This is a Republic, not a Democracy. Let's keep it that way!

Archive for January 2011

Mickey Mouse and Nick Meet at Epcot

with one comment

Check this out !!! It’s really cute. I was messing around with the slow motion feature in my video editing software.

Written by federalexpression

January 30, 2011 at 1:59 pm

The Repeal Amendment

leave a comment »

This is part 3 of a series of discussions designed to point out the fallacies behind some modern Amendment ideas. As the drive towards a Constitutional Convention heats up, it is a good idea to examine the many Amendment proposals that are being discussed. The Repeal Amendment is being offered in response to legislation which is both wildly unpopular and places hardship upon the states. ObamaCare was a driving force behind this and Real ID plays no small part.

The Repeal Amendment states:

Any provision of law or regulation of the United States may be repealed by the several states, and such repeal shall be effective when the legislatures of two-thirds of the several states approve resolutions for this purpose that particularly describe the same provision or provisions of law or regulation to be repealed.

Although the Repeal Amendment seems like a healthy attempt to wrest usurped power from the federal government and return it to the sovereign states it is flawed in that it serves to undermine the proper role of the federal government. It would actually reintroduce some of the weaknesses that were discovered in the original Articles of Confederation.

Article 1 section 8 of the Constitution contains a list of enumerated powers that the states established within the federal system. These powers are rightly exercised at the federal level. Unfortunately, the Repeal Amendment makes no provision to safeguard those powers and so it introduces a line of separation of powers which will move with the whim of the states.

What is needed is for the States to stand up and enforce the Constitution as it was written. They must make their case when the general government extends its legislative power beyond the clearly defined enumerated powers in the Constitution. Nullification is the best remedy when the federal courts sanction usurpation of power by the executive and legislative branches. Nullification is the concept that the states refuse to enforce a federal law within their jurisdiction.

A future blog will cover the concept of Nullification also known as interposition and the arguments for and against the supremacy of the states. It should be noted that these problems have been greatly exacerbated by the 17th Amendment. A repeal of that amendment would also serve to restore the federal system as originally intended. It too shall be covered in a future blog.

Written by federalexpression

January 30, 2011 at 2:13 am

Camp Constitution’s Summer Family Camp in Rindge, NH July 9-15

leave a comment »

News Release                                                                                             Contact:
For Immediate Release                                                                     Charles Everett (704) 288-7270
Camp Constitution’s Summer Family Camp in Rindge, NH July 9-15, 2011

Camp Constitution: 2009 Camp Photo

Camp Constitution 2011 family summer camp will take place at the ToahNipi Christian Retreat Center in Rindge, NH from Saturday July 9 to Friday July 15.
   This year’s instructors include New Hampshire state reps Jenn Coffey and Norman Tregenza, Joseph D’Aleo, co-founder of the Weather Channel, and the Rev. Steve Craft.  In addition to the classes, campers will visit the Uncle Sam House in Mason, NH and field trips to Concord and Lexington, MA  Recreational opportunities include swimming, boating, indoor rock climbing, a hike up Mt. Monadnock, basketball, volleyball and chess tournaments.
 For more information: Please visit: campconstitution.net,   Youtube , Vimeo, Facebook  or call  Mr. Charles Everett (704) 288-7270

Written by federalexpression

January 29, 2011 at 10:20 pm

Posted in People

Tagged with ,

Man Dunks Himself In Hoop

leave a comment »

This is Incredible !!! I can’t add anything to this video. Give it a watch.

Written by federalexpression

January 29, 2011 at 1:28 pm

Balanced Budget Amendment: Be Careful What You Wish For

leave a comment »

This is part 2 of a series of discussions designed to point out the fallacies behind some modern Amendment ideas. As the drive towards a Constitutional Convention heats up, it is a good idea to examine the many Amendment proposals that are being discussed. No one wants to see balanced budgets more than I. Just be careful what you wish for.

Without exception, every balanced budget amendment proposal I have seen has included built-in loop-holes to allow our legislature to circumvent the requirement. I suppose that’s to be expected in today’s short-sighted world. Every year a new budget is proposed and passed and in every instance the Congress can balance the budget with a simple majority vote. It never happens. I don’t believe an amendment will change that.

I have two great reservations about a balanced budget amendment.

Reservation #1:
There are two ways to balance a budget. First, cut spending. I assume that this is what most Americans would like to see. Second, raise taxes.  Let me ask you a simple question. If Congress were under mandate to balance the budget today, which method do you think would be most likely to be used?

