Stuff My Brain Says #84

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." - Amendment I, U.S. Constitution

This past weekend marks a sad day in American history. People all over the country got together to "petition the government for a redress of grievances." Primarily, they were protesting the death of George Floyd, who died when in the custody of the Minneapolis police. However, many of those protests shifted from "peaceably" to violent; including destruction of property and looting.

These types of protests need to stop. 

Here are a few considerations:

Every person needs to register prior to attending any protest.
Every person needs to publicly display their name on their clothing during the protest.
No wearing of black clothing and NO hoodies allowed.
Every person will go through a checkpoint prior to attending the protest.
If you fail to comply with the above you will be arrested and removed from the assembly.

Now, let me address the whys:

Many of the reports I read and videos I saw were concerning hooded individuals initiating the violence, destruction of property, and looting (what does the looting of a Target have to do with #BlackLivesMatter I have no idea). In Cleveland, over 60 people were arrested for aggravated rioting, vandalism, disorderly conduct and curfew violations. Some of those individuals were not from Cleveland. If every person is registered, publicly wearing their name, and are not hidden behind dark clothing and hoods, the chances of someone starting a riot are greatly diminished. And the checkpoints will guarantee no one is carrying a weapon or clothing they can use to disguise their identities (you have to go through checkpoints to get into Cleveland Indians games after all).

"But J.P., don't you know that we have a right to protest? It's in the 1st Amendment that you posted at the top of this article."

Read it again. It says you have the right to PEACEABLY assemble. Not riot. Not destroy property. Not bludgeon people with two-by-fours (yes, I saw that video too). PEACEABLY assemble.

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." - Preamble to the U.S. Constitution

As the preamble above shows, the concept of the Constitution, and the Amendments contained therein, are based on the intention of a CIVILIZED SOCIETY. IF you choose to behave uncivilized, you LOSE that right. 

Don't agree? Go commit a felony, go to jail, serve your time, and try to vote. Why can't a felon vote? Because the act of the felony (an uncivilized act) DISQUALIFIES the person from the rights of a citizen in a civilized society. You know, part of the "domestic Tranquility".

When the violence and destruction become the news, the meaning of your protest is no longer the news. So, if you therefore have no desire for your message to be heard, you don't protest.

If you can't act like adults, you should be treated as the unruly children you are.

©Emittravel 2020

It's Broke. Time to fix it. Article #10

It's broke . . .

First off, let me make this perfectly clear: this (particular) blog post is not meant to bash Hillary Clinton. I've done that plenty in other articles. As a matter of fact, I've made it a point to make sure my bashing is truly nonpartisan (I bash BOTH sides of the aisle!) What I do want to get across is that this is a serious concern and it needs to be addressed.

For the first time in American history, we have the potential of electing the first…

…I know, you were expecting "woman" or "female" President. Uh uh!

For the first time in American history, we have the potential of electing the first SPOUSE as President. And this, my dear readers, is something I've not seen addressed.

Oh, what has been addressed is to what we should call the "First Husband". What about "First Mate"? Well, first off, that sounds like something from a Popeye cartoon. And second, this country isn't ready for an LGBT President. But that isn't the point.

The point is that, in this particular case, Hillary Clinton is disqualified from being President. You'll notice that I didn't say "unqualified". She is definitely qualified. According to Article II, Section I, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution:

"No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."

What I did say was that she was DISQUALIFIED. According to the 22nd Amendment:

"No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once . . . "

Hillary Clinton was married to Bill Clinton when he was President for two terms (1993 - 2001). And THAT disqualifies her from becoming President.

According to whitehouse.gov (excerpted from “The First Ladies of the United States of America,” by Allida Black. Copyright 2009 by the White House Historical Association.):

"As the nation's First Lady, Hillary continued to balance public service with private life. Her active role began in 1993 when the President asked her to chair the Task Force on National Health Care Reform [later known as "HillaryCare"]. She continued to be a leading advocate for expanding health insurance coverage, ensuring children are properly immunized, and raising public awareness of health issues."

Hillary Clinton was not much different in her role as First Lady as others before and since. All tend to take active roles in influencing public policy. Which is both good and bad. Good, in that many of the ideas and actions are beneficial for the country and its citizens. Bad, in that the First Lady has unelected power that holds sway over the office of the President.

In the case of the Clintons though, the opinion was that "we are the President" - which is an opinion that only gives weight to my argument.

