Sen. John Warner (R-VA) - Solving Global Climate Change Can Help Ensure America's Security

Sen. John Warner (R-VA) - Solving Global Climate Change Can Help Ensure America's Security: Progress Ohio

You are invited on Tuesday, March 2 to a public forum with former Senator John Warner (R-VA) and the Pew Project on National Security, Energy and Climate cosponsored by The Ohio State University’s John Glenn School of Public Affairs

Topic: “Solving Global Climate Change Can Help Ensure America's Security”

Former Sen. John Warner (R-VA) and the Pew Project on National Security, Energy and Climate will convene a public forum on March 2rd in conjunction with The Ohio State University’s John Glenn School of Public Affairs. OSU is home to some of Ohio’s leading clean energy policy experts and to several of the nation's premier climate researchers. Sen. Warner will speak to the critical links between national security, energy and global warming and to new strategies for combating climate change, protecting our national security, increasing our energy independence, and preserving our nation’s natural resources.

Clean energy research conducted in Ohio is simultaneously critical to energy independence, reducing carbon emissions, and stimulating technology-driven industries in Ohio. Leading Ohio policy experts will join Sen. Warner at the forum to describe Ohio’s role in reducing climate threats and to identify our opportunities for growing clean energy industries.

WHAT: Public forum with former Senator John Warner (R-VA)

WHERE: OSU Faculty Club, 181 South Oval Drive, Columbus

WHEN: March 2, 1:30 – 3 p.m.

WHO: Open to students, faculty, and the public

RSVP: Free of charge; RSVP to tom.bullock.ohio@gmail.com

Comment: Warner represents one side of the same coin, THE STATIST.

Consider the description contained above where the assembly considers security and climate change...read between the lines here folks. Critical links between national security and energy and global warming....come on folks. Remember the Warner Defense Act of 2007; it repealed the Posse Comitatus Act. This man is no friend of liberty or limited government.

Let's repeal the 17th!

Reid Bullish on Climate Bill

Reid Bullish on Climate Bill; Mother Jones

Does John Kerry have good reason to be so optimistic about a climate bill? The Washington Post reports that he’s getting strong signals that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid wants a bill ASAP, indicating that senators might be closer to a deal on climate and energy than many people around Washington have assumed.

Kerry indicated to reporters Tuesday that an energy package is still atop Reid’s agenda for the year. And in a statement to the Post, Kerry said that Reid is “deadly serious about making progress this year on climate and energy reform.” Reid met with Kerry on Tuesday after a he huddled with Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) to discuss the anticipated measure.

"Senator Reid made it clear to me the other day that he wants a bill and he wants it soon," Kerry said. "I can't give you an exact timeline, but we are working very very diligently with our colleagues and all of the stakeholders to think this through carefully and get this done right, and get it done in a way that can pass the Senate."

Finance Chair Max Baucus (D-Mont.) has been less enthusiastic about moving on a bill this year, saying earlier this week that he doesn’t think it stands much of a chance of going anywhere. His committee has jurisdiction over some key elements of the bill, like permit allocation and any revenues it may bring in.

Sources close to the climate debate at environmental and energy industry lobbying groups indicate that they, too, are getting positive signals that the Kerry, Graham, and Lieberman are getting close to a deal. Kerry indicated that they’ve close to agreement on key elements like a nuclear energy title, but the outstanding issue remains what kind of mechanism they will use to price carbon.

Comment: I am not sure whether the health care bill or the climate bill is worst, but they are both clearly fascist. The US Senate has indeed become the platform for ushering fascism into America; it cannot be any clearer and the climate bill demonstrates this unquestionably.

Only repealing the 17th Amendment will save America from fascism.

Senate Passes Short-Term Patriot Act Re-authorization

Senate Passes Short-Term Patriot Act Reauthorization; By Andrew Ramonas; Main Justice

The Senate passed by voice vote Wednesday night legislation that would temporarily extend three Patriot Act provisions set to expire at the end of this month.

The bill would keep in place the Patriot Act’s “lone wolf,” business records and “roving wiretap” powers until Feb. 28, 2011. The House has yet to consider the measure.

Both the House and Senate had begun work on long-term renewals, but the bills contained major differences.

The Senate Patriot Act bill would reauthorize all of the authorities. The House version would renew the records and “roving wiretap” powers but not the “lone wolf” authority, which the government has never used. The bills also would include new oversight for the authorities.

The Senate bill was approved by the Judiciary Committee last October and is awaiting floor action. The House bill, which won Judiciary Committee approval last November, is also awaiting floor action.

“I would have preferred to add oversight and judicial review improvements to any extension of expiring provisions in the USA PATRIOT Act,” Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) said in a statement Wednesday night.

Here is a summary of the provisions that are due to expire:

• Lone wolf: Allows the government to track a target without any discernible affiliation to a foreign power, such as an international terrorist group. The provision applies only to non-U.S. persons. The government has never used it.
• Business records: Allows investigators to compel third parties, including financial services and travel and telephone companies, to provide them access to a suspect’s records without the suspect’s knowledge.
• Roving wiretaps: Allows the government to monitor phone lines or Internet accounts that a terrorism suspect may be using, regardless of whether others who are not suspects also regularly use them. The government must provide the FISA court with specific information showing the suspect is purposely switching means of communication to evade detection.

Comment: There was nothing patriotic about the bill when it was first passed, and there is still nothing patriotic about it today.

McCain's Freedom-Destroying Dietary Supplement Regulatory Bill

Beware of McCain's Freedom-Destroying Dietary Supplement Regulatory Bill; JBS.org

Most are familiar with those commercials on television promoting prescription drugs that supposedly offer relief from a variety of ailments, if one would only pressure one’s doctor to obtain them. They have become a source of great entertainment and amusement to some, the kicker coming at the end of each commercial when the FDA-approved medication’s obligatory litany of warnings and dangerous side effects is recited: “Tell your doctor if....” and “Side effects may include.....” Some of the warnings are mild like diarrhea and constipation, some list serious effects like cancer or tuberculosis, and others admit that sometimes even death can result.

The point here is that these are all FDA-approved drugs being advertised and used extensively. Drugs that can cause serious diseases like lymphoma. Drugs that can kill. The FDA’s dismal safety record is well documented; even PBS ran a Frontline special that investigated and exposed the FDA’s unsafe drug record, the influence of Big Pharma inside the FDA, and lack of long-term testing and medical review of many, many dangerous drugs. The FDA seldom removes a drug from the market even after it proves to be harmful or deadly, however they do post quarterly reports with details of the latest potentially dangerous side effects of drugs currently under investigation.

Nonetheless, Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.) wants this same FDA, with its dismal safety record, to regulate dietary supplements. The Dietary Supplement Safety Act (DSSA), S. 3002 (text of this bill posted on Senator McCain's website), that McCain has introduced with one cosponsor, would repeal key provisions of the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (DSHEA) to “more effectively regulate dietary supplements that may pose safety risks unknown to consumers.”

Under attack by the DSSA is the once-protected field of supplements, as they have always been considered food. Potencies would have to be reduced to comply with what appears to be a plan modeled after the European Food Safety Authority. A new list of “Accepted Dietary Ingredients” would be “prepared, published, and maintained by the Secretary,” in the future. That’s a bit like being handed a blank check and told to fill it out later as one wishes. It could certainly be used to severely limit access to, and even production of, hundreds of life-sustaining and essential mineral, herb, and vitamin products.

All ingredients contained in each supplement would have to be disclosed at the time the company registers all of its “manufactured, packaged, held, distributed, labeled or licensed,” products with the FDA. An onerous burden would be placed on the shoulders of suppliers and retailers of dietary supplements, as they would have to “obtain written evidence” from the seller that the product is registered as required by law, and keep that documentation on file. Monetary penalties for non-compliance “may, in addition to other penalties imposed in this section, be fined not more than twice the gross profits or other proceeds derived from the manufacture, packaging, holding, distribution, labeling, or license of such dietary supplement.” Those are very broad dictates and most likely subject to even broader interpretation.

