Really?! Really?!

I know everyone has heard about this by now, but really, who in their right mind would order such an event. CNN is reporting that everyone is really sorry, but that really isn't good enough. The plane that flies the President around suddenly does a low flyby on New York City? Of course people panicked at the site of it. For goodness sake, that'd be like Hollywood buying a bunch of Japanese warplanes and flying them over Pearl Harbor in 1949 without telling anyone they were going to do it. It is at best poor taste and perhaps even criminal. I like what liked what Fran Townsend had to say about it. Crass insensitivity and felony stupidity were how she was quoted. All of this for military photo ops? Seriously? Can't you just take a pretty picture with the darn plane sitting on the tarmac at Andrews Air Force Base? What can the military possibly be doing that they need to take pictures of Air Force One flying amonst the skyscrapers of New York? Oh, but it is a classified, government sanctioned photo op. Whatever the heck that means. I've never heard of any kind of photo shoot involving planes, trains or whatever. I guess they exist, they were just ... classified? As far as I can tell, Louis Caldera, director of the White House military office, claimed responsibility for ordering this "event" and apologized. In a case like this, where you end up terrifying the population of a large portion of New York City, an apology isn't enough. If we assume Mr. Caldera is in fact responsible, and not just a scapegoat, then he needs to be fired. Right now.

This was just the wrong decision!

As reported in several places, including this one from NBC, President Obama gave a speech about the economy (ironically in which he himself used religious statements) at Georgetown University. The speech was televised. The White House requested Georgetown to cover or remove any and all religious imagery that might be picked up on television cameras, supposedly in order to facilitate the backdrop they wanted to put up. Georgetown University acceded to this request and did so. The President can give a speech wherever the heck he wants. However, if he doesn't want religious imagery to be seen on tv while he is doing it, he shouldn't be giving the speech at a religious institution. This is my simple opinion. To ask Georgetown to cover something that is so integral to their identity is unnecessary and plainly offensive to Catholics. Would anyone suggest covering over a star of David? Of course not, they'd be accused of anti-semitism. How about Islamic symbols? Of course not, they'd be accused of being anti-Islamic or targeting Islam, or whatever. This is unacceptable behavior, plain and simple. The White House didn't have to choose a religious institution to give this speech, so again, if you don't want religious imagery prominently displayed behind you, don't go to a religious institution. The White House was wrong to make this request and Georgetown was wrong to accede to it. It was just wrong all the way around!

Yet more news from the left's favorite son Chavez (oh wait, maybe that's Castro)

So, the administration is "giving in" to Iran by possibly taking the requirement to stop nuclear enrichment off the table before we talk with them, sat around and let North Korea launch a missile we knew could reach U.S. shores (if N.K. so chose), having the Congressional Black Caucus leaders cozy up to Castro and then using a blatantly political move of removing travel and money restrictions to Cuban Americans while leaving them in place for the rest of us which serves only as a political move to try to get Cuban American votes away from the Republican party since it leaves the general embargo in place but let's them violate it freely. I'm not arguing for or against any of these things here. Anyone who knows me probably can figure out my positions here, but I did want to point out a pattern that seems to suggest that in world politics, at least where it doesn't involve terrorists, the current administration and Congress seem very happy with the prospect of giving in to our long time enemies or simply just letting them do what they want. I could be wrong, but that's how it looks from where I'm sitting. Now today, and only on Fox News for some reason comes another story about that crazy strongman in Venezuela, Mr. Hugo Chavez. This is a man who has railed against Bush and has even spoken out against the new administration. Who has used fear and bullying tactics to drive his opposition into hiding and achieve President for life status, who has suppressed freedom of the press, freedom of speech, freedom of association and who knows what else. And why? This is all done in the name of his personal socialist revolution. He admits as much. So, what have Americans done about all of this? Contrary to Chavez's claims, we've done absolutely nothing. Oh wait, that isn't true, is it. Sean Penn has visited Chavez twice. Joe Kennedy went to Venezuela and criticized our President in a hostile nation. Sure, he has freedom of speech and all, but it is simply bad form to criticize your own country and President while visiting a foreign, hostile nation. Actually, it is poor taste for the Dixie Chicks to alienate their primary audience by doing it in Europe (amongst our friends) but quite another to do it in a blatantly and openly hostile nation like Venezuela. That's just treasonous, if you really want my opinion. So what does that make Kennedy and Penn? Well, except for Joe Kennedy, there haven't been a lot of political visitors to Chavez. Maybe they get it? Probably not. However, there have been a lot of high profile visitors other than Penn. They include: Naomi Campbell, Kevin Spacey and Danny Glover. These three went to visit him because? I don't know. The story on Campbell clearly showed she was enamored with his "programs for the poor". Do I believe they are traitors? No, but they are stupid. Why you ask? What none of these people seem to realize is that these dictators, Chavez and in the past or even present (see Democratic black caucus)Castro, aren't these great revolutionary leaders that they portray themselves as. They are self absorbed, callous, evil tyrants who want nothing more than to reshape their country, or the world if they could, in their own image. So, when these people go visit them, they are shown only what Chavez and Castro want them to see and nothing more. It would be like my visiting Brazil, hanging out in downtown Brasilia for a few days and hobknobbing with the big whigs and then coming home and talking about how wonderfully things are going there. I'd be an idiot. Well, these people are not intentionally being treasonous, but they are stupid enough to allow themselves to be used by evil men for nefarious purposes. Travelling to visit Chavez doesn't make them look good, at least not to those of us with a brain, it only allows Chavez the opportunity to hold these idiots up as shining examples of Americans who believe in him. Right, just like Lindbergh believed in Hitler or any other examples of early 20th century fascists who supported Hitler or Mussolini. At least until they discovered what Hitlerism really was. Hint, it wasn't fascism but fascism facilitated it. At any rate, socialism leads to one thing. Tyranny. I, for one, am not interested Mr. President.