I once heard a minister once say that "…the Bible says that man is the head. And if the man is the head, the woman is the neck. And what does the neck do? It both supports and TURNS the head." There is great power in influence. How the First Lady is addressed and treated has great influence on one's standing. Can you imagine bad-mouthing your boss' wife? I didn't think so.

(I used to work for a small company that was owned by the wife, but ran by the husband. No big deal, except that the wife took an active role. So much so that you would get contradictory orders from each. And you didn't want to upset either.)

Now, imagine that Hillary Clinton has become President. This means that former President Bill Clinton will be there. Do you honestly think a former President would not get the respect of that office? It would be "Good morning, Mr. Clinton." Or perhaps "Good morning, Mr. President." Each would be valid. And if a First Lady tends to take an active role, how much influence do you think a First Husband (a former PRESIDENT) would have? I would say, so much (possible) influence as to be in conflict with the 22nd Amendment.

"But J.P., nothing in the Constitution prevents the First Lady from becoming President."

True. But honestly, do you think that the founding fathers ever considered their wives running for President? They didn't even think a woman should VOTE. It was a long time from the writing of the Constitution to the ratification of the 19th Amendment in 1920. Which means they never gave thought to the possibility of a former First Lady running for President.

Now, if a President (of either gender!!) serves only one term, there would be no issue with the spouse (of either gender!!) serving one term. But outside of that?

So, Hillary Clinton is disqualified from being President. The same if Michelle Obama were to run.

Now, if Rosalynn Carter or Barbara Bush wanted to give the job a go…

. . . time to fix it!

©Emittravel 2016

Stuff My Brain Says #78

Have you heard of these 2016 Presidential candidates:

Hillary Clinton (Democrat Party)
Donald Trump (Republican Party)
Gary Johnson (Libertarian Party)
Jill Stein (Green Party)

Well, I'm sure you've heard of the first two. The second two? Maybe. What I want to point out is that all four have something in common:

Clinton / Kaine
Trump / Pence
Johnson / Weld
Stein / Baraka

Did you guess it? Okay, one more hint:

This decision is considered the most important, first decision a candidate will make.

Give up?

They have all violated the Constitution of the United States.

By that I mean that they have each picked their "running mate". And that is unconstitutional.

According to the 12th Amendment, both the President AND the Vice President are elected separately. In the late 1960s that changed. Correction: the methodology changed; the Constitution was not. Which means that whenever a Presidential candidate announces their running mate, they have violated the Constitution.

Which is really confusing considering the following:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Nothing like starting off with a lie…

(For a more in-depth explanation, check out: "It's Broke. Time to fix it. Article #9".)

©Emittravel 2016

It's Broke. Time to fix it. Article #9

It's broke . . .

You may have noticed that last Sunday I didn't post a new blog (blog? blog article? blog post?). Last week was the Republican Convention, and being that I live here in the wonderful city of Cleveland, I did what any sane person would do: I got the heck outta Dodge!

(Now, to be perfectly honest, if I lived in Philadelphia, where the Democrat Convention is to take place, I'd get the heck outta Dodge too!)

Actually, Friday the 15th was the celebration of ten wonderful years of marriage to the most beautiful (and patient, and forgiving, and tolerating . . . ) woman in the world. I took that day off in order to celebrate; along with the following week for a mini-vacation. It just so happens that the convention was taking place the same time we were on vacation.

We went to Maumee Bay State Park and stayed at the lodge. The park is located on the coast of Lake Erie, between Sandusky (think Cedar Point) and Toledo (think Mud Hens and Tony Packo's). Nothing like catching a couple of Mud Hens baseball games!

Me and the most beautiful, patient, forgiving, tolerant (etc.) woman in the world!

Getting back to the topic of this post . . .

Currently we have a two-party system. The Republicans and the Democrats. A.K.A. Tweedle-Dumb and Tweedle-Stupid. The part that pisses me off the most about both of these groups is that deep down they don't give a rat's ass about doing what is best for the country. Oh, they say that they do. But honestly? All either party cares about is doing what is best for their own party. Getting re-elected and staying in power means more to them than what is best for the very taxpayers paying their salaries.

I know I talked about third-party options previously, but no one ever takes groups like the Green Party or the Libertarian Party seriously enough to make a dent in the two-party monopoly. Though that may change. Usually, the Libertarians are dismissed as a bunch of people who only want to legalize drugs. Well, with Colorado and Washington both legalizing the dancing with Mary Jane, and many more states looking at that viable tax revenue option, Libertarians will soon seem like the "normal" of the bunch.

