The NRA backed the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, and I fully support the intentions of this legislation, which was passed by both the House and Senate to prevent people from suing gun makers for crimes committed with their products (after all, would you sue Ford if a drunk driver hit you with an Escort?). A problem with it is Section 5, specifically Clause 3, which was introduced in the Senate version, S. 397, but left out of H.R. 800.
Here is Clause 3, verbatim:
"
`(3) LIABILITY FOR USE-
`(A) IN GENERAL- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a person who has lawful possession and control of a handgun, and who uses a secure gun storage or safety device with the handgun, shall be entitled to immunity from a qualified civil liability action.
`(B) PROSPECTIVE ACTIONS- A qualified civil liability action may not be brought in any Federal or State court.
`(C) DEFINED TERM- As used in this paragraph, the term `qualified civil liability action'--
`(i) means a civil action brought by any person against a person described in subparagraph (A) for damages resulting from the criminal or unlawful misuse of the handgun by a third party, if--
`(I) the handgun was accessed by another person who did not have the permission or authorization of the person having lawful possession and control of the handgun to have access to it; and
`(II) at the time access was gained by the person not so authorized, the handgun had been made inoperable by use of a secure gun storage or safety device; and
`(ii) shall not include an action brought against the person having lawful possession and control of the handgun for negligent entrustment or negligence per se.'."
What this clause means is if someone breaks into your house and steals your gun, the only way you can get immunity from prosecution if the person commits a crime with your stolen gun is to make sure that it is locked by a "secure gun storage or safety device."
The downside to this is that locked guns cannot save lives. It is very foolish to keep a gun locked (unless you have children) when you are at home, because if someone breaks into your house, unlocking the gun could add 10 seconds. 10 seconds can easily be the difference between life and death. So, either you lock the gun up everytime you leave (if you live in one of the few, awful states that does not allow CCW), or you risk getting sued over someone else's actions.
Here is my advice to my readers: Keep your gun unlocked if you wish, and buy a cable safety lock. If your gun is stolen and the police arrive, show them the cable lock that the burglar "cut" which can easily be done with bolt cutters. You get the idea. This will save you money in the long run.
2005-10-28
2005-10-27
US Constitution Article I § 8 Clauses 1-8
I am devoting two entries to Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution. My reasoning is that this is a very important section that contains several important clauses that require a deeper analysis than other parts of the text.
"Clause 1: 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;"
This does not explicitly create an income tax but does allow Congress to regulate such matters. The validity of the Federal Income Tax will be discussed when I write about the 16th Amendment.
"Clause 2: To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;"
Perhaps the most abused Clause in the entire Constitution, the Federal Government has borrowed over $8,000,000,000,000 (that's 8 trillion dollars) on the credit of the United States. Most of this has been through activities that implicitely violate the Constitution.
"Clause 3: To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;"
This clause is also very loaded. It is known as the "Commerce Clause." It means that only the Federal Government may regulate interstate commerce. Interstate commerce has also been mis-directed lately. A majority of the Supreme Court ruled that marijuana that is grown, cultivated, given away, and used within the State of California is interstate commerce. Obviously they are legislating from the bench. A footnote, Clarence Thomas, often called the most conservative justice, dissented on this opinion, remarking that, "If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually anything–and the Federal Government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers."
The six justices who constituted the majority obviously do not understate what "among the several States" means. This clause explicitly states that Congress cannot intervene in intrastate matters. Most of the justices who take this viewpoint are very liberal. What a quandary.
"Clause 4: To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;"
This Clause makes perfect sense. Obviously it would not be appropriate for each state to determine who is and who is not a US Citizen. Federal bankruptcy laws are also important in that people or companies could take refuge in states with less strict laws merely for the purpose of obtaining an "easier" bankruptcy. Surprisingly, the States actually do have differing bankruptcy laws, but none have yet been challenge in court to my knowledge.
"Clause 5: To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;"
States used to be able to coin their own money, this can obviously be a problem for those who wish to travel around the country. As for the second part of this clause, did anyone know that the US is legally on SI, known as the Metric System?
"Clause 6: To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;"
The second criminal act that Congress can provide punishment for. The first was Treason, in Section 6. Currently, the Secret Service enforces counterfeiting laws.
"Clause 7: To establish Post Offices and post Roads;"
Seems basic, but does the Post Office need to operate as a government entity or merely be created by the government? This also does not give the Federal Government oversight over all (or many) roads, since only very basic roads are required for carrying mail...
"Clause 8: To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;"
Congress often funds the arts and sciences via grants. This clause does not allow this action. It merely allows Congress to help the arts and sciences by providing and regulating copyrights and patents.