Reservation #2:
The frustration of the American people over the budget issue is being used to fuel a call for an Article V Constitutional Convention. The risk of doing so is hardly worth it. Especially since the outcome of a balanced budget amendment is likely to result in higher taxes and a still unbalanced budget. As soon as taxes are raised sufficiently to bring the budget in line, a war or similar crisis will result in the exercise of whatever loop-hole is included and the debt will continue to rise.

We need to be very specific about how the budget is to be balanced. We cannot expect to make real progress on this issue unless we examine the true role of Government. If we want a welfare/warfare state we will have huge debts. Let us work to reduce the size of government. Let us enforce the Constitution, our contract of government, as it is written. Let us bind men down from mischief with the chains of our Constitution.

Reference My Previous Posts on the dangers associated with a Con-Con:

Written by federalexpression

January 29, 2011 at 1:12 pm

Obama Turns Up Heat over Egypt

leave a comment »

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs announced the administration might cut the $1.5 billion in annual foreign aid sent to Egypt, depending on Mubarak’s response to the demonstrations.

Now let me get this straight !!!! We have a $14 Trillion dollar debt and a $3 Trillion Dollar deficit right? Where in God’s name are we getting $1.5 Billion for aid to Egypt every year?

Shouldn’t we be cutting all our aid to other nations? I don’t see any other nations paying down our debt.


Reference: Rand Paul says: End All Foreign Aid

Written by federalexpression

January 28, 2011 at 11:33 pm

Alan Alda: Hawkeye is 75 Whoa !!!

with one comment

Dr. Hawkeye Piece
M*A*S*H Dr. Hawkeye Pierce

Now I know I am getting old. Alan Alda at 75 years old. I have to say, I still love M*A*S*H. The episode where Colonel Blake wears a toilet seat around his neck after the latrine blows up might be my favorite. It’s really a toss-up between that one and the one where Klinger tries to hang-glide to freedom.

I took an online M*A*S*H quiz today and question 13 was: Who came first BJ or Trapper. I answered Trapper and it marked me wrong. Then later in the quiz he had BJ as one of the characters that nick-name Frank “ferret face”. Now I got a 95 on the quiz but I think I was right on #13. I think I should have scored 100 and this quiz maker should have been taking my quiz instead of the other way around. Well… Am I right or am I right?

Written by federalexpression

January 28, 2011 at 11:00 pm

Posted in People

Tagged with , ,

Term Limits: An Attempt To Limit You

with 4 comments

This is part 1 of a series of discussions designed to point out the fallacies behind some modern Amendment ideas. As the drive towards a Constitutional Convention heats up, it is a good idea to examine the many Amendment proposals that are being discussed. Term Limits is a perpetual favorite among the conservative-minded electorate. It is often connected with a convention call because it is believed that the Congress would never approve an Amendment that will place limits upon itself.

Term Limits Limit You
There can be no argument. The fact is, a term limit on elected officials would remove power from the hands of the people. Simply stated, it would limit your options at the polls.

Term Limits: A Deficiency in The Articles of Confederation
Gouverneur Morris pointed to term limits as a defect in the Articles of Confederation when he said that imposing ineligibility “tended to destroy the great motive to good behavior, the hope of being rewarded by a reappointment.”

Roger ShermanRoger Sherman on the Rewards of Reappointment
“Frequent elections are necessary to preserve the good behavior of rulers. They also tend to give permanency to Government, by preserving that good behavior, because it ensures their re-election.” — James Madison’s record of the Convention of 1787

Alexander Hamilton on Term Limits
The Federalist, No.72: “Nothing appears more plausible at first sight, nor more ill-founded upon close inspection….”

 Term Limits and the Presidency
Ask yourself this question: Has a term limit on the president of the United States produced better presidents? Afterall, this is a perfectly good example of term limits in action. It is the only example we have presently to study. It is interesting to note that the Congress has not declared war since this Limit was put in place. That’s not to say that we haven’t been at war, however. Quite the contrary, we have fought many times since.

Eligibility vs. “Lame Duck”
In a system of a fixed number of terms, a certain percentage of the Congressmen are lame ducks during their final congressional term, and the people lose their leverage to keep their Representatives on good behavior.  Could you imagine a Congress with term limits set a three terms? We could have 1/3 of our House and Senate in “Lame  Duck” perpetually. What  impact could that have? Consider all the lobbyists providing retirement money for these out-going Congressmen. This hardly sounds like a recipe for representative government.

