Category: Congress
Long ago I upset people by being so appalled at similar behavior, that I commented “435 reasons for a sniper rifle”. I know I can’t take the law in my own hands; however, treason is treason. In time of war, being convicted of treason calls for a firing squad. “X’
Posted on December 20, 2011 by qathy [PAN member]
Today I went searching for a specific piece of legislation. It is a bill currently in committee in the House of Representatives. Imagine my dismay when I discovered that it includes a clause which says that the 11th amendment does not apply to any lawsuits initiated by people complaining of infractions of the legislation.
Forgive me for my apparent stupidity, but how can Congress enact such legislation? If such a clause is included in this bill, how many others have the same clause? Why are we not aware that Congress is so blatantly pushing the Constitution aside?
For a long time I have known that Congress avoids the Constitution when it feels the need. Every entitlement program in existence would disappear in a flash if the Constitution prevailed. But I was not aware that any of the bills that created these programs included a clause which said, in essence, the Constitution is suspended with regard to this bill. I always thought they were simply finessing the programs and that they succeeded simply because nobody has yet mounted a successful attack on their Constitutionality.
This, situation, however, is different. This bill states in plain language that even a legislative dummy like me can understand. This bill says that 11th amendment may not be used as a defense in lawsuits subsequent to this legislation.
In case you don’t have the amendments memorized, the 11th amendment is about states’ rights. It enshrines the sovereignty of states with regard to the powers not delegated to the federal government by the Constitution. The 11th amendment says:
“The judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by citizens of another state, or by citizens or subjects of any foreign state.”
By inserting a clause that says this amendment does not apply, the Congress says that the citizen from state A who objects to action in state B and sues on the basis of this law may sue state B without regard to the fact that the Constitution disallows such suits. Nothing in the Constitution forbids a citizen in state A from suing his own state for some infraction, but it does not permit him to cross state lines to lodge such a suit. Congress appears to have appropriated to itself some power we did not grant it in the Constitution, because it appears to believe that it can deny Constitutional rights to a state.
Notice that I have not commented on the central subject of the legislation. That is not the issue I am concerned about in this post. I am concerned about anything that dilutes the power of the Constitution to shape our government. We have a Constitution precisely because the federal government needs boundaries. Without limits applied to it, the federal government will overrun the states and reduce them to mere administrative units for federal power. It is appalling to see that this statement has been boldly inserted into a piece of legislation and nobody is worrying about it.
I am not sure how I find out if this clause is in any other bills or in existing laws. If it is, then I am really worried.
When our president stated recently that this form of government does not work and never has worked, I was appalled. I knew he believed it, but I thought he was still trying to fool us into believing something better of him. In the legislative clause which asserts that Congress can disallow a right which the Constitution grants to states, I see that our president is not alone in his belief that the Constitution is not a good thing, because it interferes with federal power. This is scary.
Just yesterday I listened to an interview with Stuart Varney. He said something very important. He said that when he came to the USA forty years ago, he was fleeing socialism. He is very disturbed to see that it is now arising in the US, the place he thought would be a haven from its onslaught. I feel the same way. I grew up knowing that we needed to defend ourselves from the USSR because we did not want to be engulfed by socialism. Now I feel that it is engulfing me, anyway.
What can a single outraged citizen do about this problem?
http://patriotdreams.patriotactionnetwork.com/2011/12/20/taking-a-bludgeon-to-the-constitution/
The debt recently passed the 15 Trillion mark.
Here is the gov’t revenue:
http://www.heritage.org/budgetchartbook/federal-government-revenues
Federal Revenues Have More Than Tripled Since 1965
Overall tax revenues have risen despite a recent decline due to the recession. Congress cut income taxes and the death tax in 2001 and capital gains taxes and dividends in 2003, yet revenues continued to surge even after the tax cuts were passed.
INFLATION-ADJUSTED DOLLARS (2010): $2.15 trillion
So IF WE INSIST that -since 1000 billion = 1 trillion- Congress agree to QUIT more spending, use approximately 20% (400 billion per yr) to pay off the 15 T debt, and they agree; it would still take TWENTY YRS to cut the debt by eight trillion dollars. MOREOVER, THIS WOULD BE ONLY IF THERE WERE NO INTEREST ON THE DEBT.
PUNCHLINE:
Total interest on our national debt in fiscal 2010 was 395 billion.
Source: http://www.babylontoday.com/national_debt_clock.htm
ON THE DAY after the fiscal year closed – Oct 1, 2010 – the debt increased to 13.61 trillion – another 500 million, or HALF A BILLION dollars – in a day! How’s that for fiscal chicanery? Please don’t take my word for it. Run the numbers at the Treasury link for yourself.
SO – The time to act is not next year, not next fall, not next spring, but NOW.
To pay a significant amount toward the PRINCIPLE as well as the interest, we’re talking 800 BILLION PER YEAR; [80% of a TRILLION!] simply to cut the debt by 8 trillion and it will take twenty yrs IF WE ACT NOW.
Additionally, Congress needs to cut at least 10 of the bloated, useless government programs that act as giant leeches on the economy.
Any bets that our “fearless leaders” are up to the task?