The 12th Amendment gives us the procedure for electing both the President and the Vice President (also known as the Electoral College). In a nutshell: the person with the majority of electoral votes becomes President AND the person with the majority of electoral votes becomes Vice President. Two separate elections. Now, somewhere along the line, our benevolent party leaders decided that it wouldn't be good to have a Democrat President and a Republican Vice President (or vice versa), so they decided to make a change and have the party candidate choose their "running mate".

You may notice that they didn't change the Constitution via Amendment (like when the 18th Amendment - prohibiting the manufacturing or sale of alcohol - was repealed by the 21st Amendment). They simply decided to ignore the Constitution for the betterment of the parties.

So, the system is broken.

My wife had a great idea, and I think it's the perfect solution: Let everyone who wants to run, run. The person with the most votes becomes the President. And the person with the second most votes becomes the Vice President. Parties be damned!

And I agree. Let the games begin!

. . . time to fix it!

©Emittravel 2016

Pompous Circumstance

Just last week we had the traditional "Let's Stand and Clap at Everything the President Says" speech, a.k.a. "The State of the Union". Unlike the other talking heads on FOX, MSNBC, CNN, etc., I'm not going to give you my opinions on the particular things the President said. I can't. I didn't watch the speech. I had no intention of watching it. And no, I'm not an Obama-basher (okay, maybe I am, but not at the moment); I didn't watch them even when G.W. Bush was giving them. I have only caught pieces of the speech given by different Presidents over the years, only because they seem to take over every network channel during them (I love you, Netflix!)

The reason I don't watch it is because the founding fathers of our country did not intend it that way:

Article 2, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution says, "He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient;"

(Side note: What the hell is it with the capitalized words in the middle of that thing?)

As it states, the President is supposed to give Congress information of the state of the union, along with recommendations. George Washington delivered the first before a joint session of Congress in 1790. Thomas Jefferson thought it too similar to a speech that the King of England would give and stopped the practice (you know, not presidential, but monarchical). From that time on, it was given as a written report to Congress - read by a clerk. I think it was read out loud by a clerk because Xerox hadn't given us the copier yet.

Woodrow Wilson was the first to give the report orally to Congress since Jefferson stopped it. Most Presidents have given the report in writing; Jimmy Carter was the last to do this. Calvin Coolidge gave the report (now a "speech") on radio for the first time in 1923. And, since most Presidents like to outdo each other (how many Presidential Libraries do we need, anyway?), Harry S. Truman gave it for the first time on television in 1947.

Here's where I think it has gone astray. No longer is the State of the Union a report given to CONGRESS, but a political speech in front of the American people. As Congress now stands up and applauds every time the President takes a breath, you can almost hear Thomas Jefferson saying, "I told you so!"

The speech is stupid for another reason: why, oh why, would you have the majority of your government officials in one building at one time? There are all kinds of methodologies put in place to make sure that not everyone is in attendance, but still! Why would one risk it? Hasn't anyone seen "Mars Attacks" or "Independence Day"?!?

All kidding aside, there are plenty of opportunities during the year for the President to address the American people. This should NOT be one of them. Instead of a serious report, it is an opportunity for grandstanding and occasional abuse (of the other Branches). Go back to giving it in writing. Hell, even email it!

Nothing is worse than watching the State of the Union. Outside of the rebuttals that follow, that is.

© Emittravel 2015

Yeah, But Should the FOX Say It?

Sometimes known as the "Fourth Estate", the press has a long history of keeping the government in "check" in its role as the ears of the people. So important a role, that it is even referenced in one of the pinnacles of our constitutional rights:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

For one sentence, that statement covers a lot of ground! Unfortunately, with such a sentence, there is a lot of room for interpretation. For instance: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" can be taken that Congress shall make no law that respects a religion, one that respects an establishment of religion (like a church building), or one that respects the establishment of a religion (like coming up with a new one, or making a state religion like "The Church of England"). What about the inverse? Can Congress make a law that disrespects one?

Also included is the abridgement of the freedom of speech or of the press. Abridgement means a shortened or condensed form, or a limiting of someone's rights. Cliff Notes are study tools that give a good idea of the first definition. The focus in the amendment is the second definition. We have the right to say what we want. However, we have laws against slander and libel. Slander deals with making false statements against someone. Libel is a false statement against someone that is published. We have freedom to say what we want, even if it offends someone. It's just that that statement cannot be false. You have the right to have an opinion. Heck, the name of this blog is "My Humble But Accurate Opinion". Opinions are views or judgments made, but not necessarily based on facts.

