Posts
Real Tax Reform
-
Lately it has become, once again, popular to discuss tax reform. Even to
talk about real tax change. The plans offered thus far appear to make the
attempt ...
13 years ago
Wednesday, December 24, 2008
Friday, December 12, 2008
This is evidence
Either Former Senator Obama is Constitutionally ineligible to be President, or he really needs to be more careful about who he puts in his cabinet.
Bill Richardson speaks about Obama
No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
Which is it ?
Will we get all of the facts to determine which it is ?
We all have to give more proof of eligibility for a loan, of any kind, than Former Senator Obama has provided to the Electors of the Several States. More proof is needed in the State of Hawai'i just to claim a homestead tax credit than Former Senator Obama has provided to the Electors of the Several States.
Just answer the critics with the proof, and everyone will know which it is.
Bill Richardson speaks about Obama
No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
Which is it ?
Will we get all of the facts to determine which it is ?
We all have to give more proof of eligibility for a loan, of any kind, than Former Senator Obama has provided to the Electors of the Several States. More proof is needed in the State of Hawai'i just to claim a homestead tax credit than Former Senator Obama has provided to the Electors of the Several States.
Just answer the critics with the proof, and everyone will know which it is.
Monday, December 1, 2008
Civil Office under the Authority of the United States
Now that it is official
It is time to address the talk that was once conjecture.
Soon-to-be President-elect Barack Obama has selected and publicly adressed, in official nomination style, the name of Senator Hillary Clinton as his selection and choice to be the next Secretary of State.
One would think this is all well and good. It carries on with the “Team of Rivalries” facade that so many fans of the next administration cling to.
There is unfortunately one very large and glaring problem with this announcement.
The Senator is Constitutionally ineligible to take the position of Secretary of State. Or Secretary of any other Cabinet post.
It is because during the length of term to which Senator Clinton was elected, from 2007-2013, there have been and are scheduled to be increases in the emoluments of those positions.
No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time
All of which leads to why this is an important issue.
Some will argue that since the increases were not voted on by her, this is in no way an effort on her part to profit from such a position.
Some will argue that since these increases are only to keep up with inflation, that they are only restoring the salaries to their 1990’s level.
These both seem to be valid points. To anyone that decides that words are unimportant, they are very valid.
Some will argue there have been other times, when there have been such appointments, which were then attended to by various fixes, therefore all we need a "fix".
This point, while being very historically accurate, is also very wrong.
It was wrong when Philander Knox was appointed to Secretary of State by President Taft. It was wrong when William Saxbe was appointed to Attorney General by President Nixon. It was wrong when Edmund Muskie was appointed to Secretary of State by President Carter. It was wrong when Lloyd Bentsen was appointed to Secretary of Treasury by President-elect Clinton with President Bush as co-conspirator.
It was also so wrong when Orrin Hatch was at the top of President Reagan’s short list for Supreme Court Justice that he was removed from any nomination.
Just because it was done before does not make it right.
There is very explicit language in our National founding document. Let us return to following that language. Fully.
It is time to address the talk that was once conjecture.
Soon-to-be President-elect Barack Obama has selected and publicly adressed, in official nomination style, the name of Senator Hillary Clinton as his selection and choice to be the next Secretary of State.
One would think this is all well and good. It carries on with the “Team of Rivalries” facade that so many fans of the next administration cling to.
There is unfortunately one very large and glaring problem with this announcement.
The Senator is Constitutionally ineligible to take the position of Secretary of State. Or Secretary of any other Cabinet post.
It is because during the length of term to which Senator Clinton was elected, from 2007-2013, there have been and are scheduled to be increases in the emoluments of those positions.
No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time
All of which leads to why this is an important issue.
Some will argue that since the increases were not voted on by her, this is in no way an effort on her part to profit from such a position.
Some will argue that since these increases are only to keep up with inflation, that they are only restoring the salaries to their 1990’s level.
These both seem to be valid points. To anyone that decides that words are unimportant, they are very valid.
Some will argue there have been other times, when there have been such appointments, which were then attended to by various fixes, therefore all we need a "fix".
This point, while being very historically accurate, is also very wrong.
It was wrong when Philander Knox was appointed to Secretary of State by President Taft. It was wrong when William Saxbe was appointed to Attorney General by President Nixon. It was wrong when Edmund Muskie was appointed to Secretary of State by President Carter. It was wrong when Lloyd Bentsen was appointed to Secretary of Treasury by President-elect Clinton with President Bush as co-conspirator.
It was also so wrong when Orrin Hatch was at the top of President Reagan’s short list for Supreme Court Justice that he was removed from any nomination.
Just because it was done before does not make it right.
There is very explicit language in our National founding document. Let us return to following that language. Fully.
Thursday, November 13, 2008
Bankruptcy Inconsistencies
The recent talks of extending monies to the "Big Three" auto makers has reached a fever pitch.
Nearly every talk-radio show has at one time or another either covered the topic or made it the focus of a segment of an hour, or made it the topic for the hour.
There are many great points made on those shows; especially the point that what these auto makers is facing is the very reason for bankruptcy laws.
Allowing companies to continue to do business while restructuring themselves as they have more time to pay their debts and keep workers (that's real people) from being unemployed due to no cause of their own.
The Congress shall have Power To...establish...uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States.
But, this is so much more than big important and connected people coming in and saving some group and letting others have to follow the laws.
We are in the middle of the Congressional leadership and the Democrat Party's chosen one deciding that the auto makers and therefore the auto workers are more important than our power-supplying companies and therefore the mine workers that supply the coal that is the predominant source of fuel for our power supply.