So far, we've covered many things Congress is allowed to do. I hope that you, my readers, can already see that Congress regulates things that are far beyond its scope. The rest of Section 8 will be in the next Constitution post.
"Clause 1: 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;"
This does not explicitly create an income tax but does allow Congress to regulate such matters. The validity of the Federal Income Tax will be discussed when I write about the 16th Amendment.
"Clause 2: To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;"
Perhaps the most abused Clause in the entire Constitution, the Federal Government has borrowed over $8,000,000,000,000 (that's 8 trillion dollars) on the credit of the United States. Most of this has been through activities that implicitely violate the Constitution.
"Clause 3: To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;"
This clause is also very loaded. It is known as the "Commerce Clause." It means that only the Federal Government may regulate interstate commerce. Interstate commerce has also been mis-directed lately. A majority of the Supreme Court ruled that marijuana that is grown, cultivated, given away, and used within the State of California is interstate commerce. Obviously they are legislating from the bench. A footnote, Clarence Thomas, often called the most conservative justice, dissented on this opinion, remarking that, "If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually anything–and the Federal Government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers."
The six justices who constituted the majority obviously do not understate what "among the several States" means. This clause explicitly states that Congress cannot intervene in intrastate matters. Most of the justices who take this viewpoint are very liberal. What a quandary.
"Clause 4: To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;"
This Clause makes perfect sense. Obviously it would not be appropriate for each state to determine who is and who is not a US Citizen. Federal bankruptcy laws are also important in that people or companies could take refuge in states with less strict laws merely for the purpose of obtaining an "easier" bankruptcy. Surprisingly, the States actually do have differing bankruptcy laws, but none have yet been challenge in court to my knowledge.
"Clause 5: To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;"
States used to be able to coin their own money, this can obviously be a problem for those who wish to travel around the country. As for the second part of this clause, did anyone know that the US is legally on SI, known as the Metric System?
"Clause 6: To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;"
The second criminal act that Congress can provide punishment for. The first was Treason, in Section 6. Currently, the Secret Service enforces counterfeiting laws.
"Clause 7: To establish Post Offices and post Roads;"
Seems basic, but does the Post Office need to operate as a government entity or merely be created by the government? This also does not give the Federal Government oversight over all (or many) roads, since only very basic roads are required for carrying mail...
"Clause 8: To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;"
Congress often funds the arts and sciences via grants. This clause does not allow this action. It merely allows Congress to help the arts and sciences by providing and regulating copyrights and patents.
So far, we've covered many things Congress is allowed to do. I hope that you, my readers, can already see that Congress regulates things that are far beyond its scope. The rest of Section 8 will be in the next Constitution post.
Almost Borked?
Today Harriet Miers withdrew her nomination for Supreme Court Justice and President Bush accepted it. This news follows a week of Bush refusing to release any White House documents associated with Ms. Miers and conflicting reports on whether Miers does or does not support abortion (though this is a minor issue, the news media and both liberals and conservatives love to bring it up to get their bases frothing at the mouth). The biggest obstacle to her nomination is that many Senators saw her as one of Bush's cronies, who went to a second tier law school, hasn't had a stellar legal career, and is just not fit for the job. The title of this post is a reference to Robert Bork, who was nominated by Reagan and rejected by the Senate. I think this would have been Ms. Miers fate.
Sidebar: I wrote to both of my Senators expressing my concerns about Miers's dubious record. One of them, Senator Warner, basically replied that he knows Ms. Miers, she is qualified for the job, and gave the distinct impression that he is one of Bush's cronies.
At any rate, Miers doesn't seem like she really knew much about the Constitution so it's probably good that it ended this way, but we'll never know.
Sidebar: I wrote to both of my Senators expressing my concerns about Miers's dubious record. One of them, Senator Warner, basically replied that he knows Ms. Miers, she is qualified for the job, and gave the distinct impression that he is one of Bush's cronies.
At any rate, Miers doesn't seem like she really knew much about the Constitution so it's probably good that it ended this way, but we'll never know.
2005-10-21
US Constitution Article I §§ 6 & 7
Article I, Section 6, Clause 1 of the United States Constitution provides an immunity to Representatives and Senators.
It states:
" The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States. They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, beprivileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place."
The first sentence states that the members of both Houses will be paid for their duty (there qualifications to this which will be addressed when I discuss Amendment XXVII, a very interesting Amendment).
The second sentence provides the immunity. Representatives and Senators cannot be arrested for any crimes other than treason, felonies, or breaches of peace while they are attending a session of congress or while they are travelling to (or from) such session. This is a fair law, designed to prevent an extreme movement within their home state starting a movement leading to their arrest before an important vote.
Section 7, verbatim (my comments between clauses), reads:
"Clause 1: All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills."
This clause merely means that tax bills must start in the House, but the Senate may propose a concurring bill (as required for a bill to become law).
It states:
" The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States. They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, beprivileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place."
The first sentence states that the members of both Houses will be paid for their duty (there qualifications to this which will be addressed when I discuss Amendment XXVII, a very interesting Amendment).
The second sentence provides the immunity. Representatives and Senators cannot be arrested for any crimes other than treason, felonies, or breaches of peace while they are attending a session of congress or while they are travelling to (or from) such session. This is a fair law, designed to prevent an extreme movement within their home state starting a movement leading to their arrest before an important vote.
Section 7, verbatim (my comments between clauses), reads:
"Clause 1: All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills."
This clause merely means that tax bills must start in the House, but the Senate may propose a concurring bill (as required for a bill to become law).
"Clause 2: Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law."
This clause requires the President of the United States to sign any bill for it to become law. If the President does not wish the bill to become law, he can veto it, which means he can prohibit it from becoming law. This veto my be overridden if 2/3 of the House and Senate vote for the bill. This requires 290 Representatives and 67 Senators. The "yeas and neas" mean that this cannot be a "voice" vote, each Representative and Senator must explicitely and separately vote for or against the bill. Lastly, if Congress is in session and the President does not sign the bill, nor veto it, it will become law."Clause 3: Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the Same shall take Effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the Rules and Limitations prescribed in the Case of a Bill."
Clause 3 states that every bill that the House and Senate approve must be presented to the President. The rest merely states that Clause 2 must be followed.2005-10-16
Pseudoephedrine Controls
The new pseudoephedrine controls, in effect in many states, are yet another example of our of control government.
I went to CVS tonight to get a prescription. I noticed that Sudafed, Advil Cold and Sinus, and many other medicines were behind the pharmacy counter. I asked my pharmacist, Mr. Vu, if this was a new law. He said that it was. Pharmacists are required to verify ID and have the customer sign a log if that customer is purchasing any product with pseudoephedrine.
Pseudoephedine, along with several other chemicals, can be made into methamphetamine. The whole USA is afraid of this new "meth problem." First of all, if people want to use speed, it's their own issue, not mine. Secondly, why should I be inconvenienced buying cold medicine just because someone wants to get high? It is now illegal (a federal law) to possess more than 3 packages of pseudoephedrine containing products at one time. This is complete BS. What if you have 10 children (a rare, but possible circumstance) and they all have a cold? Worse yet, a medication such as Advil Cold and Sinus has ibuprofen and pseudoephedrine. You cannot make meth out of this because the other chemical will fuck with the rest of the process.
My pharmacist proposed a very clear scenario. If someone wants to cook up some meth, they can have their friends, their brothers, sisters, etc. go to CVS and buy the meth. The whole group can then move on to Walgreens, Rite Aid, and have enough Sudafed to make a whole lotta speed.
For all of you non-believers who are still reading my story, consider this. At the very most, 35% of Meth is made in the USA. The rest is from Mexico. There are 3 things that can happen with these stupid laws. Either:
1. Meth production in the United States drops, the price goes up by a bit.
2. The Mexicans start producing a lot more Meth and the price remains stable or drops.
3. The American Meth producers find something else to use instead of pseudoephedrine. Pseudoephedrine remains behind the counter, and the government never admits fault by repealing a law that does nothing.
Meanwhile, taxpayers have to pay for the 100 or so people (per state) that verify all of the pharmacy logs, enter this information into a computer, and enforce the law.
Mr. Vu said that soon enough he'll have a log for aspirin sales.
Bottom line: let's get the government out of the drug regulation business, whether is aspirin, pseudoephedrine, marijuana, cocaine, or methamphetamine. Let people make their own choices, eliminate the bullshit.
I went to CVS tonight to get a prescription. I noticed that Sudafed, Advil Cold and Sinus, and many other medicines were behind the pharmacy counter. I asked my pharmacist, Mr. Vu, if this was a new law. He said that it was. Pharmacists are required to verify ID and have the customer sign a log if that customer is purchasing any product with pseudoephedrine.
Pseudoephedine, along with several other chemicals, can be made into methamphetamine. The whole USA is afraid of this new "meth problem." First of all, if people want to use speed, it's their own issue, not mine. Secondly, why should I be inconvenienced buying cold medicine just because someone wants to get high? It is now illegal (a federal law) to possess more than 3 packages of pseudoephedrine containing products at one time. This is complete BS. What if you have 10 children (a rare, but possible circumstance) and they all have a cold? Worse yet, a medication such as Advil Cold and Sinus has ibuprofen and pseudoephedrine. You cannot make meth out of this because the other chemical will fuck with the rest of the process.
My pharmacist proposed a very clear scenario. If someone wants to cook up some meth, they can have their friends, their brothers, sisters, etc. go to CVS and buy the meth. The whole group can then move on to Walgreens, Rite Aid, and have enough Sudafed to make a whole lotta speed.
For all of you non-believers who are still reading my story, consider this. At the very most, 35% of Meth is made in the USA. The rest is from Mexico. There are 3 things that can happen with these stupid laws. Either:
1. Meth production in the United States drops, the price goes up by a bit.
2. The Mexicans start producing a lot more Meth and the price remains stable or drops.
3. The American Meth producers find something else to use instead of pseudoephedrine. Pseudoephedrine remains behind the counter, and the government never admits fault by repealing a law that does nothing.
Meanwhile, taxpayers have to pay for the 100 or so people (per state) that verify all of the pharmacy logs, enter this information into a computer, and enforce the law.
Mr. Vu said that soon enough he'll have a log for aspirin sales.
Bottom line: let's get the government out of the drug regulation business, whether is aspirin, pseudoephedrine, marijuana, cocaine, or methamphetamine. Let people make their own choices, eliminate the bullshit.
2005-10-14
US Constitution Article 1 §§ 1-5
Article 1 of the US Constitution establishes Congress (The House of Representatives and the Senate) .
§ 1 simply states that all of the powers given in Article 1 will be provided to the House and Senate.
§ 2 is the part of the Constitution that defines the House of Representatives
§ 2, Clause 1 requires Representatives to be elected every two years. Clause 2 sets the minimum age for a Representative at 25 years, requires him or her to be a citizen for at least seven years, and requires him or her to be a resident of the state that will be represented in Congress. These requirements are very basic, 25 years is what most people would consider the minimum amount of years lived to have the experience and knowledge required to participate in the business of national politics (though your mileage may vary) and the citizenship requirement is also obvious since loyalties should not be questioned (although dual citizens are technically allowed).
§ 2, Clause 3 sets apportionment, which is how the number of Representatives are divided among the states. At the time the Constitution was adopted, the population of a state was determined as being the number of free persons plus 3/5 of all other persons (i.e. slaves). This 3/5's rule was introduced at the bequest of the South who had many more "other persons" than free men. Indians who do not pay taxes are not included in the calculation. This clause also states that there cannot be more than one Representative for more than 30,000 people and that each state must have at least one. Lastly, this clause specifies the starting number of Representatives for the thirteen colonies.
§ 2, Clause 4 specifies that if a Representative should die, resign, etc, the "Executive Authority" of the state can fill the vacancy. This phrase is understood to mean governor.
§ 2, Clause 5 states that the Representatives choose their own speaker and officers and that the Representatives are the only ones with the power of impeachment.
§ 3 is the part of the Constitution that defines the Senate.
§ 3, Clause 1 states that the Senate is composed of two Senators from each state that (at the time of adoption) were chosen by the state legislature (they are now voted into office directly by the people). They hold office for six years and each Senator receives one vote.
§ 3, Clause 2 defines the classes of Senators. Every 2 years, 1 class of Senators are up for election. Three classes of Senators have been established, so every 6 years all Senators will come up for re-election once. When the Constitution took effect, 1/3 of Senators only served two years terms, 1/3 served for four years and the remaining 1/3 served the full six years. This was necessary at the beginning to start the class structure.
§ 3, Clause 3 requires Senators to be at least 30 years old, citizens for nine years, and (like Representatives) must be a resident of the state for which they are chosen to represent. Since the Senate is the Upper House, they require more experience and greater ties to the United States.
§ 3, Clause 4 gives the power of President of the Senate to the Vice President, though he (or she) can only vote in the event of a tie.
§ 3, Clause 5 provides the Senate with the power to choose their own officers including the President pro Tempore who is the head of the Senate when the Vice President is not present.
§ 3, Clause 6 gives the Senate the power to try all impeachments (which they did for Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton). This clause states that the Chief Justice of the United States will preside for impeachments concerning the President and that it takes 2/3 votes of members present to convict a person.
§ 3, Clause 7 specifies that when a person is impeached and subsequently convicted, the most that can happen to them from this conviction is removal from office. However, they may still be tried by other courts.
§ 4 gives the power of holding elections for Senators and Representatives to the state legislatures, but that Congress may alter these regulations.
§ 5, Clause 1 states that a majority of members of either House must attend for normal business functions, but less than a majority may discipline other members of lack of attendance.
§ 5, Clause 2 provides the two Houses with the power to determine their own rules and the authority to expel a member with 2/3 vote.
§ 5, Clause 3 requires that each House keep a journal of their proceedings, the Congressional Record as it is now known. They may keep secret some of their proceedings but must publish votes at the request of 1/5 of members present.
§ 5, Clause 4 prohibits either House from adjourning (not conducting business) for more than three days without permission from the other House. They also cannot meet anywhere other than their assigned place.
So, there are the first 5 sections of Article 1 of the US Constitution. The two houses of Congress have now been established and are free to choose their own rules, try presidents anddiscipline their own members. Next time we will find out what laws they are allowed to pass (hint: they now regulate more than what is legal).
§ 1 simply states that all of the powers given in Article 1 will be provided to the House and Senate.
§ 2 is the part of the Constitution that defines the House of Representatives
§ 2, Clause 1 requires Representatives to be elected every two years. Clause 2 sets the minimum age for a Representative at 25 years, requires him or her to be a citizen for at least seven years, and requires him or her to be a resident of the state that will be represented in Congress. These requirements are very basic, 25 years is what most people would consider the minimum amount of years lived to have the experience and knowledge required to participate in the business of national politics (though your mileage may vary) and the citizenship requirement is also obvious since loyalties should not be questioned (although dual citizens are technically allowed).
§ 2, Clause 3 sets apportionment, which is how the number of Representatives are divided among the states. At the time the Constitution was adopted, the population of a state was determined as being the number of free persons plus 3/5 of all other persons (i.e. slaves). This 3/5's rule was introduced at the bequest of the South who had many more "other persons" than free men. Indians who do not pay taxes are not included in the calculation. This clause also states that there cannot be more than one Representative for more than 30,000 people and that each state must have at least one. Lastly, this clause specifies the starting number of Representatives for the thirteen colonies.
§ 2, Clause 4 specifies that if a Representative should die, resign, etc, the "Executive Authority" of the state can fill the vacancy. This phrase is understood to mean governor.
§ 2, Clause 5 states that the Representatives choose their own speaker and officers and that the Representatives are the only ones with the power of impeachment.
§ 3 is the part of the Constitution that defines the Senate.
§ 3, Clause 1 states that the Senate is composed of two Senators from each state that (at the time of adoption) were chosen by the state legislature (they are now voted into office directly by the people). They hold office for six years and each Senator receives one vote.
§ 3, Clause 2 defines the classes of Senators. Every 2 years, 1 class of Senators are up for election. Three classes of Senators have been established, so every 6 years all Senators will come up for re-election once. When the Constitution took effect, 1/3 of Senators only served two years terms, 1/3 served for four years and the remaining 1/3 served the full six years. This was necessary at the beginning to start the class structure.
§ 3, Clause 3 requires Senators to be at least 30 years old, citizens for nine years, and (like Representatives) must be a resident of the state for which they are chosen to represent. Since the Senate is the Upper House, they require more experience and greater ties to the United States.
§ 3, Clause 4 gives the power of President of the Senate to the Vice President, though he (or she) can only vote in the event of a tie.
§ 3, Clause 5 provides the Senate with the power to choose their own officers including the President pro Tempore who is the head of the Senate when the Vice President is not present.
§ 3, Clause 6 gives the Senate the power to try all impeachments (which they did for Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton). This clause states that the Chief Justice of the United States will preside for impeachments concerning the President and that it takes 2/3 votes of members present to convict a person.
§ 3, Clause 7 specifies that when a person is impeached and subsequently convicted, the most that can happen to them from this conviction is removal from office. However, they may still be tried by other courts.
§ 4 gives the power of holding elections for Senators and Representatives to the state legislatures, but that Congress may alter these regulations.
§ 5, Clause 1 states that a majority of members of either House must attend for normal business functions, but less than a majority may discipline other members of lack of attendance.
§ 5, Clause 2 provides the two Houses with the power to determine their own rules and the authority to expel a member with 2/3 vote.
§ 5, Clause 3 requires that each House keep a journal of their proceedings, the Congressional Record as it is now known. They may keep secret some of their proceedings but must publish votes at the request of 1/5 of members present.
§ 5, Clause 4 prohibits either House from adjourning (not conducting business) for more than three days without permission from the other House. They also cannot meet anywhere other than their assigned place.
So, there are the first 5 sections of Article 1 of the US Constitution. The two houses of Congress have now been established and are free to choose their own rules, try presidents anddiscipline their own members. Next time we will find out what laws they are allowed to pass (hint: they now regulate more than what is legal).