If I say, "The President of the United States dresses in drag and chases neighborhood children," that would be slander. If I published it, that would be libel. But if I say, "The President of the United States has policies that I think are detrimental to the well being of this country," I am giving an opinion. The first is punishable according to the law. The other is protected speech. As a blogger, I have the freedom to give my opinion. Hopefully that also means that I've given my opinion at least a little research background prior to giving it to my readers.

Can I see a show of hands from all of you that hate FOX News? Okay, how about those of you that hate MSNBC? I'm sure you all have your reasons, and I probably will agree with you on them. Here's my point: why are these types of "journalists", members of the "press", allowed to make such outrageous, may I even go far as to call them slanderous, statements and hide under the umbrella of "freedom of the press"?

As I stated above, the press was designed to keep the government in check. It has a responsibility to keep the government honest by holding them accountable to the people (you know, their constituents - a.k.a. "the voters"). But there is a major problem when the press stops reporting the news and just gives us their opinions PORTRAYED as news. There is a major problem when the press buries a story it doesn't like because it goes against their opinions or beliefs as to how the government should be doing things. There is also a major problem when the press reports things that in turn can cause detriment to our armed forces. You know: acts of treason.

What is the difference between a blogger and a journalist when both are simply giving opinions? Do bloggers fall under the same protections of the freedom of the press?

But is it the fault of the press? With the news networks being all owned by the entertainment industry, and ratings and advertising dollars the focus, is it any wonder that they act like they do?

Many are the solutions to fix this. Here's one that I think will help: change the name of the news organizations and make sure they are clear on when they are giving facts versus their opinions.

Change "FOX News" to "FOX News and Opinion".

© Emittravel 2014

It's broke. Time to fix it. Article #6

It's been awhile since the last time I posted one of these, so you may want to go back and at least catch the intro.

It's broke . . . 

There has been a desire that Congress must prove the constitutionality of any bill they bring up for a vote. Congress, of course, has ignored this desire and have fought against such a "mandate". Why? Such a mandate would force them to have to read the Constitution and would tie their hands when it comes to attacks upon our liberty.

When it comes to a socially-emphasized agenda, any restrictions against such an agenda must be ignored at all costs. Of course, once a bill has become law, lawyers are brought in (happily lining their pockets) as lawsuits are filed against such laws. While those lawsuits are in process, the new law is considered "good" until proven otherwise. The longer the process, the more entrenched those laws become - forming judicial "precedents" that are often viewed as more legally binding than the very Constitution our system is based upon.

Why not force Congress to prove that the bill they are proposing IS constitutional to begin with? Would we have to worry about attacks against the 2nd Amendment that take away our liberty - empowering those who desire to harm us (not just criminals - a.k.a. "lawbreakers", but the very government that oversteps its bounds), or our 1st Amendment rights to voice opinions such as these, and to worship anywhere we so desire (including "public" property)?

I think it is time for those very politicians who have taken an OATH to serve and protect the Constitution of the United States to accept that they are not our gods, but our servants. And that we the people should not have to provide the leg work to prove when they are out of line to prove a law is unconstitutional.

. . . time to fix it!

© Emittravel 2013

Stuff My Brain Says #41

Today the Supreme Court stated that an integral part of ObamaCare is constitutional: forcing people to purchase something is being called a "tax"; which is Constitutional for the government to implement. Even though there is nothing in the Constitution that gives the Federal Government the authority to regulate health care (or banking, the auto industry, or education for that matter), those power-hungry morons in Washington, D.C. will provide us with their mastery of efficiency (think Post Office, DMV, the tax code, etc.) of the health care industry.

A note to all of you idiots who voted for this administration: Remember all of those stories that showed alternate histories of the United States (like the show "Sliders")? Well, welcome to "AmeriKa". You earned it.

© Emittravel 2012

Stuff My Brain Says #32

I love the argument of whether the Constitution is a living document or not. It's actually rather simple: if it was meant to be a living document they would NEVER have written it down and kept it oral. Once it was written it was set. But don't worry, they DID give a way to amend the document - it's just designed to not be very easy to do. If it was supposed to be a living document, besides leaving it oral, they would have made it VERY EASY to amend it.

