Saturday, July 30, 2005

Amendments I'd Like to See

Things are hopping politically and if you're interested in the goings on in government, whether executive, legislative or judicial, there should be something juicy to follow. With this as inspiration, I've decided to draft a few Amendments to our Constitution. I am not deluding myself into thinking they'll ever be ratified, but I can dream, can't I?

(Please forgive me if my language isn't 100% constitutionally perfect.)

On Legislative Responsibility
Congress has been running amok for years...no decades...no maybe well over a century. They need to be told to self regulate how they draft legislation. If they miss, then the President needs the line-item-veto to put things back on track.

Congress shall add no amendment to any proposed legislation which is not relevant to the said bill. All legislation regarding pay and benefits for Congress shall be submitted for consideration only as a bill, and may not be an amendment to any type of proposed legislation. Congress shall endeavor in all earnestness to remove all irrelevant and inappropriate amendments from pending legislation prior to voting and submitting to the President. The President shall have the power to enforce this amendment by vetoing individual amendments from legislation he intends to approve if the amendment is determined to be irrelevant and/or inappropriate.


On Presidential Nominations
"No one truly qualified for government wants the job." Thank the MSM and sniping, backbiting, mud-slinging politicians for this fact. Well, this proposed amendment might help, in part, by sharply reducing the amount of time a Presidential nominee is exposed to the political elements. Recently I was reading a book of biographies of all the Associate Justices and Chief Justices of the Supreme Court. Congress often approved them within a week of being nominated. What a wonderful world that would be...Congress getting things done in a timely manner.

The President shall make all nominations to federal offices by noon (local time - Washington D.C.) on non-holiday Mondays while Congress is in session. To ensure expediency, the Congress shall approve all nominations without exception by five in the evening (local time - Washington D.C.) on the second Friday following the nomination. The President may not nominate someone for federal office if sufficient time in the legislative session does not remain for a full debate and voting cycle. All votes on nominees will be simple yes or no votes, with a simple majority being required for ascension. All regular rules of legislative conduct apply, but Congress may censure any or all of its members who deliberately seek to unreasonably delay or disrupt the proceedings of advise and consent. Legislators may not apply any political, religious or ideological requirements to nominees. Judicial nominees my not be questioned as to how they would vote on specific legislation.


On Elections to Congress
OK, enough is enough...let someone else have a chance already! This proposed amendment was inspired, in part, by Hillary Clinton's hijacking (yes, I said it) of a New York Senatorial seat. Career fat cat and dead wood politicians also inspired it - regardless of on which side of the aisle they resided.

No person may be elected as a Senator more than twice, nor may any person be elected a Senator more than once if that person served more than half the term of another Senator. No person may be elected as a Representative more than six times, nor may any person be elected a Representative more than five times if that person served more than half the term of another Representative. A person who has served the maximum time allowed in either the Senate or the House of Representatives may also then run for and serve for the fully allowed time in the other house. No person may be elected to either the Senate or House of Representatives from any state if that person is not a current resident of that state and has not lived in the state for at least three years prior to taking office. If a person is a resident of a state but also serving in the military during the three years prior to taking elected office, that person may only be in actual residence for two of the three years (in any combination) prior to serving.


On Elections to Federal Offices
Come on, people, let's not be greedy. This proposed amendment was also inspired by Hillary Clinton's usurping one of my home states Senatorial seat and her obvious disregard for it given her intent to leave it cold one day. It was also inspired by Senator Lieberman's dual run for Senator and Vice-President in 2000.

No person may run for two elected federal offices at the same time, nor may a person currently holding any federal elected office run for any other federal elected office unless the terms of the two offices do not overlap more than one month... Where the terms of office do overlap more than one month, the person must resign the first office in order to run for the second.


On the Election of the President
OK...let's close the barn door BEFORE the horse escapes again! The citizens do not elect the President, because he/she is not our president, directly. The President is the leader of our Republic - our union of sovereign states. As such, we don't use a direct popular election. Rather, we have muddied the water with the Electoral College, so each state receives electors for president based on the total number of congressional representatives plus senators.

The problem is that the electoral span between the largest and smallest states was only nine votes in 1788 whereas now it's fifty-two. This huge disparity disrupts the compromise the delegates made in 1787 and returns us to a popular vote in all but name. When the election is very close, well, we see what happens. Under the proposed amendment below, George Bush would have received 78 electoral votes in 2000 and Al Gore only 61. This system would return the power to elect the president back to a split between the state and population. It would also prevent a tie, and help persuade candidates to campaign in more than just the heavily populated states. Eight votes isn't too wide a spread - so every state counts.