2005-10-13
Cruisin'
The Minnesota Vikings are in a bit of trouble after a sex filled cruise in lake Minnetonka. Supposedly the Hennepin County sheriff is investigating whether *gasp* people paid money for sex!! Apparently the crew returned the boat to port early due to "lewd behavior."
While this isn't good public relations from the sport that brought you the OJ Simpson, the Dallas Cowboys, and the Oakland Raiders, I think it's a complete waste of resources to have law enforcement looking into this. Consensual sex should never be prosecuted.
Here is the Sheriff McGowan's contact information (obtained from his website) if you wish to contact him:
A Preamble to the US Constitution
I'm going to start posting parts of the Constitution on here. I believe it is one of the most important documents ever drafted in the history of the world. Most Americans don't know any of it past the first 3 words of the preamble and a couple amendments. I'll still give my commentary on current events, but I think it's fitting and proper for this blog to contain a series dedicated to the origin of American law that continues to be misunderstood and misinterpreted. Anything from the Constitution will be in quotes to distinguish from my commentary, and all emphasis is added by this author.
Thus, following my preamble, here is the preamble of The United States Consititution.
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, 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."
This is the beginning of the Constitution. It is one sentence, probably a run on by today's standards, yet it sets the standard for the rest of the document. It does not spell out any rules, but is an introduction to what follows. It establishes that the subsequent rules are agreed upon by the people, with the purpose of giving a standard, overreaching set of laws that will bind the States together in a federation, thereby creating a country. The rationales laid out here are very libertarian. They merely mention keeping the Union together by a set of laws that set limits on government power ("..secure the Blessings of Liberty") and providing a "common defence" and "Justice) two of the few acceptable reasons for a government. The clause "promote the general Welfare" is very vague, but I take it to mean allowing the government to mint currency, establish roads, and perform other minor functions necessary to turn a country out of wilderness.
Thus, following my preamble, here is the preamble of The United States Consititution.
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, 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."
This is the beginning of the Constitution. It is one sentence, probably a run on by today's standards, yet it sets the standard for the rest of the document. It does not spell out any rules, but is an introduction to what follows. It establishes that the subsequent rules are agreed upon by the people, with the purpose of giving a standard, overreaching set of laws that will bind the States together in a federation, thereby creating a country. The rationales laid out here are very libertarian. They merely mention keeping the Union together by a set of laws that set limits on government power ("..secure the Blessings of Liberty") and providing a "common defence" and "Justice) two of the few acceptable reasons for a government. The clause "promote the general Welfare" is very vague, but I take it to mean allowing the government to mint currency, establish roads, and perform other minor functions necessary to turn a country out of wilderness.
2005-10-10
patricksemmens.com: Brady Scare Tactics
I usually don't directly link to other blogs without commentary, but I think this article speaks for itself. I am in total agreement.
patricksemmens.com: Brady Scare Tactics
patricksemmens.com: Brady Scare Tactics
2005-10-05
The Wrong Pick
It seems as though Harriet Miers was definitely the wrong pick for the new justice of the SCOTUS. She graduated from Southern Methodist University, hardly an ivy (or near ivy) league school. The two other women to sit on the court, Ruth Bader Ginsberg (an awful justice) and Sandra Day O'Connor graduated from Harvard Law school and Stanford Law school respectively. For a position as high as this, one should demand a top education instead of a law school that leads people to head lottery commissions, as Miers did in Texas.
This nomination looks to be a kick back to a friend who has helped someone for years. As White House Counsel, Miers was Bush's closest legal advisor and this nomination is an obvious award for loyalty.
What is most distressing is that nobody knows a thing about Ms. Miers. Republicans are even attacking her credentials. Bush should have looked to appoint someone in the tradition of Justice Thomas, the only person on the Supreme Court who receives respect from me. John Roberts may be in that mold, but I would have much preferred to see Judge Alex Kozinski nominated.
I urge all my readers to write, email, and call their senators in opposition of the Miers nomination.
This nomination looks to be a kick back to a friend who has helped someone for years. As White House Counsel, Miers was Bush's closest legal advisor and this nomination is an obvious award for loyalty.
What is most distressing is that nobody knows a thing about Ms. Miers. Republicans are even attacking her credentials. Bush should have looked to appoint someone in the tradition of Justice Thomas, the only person on the Supreme Court who receives respect from me. John Roberts may be in that mold, but I would have much preferred to see Judge Alex Kozinski nominated.
I urge all my readers to write, email, and call their senators in opposition of the Miers nomination.
2005-10-03
Yet Another Nomination
This morning, President Bush nominated Sandra Day O'Connors replacement, Harriet Miers. She doesn't any judicial background, leading some to believe that she is ill equipped for the job. She is definitely one of Bush's team. She holds the position of White House counsel, previously held by infamous people like John Dean. With all the talk of Bush appointing the nation's first hispanic justice, he has picked a white man and woman to become part of SCOTUS, though the demographics remain unchanged. Other than her lack of experience, I don't know enough about Ms. Miers to comment, although she's known as a pit-bull and is unmarried.