So, if you are a judge and make your rulings based on the Constitution being a living document, you need to step down. You are UNFIT to be a judge, since you do not have a basis, or a standard, from which to make those rulings.

Simple. Argument over.

© Emittravel 2012

Stuff My Brain Says #31

The President is talking about a "Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights" to protect people online. I think this is a good thing, especially for the government. Like the Bill of Rights and the Constitution, once it is in writing the government can then start to ignore it.

© Emittravel 2012

Stuff My Brain Says #20

How about a new amendment to the Constitution:

No one can campaign for public office prior to 30-days from an election.

This is a real winner for a number of reasons:

• No one remember sanything said the two-years prior to the actual vote.
• Think of all the money that could be saved and used for more valid purposes (insert silly ideas here).
• We won't have to listen to all of the mudslinging.
• No chance for flip-flopping on issues.
• More advertising space for Cialis commercials . . . er . . . maybe not . . .

I'm sure there are plenty of other valid reasons. Any suggestions?

© Emittravel 2011

It's broke. Time to fix it. Article #4

It's broke . . .

Cost savings idea: Congress must PROVE that any bill they present is explicitly permitted in the Constitution. How is this a cost savings idea? Think of all the time and money saved in not having to prove that such-in-such law is NOT Constitutional.

I like to think that sometimes great minds think alike, but since I’m comparing myself to members of the House of Representatives, "great" may be a bit of an exaggeration! One of the House Rules being run up the flag pole is exactly the topic of this post: Constitutionality for any bill proposed. The reasoning for each may be a bit different: they are trying to reign in the size and cost of government as a whole; I'm looking at it from the legal battle side.

(Side note: I have a list of topics for this blog that are in the queue. This particular item has been waiting for me to stop eating holiday leftovers and get down to the business of writing it. I heard of the House announcement after this item was placed in the queue. Thus the above paragraph . . . )

I wonder if the main reason our government does things is so that lawyers have work. And I understand that they have families to feed, but honestly, can we really consider it a major loss to the world to have less of them? Lawyers; not their families. Unless they are raising "little lawyers". Then I retract the clarification.

Why does our government insist on ignoring the very document that gives them ANY authority in the first place? They pass bills that are clearly in violation of that document, and find it tied up in the court system forever, for what? In the hopes that nobody is paying attention? Really? Honestly? If you folks are that dense, please don't give speeches on how you are men and women OF the people. You insult us. Maybe they hope that the "Supremes" will actually go along with their blatant disregard of Constitutional law and rule in their favor. At that point I think the "Supremes" need to stop and reconsider what branch of the government they are supposed to be, and stop legislating!

So let's stop clogging the court drains with avoidable lawsuits, and the expense of fighting them. Especially when you consider who is filing (and paying for) the lawsuits! Example: if a state files suit who do you think picks up the legal fees? That's right! The taxpayers.

Fixing the legal system - where do you start?

Come to think of it, there is something to the "clearing clogged drains and government" analogy above - snakes!! If you keep 'em clear, you won't need the lawyers!

. . . time to fix it!

©Emittravel 2011

This Will Hurt You More Than . . .

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the US Constitution states:

"To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;"

Now, I'm no lawyer, and I don't play one on television, but I have to admit, when I read the above I have difficulty understanding just where Congress gets the ideas they have concerning their (apparently) unlimited power. Maybe one has to actually BE a lawyer to really muddy up the works and make "black and white" nothing but "shades of grey". When I read this I see the word "among" in the middle when referencing "the several states", whereas the word "with" is used when referencing the other two. Why? Relationships, my friends; relationships.

The ability to have commerce between the United States and foreign nations would be difficult if left in the hands of multiple state governments, each with their own regulations. What about the borders? Tariffs? Protection of shipping lanes? Very difficult for the state of West Virginia to control what enters the ports of New York. It makes sense for the central government to develop the relationships with foreign nations, negotiate treaties, and therefore "regulate" the commerce developed in the relationships. The same with the Indian tribes. They were widely scattered, and in many cases, mobile communities, that traversed state lines. A difficult relationship to secure if each state handled communications differently. But what about commerce and the states?

The word "among" is a relational word that is defined, in part, as "in the midst of", "with a share for each of", and "by all or with the whole of" (Dictionary.com). This word denotes an established bond between the states already in existence. In other words, interstate business relationships. So, if there is commerce ALREADY IN EXISTENCE between states, the central government has the right to step in and regulate it for the good of the nation.

