Reconciliation Rules Broken for Control
Current Events vs. Founding Documents
Entry 24 Submitted by: Mark Musselman
Current Event
As reported by ABC News.com
At the National Press Club on April 26, 2005, then-Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., was asked about a move being discussed by Senate Republicans, then in control, to change the Senate rules so as to require a mere majority vote rather than the 60 votes necessary to end a potential filibuster.
“You know, the Founders designed this system, as frustrating it is, to make sure that there's a broad consensus before the country moves forward,” then-Sen. Obama told the audience.
His remarks have garnered some attention in recent days given the current likelihood that Senate Democrats will next week use “reconciliation” rules, which require only a 51-vote majority, to pass health care reform legislation, bypassing the current Senate rules of requiring 60 votes to cut off a potential filibuster and proceed to a final vote.
………………………………………
“And what I worry about would be you essentially have still two chambers -- the House and the Senate -- but you have simply majoritarian absolute power on either side, and that's just not what the founders intended,” Obama said.
==============================================
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (full article available on-line)
“Reconciliation is a legislative process in the United States Senate intended to allow consideration of a contentious budget bill without the threat of filibuster. …………………………………………..
Under the original design of the Budget Act, reconciliation had a fairly narrow purpose. It was expected to be used together with the second resolution adopted in the fall, and was to apply to a single fiscal year and be directed primarily at spending and revenue legislation acted on between the adoption of the first and second budget resolutions. But Congress has used the procedure to enact far-reaching omnibus budget bills, first in 1981.
The Byrd Rule (described below) was adopted in 1985 and amended in 1990. Its main effect is that reconciliation cannot be used for provisions that would increase the deficit beyond 10 years after the reconciliation measure.
Congress used reconciliation to enact President Bill Clinton's 1993 (fiscal year 1994) budget. Clinton wanted to use reconciliation to pass his 1993 health care plan, but Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV) insisted that the health care plan was out of bounds for a process that is theoretically about budgets.”
…………………………………….
======================================================
- 02/24/10
Sen. Robert Byrd warned Democratic colleagues against changing filibuster rules in order to advance their legislative priorities.
"I am sympathetic to frustrations about the Senate's rules, but those frustrations are nothing new," Byrd wrote. "However, I believe that efforts to change or reinterpret the rules in order to facilitate expeditious action by a simple majority, while popular, are grossly misguided."
Some liberal Democrats have called for a change in the Senate's filibuster rules, which require 60 votes to end debate on an issue. In recent years, the mere threat of a filibuster on a matter before the Senate has meant a de facto requirement that most votes in the Senate have to have 60 votes.
…………………………..
VS
Founding Document
US Constitution, Tenth Amendment:
The powers not delegated to the
US Constitution, Article I, Section 5:
Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, and, with the Concurrence of two-thirds, expel a Member.
In 1975, the two thirds rule was changed to three fifths.
We the People:
Breaking the tenth amendment and the rules of the Senate has become too common. The people must enforce them if the legislators will not.
New Berlin Schools and Free Speech
Current Events vs. Founding Documents
Entry 23 Submitted by: Mark Musselman
Current Event
As reported by the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel on October 15, 2003 (full article available on-line)
The Wisconsin chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union is objecting to a
In a letter to the New Berlin School Board and district administration, ACLU of Wisconsin Legal Director Laurence J. Dupuis said the ACLU is stepping in after receiving complaints from
The policy on use of schools was revised in June by a 3-2 vote to include language banning political activities from New Berlin's schools amid discussion that changes to the policy were necessary to prohibit extremist groups from using the schools.
The updated policy now says groups shall not use district facilities for any election campaigning activities, including candidate forums, speeches by political candidates and "activities related to the promotion of or opposition to a particular candidate or political platform."
Applications to use schools for such a purpose will be denied "without regard for the political viewpoint of the group," the policy says.
……………………………..
But in a letter sent to the New Berlin school officials last week, Dupuis said the policy's language is "vague and subject to discriminatory application." For example, Dupuis asked, would the policy prevent non-profit groups from promoting public policies that a political party has also endorsed in its platform?
………………………………
Eitel (school board president at the time) said the discussion began when concerns were raised about Home and School organizations holding School Board candidate forums at schools.
In some cases, Eitel said, school principals received concerns that candidates themselves were helping to plan the forums, or the organizations were using the forums "to further the political agenda of the Home and School-supported candidates."
………………………
VS
Founding Document
The
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.
The
Every person may freely speak, write and publish his sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that right, and no laws shall be passed to restrain or abridge the liberty of speech or of the press. In all criminal prosecutions or indictments for libel, the truth may be given in evidence, and if it appears to the jury that the matter charged as libelous be true, and was published with good motives and for justifiable ends, the party shall be acquited; and the jury shall have the right to determine the law and fact.