The McCain bill would change existing mandatory serious adverse reporting regulations, requiring minor adverse effects to be reported as well so that the FDA could arbitrarily pull supplements off the shelves or reclassify them as drugs. This immediate recall authority would be granted to the “Secretary upon determination,” that there is a “reasonable probability” that the product is “adulterated” or “misbranded.” Adulterated in this bill takes on a whole new expanded definition: “A dietary supplement which contains a new dietary ingredient shall be deemed adulterated under section 402(f) unless there is a history of use or other evidence of safety.” The development of new products that contain newly discovered nutritional components may be entirely quashed.

Read the rest of the article here.

Comment: It makes me wonder what these people do all day long with their time? It's certainly possible these people have too much time on their hands.

All McCain does is meddle in the private lives of Americans and adds to overly regulated bureaucratic world the political class have surrounded us with. And he's obviously not about freedom, liberty, or small government, but rather making sure big pharma (a special interest group) is protected so that its business is furthered through the tool called the FDA.

McCain is one of hundred reasons to repeal the 17th Amendment.

Saturday Night Live Episode 671 - The New Senator

I think a little humor is in order for the start of this cold weekend.

Blackwater fallout: Senate moves to rein in military contractors

Blackwater fallout: Senate moves to rein in military contractors; The Christian Science Monitor

After several incidents of misbehavior in Afghanistan involving the military contractor Blackwater and its employees, US lawmakers are moving to provide greater oversight of an industry that, while key to American military success, may also be undermining the mission there.

Even as US forces in Afghanistan operate under orders to protect Afghan civilians, erring on the side of caution and even holding their fire rather than risk harming them while fighting Taliban insurgents, concern is mounting that civilian contractors operate under a different set of rules – or simply don't follow the rules.

“If we don’t fix the problems of oversight and make sure contractors like Blackwater play by the rules and live up to their commitments, we’ll be doing a disservice to our troops by making their already-difficult and dangerous job even more so,” said Sen. Carl Levin (D) of Michigan. Senator Levin, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, takes up the topic at a hearing Wednesday.

Comment: The Senate allowed this to happen from very first day a contract was signed between our government and this company. Congress, particularly the US Senate, are the real culprits.

So explain to me how these idiots like Levin are going to rein in this out of control mercenary element?

GOP senators were against jobs bill before they were for it

GOP senators were against jobs bill before they were for it; The Atlanta Journal Constitution

UPDATE: Six, not eight, GOP senators voted against allowing a jobs bill on the floor for a vote Monday; then, they turned around and voted for it today. They are:

Lamar Alexander (R-TN); Thad Cochran (R-MS); James Inhofe; (R-OK);George LeMieux (R-FL); Lisa Murkowski (R-AK);Roger Wicker (R-MS) (h/t TPM)

A rare — and very odd — moment of bi-partisan cooperation just broke out on the floor of the U.S. Senate. Thirteen Republicans joined 57 Democrats to pass a jobs bill that would provide tax cuts to businesses if they hire workers.

Here’s the odd thing: Just yesterday, eight of those Republicans voted AGAINST allowing the measure to even come up for a vote. They detested it so much yesterday they wouldn’t agree to end a filibuster. What happened to get them to switch?

Comment: Hey, I don't see any Tea Party folks jumping for joy over Scott Brown right now.

Midterm Election Series-Nevada

Danny Tarkanian talks about his campaign for US Senate in Nevada.

Midterm Election Series-Pennsylvania

Fmr. Rep. Pat Toomey talks about his campaign for US Senate in PA.

Senator James Inhofe Releases Climategate Report

Key US senator backs upping aviation security fee

Key US senator backs upping aviation security fee; Reuters

A key U.S. senator said on Wednesday that he supported hiking aviation security fees as authorities boost security after the failed attempt to bomb a U.S. commercial airliner on Christmas Day.

Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee Chairman Joe Lieberman said that the Department of Homeland Security's budget may not keep pace with inflation, which could inhibit efforts to thwart terrorism threats. Boosting aviation security fees will help fund air industry security, he said.

"For that reason, I will support a request to increase aviation fees to benefit the budget of homeland security," Lieberman said at a hearing on the department's fiscal 2011 budget.

Last December, a Nigerian man, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, tried to blow up a flight from Amsterdam to Detroit with a bomb hidden in his clothing, but it failed to go off completely and he was tackled and subdued by passengers.

That failed attempt led the Obama administration to boost airport security dramatically, and included in its fiscal 2011 budget additional money for advanced-imaging body scanners that could detect bombs hidden in clothing.

The Department of Homeland Security plans to deploy hundreds of the machines this year with the goal of having 1,000 of them operating by 2011.

One complaint from the airline industry is the cost of securing planes and screening passengers.

Comment: I think I could write for about an hour concerning all of the hegemonic and Orwellian components to this article. Lieberman is not a friend of liberty; only tyranny and war.

Limiting the growth of the federal and national governments is one of the core components of repeal movement. In this one short article we see the erosion of civil liberties through the use of body scanners and the unbelievable growth of the police state security apparatus. We see unsubstantiated fear being used to scare the public to impose greater tyranny.

This growth will be paid for not only through additional taxes placed upon the aviation industry but by the citizens of this country. We will pay the cost through taxation and the airline industry will see revenues lost when the citizenry cannot afford to fly, nor desire to put up with the police state measures imposed by the TSA and DHS.

In plain terms the police state security measures being imposed must end. We must eliminate this new growth "industry" and the only way we will succeed is when we send people like Lieberman packing and return the states rightful place within the original body of Federal Government and this will only occur when the 17th Amendment is repealed.

Take Money and Special Interests Out of Politics

Spending reform needn’t conflict with free speech; Henry Schmid, Las Vegas Sun

From a letter to the editor in the Las Vegas Sun:

Ed Hayes, in his Saturday letter to the editor headlined “Put limits on spending for campaigns,” points out the problem with campaign spending and its influence on our elected officials.

However, the solutions he suggests (funding limits and public funding) would conflict with our First Amendment right to free speech. Three other solutions have been suggested that do not conflict with the First Amendment and should be considered:

-- Contributions for a candidate could be made to a blind trust where the candidate would have no knowledge of their supporters.

-- All contributions could be subject to full disclosure such that if an elected official submits legislation favoring a contributor or does not recuse himself from a vote on legislation benefiting the contributor, it would be public knowledge.

-- Repeal of the 17th Amendment, which would mean senators once again would be appointed by the state legislatures. This would take money and special interests out of politics, since the senators would be beholden only to the state. This would also have the added benefit of limiting the size of the federal government, since laws that are best addressed at the state level would more likely be left to the states.

Comment: Repealing the 17th would take a huge bite out of the money special interest use to influence our elected officials without compromising the 1st Amendment!

Only 21% Say U.S. Government Has Consent of the Governed

Only 21% Say U.S. Government Has Consent of the Governed; Rasmussen Reports

The founding document of the United States, the Declaration of Independence, states that governments derive “their just powers from the consent of the governed.” Today, however, just 21% of voters nationwide believe that the federal government enjoys the consent of the governed.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 61% disagree and say the government does not have the necessary consent. Eighteen percent (18%) of voters are not sure.

However, 63% of the Political Class think the government has the consent of the governed, but only six percent (6%) of those with Mainstream views agree.

Seventy-one percent (71%) of all voters now view the federal government as a special interest group, and 70% believe that the government and big business typically work together in ways that hurt consumers and investors.

That helps explain why 75% of voters are angry at the policies of the federal government, and 63% say it would be better for the country if most members of Congress are defeated this November. Just 27% believe their own representative in Congress is the best person for the job.

Sneak Peek Into New Senate Report on Climategate

Sneak Peek Into New Senate Report on Climategate; Senator Jim Inhofe

Hello, I'm Senator Jim Inhofe, the Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. I want to give you a sneak-peek into a major new Senate report on my Committee's investigation into the scandal commonly known as Climategate.

What emerges from our review of the emails and documents, which span a 13-year period from 1996 through November 2009, is much more than, as EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson put it, scientists who "lack interpersonal skills." Rather, the emails show the world's leading climate scientists discussing, among other things:

* Obstructing the release of damaging data and information;
* Manipulating data to reach preconceived conclusions;
* threatening journal editors who published work questioning the climate science "consensus"; and
* Assuming activist roles to influence the political process.

The correspondence also reveals a fractured consensus on the state of climate science. Contrary to repeated assertions that the "science is settled," the emails show the world's leading climate scientists arguing over critical issues, questioning key methods and statistical techniques, and doubting whether there is "consensus" on the causes and the extent of climate change.

If you're interested in reading key passages of the report to be released this morning, click here.

As even some of the most ardent global warming alarmists now admit, the past few months have been bad news for their cause. I suspect climategate is only the beginning.

We knew they were cooking the science to support the flawed UN IPCC agenda. As I said on the Senate floor back in 2005 that "the IPCC has demonstrated an unreasoning resistance to accepting constructive critiques of its scientific and economic methods, even in the report itself...this is a recipe for de-legitimizing the entire endeavor in terms of providing credible information that is useful to policy makers."

And back in 2003 I said blaming global warming on CO2 and other man made gases is the ‘greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people." I was right.

Comment: At the heart of this whole global climate debate was US sovereignty. Our government officials, to include almost every elected and unelected official, and the two major parties, were willing to turn over our rights, our freedoms and liberties, to an international cabal that would regulate how we lived our lives and would tax every facet of our being, to include the breath we exhaled, and no one batted an eye, except for a hand full in Congress. This is truly alarming.

There is no doubt in my mind that this diabolical group was able to gain such a strong hold on the US because of the 17th Amendment. If our states were represented in the federal government as the founders intended there would have been more cries of alarm than just Senator Inhofe’s. However, because the 17th Amendment allows for the consolidation of great power into the hands of a very few individuals, special interests were able to manipulate them and thus bring this country closer to collapse than at any other time in our history.

The climategate affair only demonstrates the urgent need to repeal the 17th Amendment before this group of 100, 99, open the door for yet another attack against our sovereignty by the same cabal that seeks to impose their dominance over our people and nation.

The Spirit of Jefferson Lives in Virginia

The ability of states to judge the Constitutionality of an act of Congress originally lay in the authority of state legislatures to appoint Senators who would restrain the House from passing unconstitutional legislation. (Though nullification was discussed even before the Constitution became law, once the Senate was properly in place, Senators worked to preserve decentralization while still fighting for good ideas, such as abolition, etc., with nullification being just a threat. Yes, it's an oversimplification.) Repealing the 17th Amendment would make the threat of nullification unnecessary because states would nullify unconstitutional acts before they ever became law. Repealing the 17th Amendment now would also create a Senate which would, over time, work to gradually reduce unconstitutional infringements on our liberty. This would be so because Senators who did not fight for their states would not be reappointed by the state legislature. As it is, ridiculous personalities and party theatrics are how Senators get elected and re-elected now. And their single-minded purpose is to preserve power for their party and perpetuate the party system.

Hat tip: Tenth Amendment Center

Tim Lynch discusses the Powers of Congress

HT: All Congress



Comment: To echo a comment made on the site I spotted this video;

"The repeal of the 17th amendment would go a long way to eliminate or reduce the federal government from enacting unconstitutional legislation (e.g. Obamacare)."

I couldn't agree more!

Original Constitution Missing

Original Constitution missing; Spokesman.com

Health care issues aside (“States lost right to fight federal fix to health care,” Feb. 13), let’s take a closer look at states’ rights itself. The federal government established in the U.S. Constitution by the various state governments no longer exists.

The few powers remaining with those states after The War of Secession (1861-65) were voided by the ratification of the 17th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution on April 8, 1913. Prior to that date, U.S. senators were elected by the state legislatures to represent them at the federal level.

Now, U.S. senators are elected by the people, who have gained a second House of Representatives and the state governments are, in effect, administrative units of the central (Washington, D.C.) government.

If we would only repeal the 17th Amendment, this discussion could take place in the U.S. Senate and the rest of us might go fishing, read a good book or whatever.

Jon J. Tuning
Spokane

Comment: For those of us that seek to repeal the 17th Amendment, we might try writing to our local and state newspapers as Mr. Tuning did to get the word out. We need to cover as many media outlets as possible for the widest broadcast available. Relying upon the internet may not be the best course of action for our movement. Newspapers are still read by the older segment of our society; the group with the most time available to become activists. So consider writing that "letter to the editor" this weekend; you may very well get another supporter for the repeal.

The Anti-Slavery History Of States' Rights

Derek Sheriff

In 1850, Congress compromised in order to hold the Union together against the divisive issue of slavery. Since the preservation of the Union (Northern control of the South’s economy), rather than the abolition of slavery was foremost in the minds of influential Republican bankers, manufacturers and heads of corporations, this compromise made perfect sense.

Part of this compromise was the passage of more stringent fugitive slave legislation that compelled citizens of all states to assist federal marshals and their deputies with the apprehension of suspected runaway slaves and brought all trials involving alleged fugitive slaves under federal jurisdiction. It included large fines for anyone who aided a slave in their escape, even by simply giving them food or shelter. The act also suspended habeas corpus and the right to a trial by jury for suspected slaves, and made their testimony non-admissible in court. The written testimony of the alleged slave’s master, on the other hand, which could be presented to the court by slave hunters, was given preferential treatment.

As would be expected, this new legislation outraged abolitionists, but also angered many citizens who were previously more apathetic. In 1851, 26 people in Syracuse, New York were arrested, charged and tried for freeing a runaway slave named William Henry (aka Jerry) who had been arrested under the Fugitive Slave Act. Among the 26 people tried was a U.S. Senator and the former Governor of New York! In an act of jury nullification, the trial resulted in only one conviction. “Jerry” was hidden in Syracuse for several days until he could safely escape into Canada.

The government of Wisconsin went even further and in 1854 officially declared the Fugitive Slave Act to be unconstitutional. The events that lead up to this monumental decision, which is a milestone in the history of the states’ rights tradition, is one of the best stories most Americans have never heard.

Federalism is based on the same principles as capitalism, which is why they are supported and opposed by the same people. This is also why the best protection of capitalism is a federal system protected by a Senate as originally designed by the Constitution.

Derek Sheriff is a great storyteller. You should read the whole thing here.

New Stimulus Bill Likely To Fail In Senate

Let's hope so.

Reid opted for a smaller package after fellow Democrats complained it gave away too much to businesses and did not do enough to help those looking for work, aides say. Other job-creating efforts are expected to advance separately.

Since the tax breaks and spending measures are paired with a crackdown on offshore tax shelters, it would actually lead to $8.7 billion in savings over the coming decade, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.

That estimate does not take into account the $19.5 billion that would be used to help pay for highway construction.

Calling a spending bill a "jobs bill" doesn't make it one, any more than calling it a "stimulus bill" makes it stimulate anything. Why not just "crack down" on offshore tax shelters without the spending? Who's opposed to that?

Report: Health Care Bill Will Bypass Senate

The legislation the White House will post on its website is expected to reflect common ground negotiated over the past several weeks by House and Senate Democratic leaders.

Those agreements are likely to be combined as a privileged budget reconciliation bill, which only needs a simple 51-vote majority to pass the 100-member Senate instead of the 60-vote supermajority that has become routine in the Senate and gives Republicans power to block the healthcare bill.

"I believe that's the path we are going to take," a senior congressional Democratic aide said.

The Senate was created in order to prevent such centralization of power.