The point? The Congress' use of the "commerce clause" as a right to enforce a national health care mandate (i.e. "Obamacare") is a clear overstepping of their authority. There IS NO health care commerce ALREADY IN EXISTENCE between the states TO regulate! We in Ohio can't buy health insurance offered in Wyoming. Each state handles health insurance separately. The ability to purchase health insurance across state lines was one of the suggestions made during the debates leading up to the Obamacare vote. It was argued down. Apparently the federal government is far better at regulating better coverage at lower prices than the free market is. I guess that, in the eyes of Congress, socialism is far superior, and more effective, than capitalism. I'm thinking it would have been smarter to allow interstate commerce of health insurance, and THEN they would have something to regulate.

So, the next time you hear one of our illustrious leaders spout the "commerce clause" as their reason for regulating something, hand them a dictionary, and then tell them to turn their head and cough!!

©Emittravel 2010

It's broke. Time to fix it. Article #3

It's broke . . .

This article will have some reference material from our country's founders. Please do not skim over it; it is necessary to make my point. And I did try to be brief. And as you read, I'm sure you will understand that one of the ways to "fix it" is:

Term limits for all elected officials. If it is good enough for the President, it is good enough for them!

From Article I, Section 3 of the Constitution of the United States:

3.1 The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each state, chosen by the legislature thereof, FOR SIX YEARS; and each Senator shall have one vote. (emphasis added)

3.2 Immediately after they shall be assembled in consequence of the first election, they shall be divided as equally as may be into three classes. The seats of the Senators of the first class SHALL BE VACATED at the expiration of the second year, of the second class at the expiration of the fourth year, and the third class at the expiration of the sixth year, SO THAT ONE THIRD MAY BE CHOSEN EVERY SECOND YEAR; and if vacancies happen by resignation, or otherwise, during the recess of the legislature of any state, the executive thereof may make temporary appointments until the next meeting of the legislature, which shall then fill such vacancies. (emphasis added)

(Note: 3.1 was changed in the 17th Amendment to show that they were to be elected by the people of each state thereof, and not by the legislature.)

Federalist Paper #63, concerning the possibility of the senate being transformed into a "tyrannical aristocracy", argued that by holding an election every two years would bring NEW individuals to the body, ONE-THIRD of the members, thereby preventing a tyrannical and corrupt Senate by the very vacating of the members. Federalist Paper #64 argues that the knowledge gained by the body would be maintained by the TWO-THIRDS that remain every two-year election cycle, thereby keeping the "wisdom" of the Senate that we hear is so important.

My point? The writers of the above documents NEVER IMAGINED LIFE MEMBERS like Byrd, Kennedy, Kucinich, etc. The word "incumbent" was not a term they recognized. If they did, their arguments against a corrupt Senate would have been meaningless. They saw only ONE-TERM Senators. That's it. No more.

What do we have today? A clearly corrupt Legislative Branch of the government. A group only concerned with their own agendas and NO LONGER ANSWERABLE to the people.

Don't agree with me? Really? C'mon. Didn't you stay up and watch all of the back slapping on CSPAN as they PROUDLY voted in ObamaCare?

Sure, there is an election every two years, but honestly, have you tried to wade through all of the mud to find what is truth about the candidates? Refer to Article #1 of this series (below) to see how difficult it is to even discern the voting records of these bozos.

If the founders would have known what Congress would have become, I'm sure they would have felt obliged to explicitly spell it out! Apparently, they felt the members of THAT society were more honorable. Of course, they didn't have all of the cushy benefits of staying in office like they have voted themselves today!

I'm making the point with just reference to the Senate. Again, these are to be quick articles. It would take quite a few more keystrokes, and liquid stabilizer, to go into areas such as the Supreme Court. But rest assured, as I've read through the Constitution and the Federalist Papers, the first reference to a "re-election" of an official was of the President. If the concept was even a consideration, it would have been mentioned when discussing the House of Representatives and the Senate as well.

By the way, the Congress passed the 22nd Amendment on March 21, 1947, limiting the President to two terms of four years. I would love the Congress to pass such an amendment concerning themselves. Shouldn't people like Nancy Pelosi, champion of the most non-corrupt government, lead the charge? The founders believed it to be a way to curb corruption. I'm thinking they were right!

. . . time to fix it!

©Emittravel 2010