Legalize The Constitution

We Need More Men Like Van Irion

2010-07-09T12:43:00.001-05:00

Watch and see that there are more lovers of Constitutionally limited government yet walking among us.

For Congress in Tennessee's 3rd District

Thanks to The Robot

The State of Hawai'i Mulls Over Pissing On The First Amendment

2010-03-17T14:36:00.002-05:00

The First Amendment to The United States Constitution specifically protects the Rights of United States Citizens to seek out answers from their governments:

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.

Yet in The State of Hawai'i their senate is considering a new statute that would extend civil penalties to anyone that wants to know that President Barack Hussein Obama does indeed have the Constitutionally determined qualifications to be President.

If the measure passed, the state Office of Information Practices could declare an individual a "vexatious requester" and restrict rights to government records for two years.

How very American of them !

They cheered as they ended every last shred of Constitutional government

2009-11-07T22:17:00.001-06:00

They cheered. Twice.

How sad are the times in which we live.

It is glaringly obvious that Rep. Steny Hoyer cannot read !

2009-10-21T15:40:00.004-05:00

O.K., that may be an overstated headline. But, it is certain that he has the comprehension level of a toddler.

Congress has “broad authority” to force Americans to purchase other things as well, so long as it was trying to promote “the general welfare.”

By simply reading the relevant text of The United States Constitution Article 1 Section 8:

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

and then just overlooking that the rest of the text lays out the extent of such powers Congress is to "provide for the common Defense and general Welfare" one sees that NO WHERE is health-care included !

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;
To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;
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;
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

But, it really isn't about reading or comprehension. It is about assuming power over as many people as is possible !

It always will be for statists.

November 2, 2010. It is time to reclaim our Republic, and throw out EVERY statist !
There are no truth in labeling laws that apply to politicians. Whether a D or an R do not believe a word. Check out their record yourself.

The 10th Amendment and State Sovereignty versus Federal Mission Creep

2009-10-01T23:23:00.001-05:00

How wonderful it is to read that in Several States the Governors or someone in the State Legislatures have actually read The United States Constitution.

I refer specifically to The 10th 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.

In Arizona, California, Georgia, Hawai'i, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas and Washington (UPDATED: Ohio and Alaska have been added to this list) there are bills and resolutions that have been introduced that address the intolerable expansion of the federal government, or Governors that seek to re-establish State Sovereignty.

What was once a given, State's had sole authority over their own affairs, was all but destroyed, along with 600,000 plus lives, is now being reasserted as truth by these Constitution loving brave few men.

For more than one reason are these lines in the sand being drawn. Some are in response to language in the "stimulus " package that force permanent changes in State laws in order to be eligible to receive funds. Some are in response to the knowledge that such language is a strong precursor to the mission creep that will come in forms of limitations on The Constitutionally protected God-given Rights of Free Speech and The Constitutionally protected God-given Right to Bear Arms.

One thing is certain. If We The People do not now stand up to the ever encroaching, over-reaching, greedy, tyrannical grabbing of the federal government NOW, we may not be able to at all.

With fools like this, it can only be expected

2009-09-16T15:33:00.006-05:00

The great State of South Carolina has sent some of the best and brightest Senators and Representatives to Congress that this Nation has ever seen, among them most notably Christopher Gadsden, Edward Rutledege, and John C. Calhoun; however they are also responsible for Representative James Clyburn.

He of such great Constitutional grounding to formulate this response when asked to simply show:
"Where in the Constitution it authorizes the federal government to regulate the delivery of health care ?"

"There's nothing in the Constitution that says that the federal government has anything to do with most of the stuff we do."

Fear not there is more brilliance to follow from Rep. Clyburn.

"How about [you] show me where in the Constitution it prohibits the federal government from doing this?"

Oh, South Carolina, Y'ALL must be SO proud !

If the Statist-stream Media ever considers telling the truth, they would be covering more Constitutionally grounded reporters like Judge Napolitano.

Until then all we have is that fabulous believer in market driven everything Rupert Murdoch's FoxNews.

Just when you thought it was all about Healthcare.........

2009-08-16T19:50:00.003-05:00

Another infringement on the 2nd 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 petition and flier can be found here

H/T: Van Helsing

In less than four minutes Rep Bachmann wraps it up

2009-07-02T13:03:00.002-05:00

This is exactly what we have allowed ourselves to come to.

Even voted for it in specific terms.

H/T Van Helsing

Where To Start ?!?!?!?!?

2009-06-11T01:44:00.003-05:00

I was having difficulty choosing the topic with which to devote my next post.

But, with the complete and total disregard for The Constitution by The Executive Branch in the takeover of a Publicly held company; with the complete and total disregard of The Constitution by The Judicial Branch in the takeover of a publicly held company; with the complete and total disregard for The Constitution by The Legislative Branch in the takeover of a publicly held company I no longer believe that either Branch of The National (formerly Federal) Government recognize any of it as anything other than a double-ply bathroom tissue with which to wipe their collective asses.

The Nation I loved is dead !

It didn't even take a full term ! The 111th Congress is a disgrace !!!!!!!!!

