Posts Tagged ‘Constitution’
The Fat Green One continues to rattle his gums, talking about how our Democracy has been hacked, and because of big money corporations, etc etc. This has been the lament of the socialist left for years now – annoying things like individual liberty coupled with responsibility, the Constitution, pure freedom – these are things that the left really abhors.
Actually, their lament is, “America is screwed up because we can’t get our way – and it’s Wall Street’s fault”.
Algor seems to forget that the US is not a democracy, it’s a republic. We as citizens seem to forget this – even when the name of our country is the United STATES. We are a union, not of people, but of states. Unfortunately, we have eroded the context of states so much that now, we have the people electing senators, rather than those senators being elected by their General Assemblies and statehouses. In short, we forget that point all too easily.
Since Algor wants to talk about how big money has hijacked our country, perhaps he would be so good as to talk about how the labor unions are just as much part of the blame. But since the Teamsters, AFL-CIO, SEIU, UAW, etc etc use their clout to impose their will (anyone know how much control the unions have on states like Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Ohio, and the like?) With the unions using nice terms like “collective bargaining rights” and “card check” to sequester dues from people in order to promote their liberal causes, it’s really amazing how the left ignores them.
Algor’s point here is to talk about how big money’s influence is wrong yet he’s damaged good now – given his recent sellout of Current TV to Al Jazeera. That fat clod is laughing all the way to the bank – a bank pumped with oil money. Why do we listen to this guy when he is very much, himself, a big fat green part of the problem.
For the left, if things don’t go the way they plan, they get gripey about how our democracy has been hacked, how we should just give up on the Constitution over issues, or how the right to bear arms is an outdated concept. In other words, rather than codify liberty in law, we elect mob rule. Good thinking there, pinheads. You people have no concept of the Founder’s intent.
I don’t even know why Algor continues to have a platform to speak – the man is a quack and a hack. He’s totally disingenuous and generally useless, both to the greenie movements as well as…well…to anyone else that has to listen to his tripe.
Today, North Carolina governor Bev Perdue made the stupid
"I think we ought to suspend, perhaps, elections for Congress for two years and just tell them we won’t hold it against them, whatever decisions they make, to just let them help this country recover. I really hope that someone can agree with me on that…you want people who don’t worry about the next election." – Gov. Bev Perdue
Actually, Bev, we do. We want Congressional members and elected officials to quake in their boots (or wing-tipped shoes) over the notion that they are going to get the voter-sponsored ouster from office. This is precisely the reason why we have elections – because if they do something in office that the public does not like, the people have the right to remove them from office. This is a very sacred thing in our Republic.
We all get the gist of why Ms. Perdue made her statement – because Congress members are so worried that they might be elected out of office that they are consumed with that, rather than doing the business of legislating.
However, for her to even make that statement, even in jocularity, shows that she might not have much reverence for the structure of our country.
Democrats and Republicans are in general agreement these days that Congress is basically dysfunctional because of partisan bickering and political posturing. However the bigger question at present is before the Democrats – how will 2012 affect Democratic chances for any sort of significant piece of the political action from 2013-2015? Right now, President Obama is losing his base in droves. Democratic senators in 17 races are looking like they might have to face significant opposition – some of which will lose. With only four seats needed to take control of the Senate, it looks like Thanksgiving next year is going to be really dismal for the Democrats. And if New York HD9 indicates anything, the Democrats are in real trouble.
Perdue’s comment represents the emerging frustration of Democrats as they see their chances to further their agenda slip away and that’s got to be crushing because they are squandering their opportunities that they have for a shot at the future and that shot is becoming less possible.
Not that I’m complaining because the Democrats have done far enough.
