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).

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:

 

sheriff@co.hennepin.mn.us
Phone 612-348-3744
 

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.

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

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.

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...

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?

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.

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.

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.

Sheehan Arrested

Cindy Sheehan, formerly a grieving mother and currently an Iraq War protester was arrested today in Washington DC along with several of her cohorts for "demonstrating without a permit." What kind of a bullshit charge is that? It seems to go against something... something that most American's forget:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

It seems to me that these people were doing just this. Peaceably assembling and petitioning the government for a redress of grievances. And they were arrested for it.

Choice & Personal Responsiblity

There seems to be a big push for personal responsibility in this country. Politicians frequently say that people should responsible for the choices that they make, but how can this happen when governments make choices for them?

A good example are the recent hurricanes. Though Rita was much less disastrous than Katrina, many people lost their homes during both storms, or were burned to death in a bus. In both cases, although people lost their homes, almost all are being compensated in one way or another by the federal government, in effect removing the responsiblity of the victims. They aren't all victims. Thousands of people chose to not evacuate or were not able to due to lack of reliable transportation. These same people chose to live on a coastal city that is prone to hurricanes. By living in an area like that without the means to leave quickly, they sealed their own fates. They could have prepared by either planning for such a disaster in advance or moving to an area that would not require evacuations from hurricanes.

Now I probably lost most of my readers. You are probably thinking that we shouldn't be so hard on these people, since they are poor, immobile, etc. Everyone is responsible for their own actions. I shouldn't be responsible to bail them out for it. We're going to soon bail out Trent Lott, the Mississippi senator. He lost his beach front house during Hurricane Katrina. Most people would argue that he doesn't deserve the federal aid and I agree. But I go a step further in saying that nobody deserves federal aid, except for people who have been fucked over by the federal government.

And for all of you who were too cheap to give to the Red Cross... don't worry, the federal government has made a non-transparent, non-accountable (i.e. subject to corruption, like the oil for food program), $600 (and climbing) donation to the Hurricane Victims on your behalf. This money will be used for wholesome services like lap-dances. Although, if the federal government gave me free money, I think that would be quite a suitable thing to spend it on...

Back to the main point. If you want personal responsiblity to actually exist, then let it. Don't bail anybody out. Send them a bumper sticker letting them know what happens, and tell them don't come crying because your coastal city got flooded. Build again with your own money or move.

2nd Still Applies in LA

As New Orleans braces for another Hurricane Rita, the citizens can take relief in the fact that they can still protect themselves. Today Judge Jay Zainey granted a motion by the NRA to stop gun confiscation in New Orleans. I wrote earlier about this bullshit taking place in the big easy, the disarmament of civilians empowers criminals and corrupt law enforcement, NEVER A GOOD THING. The police must also return all guns to those who legally owned them. This is a major victory for the country, against the same corrupt idiots who let this whole thing take place. Had New Orleans been run more like a civilized city than like a third world hellhole, this might not have happened in the first place.

The left leaning media hasn't (or won't) publish this yet, so visit www.nra.org for more info.

Should Roberts be confirmed?

In a word, yes.

Judge John Roberts seems to be the best nominee for Supreme Court Justice since Clarence Thomas, the only justice who I can stomach. While I'd rather see Alex Kozinski as a member of SCOTUS, here's why Roberts is a good choice:

Democrats would be foolish to vote against him en masse since he is probably the most neutral person they could expect George W to nominate. Not that he's a bad nominee in any way. His history suggests that he is one of the most intelligent people ever to be nominated for this position and that he strongly regards the Constitution, something that seems to have been put on the back burner lately.

It remains to be seen what his interpretations are of this great document, but at least he refers to it more than a lot of the current justices (Souter, who provided that AWFUL decision Kelo v New London a few months ago, telling homeowners to go fuck themselves).

At any rate, Roberts seems like a standup guy and its all but assured that he will be confirmed. I'll be following him closely and will give all of you the straight dope on his opinions.

No Aid to Black People

Now that racism has been injected into the Hurrican Katrina situation, I'd like to make a comment of my own.

I don't think any federal aid should go to black people.

Wow that must mean I'm a racist.

Not really, I don't believe that federal aid should be given to black people, white people, brown people, or green people.

See, if the government just refused to help anyone, we wouldn't have this race issue even being brought up.

If Kanye West wants to do something positive he should sell some of his bling and donate it to the Red Cross.

Furthermore, why blame Bush, because its easy to blame the white man for everything? What about the failed mayor of New Orleans, who just happens to be black, and was the cause of many more problems in that city than Bush could even think of.