Freedom of exercise people, freedom of exercise!

And in today's San Francisco Chronicle, yet another example of how people have gotten it completely wrong when it comes to religious expression. The college claims that faculty offices, lounges, etc. are places for teaching, learning, etc. and are not places for protests, demonstrations, prayer or other activities that would be disruptive. What? Okay, I get that the professor must have something against religion and even having a student pray with a teacher, but what are we doing. If I can't pray with anyone I wish, who is voluntarily praying with me, in any place I wish (there is a responsibility with every right, so of course I can't pray in the middle of class), then what good is free exercise? This case is a clear example of abuse of power and of violation of constitutional rights that I'm not really surprised that a judge said the students had a case. Of course they do!

Huh, this sounds good, but...

A group called "American Solutions for Winning the Future" has come up with 12 principles (solutions for jobs and prosperity) they want us to endorse, so I thought I'd examine these principles a bit more closely. For full disclosure, this is a group with which Newt Gingrich is closely affiliated. So, what are the 12 solutions?

1. Payroll Tax Stimulus. With a temporary new tax credit to offset 50% of the payroll tax, every small business would have more money, and all Americans would take home more of what they earn.

Now, I'm all for tax cuts, but I must say that a 50 percent tax credit seems extreme unless of course you are also planning to do away with welfare and other such spending, then I'd be on board with it.

2. Real Middle-Income Tax Relief. Reduce the marginal tax rate of 25% down to 15%, in effect establishing a flat-rate tax of 15% for close to 9 out of 10 American workers.

Okay, I like this one. It would probably lower my tax bracket, eh? However, anyone already making less than 50,000 dollars a year still would see nothing from this because they are already in the 15 percent tax bracket. Therefore, not likely that a Democrat controlled Congress will respond favorably to this.

3. Reduce the Business Tax Rate. Match Ireland’s rate of 12.5% to keep more jobs in America.

Well, I do think that lowering business taxes is a good way to keep businesses from fleeing overseas, but there are also a lot of other things we could do, say, reducing unnecessary regulation for instance. Nonetheless, not a bad idea and one that Democrats who cry foul when companies move their factories overseas could get on board with.

4. Homeowner’s Assistance. Provide tax credit incentives to responsible home buyers so they can keep their homes.

Anyone who knows me knows I'd support this one. After all, so far, the only people benefiting from government programs are those home buyer's who weren't responsible, weren't legal and don't deserve to be bailed out. The rest of us just suffer and this idea sounds like it has more promise to help the responsible ones than anything that's been done so far.

5. Control Spending So We Can Move to a Balanced Budget. This begins with eliminating Congressional earmarks and wasteful pork-barrel spending.

