federalexpression

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

Archive for January 2011

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.

Conclusion
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.

UPDATE:
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.

Final:
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.

UPDATE:
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

Beware of Con-Cons: State Legislators Warn Against a Constitutional Convention

with one comment


Rumors and Measures involving Federal Con-Con Calls are growing. Here are just a few I found.

  1. ND: ND amendment would restrict federal debt increases
  2. VA: LeMunyon’s Repeal Amendment Passes House
  3. UT: Holding Out for a Hero
  4. TX: Governor also wants lawmakers to push for federal balanced budget amendment
  5. IN: Time for a rewrite?
  6. FL: Bad idea to change the Constitution

This a call to all Americans to tell your local officials to oppose a Con-Con and rescind any outstanding calls currently pending.
This threat is nothing new. This battle has raged for some 30 plus years, however, this particular round is especially dangerous because there are several effective dis-information groups promoting it at the local level across the country. Many new conservative Tea Party Candidates need an education. You need to provide that education. So here are some materials to get you up to speed on the issue first so you can have an impact.

Resources:

Here is a pack of documents to help you in the process: “No Con-Con Documentation Packet“.
The youtube video above is available on DVDs and audio CDs.
For more information on this JBS action project go to http://www.jbs.org/issues-pages/no-con-con.

Written by federalexpression

January 27, 2011 at 12:35 am

Sorry Folks, You Can’t Save Water !!!!

with one comment


Here’s a challenge for you. Try to google the phrase “save water”. Look at all the suggestions you find on how you can save water. Well, I hate to break the news to you folks, but try as you may, you simply cannot save water.

Remember the elementary school science class where you were taught all about clouds, and electricity, and the water cycle? Was that 3rd or 4th grade? I really don’t remember. The point is, water is recycled by nature. It’s as if that particular resource is so critical that nature decided to make it human-proof.

Oh, sure! You can reduce production costs. You can reduce your water and sewage bill. But you just can’t save water. So the next time your little “green-indoctrinated” son or daughter comes home and tells you to shutoff the faucet while you brush your teeth, you can have a nice, little sit-down and explain the water cycle. Here’s a nice visual-aid to help.

The Water Cycle

The Water Cycle

Written by federalexpression

January 26, 2011 at 1:46 pm

Posted in Pet Peeves

Tagged with

DANGER: Rand Paul to push for a Constitutional Convention to force Balancing the Federal Budget!

with 4 comments


Has the sellout of the Republican Majority begun?

I wonder why so many well-meaning citizens of this land have allowed themselves to be convinced that a new Constitution would be any more adhered to than the current. I have read the many objections to the current system which they wish to redress and I concur with most of the arguments. I do not, however, subscribe to the idea that the current Constitution is flawed. Without exception, all the reasons for redress are a direct result of not adhering to the current Constitutional limits in place. So we are not faced with a problem related to system or form, but rather a problem of enforcement of governmental limits already in place. Read the rest of this entry »

Written by federalexpression

January 25, 2011 at 6:52 pm

A Response to “A Look Back At Those Killed” by Cameron Joseph

with one comment


Rep. Lawrence P. McDonald D-GA 

Rep. Lawrence P. McDonald D-GA

Remembering Congressman Larry McDonald

Hey Mr. Joseph? You listed the following Congress members as having been killed:
  • Rep. Leo Ryan, D-Calif (1978)
  • Sen. Robert Kennedy, D-N.Y. (1968)
  • Sen. Huey Long, D-La. (1935)
  • Rep. John Pinckney, D-Texas (1905)
  • Rep. Cornelius Hamilton, R-Ohio (1868)
  • Rep. James Hinds, R-Ark. (1868)

You missed the latest one. Representative Lawrence Patton McDonald D-GA. He was brutally murdered by communist thugs when his flight KAL-007 was shot out of the sky by the Soviet Union in September 1983. Can I assume it was an honest omission on your part? I sure hope the editors at the nationaljournal.com didn’t have anything to do with it.

Reference: The New American Magazine: In Wake of Tucson, Media Ignores Rep. Larry McDonald by Christian Gomez

Written by federalexpression

January 25, 2011 at 2:03 pm

%d bloggers like this: