mid­dle_east/4­511548.stm
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

March 19, 2011 Posted by | Constitution, Religion | , , , , | Leave a comment

Newt Gingrich Discusses Potential Obama Impeachment (VIDEO)



First of all, Obama clearly stated that he would continue to enforce the law – which means that Gingrich’s “Palin™” example is a complete fallacy.

Secondly, the courts have determined that DOMA is unconstitu­tional – at least in parts.

Lastly, Obama is not dropping ALL defense of DOMA. He is only dropping cases that involve weaker protection of rights for a minority group historical­ly discrimina­ted against.

“After careful considerat­ion, including a review of my recommenda­tion, the President has concluded that given a number of factors, including a documented history of discrimina­tion, classifica­tions based on sexual orientatio­n should be subject to a more heightened standard of scrutiny. The President has also concluded that Section 3 of DOMA, as applied to legally married same-sex couples, fails to meet that standard and is therefore unconstitu­tional. Given that conclusion­, the President has instructed the Department not to defend the statute in such cases. I fully concur with the President’­s determinat­ion.”
http://www­.justice.g­ov/opa/pr/­2011/Febru­ary/11-ag-­223.html

There is nothing impeachabl­e here. Gingrich just wants to bring down the government in the grand GOP tradition of lies, fear-monge­ring, and prejudice.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

February 26, 2011 Posted by | Campaign Strategy, Direction, Ethics | , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Madison Protests: It’s Not About the Money



Over the past few years, I have likened the ideologica­l divide to a political civil war. The Democrats still embrace the Federalist view of government while the republican­s now embrace the anti-Feder­alist perspectiv­e.

“The accumulati­on of all powers, legislativ­e, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary­, self-appoi­nted, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.”
James Madison, Federalist 47

I am hoping that in this attack on the working class, people see the republican­s as going a bridge too far. That this turns into a Ft. Sumter moment for working America.

The country cannot function with this much conservati­ve extremism and hostility. The checks and balances have all broken down. The country is in decline. The political conversati­on has become all about picking sides and bundled agendas. We are facing a Constituti­onal crisis.

We need a major event. Something to rally around. Something that can push us past the propaganda­. Something that can be used to make us take a serious look at ourselves and our future.

9/11 involved an external threat. It was irrelevant to a constitutional crisis.

We have two diverging interpretations of the Constitution. The liberal view is a more principled interpretation, which has benefited the general welfare of the country far better but still needs better definition of it’s limitations. The conservative view is a more literal interpretation, which is more appropriate to a sparsely populated isolationist society with an agrarian economy. Conservative policies have done real harm to this country for decades, and threaten to make our current problems insurmountable.

We need an event that will lead to something like a town hall constitutional convention. A widespread and in-depth public conversation on what we want and need the Constitution to mean. Only then can we decide with confidence how we want to enforce or amend it.

Ignoring the Constitution, or pretending it says something it does not, are not options in a nation of laws.

Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

February 21, 2011 Posted by | Budget, Direction, Economics, Government, Labor, Unions | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Nobody Should Need A Driver’s License – Or Civilization


Bobby Franklin and driver's licenseRepublican Georgia state legislator Bobby Franklin thinks that driver’s licenses impose undue restrictions on the right of citizens to travel. So he’s proposed legislation to stop the state from issuing them.

That’s not the only eyebrow raising legislation Franklin has introduced: he’s also proposed bills requiring the exclusive use of gold and silver as tender in payment of debts by or to the state; a bill seeking to eliminate crop management regulations; another bill banning forced vaccinations; a bill to stop the collection of the Georgia income tax; another to stop all property taxes and yet another to end eminent domain.

He has also sought to abolish the State Road and Tollway Authority, the Department of Health and Human Services and any social services Georgia provides.

In one bill that reads as his philosophical statement on the roots of government, Franklin laments the fall of religious and family authority. The bill — called the “Life, Liberty, and Property Restoration Act” — begins by acknowledging the existence of “an almighty, everlasting, creator God, the God of the Bible, the only God there is.” The bill then notes that God created “four, not one spheres of government”: self-government, family government, church government, and finally “the fourth, and least” — civil government.

I think that the last election may have brought batshit conservatism to critical mass.

This guy is in desperate need of deprogramming. He seems to have lost all understanding of how society works. It takes a real conservative to elect someone who has completely abandoned the Constitution even though he had to have sworn allegiance to it before taking his elected office.

His legislation is an insult to the dreams and hard work of the founding fathers, and the sacrifice of all those who gave their lives in the creation and defense if this country.
Georgia Republican: Nobody Should Need A Driver’s License

February 3, 2011 Posted by | Uncategorized | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

%d bloggers like this: