New Orleans Tax Breaks

Republican lawmakers have decided to make sure that while New Orleans gets "[built] better than before," tax breaks will not cover the rebuilding of the kinds of places that give N.O. it's spirit (pun intended). 

 

First of all, I'm against government tax breaks.  OK, so I'm really against taxes too, but tax cuts aimed at a specific cause lead to many unintended consequences.  Giving you a tax break for every kid you have causes people to have more of them (it also gives you a bigger welfare check if you're part of that socioeconomic group).  Not to mention that prohibiting certain types of businesses from receiving money is discriminatory. 

 

Why should the government have to give tax cuts to rebuild New Orleans?  If it's such a great city, with a rich history and lovely people, you'd think that businesses would fighting each other to move there and open shop.  If this isn't the case, maybe New Orleans shouldn't be rebuilt "better than before" as GW wants it to be.  Just because it was there doesn't mean that it needs to be there again.  Let private development choose what to build and where to build it. 

 

Besides, this law affects massage parlors and casinos.  They should just stop calling them massage parlos and call them brothels again, and that would be one very good way to rebuild New Orleans: legalize prostitution.  Something that you can't find anywhere except the desert of Nevada would be a big draw for the Big Easy.  People would come from all over, conventions would definitely pick up, and New Orleans would retain it's image. 

Your Tax Dollars At Work

Whether or not you like college football, you are paying to research it.  The government is investigating the BCS, the much maligned college football ranking system.  They are worried about fraudulent use of the system manipulating the billion dollar college football industry.  What I'm worried about is the fraudulent use of government power to manipute our daily lives...

 

 

Liberty and Security

Regarding some of the comments on the previous post, we must turn to one of our Founding Fathers, the man who graces the $100 bill, Benjamin Franklin, who so rightly stated:

"Those who would give up liberty for the sake of security deserve neither liberty
nor security."

I would rather see multiple terrorist attacks per year, killing thousands of people, forcing the United States to rethink it's stance on my global issues than lose the liberties we have fought for as Americans for the last 250 years. The restrictions on travel and freedom that the Bush and Clinton Administrations have added in the last 10-15 years are a copout. They show that America is so stubborn, so weak to go after the terrorists in the proper way that instead they go against their own citizens. I'm sure if we rounded up and tortured enough people, we would catch a few terrorists. But what would you think if an innocent person in your family was detained and given access to no lawyers, family, or due process?

I'm sure that many of you would agree with me, you would not like to encounter checkpoints at the border with a neighboring state, or at the border with a neighboring city, where police can hound you for papers and a reason for your travels. We as Americans have the right to travel anonymously where ever we want. We have staunchly ridiculed the Soviet Union for asking every traveller "your papers please, comrade" but how far are we from this situation? Airlines are already forced to ID everyone, despite the fact that the 19 Saudis had perfectly legitimate papers and flew with their valid, government issued ID.

As for the 2nd Amendment (it was pointed out in a comment), America was built on a system of checks and balances. The 2nd Amendment is the citizens check against the government, which our Founding Fathers gave us. They knew what it was like for a government to amass too much control and to shit on their citizens. If this ever happened in our country again, and storm troopers were knocking at our doors, at least we wouldn't go out without a fight. Not that we are anywhere near this situation... yet.

IDs != Security

While travelling via airplanes during Thanksgiving, I had the opportunity to show my ID 4 times, twice while checking baggage and twice while going through security. While a refusal to show ID in these cases would simply lead to me being denied boarding, one woman in Denver was arrested for failing to show her ID while travelling on a public bus through a federal complex.

Having to show your ID on demand to federal agents has nothing to do with security and everything to do with government control and interference. Airlines and the TSA have no right and no legitimate reasons for seeing our IDs, if their security does a good enough job they wouldn't be needed. Bombs do get through metal detectors and x-ray machines as many drills have shown. I'm sure that among the 19 hijackers on 9/11 at least one of them purchased a ticket using his own name and showed a valid ID matching that name at the check-in counter.

The government wants to know who is travelling and where they are, and are making greater attempts everyday to create a database of our movements; whether this is feasible is another matter. There are no mandatory roadside checkpoints at state borders yet but this is something that one can easily see being in store for us in the land of the free.

Is there anything you can do to stop this? Surely there is. If you are not going to be driving a car, do not carry ID on you. Refuse to show ID when asked if it will not hinder your activities too much (when travelling via airplane, there's no way to get around the requirement). Write your congressmen and tell them that you are concerned about your privacy, and that you do not wish your government to turn into this.

Medicare Prescriptions: Bad On All Levels

The new Medicare drug benefit plan for seniors is up and running.  Apparently there are numerous choices and seniors are already getting confused .  Now, I understand that seniors are paying lots of money for drugs, but then again, their payments now go into the massive R&D costs for future medicines.  Also, the FDA prohibits them from buying drugs from Canada, Europe, and other locations where they are much cheaper (most likely due to a lack of lawsuits in those countries against pharmaceutical companies). 

 

Medicare shouldn't exist in the first place, its a socialized, inefficient, government run health care program.  It takes thousands of dollars out of your paycheck every year, and people under the age of 40 most likely won't see any benefits from it.

 

This drug plan has an estimated cost of around $1.2T, that's $1,200,000,000,000.  This is a huge entitlement, the likes of which have never been seen before in the land of the free.  We are becoming more French every day.

 

Another unintended consequence of this spending is that it may prolong the life of some seniors, causing a quicker end to Social Security and possibly wrecking the retirements of people aged 40-55.

 

We can only hope that with all the choices available, seniors will be so confused they won't sign up for the plan at all... although in that case we would probably spend even more money educating them about it.

Cell Phone Bandit

The cell phone bandit was arrested in my town, Centreville, this morning.  I can understand robbing a bank 50, even 20 years ago.  These days you would have to be very, very stupid to attempt a robbery.  Actually, if this woman had robbed just one bank, she would probably have gotten away with it.  She may have even gotten away with more if not for her trademark, talking on a cellphone during the robbery.  What kind of a stupid criminal purposely creates a gimmick for themselves that's so unique it gets syndicated by the AP all over the country, resulting in police forces all over the country looking for you? 

Freedom loses...

...in several places. While I said in my previous post that both candidates running for VA governor were not ideal, I'm afraid that the winner, Tim Kaine, is going to push a tax increase agenda that will negatively affect everyone in the state. That being said, compared to most democrats he is very centrist in his stances. Another, local issue that (unfortunately) passed here was a school bond for Fairfax County that was in the hundreds of millions of dollars.

Freedom really lost in California. Governor Schwarzenegger's ballot proposals (several of which should be passed, such as requiring teachers to work 5 years for tenure and prohibiting union dues from being used in political races without consent of the workers) all failed. Worse yet, the city of San Francisco decided to ban all handguns. I encourage groups such as the Pink Pistols who have a presence in the city to tell all their members to not give up their guns when the April 1 deadline approaches. If the SF police come knocking at your door, tell them you don't own one, if they come in to search for it... just remember that the British tried the same things; everyone can be a patriot.

San Francisco now joins Washington DC and Chicago with an outright ban of guns, although the other two cities did not confiscate existing handguns. Hopefully, San Francisco will also join these cities as far as crime rates go, as Washington DC's shot up (pun intended) after handguns were banned.

San Francisco Supervisor Chris Daly said, "San Francisco voters are smart and believe in sensible gun control...If Prop. H gets some handguns out of San Francisco and mitigates some of the violence, then it's a win."

This man is an idiot. All Americans now know, if you want to go to a city whose residents are totally defenseless, who you can easily rape, rob, and kill, San Francisco is the place. Criminals from Oakland are going to take note of this very quickly, and we'll see if this proposal really "mitigates some of the violence." More than likely, it will aggravate it.

The only glimmer of hope is that groups such as the NRA, Gun Owners of America, and the Pink Pistols will join forces in a lawsuit challenging this egregious decision, though I doubt if the Ninth Circuit has read the Constitution lately.

Lastly, Detroit. I don't even want to talk about what happened there. All I can say to my readers is, does this "hip-hop mayor" look like someone you would want running your city, especially after reading this.

Voting in VA

According to the Post, this year's race for Governor of Virginia is one of the closest ever.  There are 3 candidates, though only 2 have a chance of winning: Jerry Kilgore and Tim Kaine. 

 

Neither candidate really wins me over.  Jerry Kilgore (R) has presents some problems with his conservative social values, especially his condemnations on things like gay marriage.  Tim Kaine (D) seems to agree with my views on most social issues, but he wants to follow in Mark Warner's shoes, which means he would most likely increase taxes.

 

Another issue is development, which is especially important in No.VA.  Housing prices are extremely high, a 2500 sq ft house runs about $500,000.  Tim Kaine has publicly stated that he wants to "stop out of control development."  What this will inevitably lead to is housing prices increasing in this area, affecting all residents. 

 

When it comes to voting, especially when there is no Libertarian candidate on the ballot (something I hope to change in the future), I usually vote with my pocketbook, so I endorse Jerry Kilgore for Governor of the Commonwealth of Virginia.

 

There is another race going on in Virginia.  Unlike most localities, we elect our Attorney General separately.  The two candidates running for this office are R. Creigh Deeds (D) and Robert F. McDonnell (R).  Comparing them side-by-side I see few differences.  Believing that it is best to have a balanced government (though hopefully its not on the wrong side of balanced, i.e. socially conservative and fiscally liberal), I endorse R. Creigh Deeds for Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Virginia.

The New Pick

Today President Bush nominated Samuel Alito to replace Sandra Day O'Connor on the Supreme Court. He is definitely no Harriet Miers. He is very well qualified, having served as a judge since Bush 41 appointment him to serve on the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

He is known as "Scalito" by liberals, since his mindset tends to be similar to Justice Scalia, another justice who has been known to legislate from the bench, though the liberal members do also.

The problem with the Democrats' arguments against him is that they tend to dwell on detail issues, not important issues. A detail issue is abortion. It gets people riled up, but how many people does Roe v. Wade really affect? Even before that decision, abortions could be found in states such as New York; that decision merely said that States no longer had the right to regulate the practice. Not to mention that the ground it was decided on is shaky at best. Read the decision if you don't believe me, it is truly an obomination of the Constitution. An important issue is the interpretation of the US Constitution. This interpretation is the raison d'être of the Supreme Court. We need justices who will faithfully preserve the Constitution as it was intended to be used. It should not be used for fringe activities, such as adding Amendments to allow abortions, ban liquor and gay marriage, which is akin to using a Ferrari as a snow plow.

Apparently the "radical" decisions that Judge Alito has delivered include:

• Stating that a law mandating that husbands be notified before their wife secures an abortion
• Stating that laws regarding sex discrimination make it too easy to get a jury trial
• Christmas and Chanukah displays are OK on public property

I personally do not feel that any of these decisions by themselves constitute anything. One must look at how the decision fits within the Constitution. Liberals and Conservatives do not like this at all, but recently there has been a lot more complaining from the left. It is not the job of the Supreme Court to legislate anything, merely to decide if legislation is fair, just, and in the spirit of the Constitution.

We must look beyond the emotions of the decisions and to the facts of the cases. We must look at how the law was applied and what the reasoning was behind it. If Judge Alito's past decisions show him to be a fair-minded individual who respects the laws and principles our country was founded on, then we should support our President's nominee.

Problems With S.397

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.

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.

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. 

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).

"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.

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.

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).