An elected official who faces term limits will have absolutely no inducement during his final term to listen to his constituents. He will be inclined to seek arrangements while in office that will benefit him when he is forced to leave. Is this the route to good government? Term limits will also send home good, capable, and honorable men and women who have performed admirably and who we desperately need to stay in office.

The lack of Term Limits in our Constitution is not a deficiency. It was a debated decision that considered the goal versus the results attained via the Articles of Confederation. It was identified as one of the deficiencies requiring a remedy. Short terms of office and frequent elections was determined to be the most prudent and effective means of attaining the desire goal of good government. The term limit debate seeks to treat a symptom rather than cure the disease.

UsTermLimits.org has a suicidal facebook campaign promoting a two term limit on the Senate. I did a quick analysis to see what that might accomplish:

Lame Duck Session Analysis

A whopping 75% of the Senate in Lame Duck Sessions by years 11 & 12

As you can see, assuming a 75% re-election rate (and that is conservative), you could be looking at 75 of 100 senators or more in Lame Duck at the same time.

Resources: (Pdf Articles)

Written by federalexpression

January 28, 2011 at 1:25 pm

Superbowl XLV: Green Bay Packers -2 early line over Pittsburgh Steelers

leave a comment »

Superbowl XLV Logo

Green Bay Packers vs Pittsburgh Steelers

I was looking at the prior 44 super bowl lines. Teams favored by 4 points or less are 5-8 (.385). I also noticed that the NFC has a 5-8 (.385) record in those games. In all 13 cases the spread was either covered by the winner or the underdog won outright. Chances are excellent that the point spread on this game will be meaningless in the end.

Both of these teams average about 24 points per game and surrender approximately 15 points per game. I would expect Vegas to set total points around 40.  I don’t expect the running backs to dominate this game, so the MVP will most likely be from the defense or passing game. Both QBs tend to spread it around a bit. That gives the winning QB the edge for MVP honors.

If the game is as tight as the line suggests, perhaps the game will hinge on a defense or special teams play and steal the MVP award.

My heart is with the Pack but my head tells me Steelers get their 7th championship.

UPDATE: The line has moved to 2 1/2 points in favor of Green Bay and total points is 44 1/2. If I were a betting man I would take Pittsburgh and the under. I will be a Packers fan on game day. I think Mike Wallace is a sleeper MVP candidate assuming the Steelers can run the ball a little and open up the play-action pass.

Thankfully I am not a betting man, Green Bay and the over. Winning QB Aaron Rodgers as expected gets the MVP. Mike Wallace did get behind the GB defense in a losing cause. The line stood at 2 1/2 but some services were offering 3 points to the Steelers. Either way the line was a no factor. I think the uncharacteristic turnovers by the Steelers was the difference and accounts for the total scoring being above as well as a Packers win. I was pleased with the outcome as I was pulling for the Pack. The game was tight and the interception for touchdown was a huge factor.

Written by federalexpression

January 27, 2011 at 2:28 pm

ObamaCare: A Trojan Horse for Federal Regulators.

leave a comment »

Are you tired of reading all the reasons why ObamaCare is a lousy piece of legislation? I know the political bickering can be a bit much. Let’s take a more pragmatic look at ObamaCare. Let’s talk about what this legislation could mean for you and me. See if my logic makes any sense at all to you.

What is it that you like to do in life? It could be any work, any hobby. It could be something adventurous like sky-diving or rock climbing. It could be bicycle riding or dirt track racing. Maybe you are more likely to lie on a beach and read a book, or fly a kite. Perhaps you are a wine connoisseur, basketball player or you run track. Now think hard a minute. Do your favorite activities affect your health?

Think of the food you like to eat. Now consider all the things you routinely do that may affect you or someone else’s health. Make sure you include your children’s health impact. Don’t forget your elderly parent or your spouse.

Once Washington D.C. runs healthcare, they have the excuse to regulate all the things you just pondered. Everything you do will be tied to the economic welfare of the state and so you can be sure there will be a bureaucrat to regulate whatever it is you do.

Federal Judge Roger Vinson shares my concerns. Here is an excerpt from his ruling:

…Congress could require that people buy and consume broccoli at regular
intervals, not only because the required purchases will positively impact interstate
commerce, but also because people who eat healthier tend to be healthier, and are
thus more productive and put less of a strain on the health care system.

…I pause here to emphasize that the foregoing is not an irrelevant and fanciful
“parade of horribles.” Rather, these are some of the serious concerns implicated by
the individual mandate that are being discussed and debated by legal scholars.

Reference: Full Ruling

Written by federalexpression

January 27, 2011 at 1:05 am

Posted in Issues

Tagged with

%d bloggers like this: