Duck!!!

I've been thinking about about the lame duck sessions for Congress and the President lately and the concept just boggles my mind. Why after an election where a majority of people decide on a new Congress or President do we allow for a sitting Congress or President to make decisions or laws?

Let's start at the beginning (the very best place to start). In the original Constitution the date which a new session of Congress begins was the first Monday of December. The date which the Presidents term was to begin was not in the original Constitution. March 4 was the date that was 30 days following the casting of Electoral College votes in Congress (February 4, 1789)for George Washington. That gave him time to travel to the capitol (New York) to the inaugural.

The first Constitutional reference to the Presidential inauguration date (March 4) was in the 12th Amendment.

The person having the greatest Number of votes for President, shall be the President ... if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President...

That still did not set the exact inauguration date for President. That all changed with the Twentieth Amendment to the Constitution. This Amendment set both the Presidential and Congressional term start dates.

The Twentieth Amendment

1. The terms of the President and Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January, and the terms of Senators and Representatives at noon on the 3d day of January, of the years in which such terms would have ended if this article had not been ratified; and the terms of their successors shall then begin.

2. The Congress shall assemble at least once in every year, and such meeting shall begin at noon on the 3d day of January, unless they shall by law appoint a different day.

3. If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.

4. The Congress may by law provide for the case of the death of any of the persons from whom the House of Representatives may choose a President whenever the right of choice shall have devolved upon them, and for the case of the death of any of the persons from whom the Senate may choose a Vice President whenever the right of choice shall have devolved upon them.

5. Sections 1 and 2 shall take effect on the 15th day of October following the ratification of this article.

6. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission.

So that is the history of the lame ducks in a nut shell. Now I will get on with my rant on why this has turned crazy.

First off, this age of communications and travel advances there is no reason to have any kind of lame duck for the President or the Congress. The lame duck Congress and President have no accountability to what is passed during the lame duck sessions. I heard it explained on the Fred Thompson Show as "It is like giving your ex-wife your check book after the divorce." It just doesn't make any since. The "ruling" party could pass (and have passed) all kinds for legislation without having to account for their actions to the people they are to represent.

For example, There was a vote for censure of the crook Charlie Rangel. During that vote our Representative, John Salazar, voted no. Charlie Rangel is a convicted criminal and our Representative said essentially that the people of the Third Congressional District think that is A-OK. I don't believe that is true. That is just a small example.

I believe that after an election, there is no reason to wait until the Third of January to swear in Congressmen. Have the new congressmen sworn in the day their election results have been verified. The "official" start date of Congress could still be in January, but the new Congressmen could already be serving. That eliminates the lame duck problems with Congress.

How about the President? I think we could actually eliminate most of the lame duck for the President. The President does have to wait until the electoral votes are cast in the new Congress. If we change the Congresses start date back to the original Third of December of the election year, that gives time for the election to be settled.

You might asking yourself  "What about the time the President needs to create a new government?" I understand that the President needs to make key appointments during that lame duck session so they can "hit the ground running" when they are inaugurated. Why does that have to be after the election?

Wouldn't it be more informational for the electorate to see who a prospective President will appoint before the election? I mean it might have changed a few votes if we knew that folks like Tim "the Tax-Cheat" Geithner and "Rahm "Dead Fish" Emanuel were going to be in key White House positions.

I believe that we should be fighting to have a Constitutional Amendment to revise the Twentieth amendment. The time has come to make a change into the 21st century.

Happy Constitution Day!

Everybody needs a little Schoolhouse Rock reminder, so here is a video about the Constitution....

Klavin - Young Peoples Guide to the Constitution

HR 450 Enumerated Powers Act

The Enumerated Powers Act is a bill introduced into the House by John Shadegg (AZ #3) and in the Senate by Tom Coburn of Oklahoma (Senate bill number is: S 1319). The bill is short and to the point (the way laws are supposed to be written). It simply states that if a bill is going to pass Congress it needs to have in it a reference to where in the Constitution they have the Constitutional authority do pass the bill.

Finally a good idea actually proposed by a Congressman. Nice to know that someone out there is looking out for the Constitution. It would be nice to know where they think they have a right to pass legislation like the Health Care bill or Cap and Trade. Accountability in Congress is a good thing.

Here is the complete text of the House version of the bill (look it is less than a page...hummm):

A BILL

To require Congress to specify the source of authority under the United States Constitution for the enactment of laws, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Enumerated Powers Act'.

SEC. 2. SPECIFICATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY FOR ENACTMENT OF LAW.

(a) Constitutional Authority for This Act- This Act is enacted pursuant to the power granted Congress under article I, section 8, clause 18, of the United States Constitution and the power granted to each House of Congress under article I, section 5, clause 2, of the United States Constitution.