Walt Garlington: Repeal the 17th to Decentralize Government!

From 1913 onward, voters have directly elected U.S. senators in statewide elections.

This change has led to a number of negative results, including

-Vastly increased federal power and vastly decreased state, local, and personal authority due to the state governments losing their representation in the federal government;

-The domination of Senate elections (and legislation) by forces outside of the particular states wherein elections are being held, e.g., out-of-state donations, political party operatives, and campaign consultants; and

-A decline of the influence of individual voters and small, local associations of voters over who is selected to be a senator from their state.

...

Individuals and small associations matter little to the statewide candidate but are important to the state representative and state senator who actually lives among them, knows them, and is known by them. The state legislator must take them and their views seriously, regarding Senate elections and other legislative matters, for they hold great electoral power over him. So individuals and small, local groups would grow more influential in U.S. Senate elections if the 17th were repealed, and outside interests less so. (I explain this in more detail here - JohnJ)

...

A crazy quilt of locally devised laws stretching across the United States may nauseate the federal bureaucrat who delights in the efficiency resulting from bland uniformity, but it would be pleasing to the citizens who would live under the aegis of those laws. Repealing the 17th would allow liberal, moderate, libertarian, and conservative communities to live under the laws of their own choosing rather than the choosing of the imperial few (of whatever political philosophy) in D.C.

Opposition to federalism is generally based on the same grounds as opposition to capitalism - that people cannot be trusted to make their own decisions and lead their own lives. But there is no freedom without choice, and that includes entrusting people with the responsibility to bear the burdens of their own choices.

Judge Napolitano's The Constitution & Freedom (Complete)

This is a great program by Andrew Napolitano. He explains the history of the Constitution, and includes how the 17th Amendment removed the impediment to centralization of power.

Good stuff!

Judge Napolitano On The Tea Party

Power Corrupts The Congressional Black Caucus

The Congressional Black Caucus has become one of the most corrupt organizations in government:

Like so many other Washington political organizations, the Black Caucus has an official fund-raising arm subject to federal rules, but it dodges those laws with a network of “nonprofit groups” that lets it rake in unlimited amounts of cash from corporations and labor unions.

The money is supposed to help disadvantaged African-Americans but instead most of it is spent on lawmakers’ costly golf outings and annual casino jaunts as well as elaborate galas where lobbyists and executives who donate to caucus charities can mingle with lawmakers and push their agendas.

In the last four years alone, the Congressional Black Caucus’s unregulated charitable wings took in at least $55 million but the bulk of the cash was not spent on true charitable causes. Four million dollars—all from major corporations—went to purchase a headquarters on prestigious Embassy Row in Washington D.C. and nearly $1 million was spent on the group’s gala dinner and conference billed as “Hollywood on the Potomac.”

The Congressional Black Caucus has escaped much-needed scrutiny because our politically-correct culture labels any criticism of it as racism. Diminished scrutiny has allowed this organization to sink to new depths of corruption by allowing the law to be skirted to grant certain special interests greater influence.

Repealing the 17th Amendment would decentralize government power, resulting in less corruption as powerful interests have less to gain from influencing one central power. It is the promise of power which corrupts. Limiting that power naturally limits corruption.

Update: Reason magazine chimes in, calling the "conscience of Congress" "phony-baloney".

Federalist No. 62: The Senate

The Breitbart site, Big Government, has posted "Federalist No. 62: The Senate." Definitely worth your time to read, and while you are there, check out the 150 (+) comments.

HAVING examined the constitution of the House of Representatives, and answered such of the objections against it as seemed to merit notice, I enter next on the examination of the Senate.

The heads into which this member of the government may be considered are: I. The qualification of senators; II. The appointment of them by the State legislatures; III. The equality of representation in the Senate; IV. The number of senators, and the term for which they are to be elected; V. The powers vested in the Senate.

I. The qualifications proposed for senators, as distinguished from those of representatives, consist in a more advanced age and a longer period of citizenship. A senator must be thirty years of age at least; as a representative must be twenty-five. And the former must have been a citizen nine years; as seven years are required for the latter. The propriety of these distinctions is explained by the nature of the senatorial trust, which, requiring greater extent of information and ability of character, requires at the same time that the senator should have reached a period of life most likely to supply these advantages; and which, participating immediately in transactions with foreign nations, ought to be exercised by none who are not thoroughly weaned from the prepossessions and habits incident to foreign birth and education. The term of nine years appears to be a prudent mediocrity between a total exclusion of adopted citizens, whose merits and talents may claim a share in the public confidence, and an indiscriminate and hasty admission of them, which might create a channel for foreign influence on the national councils.

II. It is equally unnecessary to dilate on the appointment of senators by the State legislatures. Among the various modes which might have been devised for constituting this branch of the government, that which has been proposed by the convention is probably the most congenial with the public opinion. It is recommended by the double advantage of favoring a select appointment, and of giving to the State governments such an agency in the formation of the federal government as must secure the authority of the former, and may form a convenient link between the two systems.

III. The equality of representation in the Senate is another point, which, being evidently the result of compromise between the opposite pretensions of the large and the small States, does not call for much discussion. If indeed it be right, that among a people thoroughly incorporated into one nation, every district ought to have a PROPORTIONAL share in the government, and that among independent and sovereign States, bound together by a simple league, the parties, however unequal in size, ought to have an EQUAL share in the common councils, it does not appear to be without some reason that in a compound republic, partaking both of the national and federal character, the government ought to be founded on a mixture of the principles of proportional and equal representation. But it is superfluous to try, by the standard of theory, a part of the Constitution which is allowed on all hands to be the result, not of theory, but “of a spirit of amity, and that mutual deference and concession which the peculiarity of our political situation rendered indispensable.” A common government, with powers equal to its objects, is called for by the voice, and still more loudly by the political situation, of America. A government founded on principles more consonant to the wishes of the larger States, is not likely to be obtained from the smaller States. The only option, then, for the former, lies between the proposed government and a government still more objectionable. Under this alternative, the advice of prudence must be to embrace the lesser evil; and, instead of indulging a fruitless anticipation of the possible mischiefs which may ensue, to contemplate rather the advantageous consequences which may qualify the sacrifice.

In this spirit it may be remarked, that the equal vote allowed to each State is at once a constitutional recognition of the portion of sovereignty remaining in the individual States, and an instrument for preserving that residuary sovereignty. So far the equality ought to be no less acceptable to the large than to the small States; since they are not less solicitous to guard, by every possible expedient, against an improper consolidation of the States into one simple republic. ...

Democratic senator Bayh nixes re-election

Democratic senator Bayh nixes re-election; Freep.com

Democratic Sen. Evan Bayh of Indiana will not run for re-election, citing an atmosphere of excessive partisanship in Congress.

“After all these years, my passion for service to my fellow citizens is undiminished, but my desire to do so in Congress has waned,” Bayh, 54, said in prepared remarks.

Funny Video Of The Day: Who Voted The Bums In?

Jimmy Kimmel discovers a new ad by congressional incumbents: "We Suck Because You Suck"



Yep.

Senate Jobs Bill Contains Patriot Act Extension

New Extension Likely for Key Patriot Act Provisions; CQPolitcs

The Senate may vote on a second temporary extension of several controversial counterterrorism authorities as part of the jobs bill unveiled Thursday.

The draft bill carries language that would extend until Dec. 31 three expiring provisions of the antiterrorism law known as the Patriot Act.

The three provisions were set to expire at the end of 2009. But neither House nor Senate Democratic leaders evinced any appetite for tackling a substantive rewrite of the law last year. In December, Congress cleared a short-term reauthorization until Feb. 28, as part of the fiscal 2010 Defense appropriations bill.

One of the expiring provisions allows the government to seek orders from a special federal court for “any tangible thing” that it says is related to a terrorism investigation. Another allows the government to seek court orders for roving wiretaps on terrorism suspects who shift their modes of communication.

Comment: Go figure, as the American people are getting kicked squarely between the legs by the bankers and the buffoonery leveled by Congress, the Senate slides in an extension to further the police state.

Baucus, Grassley push bipartisan jobs bill in the Senate

Baucus, Grassley push bipartisan jobs bill in the Senate; The Christian Science Monitor

The Senate’s new bipartisan jobs bill likely would have only a modest effect on the US unemployment rate.

That is because the centerpiece of the legislation is a tax credit for companies that hire people who have been out of work for at least 60 days. Many economists say such credits are inherently inefficient employment-boosting tools.

“The problem with subsidies such as this is that they are exceedingly sloppy. A lot of money goes to those firms that would have hired anyway,” writes Howard Gleckman, a senior research associate at the Urban Institute, in an analysis of the subject.

Sen. Max Baucus (D) of Montana, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, and Sen. Charles Grassley (R) of Iowa, the panel’s top Republican, jointly introduced the jobs measure on Thursday. ...

Comment: Baucus and Grassley are two sides from the same coin.

Rather than giving out money that well do absolutely nothing, wouldn't it make more sense to increase the tariffs on goods coming into this country so that we pay down the deficit and make foreign goods more expensive so there's an incentive to buy the few remaining goods that are made in the US, and to encourage people buy US goods? If we don't make anything in the US how can there be any jobs. Baucus and Grassley are amazing!

However, if our US Senate was made up of people that actually live in their states and represent their states, they would have knowledge of the financial malady our states and people face. But these people have virtually no idea how bad it is out here. But you know who does; our local representatives, they do. Not these clowns in the Senate.

Midterm Election Series-Ohio US Senate Race

Presented is a recent interview with Ohio's Secretary of State and US Senate candidate, Jennifer Brunner, on FOXNews Strategy Room.

Legal Line Interview with Sen. Vitter

This is a three part video from Legal Lines hosted by Locke Meredith, with guest, U.S. Senator David Vitter. Vitter discusses the Health Care Plan, U.S. Debt, and other issues facing America. Unfortunately, only the first two have been posted to You Tube.

The Federal Government Bribes States With Their Own Money

Dan Mitchell points out:

New York City is running ads in foreign languagues asking people to stick their snouts in the public trough. The City is even signing up prisoners when they get out of jail. The state of New York, meanwhile, actually set up quotas for enrolling new recipients. And on the federal level, there apparently is a program that gives states “bonuses” for putting more people on the dole. No wonder one out of every eight Americans is receiving food stamps. By the way, this is not just the fault of Democrats. The ranking Republican on the Agriculture Committee is a big defender of the program, in part because of the sordid pact among urban and rural politicians to support each other’s handouts. And President George W. Bush’s food stamp administrator actually had the gall to assert “food stamps is not welfare.” No wonder the burden of federal spending skyrocketed during the reign of so-called compassionate conservatism. The correct policy, of course, is to get the federal government out of the welfare business. If Mayor Bloomberg thinks it is a “civic duty” to expand food stamps, he should see whether New York City voters agree with him – and want to foot the bill.

Alexander Tytler is rumored to have said,

A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy.

Frederic Bastiat was a little more verbose:

Now since man is naturally inclined to avoid pain -- and since labor is pain in itself -- it follows that men will resort to plunder whenever plunder is easier than work. History shows this quite clearly. And under these conditions, neither religion nor morality can stop it.

When, then, does plunder stop? It stops when it becomes more painful and more dangerous than labor.

It is evident, then, that the proper purpose of law is to use the power of its collective force to stop this fatal tendency to plunder instead of to work. All the measures of the law should protect property and punish plunder.

But, generally, the law is made by one man or one class of men. And since law cannot operate without the sanction and support of a dominating force, this force must be entrusted to those who make the laws.

This fact, combined with the fatal tendency that exists in the heart of man to satisfy his wants with the least possible effort, explains the almost universal perversion of the law. Thus it is easy to understand how law, instead of checking injustice, becomes the invincible weapon of injustice. It is easy to understand why the law is used by the legislator to destroy in varying degrees among the rest of the people, their personal independence by slavery, their liberty by oppression, and their property by plunder. This is done for the benefit of the person who makes the law, and in proportion to the power that he holds.

Men naturally rebel against the injustice of which they are victims. Thus, when plunder is organized by law for the profit of those who make the law, all the plundered classes try somehow to enter -- by peaceful or revolutionary means -- into the making of laws. According to their degree of enlightenment, these plundered classes may propose one of two entirely different purposes when they attempt to attain political power: Either they may wish to stop lawful plunder, or they may wish to share in it.

Woe to the nation when this latter purpose prevails among the mass victims of lawful plunder when they, in turn, seize the power to make laws!

Until that happens, the few practice lawful plunder upon the many, a common practice where the right to participate in the making of law is limited to a few persons. But then, participation in the making of law becomes universal. And then, men seek to balance their conflicting interests by universal plunder. Instead of rooting out the injustices found in society, they make these injustices general. As soon as the plundered classes gain political power, they establish a system of reprisals against other classes. They do not abolish legal plunder. (This objective would demand more enlightenment than they possess.) Instead, they emulate their evil predecessors by participating in this legal plunder, even though it is against their own interests.

It is as if it were necessary, before a reign of justice appears, for everyone to suffer a cruel retribution -- some for their evilness, and some for their lack of understanding.

It is impossible to introduce into society a greater change and a greater evil than this: the conversion of the law into an instrument of plunder.

What are the consequences of such a perversion? It would require volumes to describe them all. Thus we must content ourselves with pointing out the most striking.

In the first place, it erases from everyone's conscience the distinction between justice and injustice.

No society can exist unless the laws are respected to a certain degree. The safest way to make laws respected is to make them respectable. When law and morality contradict each other, the citizen has the cruel alternative of either losing his moral sense or losing his respect for the law. These two evils are of equal consequence, and it would be difficult for a person to choose between them. The nature of law is to maintain justice. This is so much the case that, in the minds of the people, law and justice are one and the same thing. There is in all of us a strong disposition to believe that anything lawful is also legitimate. This belief is so widespread that many persons have erroneously held that things are "just" because law makes them so. Thus, in order to make plunder appear just and sacred to many consciences, it is only necessary for the law to decree and sanction it. Slavery, restrictions, and monopoly find defenders not only among those who profit from them but also among those who suffer from them.

Of course, America was not founded as a democracy. The original role of the Senate was to limit centralized power. There will always be those who support bad policies, either through malevolence or ignorance, but the federal government would never be allowed to bribe states to implement these bad policies if Senators were chosen by state legislatures.

Sen. McCain faces toughest re-election challenge

Sen. McCain faces toughest re-election challenge; AP

Defeated just two years ago as the Republican presidential candidate and with his bonafides as a true conservative again being challenged, John McCain finds himself in a struggle to get even his party's nomination for another term in the Senate.

Conservatives, independents and Tea Party activists are lining up behind Republican challenger and former talk radio host J.D. Hayworth, reflecting a rising tide of voter frustration with incumbent politicians. Only 40 percent of Arizonans have a favorable view of McCain's job performance.

Faced with his toughest re-election battle ever, McCain has moved to the right on several hot-button issues, like gays in the military and climate change, and has built a campaign war chest of more than $5 million. Former running mate Sarah Palin and newly elected Republican Sen. Scott Brown, both popular with conservatives, are pitching in.

Hayworth, who will officially launch his campaign Monday, began using his talk show on conservative radio station KFYI to drum up opposition to McCain. ...

VISUALIZING THE U.S. SENATE by SOCIAL GRAPH - Andrew Odewahn

Lobbyists for US cap and trade face daunting task

Lobbyists for US cap and trade face daunting task; Reuters

The U.S. Senate's stalled climate bill is getting a last big push from an unlikely ally -- a group of energy companies who say a carbon market will help them get financing for the next generation of energy production.

But intensive lobbying by these climate bill proponents -- including heavyweights like Duke Energy, Shell Oil Co and General Electric Co -- may not be enough to counter powerful opposition and get a bill passed before the U.S. mid-term elections in November.

President Barack Obama says he still backs a climate bill but many have written off the chances of passing legislation with the most controversial provision: a market that aims to cut pollution by letting companies buy and trade permits to emit greenhouse gases.

Nevertheless, some major U.S. companies are pushing for a bill that would include this cap-and-trade system, saying it would create a modern energy economy and thousands of jobs.

As a record snowfall stunned Washington this week, stalling legislation, executives at big energy companies met lawmakers to seek a compromise deal on cap-and-trade.

Duke Energy Chief Executive Jim Rogers and Shell Oil Co President Marvin Odum met moderate lawmakers, seeking ways to push such a bill in the Senate that has made little progress.

One idea is to allow cap-and-trade to be implemented on power utilities first, with regulations on oil refineries and other industries coming later.

Proponents from industry are lobbying with environmentalists under the U.S. Climate Action Partnership, who still want a bill regulating emissions of planet-warming gases across all sectors of the economy. They say cap-and-trade will create a lot of jobs and boost the economy.

But climate legislation has fierce opponents in the main U.S. business lobby, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and most Republican lawmakers, some of whom doubt the threat of global warming. Few climate bill proponents are confident there are enough votes in the Senate to pass the bill, especially with Democratic fortunes falling ahead of the mid-term elections. ...

Odum said an emissions market would create hundreds of thousands of jobs as companies race to begin building a new energy system. In such markets, governments limit pollution and let cleaner companies earn valuable credits to sell.

Lobbyists for cap-and-trade, who also include General Electric Co, must find ways to bring in other energy and industrial companies that have opposed the system, said Dan Weiss, an energy expert at the Center for American Progress.

Otherwise, they will not be able to secure the 60 votes in the Senate needed to avoid a Republican filibuster and pass the bill. ...

A compromise bill being hashed out by Senators John Kerry, a Democrat, Lindsey Graham, a Republican, and Joe Lieberman, an independent, is not expected to be out before March.

Lobbyists for companies that support a cap-and-trade system have taken heart in signals from the trio of senators, and in recent comments from President Obama, that a compromise could pick up votes.

Rogers at Duke said the lobbyists are targeting 15 to 17 Democratic and eight to 10 Republican Senators to win votes.

A "hybrid" bill, that would impose cap-and-trade on power plants and an emissions fee on other industrial sources of greenhouse gases, could break down resistance from lawmakers in states that produce oil and natural gas. ...

Read the complete article here.

Bloggers note: Bold font was used by blogger.

Comment: Let's consider two facts here: there is no such thing as man made global climate change, the climategate scandal has exposed the truth of the matter; and carbon trading is another name for taxation. (If you would like to add other facts, please do.)

Yet our Senators, albeit for angry voters in Massachusetts, who are stricken with a moderate degree of fear at this time, actually and privately want to pass this massive piece of fascism that would hand companies like Duke Power, Shell Oil and General Electric billions of dollars in tax revenue (carbon trading) leaving the citizenry to pay for the retooling of this particular industry rather than through the normal business methods of profit reinvestment and general bank loans. Are they mad?

Yes they are, and our Senators are beholden to these lobbyists. If there is one reason, namely cap and trade, to fight tooth and nail for the repeal of the 17th Amendment, this would be the issue!

Coats committed to U.S. Senate campaign (IN)

Lobbyist who wants Senate seat back receiving criticism

Lobbyist who wants Senate seat back receiving criticism; The Washington Post

If there were any question where lobbying ranks in popularity these days, the attacks on former senator Dan Coats of Indiana over the past week provide a pretty clear answer.

Coats, a Republican who served in Congress for nearly 20 years, is preparing a run to win back the seat occupied by Sen. Evan Bayh (D). National Republicans see an opportunity to target Bayh for his support of President Obama's stimulus and health-care plans.

The problem for Coats is that he spent a good part of the past decade as a well-connected Washington lobbyist, which doesn't bode well politically in the age of tea partiers and grass-roots anger at Wall Street.

The former senator has had scores of corporate lobbying clients over the years, including health-care firms (Amgen, United Health Group, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America), bailout recipients (Bank of America, Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch) and communications companies (BellSouth, Sprint Nextel, Verizon). Another past client is Cerberus Capital Management, where Dan Quayle -- whose seat Coats took over in the Senate -- is a top executive.

Lobbying disclosure records also show that Coats represented foreign firms or governments that could prove controversial, including the Indian government and Bombardier, a Canadian aerospace firm. Coats also represented a Texas oil-and-gas company that partnered with Venezuela's Hugo Chávez, records show.

Comment: Another example of the one party system running two candidates of the same cut.

I truly believe the greatest hurdle we have to repealing the 17th is the Democrat and Republican Parties. Some believe ideologies stand in the way, but I believe the two main parties will not give up the power they have consolidated in the last century willingly. And that power reside more deeply in the US Senate than any other office in this country, not even the White House.

When we can vote for a “person” because of ideals and norms rather than the silly color of a state or label, then we stand a good shot at turning back the growing centralized government. Then we might restore the states to their position as states, not provinces, and in their role of checks and balances within the federal government.

The Medieval Kingdom Known as the United States Senate

GOP Senator Readies 'Bombs' for Favored Candidates; FOXNews.com

Although Sen. Jim DeMint laughs off the suggestion that he is emerging as "a conservative kingmaker," the first-term Republican from South Carolina is undeniably engaged in the serious business of trying to anoint a few princes, particularly in the medieval kingdom known as the United States Senate.

With a camera-ready smile and a flash of Southern modesty, Sen. Jim DeMint laughs off the suggestion that he is emerging as "a conservative kingmaker." ...

Comment: You have to read the whole article; it reeks of silliness. Not only is it silly, it’s embarrassing. The author describes this one calling that one a member of the “establishment” like grade school children on the playground and DeMint running around merrily as the kingpin of Conservatives. Haven’t Washington insiders and neo-cons done enough to kill the honorable ideals of Russell Kirk, Edmund Burke, to name a few?

It always comes down to power with these folks. Limiting government is a Conservative ideal and norm. Yet expanding the size and scope of government is the main goal of every Senator, no matter the broadcasted ideology.

The more we let theses folks make fools of themselves, and our country, the further we sink. The more we let them foolishly spend our money and carelessly bind us with mountains of laws and regulations the worst we become.

Let’s repeal the 17th Amendment and see how (Big C or little C) conservative Mr. DeMint really is, shall we. If he is as he heralds himself to be then he’ll have no problem going out into the world leaving government behind and championing the virtues of freedom, liberty, and private property and maybe a little limited government.

If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world.
J. R. R. Tolkien

Rob Portman: Green Candidate

Rob Portman: Green Candidate: Aude Sapere

Frankly, I’m not a big fan of Rob Portman. Actually to be fair up front I’m not voting for him and find him to be firmly entrenched in the Washington City establishment.

But to the point: I caught a glimpse of Portman’s campaign logo and noticed it didn’t look republican, but “green.” With a quick keystroke in the search engine, I was off to his website and sure enough, it looks as if a green peace supporter designed his website. There’s nothing wrong with the site, it looks nice enough, but it doesn’t look “republican.”

I have learned over time not to dismiss logos. Logos and designs impart a lot about the package. When Obama decided he was going to run for president, the first thing his staff did was to brand the campaign with a logo, which I think we are all familiar with today. This was corporate advertising at its best and it defined Obama from that day forward.

Now take a look at Portman’s; what do you see? I see softness, I see “feel good.” I see the color that has wrapped itself in climate change, carbon trading, Al Gore, UN taxes, globalism, and the power elites. But I certainly don’t see republicanism.