Somebody get Rep. Jeb Hensarling an Ambien! If the Texas Republican can really “find $1.5 trillion of budget savings in [his] sleep,” start the lullabies. Roll in cots for the entire Super Committee–whatever it takes to make some deep and meaningful cuts to the deficit before this catastrophe keeps us all up at night. If the panel is serious about meeting next Wednesday’s deadline, members will have to find $10.4 billion in savings every hour for the next six days. (That number drops to $17 million an hour if they sprinkle the cuts over the next 10 years.) Either way, the task became even more urgent yesterday, when America hurled over the $15,000,000,000,000 debt mark. That’s $48,000 for every man, woman, and child in the country–just $2,000 less than our median household income!
Steven Landsburg tries to put the deficit in perspective in his “Short Econ Quiz” for Congress. “Suppose that year after year, you spend more than you earn. Which of the following could be paths back to fiscal sanity for your household? A) Spend less. B) Earn more. C) Stop at the ATM more often so you’ll have more cash in your pocket. Do we all understand why C is a really bad answer?” Apparently, the Hill does not. Even now, as the American economy careens wildly out of control, leaders aren’t even nibbling at the margins of what our country needs to cut.
Since President Obama took office, the debt has risen almost $4.5 trillion (41.5%), and Congress’s solution is leaving spending rates (including stimulus dollars) untouched! Both parties are trying to slow the rate of growth instead of eliminating the excess that got us here. If that’s Washington’s approach to fiscal solvency, then buckle up. As Daniel Horowitz points out (and Utah Sen. Mike Lee confirmed), the Super Committee doesn’t plan to cut one cent of spending. “The entirety of the $917 billion 10-year discretionary savings comes from reductions to the prodigal baseline… In fact, not only did we lock in the aforementioned unparalleled spending rates, we committed ourselves to add over $800 billion more in deficit spending.” And the Committee plans on paying for it–not by forgoing some luxuries, like Shrek-Themed Onion Promotion Campaigns–but by passing the invoice on to you!
“Raising taxes is nothing at all like earning income in [a typical household]. Instead, it’s a lot more like visiting the ATM… The government’s chief asset–in fact, pretty much its only asset-is its ability to tax people, now and in the future. The taxpayers are the government’s ATM. Make a withdrawal today, and there’s less available tomorrow.” If America is to find her way back to financial stability, conservatives will have to lead us there. That means accepting nothing less than real cuts, strong caps, and a balanced budget amendment that locks Congress into the diet it so desperately needs–not the House gimmicks that won’t shed a dime.
A new bill introduced by Connecticut independent Sen. Joe Lieberman and several other members of Congress would strip the citizenship of Americans deemed by the government to be involved in terrorism.
Lieberman introduced the “Enemy Expatriation Act” Wednesday with Massachusetts Republican Sen. Scott Brown, Pennsylvania Republican Rep. Charlie Dent and Pennsylvania Democratic Rep. Jason Altmire. The legislation would update federal law to revoke the citizenship of Americans involved in terrorism.
Currently, there are seven categories under federal law for which U.S. citizens can lose their citizenship. Existing expatriation law includes such acts as renouncing one’s citizenship or serving in the armed services of a foreign state engaged in hostilities against the U.S.
The new legislation would expand the list to include “providing material support or resources to a Foreign Terrorist Organization, as designated by the secretary of state, or actively engaging in hostilities against the United States or its allies.”
Post Continues on dailycaller.com
MY NOTE: If the list is expanded to include ”actively engaging in hostilities against the United States or its allies.” ; In view of his actions toward Israel, we can use this to oust Obama! LMAO “X”
The 5 Wealthiest Members of Congress
- Don’t shoot the messenger. Don’t accuse me of wealth envy. Red font my emphasis- “X”
By Casey Scudder
Benjamin Franklin once proposed that elected officials not be paid for their service to the nation — a proposal that was quickly struck down by other representatives.
However, it must be said that during the recent recession members of Congress did conform somewhat to the idea of “austerity,” and quietly declined their annual salary bump this year. [tsk, tsk..."X"]
Don’t worry though, they took their +2.8% raise last year (2009), which boosted their annual paycheck to $174,000.
There are some interesting names with interesting financial backgrounds on our list of the five wealthiest members of Congress.
We compiled this list according to each lawmaker’s financial disclosure report, which he or she is required to file each year.
But bear in mind, these financial disclosures report each member’s “minimum net worth,” so each lawmaker’s actual net worth could be much higher.
Here are the five congressmen and congresswomen with the highest net worth, according to OpenSecrets.org:
July 28, 2010
5) Senator Mark Warner (Democrat — Virginia)
Of the top 50 wealthiest congressmen, there are a record breaking 11 freshman members. Mark Warner jumped into the top five by reporting about $72 million in assets.
Not just another trust fund baby, Warner worked his way to the top as the co-founder of Nextel Communications, which had 20 million subscribers in the U.S. when it was purchased by Sprint (NYSE: S). Senator Warner was pressed to run for the democratic presidential candidate in 2008, but chose not to for personal reasons. He currently serves on several committees, including the powerful Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee. He is also pursuing Wall Street reform bills, and recently voted “Yea” to the Regulation and Oversight of the U.S. Financial System bill, as well as the bill to extend unemployment benefits.
Photo:
TO VIEW SLIDESHOW:
PARTNERING WITH EAGLES
A BIT OF CHRISTMAS CHEERLESSNESS
Courtesy of Citizen Tom
Posted on December 22, 2011by Citizen Tom
Following in the footsteps of a tradition as favored as a certain popular poem, Delegate Scott Lingamfelter reminds us once again of the consequences of failing to elect the best people we can.