(b) Constitutional Authority Statement Required- Chapter 2 of title 1, United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 102 the following new section:

`Sec. 102a. Constitutional authority clause

`Each Act of Congress shall contain a concise and definite statement of the constitutional authority relied upon for the enactment of each portion of that Act. The failure to comply with this section shall give rise to a point of order in either House of Congress. The availability of this point of order does not affect any other available relief.'

(c) Clerical Amendment- The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 2 of title 1, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 102 the following new item:

`102a. Constitutional authority clause.'.

I Love Our Constitution

As I read news stories this week there seem to be a central theme that jumped out at me, see if you can see the pattern...

Anti-Chavez TV Channel owner arrested. (Yahoo Finance)

France moves toword partial burqa ban. (CNN)

Protest Cancels Coulter Speech in Ottawa. (FOX)

MSNBC Host: Time for "Socialism" In Talk Radio (Real Clear Politics)

China Condemns decision by Google to lift censorship. (BBC)

Rep. Weiner: Palin is Stoking Liberal Hate (CBS)


"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's a single sentence that is 45 words long and has become a central backbone to our Constitution, the First Amendment to the Constitution. 

There are limitations of course, to the First Amendment like you cannot yell "FIRE!" in a crowded movie theater or have your assembly on a busy airport runway. For the most part you can say or write anything you want in this country. For that we are blessed.

I believe that other people around the world don't really understand how good free speech is and how it can cultivate ideas. I was watching a Canadian reporter on FOX, talk about the Ann Coulter incident (mentioned above).  She said that they (Canadians) had limitations on  "free speech". That certian things could be deemed "hate speech" in their country.  She went on to say "that is the way we like it."  It took me a second to grasp the idea that some people actually like the idea that they are not allowed to say what they want (even if considered "hate speech").  The only thing I could figure is that they must not have ever had true free speech to know the difference.

I write this blog post without fear of being fined, jailed or put to death. There will be no soldiers or police coming for me. I can look up information on the Internet. I can disagree with the government. I can give a speech at a University, I can assemble with other people and protest.  I can go to the church I want, when I want.  I can petition the government. I am free and I owe it to the men who wrote that one simple Amendment.

I read a bumper sticker once that said "If you can read this thank a teacher." That may be true but, if you are reading that sticker, while it is attached to an automobile for the whole world to see, you may want to thank a founding father.

James Madison's Birthday

How fitting that on the day of James Madison's (Father of the Constitution) birth that the Democrats are looking at ways to disassemble it with the use of the Slaughter Rule. This rule would essentially allow for the House of Representatives to "say" that a bill is passed (even though it has not) so they could pass the host of reconciliation amendments. This is a back door way to pass health care.

This rule violates the Constitution. In  Article 1, Section 7 it states: "...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."

Evidently the oath to defend the Constitution means nothing to lawmakers attempting this "Slaughter Rule".

James Madison Quote: "A popular government without popular information or the means of acquiring it, is but a prologue to a farce, or a tragedy, or perhaps both. "

Reconciliation (Nuclear Option)

This is a list of people that do not want to use reconciliation for passing legislation. These are the same people who want to use the same plan for passing Health Care...




Maybe it's time to explore making a Constitutional amendment to eliminate the whole reconciliation idea. I think our founders wanted it to be difficult for legislation to be passed through the Senate so actual debate could occur. With reconciliation we rush to spend money and pass frivolous laws. We need to take the time make and make the right choices. The Senate is the forum for people who live in states with smaller populations, why do we allow for Congress to rob these states of their Constitutional powers. This seems very questionable to me.

10th Amendment

The 10th Amendment to the Constitution reads....

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The Jon Caldara of the Independence Institute of Golden has proposed a ballot question that would create a new Colorado Constitution Amendment that would allow for Coloradoians the right to "opt-out" of any federal health care plan that is approved.

Mr. Caldara said mandating all Americans to have health care insurance is a violation of states’ rights. That “The citizens can decide to speak up and say no to Obama care,” Caldara said. “Colorado is defending itself from an unfunded mandate from Washington, D.C.”

What a novel concept: using the Constitution when we draft legislation instead of some political agenda. I hope that this becomes a ballot measure in November, defiantly one that I can support.

Here is the link to the Independence Institute on Facebook: Defend-Colorado-from-ObamaCare Facebook page.

The Bill of Rights

The Bill of Rights is made up of ten separate amendments, dealing with issues ranging from free speech and unjust searches to religious liberty and cruel and unusual punishment.

The First Amendment 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 Second Amendment A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

The Third Amendment No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

The Fourth Amendment The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The Fifth Amendment No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

The Sixth Amendment In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

The Seventh Amendment In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

The Eigth Amendment Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

The Ninth Amendment The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

The Tenth Amendment The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people

September 17, 1787

On this day 222 years ago the greatest document ever created was signed, the United States Constitution.