It would seem that Texas started something that is resonating in more states throughout the Union. Turns out that more states now are passing resolutions declaring their sovereignty under the 10th Amendment of the Constitution. Oklahoma picked up the banner as the second state and over the last week, we’ve seen
In Tennessee on May 4th, the State Senate voted unanimously under Senate Joint Resolution SJR0311, (31-0) to affirm Tennessee’s 10th Amendment claim of state sovereignty. The resolution now goes to the State House for consideration. Ohio has also just introduced legislation into their House. Identified as SCR13, the legislation has much of the same wording as the Texas resolution. And as of Monday, Louisiana became the fourth state to pass resolutions in both of their chambers to affirm 10th Amendment sovereignty. Like Tennessee, Louisiana lawmakers approved the measure unanimously in both their State Senate and House.
So, overall, six states have popped up on the radar with referenda to declare sovereignty. What does this mean in the great scheme of things? Not much yet except a symbolic desire by a handful of states that the federal government has and continues to overstep its authority by exercising powers that should be left to the states, namely, anything that is not enumerated by the Constitution.
But there is also something more here. If more states begin to sign onto this, perhaps the question of the actual interpretation of what Enumerated Powers as defined in the Constitution means.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. – Amendment IX
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. – Amendment X
1. There are some who believe that the 10th Amendment doesn’t preclude Congress from doing anything that is forbidden by the first eight amendments. These people are often statist in nature, looking to add more government controls to the current system.
2. The conservative opinion, and the one that, to me, fits the context of history and what is actually written in Amendments 9 and 10, states that if a power is not delegated to the Congress by the constitution, it is reserved to the states or the people themselves.
Rep. John Shadegg (R-AZ) has, since the 104th Congress, introduced the Enumerated Powers Act which is designed to make law the second opinion that I’ve mentioned here, that every act of Congress must underscored as something allowed to it by the Constitution. It’s never been passed, but many of the tenets of the Act have been incorporated into the House Rules.
This one would be very scary for Democrats because they would not, by fiat, be able to do things that they want to do, such as bail out auto companies, spend money on pork projects, or institute a nationalized health care system. Of course, this Act will never get passed, since it would mean that Congress would have to vote itself a serious limitation to its own powers (sort of like Congress never voting on measures like term limits for members of Congress or payment limitations – all of which would be supported by the Founders in some measure).
But the Act and states declaring sovereignty does one remarkable thing – it tells Washington that the States believe it is overstepping its bounds of Constitutional authority. If the federal government keeps pushing, there is liable to be more push back.
Let’s hope that happens. Congress needs some wing clipping.
Hey folks -
Here’s something to chew on while you’re enjoying your Thanksgiving turkey.
I quote Article 1 Section 6 of the US Constitution:
No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office … which shall have … the Emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time;
Emolument – The product of employment, namely salary and/or fees
According to 5 USC Section 5303, the salary of government employees is automatically increased each year unless the President deems it’s inappropriate to do so. This includes the pay for the Secretary of State. Since salary (emolument) is automatically increased during the term of Senator Clinton, she could not serve until the end of the 112th congress.
Now the Founders wanted a provision to prevent legislators from voting cushy pay increases in the executive branch should a friendly president get voted into office that might select them for that post.
However, we’re also dealing with an automatic pay increase – something that Senator Clinton didn’t specifically vote for. The constitution doesn’t read that way, but rather, says, if salaries go up for a civil while a senator is in office, that senator cannot be appointed to that position.
There were other instances where this came into play. At first, William B. Saxbe was to be appointed by Nixon to be Attorney General. Instead, the fix, called the Saxbe fix, was to decrease the salary to the level that it was before Saxbe became a Senator. Interestingly, this came into play during the Taft Administration. Later, it came into play under Carter and Bush 41.
In order for Clinton to be eligible, the Saxbe Fix would have to be applied and more than likely to pre-2006 levels, even though there’s precedent that fix would go back to pre-2000 levels when Clinton first came into office.
However, the Saxbe fix itself has one key problem: such a reparation is that an increase and offsetting decrease is still unconstitutional, even though the common interpretation that has traditionally carried the majority is that the legislative intent was that net increases are what’s important.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out. Have a great Thanksgiving!