In other news, over the weekend some nutcase detonated himself at the University of Oklahoma during a football game. This is probably the most pathetic suicide bombing ever. Not only did he fail to kill anybody, but he looks like a total creep. Note: this is the first suicide bombing that I've seen make the front page that didn't involve a muslim, just an observation...
In other news, over the weekend some nutcase detonated himself at the University of Oklahoma during a football game. This is probably the most pathetic suicide bombing ever. Not only did he fail to kill anybody, but he looks like a total creep. Note: this is the first suicide bombing that I've seen make the front page that didn't involve a muslim, just an observation...
2005-09-30
Schwarzenegger Puts "Morals" Over Freedom
Today California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger elevated conservative morals over freedom of association by his veto of a bill that would have legalized same sex marriage. I don't see what the whole fuss is about this issue. There is absolutely no justification for not allowing gay people to marry other than "I hate gays and want to see them treated as second class citizens."
The argument basically boils down to "Gay people shouldn't be allowed to marry because of their lifestyle choices, they are in the minority and I think that by them having normal families it will have a negative impact on our culture. If they became straight, it would be OK for them to marry someone of the opposite sex."
What if the word gay was replaced by Jew and there were a few other changes to the above paragraph:
"Jews shouldn't be allowed to marry because of their lifestyle choices, they are in the minority and I think that by them having normal families it will have a negative impact on our culture. If they became Christian, it would be OK for them to marry someone of a different religion."
While the top one is accepted in our society, the bottom one certainly isn't. I don't believe that either type of thought should be incorporated into the laws of a civilized society that values freedom.
People like to say, "well the voters in x number of states voted against gay marriage." Well, the voters in x number of districts voted for Hitler, Slavery, Jim-Crow laws, and many other things. Does that make it right to legislate morality? No.
I understand that some laws, such as abortion, can have a negative impact on society since someone (the unborn fetus) is actually harmed by the law mandating legal abortions. This would be a case in which the freedoms of two people (the mother and the child) have to be weighed against each other, because with either decision, one person's freedom is taken away. However, legalizing gay marriage does not take away anyone's freedoms, it extends freedom to more people. Shouldn't the "land of the free" support a situation such as this, regardless of what the majority thinks?
The argument basically boils down to "Gay people shouldn't be allowed to marry because of their lifestyle choices, they are in the minority and I think that by them having normal families it will have a negative impact on our culture. If they became straight, it would be OK for them to marry someone of the opposite sex."
What if the word gay was replaced by Jew and there were a few other changes to the above paragraph:
"Jews shouldn't be allowed to marry because of their lifestyle choices, they are in the minority and I think that by them having normal families it will have a negative impact on our culture. If they became Christian, it would be OK for them to marry someone of a different religion."
While the top one is accepted in our society, the bottom one certainly isn't. I don't believe that either type of thought should be incorporated into the laws of a civilized society that values freedom.
People like to say, "well the voters in x number of states voted against gay marriage." Well, the voters in x number of districts voted for Hitler, Slavery, Jim-Crow laws, and many other things. Does that make it right to legislate morality? No.
I understand that some laws, such as abortion, can have a negative impact on society since someone (the unborn fetus) is actually harmed by the law mandating legal abortions. This would be a case in which the freedoms of two people (the mother and the child) have to be weighed against each other, because with either decision, one person's freedom is taken away. However, legalizing gay marriage does not take away anyone's freedoms, it extends freedom to more people. Shouldn't the "land of the free" support a situation such as this, regardless of what the majority thinks?
2005-09-29
Roberts Confirmed
Judge John Roberts was confirmed today as the United States' 17th Chief Justice of the United States. The vote was 78-22. States whose senators voted unanimously against Judge Roberts include the usual liberal enclaves: California, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey and New York.
Possibly the most damaging nay vote was by Senator Clinton. If she intends on running for president in '08, which is almost a sure thing, it looks foolish for her to vote no on a candidate that many see as moderate, intelligent, and an overall good pick. Her vote slides her farther to the left and alienates some centrist voters who may have thought she was something else.
Possibly the most damaging nay vote was by Senator Clinton. If she intends on running for president in '08, which is almost a sure thing, it looks foolish for her to vote no on a candidate that many see as moderate, intelligent, and an overall good pick. Her vote slides her farther to the left and alienates some centrist voters who may have thought she was something else.