PLEASE, PLEASE THROW THE BUMS OUT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

2010 is just 17 months away

jnm7psgkai

It is glaringly obvious that Congress does not read legislation, Or, they do not know what is stated in The First Amendment. REDUX

2009-04-28T19:03:00.002-05:00

These elected clowns keep doing it !

Cyber Security Act of 2009

Or, more descriptive The Complete Elimination of Free Speech When We Want To Act of 2009.

Call your Senators, before it, too, is an act of Right-Wing Extremism

It is glaringly obvious that Congress does not read legislation, Or, they do not know what is stated in The First Amendment.

2009-03-26T17:57:00.002-05:00

The US House of Representatives has passed a bill that will transform all the reasons and results of AmeriCorps forever.
It is currently in The US Senate.

The language of HR 1388; The Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education (GIVE) Act includes the following language:

‘(3) YOUTH ENGAGEMENT ZONE PROGRAM- The term ‘youth engagement zone program’ means a service learning program in which members of an eligible partnership described in paragraph (4) collaborate to provide coordinated school-based or community-based service learning opportunities, to address a specific community challenge, for an increasing percentage of out-of-school youth and secondary school students served by local educational agencies where--
‘(A) not less than 90 percent of the students participate in service-learning activities as part of the program; or
‘(B) service-learning is a mandatory part of the curriculum in all of the secondary schools served by the local educational agency

What part of Volunteering is mandatory ?

Many other writers will refer to the violations of the the proscription of slavery.
Most of those, however, see no problem with military conscription, though, despite the specific language of Thirteenth Amendment to The United States Constitution:

1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

My major concern with this latest far-reaching encroachment on Civil Liberties is in the language of Title I, Subtitle C, Section 1304:

SEC. 125. PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES AND INELIGIBLE ORGANIZATIONS.
‘(a) Prohibited Activities- A participant in an approved national service position under this subtitle may not engage in the following activities:
‘(1) Attempting to influence legislation.
‘(2) Organizing or engaging in protests, petitions, boycotts, or strikes.
‘(3) Assisting, promoting, or deterring union organizing.
‘(4) Impairing existing contracts for services or collective bargaining agreements.
‘(5) Engaging in partisan political activities, or other activities designed to influence the outcome of an election to any public office.
‘(6) Participating in, or endorsing, events or activities that are likely to include advocacy for or against political parties, political platforms, political candidates, proposed legislation, or elected officials.
‘(7) Engaging in religious instruction, conducting worship services, providing instruction as part of a program that includes mandatory religious instruction or worship, constructing or operating facilities devoted to religious instruction or worship, maintaining facilities primarily or inherently devoted to religious instruction or worship, or engaging in any form of religious proselytization.
‘(8) Providing a direct benefit to--
‘(A) a business organized for profit;
‘(B) a labor organization;
‘(C) a partisan political organization;
‘(D) a nonprofit organization that fails to comply with the restrictions contained in section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 except that nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent participants from engaging in advocacy activities undertaken at their own initiative; and
‘(E) an organization engaged in the religious activities described in paragraph (7), unless Corporation assistance is not used to support those religious activities.
‘(9) Conducting a voter registration drive or using Corporation funds to conduct a voter registration drive.
‘(10) Such other activities as the Corporation may prohibit.
‘(b) Ineligible Organizations- No assistance provided under this subtitle may be provided to the following types of organizations (including the participation of a participant in an approved national service position under this subtitle in activities conducted by such organizations) or to organizations that are co-located on the same premises as the following organizations:
‘(1) Organizations that provide or promote abortion services, including referral for such services.
‘(2) For-profit organizations, political parties, labor organizations, or organizations engaged in political or legislative advocacy.
‘(3) Organizations that have been indicted for voter fraud.
‘(c) Nondisplacement of Employed Workers or Other Volunteers- A participant in an approved national service position under this subtitle may not perform any services or duties or engage in activities which--
‘(1) would otherwise be performed by an employed worker as part of his or her assigned duties as an employee or by another volunteer who is not a participant in an approved national service position; or
‘(2) will supplant the hiring of employed workers or work of such other volunteers.’.

You read that right

There are countless items listed that are verboten. Clearly, solidly and strongly this language violates The First Amendment to The United States Constitution:

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.

How is it possible that these elected representatives have made it to the point in life they are at in this country and not know the First Amendment to The United States Constitution ?

Congress steps up its Un-Constitutional Acts under the guise of Outrage

2009-03-19T15:24:00.000-05:00

A very bad bill went through both houses of the Congress because they did not read the language.

The President signed it into law without reading the language.

So, now, in an effort to create outrage, in order to distract the public from more bad plans in the Congress, they have passed a bill in the United States House of Representatives that will take a big thick black permanent marker to The United States Constitution.

Article I Section 9:

No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

That means that the Congress cannot retroactively rewrite the terms of a contract.

That means that if it has already happened, and it was legal when it happened, it can not be retroactively made illegal.

Yet, the Congress wishes to retroactively tax a legal, contractual payment after the fact. A payment that was expressly approved in the great big bill that no-one read, except the guy that wrote that provision, Sen. Christopher Dodd (D-CT).