We the People:
This New Berlin Schools policy (number 1330) is not under the jurisdiction of the first amendment to the US Constitution, which restricts only Congress from making such laws. And since no state or local law was created, the second clause of the second sentence of the
Note that the state does not define the criteria for abuse; that definition is left to the local authorities. And that is how the founders intended it. They respected “vertical” government which allows local levels to maintain the authority. This does not apply to some articles of the US Constitution; but it certainly applies in the first amendment.
The school board retains that authority to limit speech in school facilities with input from the local community. Ultimately the people decide by their votes for or against the school board members. Interference from the ACLU was unwarranted since it forced the community to choose between paying legal costs (even if it won) and doing what it thought was best for the students. The discussion would have otherwise remained centered on whether the change was better for the students’ education.
Who is the Party of Know?
Submitted by: Larry Gamble
The current atmosphere amongst mainstream American citizens is very much against the shenanigans of our elected leaders in
From this snippet of polling data, it appears the GOP is the only party listening to the citizens. They know we cannot tax the citizens more while exploding government spending and expect to control inflation or boost the economy. The GOP members of Congress know they cannot completely ignore people they are supposed to represent.
The GOP also does well when comparing their stances to the priorities defined by a recent Pew Research Center Poll. 80 plus percent of respondents listed Economy, Jobs and Terrorism as their top priorities. So, instead of focusing on the issues American citizens are focusing on, the DEM party is tilting at the windmills of tax revenue from Global Warming and nationalization of private industries.
It seems at this point the GOP is the party that knows what the electorate wants. In 2008, the electorate was looking for change and rejected the GOP in favor of the DEM. But in 2010, the political winds shifted and the electorate knows they want Jobs security, a strong economy and protection from terrorists. It seems the GOP is the only party that KNOWS this. Or, maybe they are the only ones who care what they majority of Americans are wanting.
What does the Oath Mean?
Submitted by: Larry Gamble
At some point, we've heard the words "support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America." Some people recited those words as part of their oath to join the military, law enforcement, to hold a political office or to be a judge. Others have only heard those words in other settings like an Oath Keepers Ceremony at a Tea Party Rally.
Just what do these words really this mean?
I'll serve up one example from history. James Madison, our fourth President, wanted a federal program to expand roads, rails and canals in the USA to promote growth and expansion. The only problem, there was no provision in Article 1 Section 8 to empower the federal government to build such a system. President Madison informed Congress that this was his "pet project" and told them they needed to first pass and get a Constitutional Amendment ratified by the states to allow the federal government to have this power.
One of his last acts as President, in 1817, was to veto the bill that was to start his own pet project because Congress had not taken the steps to ensure the Constitution allowed the federal government to do this. He did this on principle and on the Constitutional basis that the federal government did not have the right to do this. That is a prime example of standing firm with integrity to support and defend the Constitution. As a footnote, President Eisenhower had no problem with the federal government over reaching its Constitutional power to sign the bill creating the
While we may not have burdens like President Madison faced in our lives, we still have to make certain decisions.
1. Do you know what the Constitution and Declaration of Independence say?
2. Do you vote in every election?
3. Do you contact your elected representatives on all key issues?
4. Do you actively work to inform friends, family and others about key issues?
If education is the key to preserving our
What are you doing to educate your family and what does the Oath to support the Constitution mean to you?
Flag Burning
Current Events vs. Founding Documents
Entry 22 Submitted by: Mark Musselman
Current Event
From: CBS/AP June 26, 2006 (full article available on line)
A constitutional amendment to ban flag desecration died in a Senate cliffhanger Tuesday, a single vote short of the support needed to send it to the states for ratification and four months before voters elect a new Congress.
The 66-34 tally in favor of the amendment was one less than the two-thirds required. The House surpassed that threshold last year, 286-130.
………………
President Bush, who supports the amendment, called the failed vote unfortunate and commended Republicans and Democrats who voted to move the ratification process forward. In a statement, Bush said he continued to believe that "the American people deserve the opportunity to express their views on this important issue."
……………….
It represented Congress' response to Supreme Court rulings in 1989 and 1990 that burning and other desecrations of the flag are protected as free speech by the First Amendment to the Constitution.
………………
VS
Founding Document
The
The US Constitution; Article V; first clause
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress;
We the People:
Part of the pledge to that flag is; “and to the republic for which it stands….” The majority of people must have favored that proposed amendment. However our constitutional republic protects the liberties of the minority from majority rule; even when they express offensive ideas. May it always be so.