I was at a loss for understanding how this could be. But, there were no uncertain terms applied to what would happen to any company that would try to build a coal-fired plant:"they will go bankrupt".
Why is bankruptcy OK for one industry, that we all need and use, but not for another that, well hasn't been so very necessary of late - remember it is the "Big Three" of Ford/GM/Chrysler that are on the verge of bankruptcy not ConEd/Exelon/FirstEnergy; yet, very strangely, it is ConEd/Exelon/FirstEnergy (as well as many others) being threatened with bankruptcy if they even attempt to supply more of the product that is in such demand.
The answer my friend is in the rhetoric of the Democrat Party's chosen one.
Remember the number 250,000 ? (or 200,000 or 150,000 or 120,000 whichever the number du jour is)
Oh, sure, when at first we heard him use it, he meant the dollar amount at which your income has made you less important to him. But that number is so much more meaningful.
The United Auto Workers are a group of 464,910 as of the end of 2007. That is a lot of union dues. That is a lot of union dues being funneled into the Democrat Party coffers. Those union dues would undoubtedly be decreased in the event of contract restructuring by a bankruptcy.
The United Mine Workers, however do not make it to the magic number.
The United Mine Workers are a group of 105,000 according to their statement of endorsement of the Democrat Party's chosen one. A large part of that membership is outside of the coal industry, in such varied occupations as public service and healthcare.
That is apparently not enough union dues being funneled into the Democrat Party coffers to care enough about preserving their contracts from bankruptcy restructuring.
Nearly every talk-radio show has at one time or another either covered the topic or made it the focus of a segment of an hour, or made it the topic for the hour.
There are many great points made on those shows; especially the point that what these auto makers is facing is the very reason for bankruptcy laws.
Allowing companies to continue to do business while restructuring themselves as they have more time to pay their debts and keep workers (that's real people) from being unemployed due to no cause of their own.
The Congress shall have Power To...establish...uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States.
But, this is so much more than big important and connected people coming in and saving some group and letting others have to follow the laws.
We are in the middle of the Congressional leadership and the Democrat Party's chosen one deciding that the auto makers and therefore the auto workers are more important than our power-supplying companies and therefore the mine workers that supply the coal that is the predominant source of fuel for our power supply.
I was at a loss for understanding how this could be. But, there were no uncertain terms applied to what would happen to any company that would try to build a coal-fired plant:"they will go bankrupt".
Why is bankruptcy OK for one industry, that we all need and use, but not for another that, well hasn't been so very necessary of late - remember it is the "Big Three" of Ford/GM/Chrysler that are on the verge of bankruptcy not ConEd/Exelon/FirstEnergy; yet, very strangely, it is ConEd/Exelon/FirstEnergy (as well as many others) being threatened with bankruptcy if they even attempt to supply more of the product that is in such demand.
The answer my friend is in the rhetoric of the Democrat Party's chosen one.
Remember the number 250,000 ? (or 200,000 or 150,000 or 120,000 whichever the number du jour is)
Oh, sure, when at first we heard him use it, he meant the dollar amount at which your income has made you less important to him. But that number is so much more meaningful.
The United Auto Workers are a group of 464,910 as of the end of 2007. That is a lot of union dues. That is a lot of union dues being funneled into the Democrat Party coffers. Those union dues would undoubtedly be decreased in the event of contract restructuring by a bankruptcy.
The United Mine Workers, however do not make it to the magic number.
The United Mine Workers are a group of 105,000 according to their statement of endorsement of the Democrat Party's chosen one. A large part of that membership is outside of the coal industry, in such varied occupations as public service and healthcare.
That is apparently not enough union dues being funneled into the Democrat Party coffers to care enough about preserving their contracts from bankruptcy restructuring.
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
President-Elect Not Quite Yet
The popular vote is in, except for maybe a few precincts in GA and the backseats of some poll workers in MN, and it seems as if there is a decisive winner in the Presidential race.
Except for one little thing. The Constitution.
You see we had a very smart group of founders. They saw to it that the only branch of the Federal Republic that was to be a One-Man-Show, the Executive branch, would be protected from any single group forcing their way in. In doing that they gave us what has come to be called The Electoral College.
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress.
The Congress may determine the Time of choosing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.
The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President,...and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, ...and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate;
The person having the greatest Number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed.
The day the Electors meet to cast their ballots is December 15th. The Electors will meet in their respective State Capitols. In The District of Columbia they will meet within the District.
On January 8th Congress shall assemble in joint session to count the Electors' votes and declare the winners of the election. The meeting is held at 1:00 p.m. in the Chamber of the U.S. House of Representatives.
So, until that day and time, we do not as yet have a President-Elect.
Slow down.
Wait for it.
Except for one little thing. The Constitution.
You see we had a very smart group of founders. They saw to it that the only branch of the Federal Republic that was to be a One-Man-Show, the Executive branch, would be protected from any single group forcing their way in. In doing that they gave us what has come to be called The Electoral College.
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress.
The Congress may determine the Time of choosing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.
The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President,...and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, ...and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate;
The person having the greatest Number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed.
The day the Electors meet to cast their ballots is December 15th. The Electors will meet in their respective State Capitols. In The District of Columbia they will meet within the District.
On January 8th Congress shall assemble in joint session to count the Electors' votes and declare the winners of the election. The meeting is held at 1:00 p.m. in the Chamber of the U.S. House of Representatives.
So, until that day and time, we do not as yet have a President-Elect.
Slow down.
Wait for it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)