The electoral votes of the various states shall apportion as follows: No state shall have less than two and no more than ten electoral votes for president. The electoral votes shall be normalized to the most populous state and rounded to the neatest even number representing the ratio of its population to that of the most populous state. The District of Columbia shall have only one electoral vote for president. The various states shall assign their total electoral votes to only one candidate. The electoral votes are legally bound to the winning candidate in that state and may not be arbitrarily or deliberately assigned to any other candidate. The ceremonial position of elector is hereby abolished.

Tuesday, July 19, 2005

Since When is This Backtracking?

Today during a press conference, the president answered questions about Karl Rove and the continuing investigation into who leaked information about the identity of CIA operative Valerie Plame. Bush's comment (as reported on CNN.com) was:

"I think it's best if people wait until the investigation is complete before you jump to conclusions. I would like this to end as quickly as possible so we know the facts. And if someone committed a crime, they will no longer work in my administration."

This was reported today on CNN.com under the headline "Bush appears to shift course on CIA leak." In it, the president is accused of back-pedaling on his June 2004 statement that he would fire anybody who was responsible for the leak.

Um...how?

Oh, yeah, because he wants to wait until someone is proved guilty BEFORE punishing them. That's right. Silly me. We're supposed to shoot first and ask questions later if a conservative politician wants to wait until all the facts are in, but look the other way if a liberal is under suspicion.

The MSM doesn't care about the news, or informing the people. No longer is it "All the news that's fit to Print." Instead it should be "All the news that's fit to distort, exploit and misrepresent." Grow up!

Oh, and while we're on the subject, how about the disrespect the MSM paid to Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh? Wasn't this a joint press conference? I think it was inappropriate of the press to ignore the prime minister and divert the attention of the conference to other non-related subjects. India isn't some backwater, third-rate nation. And even if it was, it was rude and inexcusable of the press to push the prime minister to the side. And the president should have told them so.

Wednesday, July 13, 2005

How to Spot a Liberal

I am not politically correct, or always tactful. But, I feel that if someone is acting stupidly, they need to have it brought to their attention. Otherwise, how can they ever change? Following are two real life encounters with liberals - nearly 10 years apart - where I was able to give them something else to think about...

***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

Encounter 1: The Mock Senate Hearing

In the spring of 1982 when I was in 11th grade, my American History teacher decided to hold a mock Senate hearing to teach our class about the way legislation is drafted. He picked a topic which was in the news - whether or not to have a peace time draft. Each student was assigned a role, either a senator from the Senate Armed Services Committee, or a lobbyist. I was to be a senator from New York.

While I am not specifically advocating a draft now, I didn't and don't see one as necessarily evil - especially if needed. My senator, however, was dead against it. So, ever the actor, I was true to the part and opposed the draft, despite my personal feelings. My teacher was surprised because he always referred to me as his personal Joe McCarthy. My nemesis in the class, a very liberal girl, got her dream role - a lobbyist from the ACLU.

On the second day of the hearings, my nemesis testified - saying that a draft was completely unconstitutional. In fact, she felt it violated a citizen's rights to make them serve in the armed forces at all, for any reason what so ever! I hated sitting there - keeping quiet and not arguing with her. I think I perforated my lower lip from biting it so hard. One of my friends who knew I was conservative asked me how I kept my cool. To this day, I still don't know.

The encounter came during the break that followed. The class broke up - all of us meandering around the room - the teacher standing in the corner by the door, just watching. I saw my nemesis talking to a friend, her purse on the desk in front of her - a ten dollar bill sticking partly out. I walked up to her desk, looked at her, then the purse, took the ten and began to walk away.

She went berserk. She grabbed me and said "Give it back!"

I said "No, it's mine now" and broke away. (All the while, our teacher is just watching from the corner). She followed and hit me - HARD - in my shoulder and yelled again for me to return it. That's when I turned on her.

I held up the ten in her face and said "What, are you gonna fight me for this?"

"Yes!" she said and she pushed me again.

Then I said "Oh, you'll fight me for this money, but not for your freedoms? Babe, your priorities are all screwed up!" I threw the ten in her face and walked away. As I looked into the corner of the room, our teacher (a US Navy & Viet-Nam vet) was just shaking his head and laughing.