What else will they go after ?

How far will they be allowed to go before we stop these attacks on The United States Constitution ?!?!?!?!?

When will the Congress read anything ?

2009-02-27T14:31:00.005-06:00

In both houses of Congress there has been approved differing bills that would attempt to over-ride the Constitutionally assigned powers of all legislation in The District of Columbia.

The United States Constitution spells out in very plain language in Article I Section 2:

The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.
No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.

and Article I Section 8:

The Congress shall have Power.........To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States

The only thing stopping this egregious un-Constitutional bill is an even more un-Constitutional measure contained in the bill passed by The United States Senate, stopping it only until both Houses come to an agreement on how make something bad passable. The Senate bill has a provision that tramples on The 2nd Amendment in the same manner as the previous DC gun laws. They are trying to say that DC should have Congressional representation just as long as they surrender their right to representation. But, that is another story.

The District of Columbia is, as it was set up to be, the seat of the federal government. Subject to the legislative authority of Congress. Not a test case for the total disregard of specific language in The Constitution.

Over are the days of extending extra-Constitutional meaning to clauses.

Now there is the complete disregard to the meaning of the word State. The District of Columbia is not a State. If it were to be granted Statehood, then there will be need to move the seat of government to a new region ceded from a current State, or States.

Is that the goal of these stupid, arrogant, self-serving, asinine, illiterate, moronic, bunch of know-nothings that have been sent to Congress in our names ?!?!?!?!?!?

The 44th President of The United States of America - Barack Hussein Obama, Jr.

2009-01-20T16:44:00.003-06:00

In full accord with The United States Constitution, the part we all know, we once again witnessed a peaceful transfer of power.

This is a feat that NO other country has ever been able to do for as long as we have. For over 200 years we have been witnesses to what many other Republics can still only hope to achieve.

We also were witnesses to the centuries-old traditions of pomp and ceremony of which such an astounding achievement is worthy.

Do not let this event pass without realizing the profound significance.

Do not be lulled into a sleep induced by how well we do this wonderful, peaceful transition.

History tells us it will not last.

We must remain ever vigilant.

Ever ready to preserve such greatness; for it is greatness that allows us such an event to be peaceful.

President-Elect Barack H. Obama

2009-01-08T13:22:00.003-06:00

Despite how uninformed or uninterested the Obama camp was with The United States Constitution, with all of their attempts to pretend otherwise, there was no President-Elect until the votes of the Electors of the Several States were tabulated and certified.
As directed in Article II Section 1:

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: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.

and
Amendment 12:

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 in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-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 President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted;

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 person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed

As President of The Senate, Vice-President Cheney announced

"Pursuant to the Constitution and laws of the United States, the Senate and House of Representatives are meeting in joint session to verify the certificates and count the votes of the electors of the several states,"

VP Cheney then opened and presented, in alphabetical order, the certificates of the electoral votes from all 50 states and the District of Columbia.

Each certificate was read by two members of The Senate; Charles E. Schumer, D-N.Y., and Robert F. Bennett, R-UT, and two members of the House; Robert A. Brady, D-PA, and Vernon J. Ehlers, R-MI.

After the reading of the certificates, which were without objections, the vote totals were read:

Barack H. Obama/Joseph R. Biden, Jr. - 365

John S. McCain/Sarah L. Palin - 173

Congratulations and Godspeed, Mr. President-Elect Barack H. Obama and Mr. Vice-President-Elect Joseph R. Biden

United States Senate blocks seating of Constitutionally Qualified Senator

2009-01-06T10:35:00.004-06:00

The United States Senate has determined that the Constitutionally appointed Senator Burris does not meet their standards.
However, The United States Constitution has spelled out the necessary qualifications in Article I Section 3:

No person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.

Mr Burris is 71 years of age.
Mr Burris is a citizen of the United States.
Mr Burris is an Inhabitant of The State of Illinois.

So far Mr Burris has met all qualifications.

The Senate is not basing their standards on The United States Constitution.
While it is true that

Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members

Those qualifications are fully met, as we have already seen.

The Senate is basing their standard on a technicality that is in The Senates rulebook. They require the Secretary of State of The Senator's State to sign his credentials.
A seemingly reasonable point considering that each State of the Union has such a requirement to legally determine their own elections.
One thing, though, is very different here. Senator Burris was not elected. Senator Burris was appointed to The Senate in full accord with Illinois State law and The 17th Amendment to The United States Constitution

When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.

Illinois State law does not require any Secretary of State signature, nor does The United States Constitution.

There is absolutely no Constitutional basis for the exclusion of Senator Burris.

Merry Christmas to all

2008-12-24T18:00:00.000-06:00

and to all a good night

This is evidence

2008-12-12T14:21:00.003-06:00

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.

Civil Office under the Authority of the United States

2008-12-01T16:22:00.005-06:00

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.

Bankruptcy Inconsistencies

2008-11-13T19:14:00.000-06:00

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.

President-Elect Not Quite Yet

2008-11-11T21:36:00.002-06:00

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.