One Nation Under God
Current Events vs. Founding Documents
Entry 21 Submitted by: Mark Musselman
Current Event
Washington Post Tuesday, June 15, 2004; (full article available on-line)
A unanimous Supreme Court ruled yesterday that the phrase "under God" may remain in the Pledge of Allegiance as recited in public school classrooms. But the Flag Day decision fell far short of the clear endorsement of the pledge's constitutionality that President Bush and leaders of both parties in Congress had sought.
While all eight justices who participated in the case voted to overturn a 2003 federal appeals court decision that would have barred the phrase in public schools as a violation of the constitutional ban on state-sponsored religion, a majority of five did so exclusively on procedural grounds, ruling that the atheist who brought the case, Michael A. Newdow, lacked legal standing to sue.
………………….
The Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, said in a prepared statement: "The justices ducked this constitutional issue today, but it is certain to come back in the future."
………………………..
Still, the 9th Circuit decision sparked a political uproar, as the ruling was denounced by the president and nearly the entire membership of Congress. All 50 state governments, the National Education Association and the National School Boards Association also weighed in at the court in favor of the existing pledge.
VS
Founding Document
The
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.
We the People:
Americans United for Separation of Church and State predicted the return of this issue. Since our elected officials nominate and confirm Supreme Court justices, we must support only those legislators who understand that first amendment does not limit the public expression of religion. Likewise the people can coerce their legislators about members of the ninth circuit court of appeals; impeachment is an option.
Federal Courts Exceeding Their Authority
Current Events vs. Founding Documents
Entry 20 Submitted by: Mark Musselman
Current Event
- As reported by AP on - January 05, 2010 (full article available on line)
…………………
Tuesday's 2-1 ruling by a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the 2000 ruling of a district judge in
……………………
The two appellate judges ruled that disparities in the state's justice system "cannot be explained in race-neutral ways."
………………….
A spokeswoman says state Attorney General Rob McKenna is weighing the state's next step.
VS.
Founding Document
The Constitution, Article 1, section 4
The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Place of choosing Senators.
The Constitution, Amendment 10
The powers not delegated to the
The Constitution, Amendment 15, Article 1
The right of citizens of the
We the People:
The federal judicial branch is granted no authority to intervene in this function of the state of
Electorate Shrugged
A year ago if someone had told me I would be neck deep into the Tea Party movement, I would have thought them crazy. But, times change and we hope for change and sometimes; we actually change. In the course of this journey, I’ve seen the great parts where people help each other and leave the event site cleaner than when we arrived. But, I’ve also noticed there is an element out there on the extremes who don’t think the Tea Party movement goes nearly far enough. These folks make Hannity, Limbaugh and Beck look like altar boys for the GOP. These 1%’ers are ready to start trouble and you can easily find their distorted message on You Tube, just as there are 1%’ers on the liberal side who want an immediate shift to socialism. But that fringe element is not the point of this.
I interact daily with members from 63 various groups in Wisconsin that all total represent about 250,000 people who want to continue the American Dream of “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.” The current politically correct, socialistic stance of the power hungry liberals is not about the American Dream. The Tea Party movement sees both the DNC and GOP as out to continue giving away the country (the DNC to the Marxist and the GOP to big corporations).
The majority of the Tea Party folks I deal with are wanting to return this country to its roots and that means a smaller federal government, fiscal conservativism, more states rights and greater individual liberties. The rally cry is… “Where does the constitution say the federal government has the authority to do this?” We don’t want a nanny state. We don’t want our monthly stipend. We want control of our own lives!
The statists like to say… the federal government gets its authority from the general welfare clause from the Preamble… “promote the general welfare” and then they like to combine that with citing the necessity clause from the end of Article 1, section 8… “To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper.” But, they conveniently ignore the rest of that thought in necessity clause…“for carrying into Execution the foregoing powers…” Those “foregoing powers” are the 17 enumerated powers as defined in Article 1, Section 8. Sorry but if the founders had meant for the Federal government to overpower the states, they would not have listed the 17 powers of the federal government.
Were that true, the founders would not have continued that thought of limited federal power by adding the 10th Amendment to the Constitution. Additionally, since 1997, the House of Representatives has ignored Parliamentary Rule XIII 3Di which requires a Constitutionality check before legislation is voted on and is supposed to be submitted for review along with the CBO review of the costs. If they followed this rule, it might save us lots of tax dollars in court challenges.
Speaking of court challenges, the federal government has already lost THREE supreme court cases (1992, 1995 and 1997) that already set precedence against the feds having the authority to pass Obama Care. If the elected leaders cannot understand the necessity clause and insist on futile court challenges, will they ever understand that our tax money is not the government’s personal piggy bank that they can raid at any time? At what point does this country reach critical mass that the wage earners can no longer support the sick, lame and freeloaders? We all can’t work for the government or get a “gov’ment check.”