2005-09-27
The Grand Dragon of the Donkeys
Today, Robert Byrd announced his run for re-election to the senate next year. Senator Byrd has served in the senate for over 46 years. In June he will eclipse Strom Thurmond as the record holder for longest tenure in the senate.
Byrd is a democrat, the senior democrat of the senate. Here's where the hypocrisy begins.
In December 2002 then Senate Republican Leader Trent Lott said the following during Thurmond's birthday:
"I want to say this about my state: When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We're proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years, either."
He was demonized by the democrats and the press as a racist, since Thurmond had advocated segregation. Trent Lott had only said a few words to honor his colleague during his birthday and lost his position. Was what he said that bad? That's for others to decide, but it's certain that the democrats have someone worse on their side.
Mr. Byrd was a member of the Ku Klux Klan.
He joined the KKK around 1941 and was so successful in recruiting members, he was granted the titles of Exalted Cyclops and Kleagle (recruiter). He recruited people into this racist group.
I understand that West Virginia is a lot different from the other 49, but electing someone such as this just demeans the whole state.
Back to the main issue: Trent Lott (who has never done anything overtly racist) was attacked by the left as a racist and almost run out of the senate. Meanwhile, the Democrats support a former KKK member, Robert Byrd?
I urge all of my readers to call the Democrats at 202-863-8000 and tell them to end the hypocrisy and NOT support Robert Byrd in his re-election campaign.
Byrd is a democrat, the senior democrat of the senate. Here's where the hypocrisy begins.
In December 2002 then Senate Republican Leader Trent Lott said the following during Thurmond's birthday:
"I want to say this about my state: When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We're proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years, either."
He was demonized by the democrats and the press as a racist, since Thurmond had advocated segregation. Trent Lott had only said a few words to honor his colleague during his birthday and lost his position. Was what he said that bad? That's for others to decide, but it's certain that the democrats have someone worse on their side.
Mr. Byrd was a member of the Ku Klux Klan.
He joined the KKK around 1941 and was so successful in recruiting members, he was granted the titles of Exalted Cyclops and Kleagle (recruiter). He recruited people into this racist group.
I understand that West Virginia is a lot different from the other 49, but electing someone such as this just demeans the whole state.
Back to the main issue: Trent Lott (who has never done anything overtly racist) was attacked by the left as a racist and almost run out of the senate. Meanwhile, the Democrats support a former KKK member, Robert Byrd?
I urge all of my readers to call the Democrats at 202-863-8000 and tell them to end the hypocrisy and NOT support Robert Byrd in his re-election campaign.
Blame LA
Today Michael Brown, the former head of FEMA, laid down blame on the State of Louisiana and the City of New Orleans for the problems that plagued the evacuation from the city before Hurricane Katrina arrived. As I've thought from the get-go, the true problems were most likely at the local level. As Brown points out, Mississippi and Alabama did not have problems with evacuating, especially since they chose to do so much earlier than the New Orleans area (where it was only made a mandatory order hours before Katrina made landfall). Mayor Nagin of New Orleans dragged his feet for days not knowing what to do. City buses sat empty, instead of ferrying the poor people out of the city. The Superdome, described as a "refuge of last resort" seemed to be the first place they wanted people to go. Responding to critics that say Brown should have done more to get people out of New Orleans, he said,
"I guess you want me to be the superhero that is going to step in there and suddenly take everybody out of New Orleans."
The Governor of Louisiana, Kathleen Blanco, took quite a long time to request federal assistance and also did not declare a state of emergency until it was too late to get the National Guard in before the hurricane struck. It was a coordinated failure by the people who should be in charge during this situation, state and local government. The federal government does not and should not have the power to micro-manage every disaster before or after it happens.
As I've made abundantly clear, if Americans want a federal government who will take care of them from birth until death, micro-managing everything down to the appropriate desk to put in your home office, move to a socialist country. In America, we live in a Federal Republic, meaning that States exist and have a degree of independence. If you would prefer a stronger federal government, move to France.
"I guess you want me to be the superhero that is going to step in there and suddenly take everybody out of New Orleans."
The Governor of Louisiana, Kathleen Blanco, took quite a long time to request federal assistance and also did not declare a state of emergency until it was too late to get the National Guard in before the hurricane struck. It was a coordinated failure by the people who should be in charge during this situation, state and local government. The federal government does not and should not have the power to micro-manage every disaster before or after it happens.
As I've made abundantly clear, if Americans want a federal government who will take care of them from birth until death, micro-managing everything down to the appropriate desk to put in your home office, move to a socialist country. In America, we live in a Federal Republic, meaning that States exist and have a degree of independence. If you would prefer a stronger federal government, move to France.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)