Okay, I have to say something here. First, the first four points were all about cutting taxes and now point 5 is about balancing the budget and cutting wasteful pork-barrel spending and earmarks. First, I've said before that earmarks are actually a part of a Congressman's job that I think they should be trying to do. I think they should be individual bills rather than tacked on to other things, but it is part of a Congressman's job to make things better for his or her own district. Second, even if you cut all the pork and earmarks, you still haven't cut the budget significantly (as you can see in other posts I've done) and so therefore, you are far away from a balanced budget. If a balanced budget is your goal, you need to consider slashing welfare, cutting the military and privatizing social security. That's the only way to achieve this goal.

6. No State Aid Without Protection From Fraud. Require state governments to adopt anti-fraud and anti-theft policies before giving them more money.

I'm a good federalist, so I tend not to like ideas that have the government holding out on giving states money unless they do what the federal government wants. It tends to rankle me a bit, so I'd have to say I don't care for this, not because removing fraud isn't a good idea, it is, but because the federal government comes off as big brother on this one. Do it my way or you can't have this cookie (image a child and his brother with the older, bigger brother holding the cookie above his head with one hand and pushing his younger sibling back with the other).

7. More American Energy Now. Explore for more American oil and gas and invest in affordable energy for the future, including clean coal, ethanol, nuclear power and renewable fuels.

This is great! Too bad we are about 5 years too late on this one. Of course, really we are about 25 years too late. This never seems to get across to anyone, especially the government.

8. Abolish Taxes on Capital Gains. Match China, Singapore and many other competitors. More investment in America means more jobs in America.

Ooh! Another tax cut, although one, as a stockholder and homeowner, that I like a lot.

9. Protect the Rights of American Workers. We must protect a worker’s right to decide by secret ballot whether to join a union, and the worker’s right to freely negotiate. Forced unionism will kill jobs in America at a time when we can’t afford to lose them.

Isn't this already the way it is? I know the current chumps in Congress are trying to do away with this, so I agree with the protect this sentiment and I agree that unions don't work as advertised and I certainly disagree with forced unionization. However, there have got to be other things we can cite as an effort to protect the rights of American workers.

10. Replace Sarbanes-Oxley. This failed law is crippling entrepreneurial startups. Replace it with affordable rules that help create jobs, not destroy them.

Admittedly, I don't know enough about this legislation to make a good comment.

11. Abolish the Death Tax. Americans should work for their families, not for Washington.

Okay, first, let's stop calling it a death tax. That is just a way to make it sound bad. I'm not a fan of double taxation which is what the estate tax is, however, I admit that it is a benign form of taxation. Most taxation hurts the economy or the poor or somebody, but estate taxes (based on the fact that only people who inherit more than 4 million dollars even had to pay it) are only double taxing the rich and ultra rich. Average Americans will never have to pay this, at least at the federal level, so this particular point is really nothing more than a smokescreen, is it?

12. Invest in Energy and Transportation Infrastructure. This includes a new, expanded electric power grid and a 21st century air traffic control system that will reduce delays in air travel and save passengers, employees and airlines billions of dollars per year.

Okay, still not really convinced this is constitutional, but that question sort of died about 60 years ago, so we'll just run with it. Both of these things need good, new investment, but outside of the federal highway system, what role does the government have here. I guess they can mandate the energy companies to update the grid, unless we want to nationalize that too, but how are we going to "invest" in these areas (which really do need a good amount of investing) and then, with all the tax cutting listed above without cutting any programs, how are we going to pay for it?

Basically, this sounds like a cut tax and spend plan, much like what we had under Bush. I'd prefer a cut tax and cut spending plan. Of course, raise taxes and spending is what we'll have for the next four years, so I guess I shouldn't be holding my breath for what I want.

Let's solve man-made global warming using man-made global cooling!