LESSON 1: Liberal extremists don't always understand what is really important. As such, they rarely fight the fights worth fighting and often come across as hypocritical - leaving themselves wide open to quick-thinking conservatives.

(Note to kids - DO NOT DO WHAT I DID! I was lucky I didn't get in serious trouble!!! Given the chance to do it again, I would have found a way to do it differently.)

***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

Encounter 2: The Political Survey

Back in the late summer of 1992 during the home stretch of the presidential elections, my wife and I were moving house. To save on expenses, we rented a truck and did it ourselves. While loading the truck, I was approached by a college student conducting a political survey. Bear in mind, I was carrying large, heavy boxes from my house to the truck. Below is the conversation that took place to the best of my memory:

Student: Hello sir, I am a college student, political science major, and I was wondering if you would mind answering a few questions about the upcoming elections.

Me: Well, (grunt, groan) this really isn't the best time. I'm kinda busy. (I put the box in the truck and returned for another)

Student: (following) That's OK, I can walk next to you. I won't get in your way at all. It's only about 10 questions.

Me: (reaching the truck with the next box, I put it in the truck and looked at him, breathing hard) You're a Democrat, right? "Progressive," liberal, support Bill Clinton, hated Reagan, right?

Student: Yes, that's right, how did you know?

Me: A Republican would have offered to carry a box!

The student left without asking any questions.

Lesson 2: In my experience, activist liberals seldom practice what they preach, like REALLY helping others. They'll watch you carry the box, even tell you HOW to do it, but won't really lift a finger to help. Case in point - Al Gore circling the globe warning us about "man-made" global warming all the while emitting more CO2 in a day than many families emit in a month.

Monday, July 11, 2005

1000 hits! Thank You!

Today I reached 1000 hits. Well, OK, a portion of them are mine
(visiting, editing, etc.), but the vast majority are not. So, thanks to
everyone for stopping by and reading - and also tracking back -
something I have just gotten into myself. It's been fun so far and I
look forward to more.

Regards,

A Layman's Point of View

Saturday, July 09, 2005

Why Do They Hate Us?

From the moment the first airplane struck on September 11, 2001, people here have been trying to understand why it happened. What could posses people to do this to others, let alone to themselves? As if our grief wasn’t enough, we were also filled with a thirst for answers that seemed beyond satiation. We joined to mourn, console each other, and begin the long search for answers.

It didn’t take long for sorrow turned to self-recrimination. People started asking “What did we do to deserve this?� and “Are we being punished for something?� Surely, no one would do this without provocation. Eventually, however, introspection turns to accusations and the victim is put on trial in the court of public opinion. It happened here four years ago and it will happen in England. Just give it time.

All we can do for the UK right now is to keep them in our thoughts and prayers, and be there as friends, as they were there for us. For America, however, it may be appropriate to examine the why. Let's look at our behavior as a possible cause. Do we bring these attacks on ourselves? Do we do things that anger Islamic extremists? If we look through the eyes of our attackers, yes, of course we do. We do many things, everyday, on purpose, even proudly, which anger people all over the world.

Our society and its principles exist in such stark contrast to so much of the rest of the world, we can't avoid it in many cases. We have a free and open society. Our culture moves fast and to those on the outside, it can appear chaotic and reckless – sometimes even amoral. Our Bill of Rights is seen as threatening to oppressive, fundamentalist governments and groups.

Our laws are based on ancient religious principles, yet we use those laws to guarantee people of all faiths (or none) equal treatment and respect. Rather than kill each other, many different faiths live side by side in peace. Religion is accepted, supported and even encouraged to some extent, but the ultimate decision as to how to or if to worship is private. In spite of this, our societies are essentially secular. We work very hard to keep a clear distinction between religious and public law.

We guarantee individuals equal treatment under the law, regardless of their race, gender or status. Even today, many nations consider this a dangerous concept. Our respect for women, for example, contributes to global animosity. The lines between genders have been all but completely erased in many cases. When women in rigidly controlled countries see this and ask: "Why can’t I have this, too?" their governments cringe.

Our foreign policy also bears some scrutiny. For example, we preach separation of church and state, but openly support a religious nation - namely Israel. We say we respect the sovereignty of nations; yet openly oppose those with governments that conflict with our national interests and ideals. We don’t just pay lip service to our ideals, either. We have gone to great lengths to protect and defend them for ourselves and others when we saw them being denied. We have the power to do it, with almost total impunity, and yet, we hold back, in many cases. Add to this that we rush to aid victims of tragedies and natural disasters – regardless if they are our friends or not. The appearance of hypocrisy is staggering.