Within the Tea Party movement, we are sick of the GOP saying “too big to fail” and DNC claims of “we must do this for the children.” This is supposed to be a free market economy, instead have over regulated to favor one special interest over another to the point that our system is completely dysfunctional. The nanny state of our government has turned us all into incapable toddlers who require close supervision for basic survival.
All of these reasons add up to reveal why the Massachusetts election on Tuesday was critical to both sides… 51% of the state’s voters consider themselves Independent even though DNC members outnumber GOP members by a 3 to 1 margin. The Tea Party movement which also includes the other “third party” candidates represent that 51%.
The true lesson from Massachusetts is that the electorate shrugged on Jan. 19th, 2010 and the people are throwing off the constraining yokes of the big government, nanny state.
Sixteenth Amendment Abused
Current Events vs. Founding Documents
Entry 19 Submitted by: Mark Musselman
Current Event
As reported By Politico on December 21, 2009 (full article available on line)
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) offered a vigorous defense Monday of the deals in the Senate reform bill that benefit individual states, saying “it doesn’t speak well” of senators who didn’t secure such deals.
“There are 100 senators here and I don’t know that there’s a senator that doesn’t have something in this bill that isn’t important to them,” Reid said. “If they don’t have something in it important to them then it doesn’t speak well of them.”
He likened the legislation to the defense bill, which is thick with earmarks and other provisions benefitting(sic) individual members and even private corporations.
“That’s what legislations all about,” Reid said of the compromises. “It’s the art of compromise. In this great country of ours,
VS
Founding Document
The Constitution, Article 1, Section 8 - Powers of Congress
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;
The Constitution, 16th Amendment
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
We the People:
Congress has exceeded the intended authority in taxation and our country is deeply in debt. Is it time to repeal the 16th amendment?
Non-Negative Campaigning That The Left Has Used Against Conservatives
It is simply amazing how the left leaning bloggers and media are quick to criticize a Conservative candidate of negative campaigning when a legitimate issue is raised against the Liberal’s favorite candidate. Yet, these fine Liberals have their own blatant double standard when it comes to how they will treat the Conservative candidate. I guess negative campaigning must somehow be loosely based on issues, but “good old” campaigning is more about turning intangible things into campaign issues. So remember, don’t raise any real issues because that would be going negative. You have to stick to the non-issues and intangible campaign points.
I’m not promoting the use of slander or libel, but do you want to have some fun with your elected officials own words, sound bites or connections with current events? Adopt any of these Liberal tactics for dealing with political opposition and have some fun.
1) Promote absurd conspiracy theories that question any and every aspect of the official’s life. Remember how President Bush was accused of things like causing 9/11, questionable military service, or Obama’s legal citizenship. There are no sacred cows and every topic is fair game!
2) Verbally attack them with their own flaws, flubs and by using their own misstatements against them. Just highlight those items in the news, on your Face Book page or by writing your own blog. With You Tube and some editing skills, you can create your own short montage of sound bites that really hit a home run! Here are a couple examples from President Bush’s tenure in office.
September 26, 2005 “Bill Maher: Laura Bush Like Hitler’s Dog” - http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/9/26/194236.shtml
Late-night Jokes About Bush Twins (mainly alcohol use) - http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/blbushtwinjokes.htm
3) Spread lies and misquotes about your elected official then repeat them repeatedly and repeat them again until everyone starts to believe them. If it’s worth spreading, it’s worth spreading on thick!
Here’s a great example from July 2003: “CBS News Lies About Bush” - http://www.aim.org/media-monitor/cbs-news-lies-about-bush/
"The headline was, "Bush Knew Iraq Info Was False." Later, the headline was changed to, "Bush Knew
And, another one from the 2008 Campaign season:
“Obama lies about Bush/McCain to Hispanics” - http://santafeblog.wordpress.com/2008/09/29/obamainsultsnatives/
4) Compare your elected official to any of the worst tyrants in history like, Hitler, Stalin, or Attila The Hun. There are plenty of examples on Google to help you. This exercise can be quite fun and entertaining. Try to be original, even finding some obscure minor tyrant can be useful in your efforts.
5) Never, ever give up! Continue to pile on with your vile comments and accusations, and don’t acknowledge any positive actions that your elected official may have done. Remember, if the official elected target of your wrath is worthy of this effort, nothing they do can reconcile your political or philosophical differences. Since, you probably didn’t vote the person anyway or have lost confidence in this elected official; what does it matter anyway?