Again logos tell you a lot about the package, the person. (I wonder what you can make of my gnome picture on top of this page?) But what I see in Portman’s makes me uneasy; it makes me want to run for the hills and get ready for more government, for more intrusion in my life, for what may be the next r3volution.

Comment: As an Ohioan, who will have to decide between Portman and the democrat challenger also, I find it difficult at best to vote for the man that ran Bush's budget office and doubled the size of the budget from 2006 to 2008, and whom we can assume has clear ties with Paulson, Bernanke, and Geithner. Sure enough, Portman has special interest tattooed across his forehead.

But would he be the choice of the Ohio General Assembly if the 17th Amendment was never enacted...most likely not. And if it wasn't enacted we wouldn't have to worry about special interest collusion like we have with the banking industry...let's repeal the 17th and reduce the size of Washington!

Senate Global Warming Hearing Cancelled Due To... Snow

Really.

I guess it's not the planet-destroying threat Al Gore hyped it as.

That Senate "Jobs" Bill

A jobs-creation bill that could pass the Senate this week would delay a scheduled 20 percent reduction in doctor payments under the Medicare health-insurance program, according to a copy of the text obtained by Reuters.

The bill also extends soon-to-expire jobless payments, healthcare subsidies for the unemployed and highway-funding programs, according to the text of the bill, which has not yet been introduced.

This is what happens when the government tries to stimulate the economy by spending more instead of cutting spending. As Obama said, "That's the whole point!"



An economy cannot be stimulated by paying people to do jobs that no one wants them to do.

The 17th Amendment didn't take the money out of politics; it allowed the money to take over politics. Federal spending did not explode until 1913, after the passage of the 16th and 17th Amendments and the creation of the Federal Reserve. Three bad ideas that unleashed a federal spending monster. Repealing the 17th Amendment would allow the states to put limits on this corrupt, out-of-control federal government.

How To Brainwash A Nation

Check out this classic interview between G. Edward Griffin and former KGB agent Yuri Bezmenov. It's a little off topic, but then again, maybe not.



Note: Some additional footage can be found at this link.

S.1624: Medical Bankruptcy Fairness Act of 2009

S.1624: Medical Bankruptcy Fairness Act of 2009; Senator Sheldon Whitehouse D-RI

A bill to amend title 11 of the United States Code, to provide protection for medical debt homeowners, to restore bankruptcy protections for individuals experiencing economic distress as caregivers to ill, injured, or disabled family members, and to exempt from means testing debtors whose financial problems were caused by serious medical problems, and for other purposes.

Comment: This bill has all the hallmarks of "feel-good bill." But closer inspection points to a federal bill that once again usurps the role of the states. Where in the US Constitution does it call for such a measure? This is the states purview. This bill should be opposed.

S.2772: Criminal Justice Reinvestment Act of 2009

S.2772: Criminal Justice Reinvestment Act of 2009; Senator Sheldon Whitehouse D-RI

A bill to establish a criminal justice reinvestment grant program to help States and local jurisdictions reduce spending on corrections, control growth in the prison and jail populations, and increase public safety. as introduced.

Comment: This bill increases federal influence in our state and local communities. It should be opposed.

Madison, Montesquieu, And Arnold Kling

Arnold Kling recently observed,

My reading is that there are serious diseconomies of scale in governance. The larger the polity, the worse the ability to govern. Yes, some small countries are very un-free, but the most-free countries are all small. Of the other countries in the top ten in terms of economic freedom, Canada has the largest population, and it is barely more than 1/10th of ours. My impression is that Canada also is less centralized than the U.S., with more autonomy in the provinces.

...

Ultimately, I think that democracy is a very unreliable friend of economic freedom. The ability to vote with your feet is more valuable than the ability to cast a ballot. The trend in the U.S. is toward giving people less power to vote with their feet, as power becomes more centralized. If the median voter would like more decentralization, that is one message that is not getting through.

Charles de Secondat, Baron de Montesquieu noted long ago that,

It is natural for a republic to have only a small territory; otherwise it cannot long subsist. In an extensive republic there are men of large fortunes, and consequently of less moderation; there are trusts too considerable to be placed in any single subject; he has interests of his own; he soon begins to think that he may be happy and glorious, by oppressing his fellow-citizens; and that he may raise himself to grandeur on the ruins of his country.

In an extensive republic the public good is sacrificed to a thousand private views; it is subordinate to exceptions, and depends on accidents. In a small one, the interest of the public is more obvious, better understood, and more within the reach of every citizen; abuses have less extent, and, of course, are less protected.

And James Madison explains in Federalist 62 how the Senate was designed to limit the federal government by preventing the centralization of power into one republic:

In this spirit it may be remarked, that the equal vote allowed to each State is at once a constitutional recognition of the portion of sovereignty remaining in the individual States, and an instrument for preserving that residuary sovereignty. So far the equality ought to be no less acceptable to the large than to the small States; since they are not less solicitous to guard, by every possible expedient, against an improper consolidation of the States into one simple republic.

Of course, that structural limitation only worked so long as Senators were appointed by state legislatures. Once they became popularly elected through the 17th Amendment, they became subject to the same special interests as representatives in the House, and were equally incentivized to make grandiose promises to the electorate to centralize power and solve whatever problems voters feared that day. The ability of people to "vote with their feet" is one way for sovereigns to be held accountable to the governed. But keeping the government close to the people will assist the sovereigns, and the people they govern, in understanding the actual effects of the policies to which they, with good intentions or not, subject others. Alexis de Tocqueville pointed out that, as people become more ignorant of each other, they become more apathetic about their government:

The first thing that strikes the observation is an innumerable multitude of men, all equal and alike, incessantly endeavoring to procure the petty and paltry pleasures with which they glut their lives. Each of them, living apart, is as a stranger to the fate of all the rest; his children and his private friends constitute to him the whole of mankind. As for the rest of his fellow citizens, he is close to them, but he does not see them; he touches them, but he does not feel them; he exists only in himself and for himself alone; and if his kindred still remain to him, he may be said at any rate to have lost his country.

...

To manage those minor affairs in which good sense is all that is wanted, the people are held to be unequal to the task; but when the government of the country is at stake, the people are invested with immense powers; they are alternately made the play things of their ruler, and his masters, more than kings and less than men. After having exhausted all the different modes of election without finding one to suit their purpose, they are still amazed and still bent on seeking further; as if the evil they notice did not originate in the constitution of the country far more than in that of the electoral body.

It is indeed difficult to conceive how men who have entirely given up the habit of [individual] self-government should succeed in making a proper choice of those by whom they are to be governed; and no one will ever believe that a liberal, wise, and energetic government can spring from the suffrages of a subservient people.

A constitution republican in its head and ultra-monarchical in all its other parts has always appeared to me to be a short-lived monster. The vices of rulers and the ineptitude of the people would speedily bring about its ruin; and the nation, weary of its representatives and of itself, would create freer institutions or soon return to stretch itself at the feet of a single master.

Repealing the 17th Amendment would be the first step towards limiting the federal government by restoring the ability of people to vote with their feet, and limiting the power of government in general by keeping it closer to the people it governs and while the governed are also closer to each other.

Hat tip: Let A Thousand Nations Bloom

Reflections on the 17th Amendment: State Sovereignty: A Necessary Adjunct to Liberty

When this nation was founded under the document that we call our Constitution, much debate surrounded the place of the central government in the lives of the people. The Anti-federalists (true federalists, mind you, that wanted a severely limited central government) had the notion that small was better, and that local government, i.e. State government, would be more responsive to the needs, wants and values of the people. They had intimate experience with a government "far away," and feared the potential of tyranny in such government.

Yet as much as the founders feared tyranny, they feared also a "too democratic government." Much was made of the potential for "mobocracy," and the resulting possibility of violent swings of temper within a necessarily factionalized electorate.

The states, some already having over 150 years experience in the minding of their own affairs, feared a loss of their own sovereignty should the new and national constitution be ratified. After all, who could possibly be a better arbiter of the people's wishes, and who could more completely recognize the needs of the people than the states themselves?

Thus the idea of a bicameral legislature was born. The Congress, representing the interests of the people or "mob", and the Senate, representing the interests of the state within the legislative framework. Two provisions of the Senate's body helped fully realize the State's interest: First, there would be equal representation of each state within the body by the election of two senators from each of the several states. Second, the Senators would be elected not by the people, but by the legislatures of the several states themselves.

As The Farmer remarked in The Philadelphia Independent Gazeteer, on 4/15/88:

…advocates of the new system, take as their strong ground the election of senators by the state legislatures, and the special representation of the states in the federal senate, to prove that internal sovereignty still remains with the States.

It must be remarked here that The Farmer did not believe the truth of this argument, but is stating that this argument was proffered by the Federalists that favored ratification of the constitution. The argument of the Senate as a protector of state sovereignty was, however accepted by many anti-federalists.

Robert Yates another Anti-Federalist writing under the pseudonym Brutus in Anti-Federalist # 63 remarks about Senators in the proposed constitution:

The Senators represent the states, as bodies politic, sovereign to certain purposes. The states being sovereign and independent, are all considered equal, each with the other in the senate. In this we are governed solely by the ideal equalities of sovereignties; the federal and state governments forming one whole, and the state governments an essential part, which ought always to be kept distinctly in view, and preserved. I feel more disposed, on reflection, to acquiesce in making them the basis of the senate, and thereby to make it the interest and duty of the senators to preserve distinct, and to perpetuate the respective, sovereignties they shall represent. . . .

Regardless of whether or not the Senate could or could not protect the sovereignty of the states within the federal framework, it is clear from just these two citations, that within the clockwork of the proposed Constitution, the Sovereignty of the States was thought by all a necessary adjunct to liberty.

The Vermont Farmer 2/07/10

New York Senator Chuck Schumer has $19.3 million for campaign but runs virtually unopposed

New York Senator Chuck Schumer has $19.3 million for campaign but runs virtually unopposed; NYDailyNews.com

So much campaign cash, so little to spend it on.

New York Sen. Chuck Schumer has an astonishing $19.3 million in campaign cash on hand - more than any other senator in the nation - and he's running virtually unopposed for a third term.

The Brooklyn Democrat raised a hefty $2.9 million in the last three months of 2009 alone, adding to his bulging war chest. He spent only about $298,000 in the same period - most of it on chit-building contributions to fellow pols.

The mountain of money has scared off all serious state Republicans, who had a hard enough time fielding little-known ex-Nassau County legislator Bruce Blakeman to run against Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand.

Not that Schumer is totally unopposed.

He's facing a longshot primary challenge from drug law reform advocate and comedian Randy Credico.

CNBC host Larry Kudlow is mulling a potential challenge on the GOP line. And Dominican community activist Martin Chicon plans to announce his run as a Republican next week.

Chicon said he wasn't intimidated by Schumer's money. "He, in the end, may be his own worst enemy," he said.

Comment: Ah to think, the 17th Amendment got big money out of US Senate politics...

Senator Franken Rips Into Comcast CEO Brian Roberts

Senator Franken Rips Into Comcast CEO Brian Roberts; The Huffington Post

Comcast CEO Brian Roberts and NBC President Jeff Zucker testified in front of House and Senate subcommittees Thursday as regulators decide whether to allow the proposed merger of the two media giants. Comcast is the largest cable TV and residential high-speed Internet company in the nation. NBC is one of the largest content providers.


The House hearing opened with several politicians waxing poetic about how the merger is great for America. While nobody in the room cracked a smile, their enthusiasm is laughable. The only people who could believe that the largest media merger in a generation is good for the public are either: 1) on the receiving end of the massive campaign contributions from said media companies; 2) bending to the phalanx of industry lobbyists swarming Capitol Hill; or 3) hoodwinked believers in the "all regulation is bad" approach that brought us Enron and the financial meltdown.


Not everyone is swallowing the snake oil Comcast is peddling to grease its takeover of NBC. None shone brighter yesterday than Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.), who aggressively interrogated Comcast CEO Brian Roberts and NBC Universal President Jeff Zucker -- all but accusing them of lying to his face.

Comment: More competition is what's needed here, not less.

Senate Democrats unveil job-creation package

Senate Democrats unveil job-creation package; Los Angeles Times

The first step will likely be a tax incentive to employers who hire new workers. Other details and the price tag remain vague.

Reporting from Washington - Eager to show Americans that they are focused on reversing widespread unemployment, Senate Democrats on Thursday unveiled a package of legislation dedicated to spurring job growth.

"Our No. 1 emphasis is going to be on creating jobs," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.).

But the political question hovering over the newfound push is whether it comes too late to quell growing voter dissatisfaction with how Democrats are handling the economy.

Ironically, the announcement of a job-creation package came on the same day that Scott Brown, the winner of a special election last month in Massachusetts, is set to be sworn in as a new Republican senator. Brown is to be sworn in at 5 p.m. EST.

That election was widely viewed by Democrats and Republicans as a referendum on the Obama administration and the Democrats' stewardship of Congress. Today, Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) said his party was paying attention.

"We heard the message of Massachusetts," Schumer said. "They said, 'Focus immediately and don't take your focus off jobs.'"

In the short term, the victim of the Democratic pivot is likely to be the controversial healthcare overhaul, which has been shelved indefinitely as House and Senate leaders attempt to figure out a way forward. ...

Comments: A good title for the picture above would be "morons-r-us." Do Reid and Schumer really think that a federal "bond program to help state and local governments borrow money and another extension of unemployment insurance and COBRA benefits" are going to create jobs? Or how about repairing road and bridges? While this is something they should have been funding all along and never have allowed to break down in the first place, but will transportation spending put all those hundreds of thousands of GM workers who lost their jobs to China back to work? Heck no, I'd be willing to bet that with any highway infrastructure spending the small sum of jobs gained will actually aid illegal aliens more than any US citizen.

Americans know the truth about the current economic situation; only through a massive reduction of government spending and a complete overhaul of the tax system that eliminates the cost temporarily absorbed by business, and pasted on to the consumer, and the removal of the massive regulation and bureaucracy US businesses are saddle with will this country turn around from this depression. We get this! And Congress needs to understand that we comprehend that this is a DEPRESSION.

Spending and government programs, and war, didn't get us out of the Great Depression; it only kept us in it. It was through the elimination of these programs and the repealing the legislation that restricted commerce after WWII did this country see a return to growth.

So I guess to make it easier for the 100 members of moron-r-us club to understand, a simple statement would be, limiting the Federal Government is the only route to lead us out of this depression.

It's Too Late To Apologize

Good, clean fun with the Founding Fathers:



Hat tip: Hot Air

The Right to Recall the Rascals (U.S. Senators)

The Right to Recall the Rascals (U.S. Senators); Republic-MainStreet

This has been rarely used but does exist. Maybe a few test cases around the country would put some "constituent fearing" conscience in those that say one thing while campaigning and then do as they please during their 6 years in office.

Both the Constitutional Convention and Congress itself in the 17th Amendment delegated election laws to the states themselves. In addition, the right of popular sovereignty is basic to all American governments. Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence that “governments... deriv[e] their just powers from the consent of the governed.”


The proper conclusion is that the right of recall does remain with the citizens of each state, subject to the election laws of each state.

Comment: I think it's a great idea. Some time back when the US Senate was trying to pass the free-citizenship-give-away to the 25 million illegal aliens, I wrote to every Ohio State Senator demanding they subpoena Ohio US Senators Voinovich and Brown and force them to appear before the Ohio Senate to unearth what was contained in the secret bill being put through Congress and the true cost that would burden our state. One guy wrote me back and called me an “f-in" idiot...LOL :-). But hey, I still think it’s a great idea.

Update: You can find the complete article written by John Armor here.