So, to make no small point of it, yes, we have done and still do many things to cause many nations around the world to hate and fear us. As American's, it would be hypocritical of us to admit otherwise. Having acknowledged the obvious and owned up to our actions, we must now ask: “Have we actually done anything wrong? Here again, the answer is also obvious...it's no.

We are imperfect, and we make mistakes, but overall, our aim is true and right. We do stumble sometimes on the way toward our goals, but that’s only because they are lofty and difficult to reach. The ideals on which our nation was founded are noble, and worthy of the striving for and acting upon. If our quest for freedom for ourselves and others around the world angers some, then they need to also look to themselves.

There’s an old saying that you can’t please everybody. It’s time we stopped trying. Our freedoms may come at the expense of always making a good first impression, but I submit that the problem may lay in the eye of the beholder. The entire world doesn't have to like us or agree with us, but they have to live with us as much as we have to live with them. The responsibility for getting along is not ours, alone.

The above post contains excerpts from the July 7 post - "Terror Attacks in London." It has been submitted for editorial publication.

Thursday, July 07, 2005

Terror Attacks in London

You know what it's like getting up in the morning from a deep and comfortable sleep? The alarm goes off and you're jolted awake. You hit the snooze button and lie there. You tell yourself you'll get up in a few minutes, but without fail, you fall asleep again. Then the second alarm goes off. It's softer, not quite as dramatic, but still startling. And the message is the same...that it's time to wake up.

September 11 was the free world's alarm clock. We were jolted to our very core. And we were awake. In spite of our best efforts, however, we got comfortable and fell asleep again. This morning's attacks in London were the world's snooze alarm. The death toll was lower, and the material damage less, but the effect on people with consciences was no less devastating. Even one death is too many.

Sometimes I think religion and politics have very little to do with any of this. It just seems as though there are people in this world who want to kill us just because they can. Well, let's stop them, if for no other reason than just because WE can. They need to learn that the rules of living in a civilized society apply to them, as well. They don't have to like us or agree with us, but they do have to live with us. The responsibility is not ours, alone!

In the mean time, let's all keep the people in London (and the UK) in our thoughts and prayers. Now is when our friends need us to be there for them, like they have been there for us.

Monday, July 04, 2005

Independence Day Reflections

Today, as we celebrate our nation's independence, it's important to respect the culture out of which that independence was born. The men who fought, debated and crafted our free country were a complex mixture if persistence, intelligence, foresightedness and religious conviction. Those who followed had respect for the men and gratitude for their gift. We who are the inheritors of that gift should not forget this.

I can think of no better way to spend the day than to enjoy it with my family. But, as always, I plan to watch the musical 1776, re-read the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Defense of Fort McHenry, the poem by Francis Scott Key which became the lyrics to our national anthem. I attached it below for your reading pleasure. I always find it's imagery stirring. Back then, words were to writers what paint was to an artist. When you read it, pay attention to the last stanza. Then, as now, it is relevant.

Happy Independence Day from A Layman's Point of View!

**************************************************

The Defense of Fort McHenry
“The Star Spangled Banner�
Francis Scott Key
20 September 1814

Oh, say can you see, by the dawn's early light,
What so proudly we hailed at the twilight's last gleaming?
Whose broad stripes and bright stars, through the perilous fight,
O'er the ramparts we watched, were so gallantly streaming?
And the rockets' red glare, the bombs bursting in air,
Gave proof through the night that our flag was still there.
O say, does that star-spangled banner yet wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave?

On the shore, dimly seen through the mists of the deep,
Where the foe's haughty host in dread silence reposes,
What is that which the breeze, o'er the towering steep,
As it fitfully blows, now conceals, now discloses?
Now it catches the gleam of the morning's first beam,
In full glory reflected now shines on the stream:
'Tis the star-spangled banner! O long may it wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave.

And where is that band who so vauntingly swore
That the havoc of war and the battle's confusion
A home and a country should leave us no more?
Their blood has wiped out their foul footstep's pollution.
No refuge could save the hireling and slave
From the terror of flight, or the gloom of the grave:
And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave.

Oh! thus be it ever, when freemen shall stand
Between their loved homes and the war's desolation!
Blest with victory and peace, may the heaven-rescued land
Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation.
Then conquer we must, for our cause it is just,
And this be our motto: "In God is our trust."
And the star-spangled banner forever shall wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!