Interesting facts about the Constitution:

1)The U.S. Constitution has 4,400 words. It is the oldest and shortest written Constitution of any major government in the world.

2) Although Benjamin Franklin’s mind remained active, his body was deteriorating. He was in constant pain because of gout and having a stone in his bladder, and he could barely walk. He would enter the convention hall in a sedan chair carried by four prisoners from the Walnut Street jail in Philadelphia.

3) Because of his poor health, Benjamin Franklin needed help to sign the Constitution. As he did so, tears streamed down his face.

4) When the Constitution was signed, the United States’ population was 4 million. It is now more than 300 million. Philadelphia was the nation’s largest city, with 40,000 inhabitants.

5) It took one hundred days to actually “frame” the Constitution.

6) As Benjamin Franklin left the Pennsylvania State House after the final meeting of the Constitutional Convention on September 17, 1787, he was approached by the wife of the mayor of Philadelphia. She was curious as to what the new government would be. Franklin replied, “A republic, madam. If you can keep it.”

7) The word “democracy” does not appear once in the Constitution.

8) As evidence of its continued flexibility, the Constitution has only been changed seventeen times since 1791! (We have 27 Amendments, but remember 10 of them were wrapped up in one change - the Bill of Rights)

9) The national government spent $4.3 million during the first session of Congress from 1789-1791. During the last year that George Washington was President of the United States (1796-1797), the entire cost of running the federal government was $5,727,000.

10) John Adams referred to the Constitution as “the greatest single effort of national deliberation that the world has ever seen” and George Washington wrote to the Marquis de Lafayette that “It (the Constitution) appears to me, then, little short of a miracle.”

11) There was a proposal at the Constitutional Convention to limit the standing army for the country to 5,000 men. George Washington sarcastically agreed with this proposal as long as a stipulation was added that no invading army could number more than 3,000 troops!

12) A proclamation by President George Washington and a congressional resolution established the first national Thanksgiving Day on November 26, 1789. The reason for the holiday was to give “thanks” for the new Constitution.

It is kind of sad that this day does not usually even get mentioned on calenders let alone celebrated. We are free today because of the events of September 17, 1787. Maybe you can think of your own celebration for Constitution Day or maybe just say a prayer of thanks to God, for giving us our freedom.

A Sovereign Colorado?

I really like the idea of Colorado expressing our sovereignty, using the 10th Amendment of the Constitution. The complete Constitutional amendment reads: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Why don't we in Colorado, stand up for our sovereignty and place law on the books similar to that of a law like Montana, which states: If a gun and it's ammo is manufactured in Montana and does not leave the state (interstate commerce), the Federal Government does not have the power to regulate that gun or it's ammo. So the people in Montana can decide if they want certain kinds of guns or if they want background checks or whatever, it's their state their rules.

It sounds scary, like Colorado being it's own country. That is not quite like that. Simply what it means is we do not trust the Federal Government and let's put more power it into the hands of the individual states. Any power not mentioned in the Constitution belongs to the individual states.

This is not about Democrat vs. Republican. This is about a very poorly ran federal government with leaders we can not trust, and haven't been able to trust for quite some time. This is about not wanting to pay for other people's screw-ups. For example we are going to "bail out" California because they are "to big to fail". Last I checked, I had no vote in California, so I have NO CHOICE in their poor economic decisions, yet me and my children and my grand children, will be forced to pay for their mistakes. Essentially it is taxation without representation much like the same thing our founding fathers were fighting with King George III. We have placed (or they took) too much power from the individual states and now it is time to make this right.

Disturbing...

I was listening to the news on the way to work the other day and I heard a guy say something that disturbs me me a bit....

The issue is: The Grand Junction City Council has approved zoning for a trucking company located by the local riverfront. The issue itself I haven't studied enough to have an opinion. What I do know is, that there is a local group of individuals which do not want the company at that location, so they are petitioning to have an election to overturn the City Councils decision.

The disturbing thing I heard is a spokesman for the trucking company saying "If decisions of the City Council can be overturned with an election why do we even have a City Council". This disturbs me because it chips away at our Constitutional rights as citizens.

I believe that the Constitution is the law of the land which has worked for 220 years or so so why do we wish to dismiss it so easily. What I heard when he said this was "The citizens as are inept and the City Council is always right ." If you believe your opinion is right and a good opinion then why do you have to worry about an election. Let the issue go to the people, let the people decide, if you are correct then you will be supported if not then maybe you are just wrong. That is the greatness of this country we can disagree and we can be wrong, but we have the right, as a community, to correct others mistakes with the gift of the first amendment.