So, in the words of a friend of mine on this article, apparently the scientists, politicians, environmentalists, et al who support taking action on climate change are now officially "smarter than God". A report today in the Huffington Post, discusses in detail how the current administration, as well as leaders in other countries, have been talking about the possibility of taking radical, climate changing actions to stave off global warming. These radical actions would involve intentionally spewing pollutants (huh?) into the upper atmosphere to force cooling of the planet by blocking the sun's rays. It is described as a man-made volcano effect. Reducing carbon emissions is one thing. After all, it is coming anyway with hydrogen engines, nuclear, solar and wind power replacing coal fired plants, etc. All these things are happening, just too slowly for the global warming alarmists. So, for the record, the world is still recovering from the little ice age. The temperatures were far warmer before then than they are now and guess what, it was wetter, not drier, so there goes all the gloom and doom about droughts. In addition, the global warming theory relies on the idea that the upper atmosphere needs to warm in order to justify the theory. Guess what, satellites have been recording upper atmosphere warming for decades. It hasn't. The only warming has occured at ground level, not in the upper atmosphere. The theory relies on this to be true, so without upper atmospheric warming, it isn't true. Finally, everyone who thinks I'm the nutcase on this issue needs to read "Shattered Consensus: the true state of global warming" by Patrick J. Michaels. Actually, he's the editor, but this book details how the IPC report and various scientists have gotten it very wrong because they simply refuse to consider other evidence. It also shows that the "consensus" we hear about so frequently doesn't actually exist. So, back to the article. We want to stop global warming by creating global cooling? This is radical and dangerous thinking. They can't get their own theories right about what is causing the planet to warm in the first place and why it was cooling in the 60s either. Is it wise to therefore think we can possibly get it right with geoengineering as it is called? My gosh, we'll end up turning the planet into one big ice ball if we continue to listen to these people. Recent evidence clearly shows that unusually extreme solar activity is most likely to blame for our recent warming trend (assuming you can call stable or decreasing temperatures over the last 11 years a warming trend). However, solar scientists have also stated the activity has stopped and is decreasing. Guess what people! Coldest winter in 30 years! Unusually active solar activity decreasing! Sounds pretty good that the sun has more to do with warming and cooling of the planet than we do. However, none of this is relevant. What person in their right mind (who isn't trying to prove their lifetime theories true) would want us spewing pollutants into the atmosphere to intentionally create a massive volcano effect. To truly make this work, it would have to be done on a global scale. We are talking blocking out the sun's rays on purpose. Nobody else thinks this idea smacks of treating the disease with the disease itself? Sorry, I can't go along with this idea, mostly because I don't trust the scientists or the government to get it right. If they don't get it right, it could be more catastrophic than the very thing they are trying to prevent/solve/whatever.

Wow! The double standard is deafening!

Okay, I admit, I'm livid about this. Our government gave billions of dollars to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to prop up those two companies just because they hold so much of the nation's mortgage debt (the bad stuff). This isn't news to anyone and isn't what I'm livid about. On April 4, the Wall Street Journal reported that Fannie and Freddie are giving out 210 million dollars in bonuses. I have two things to say here. 1. Why aren't we hearing about this very much. Somehow, AIG is evil and it is on every station and in every newspaper for days and the government passes unconstitutional legislation to make themselves look good, but when even more money (45 million more) is paid out to Fannie and Freddie, who arguably had a significantly higher level of responsibility in putting us in the mess we are in now than AIG or even some of the big banks, this doesn't bother us or the media? I think it is inexcusable that we tear apart a private company, but somehow because these companies are federally subsidized, they aren't subject to the same kind of scrutiny, or is it just that it would make Congress and the President look bad and some in the media don't want to do that. After all, it was Chris Matthews who said on the air that it was his job to make sure the Obama presidency succeeded. Oh yeah? You're a journalist, not a rubber stamp, shut up and do your real job. Nonetheless, not really hearing about this issue, are we? 2. Where are the protests! We deplore AIG and its 165 million dollar bonuses, but do absolutely nothing when it comes to Fannie and Freddie and their bonuses? Certainly it isn't because they are right that they need the bonuses to retain quality employees and executives, after all, we all stated that that argument didn't hold water when it came to AIG. It seems that F and F are using this argument as well and nobody seems to care or even notice. Where are the prosecutions, the demands to return the money, the Attorney General of Connecticut naming names and smearing people in the media? Where is all of that? Huh!?

U.S. Constitution, part 2

This post will cover Article 1, section 6 and 7:

Section 6 - Compensation

(The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States.) (The preceding words in parentheses were modified by the 27th Amendment.) They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.

Wow, so the Congress can set its own salary, not really news. It does state that the 27th amendment modified this and I'll get to that when we reach the 27th amendment.

No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time; and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office.

This is what requires all the members of Congress, etc. to quit before they can take another position in the government, like Hillary Clinton taking the Secretary of State position.

Section 7 - Revenue Bills, Legislative Process, Presidential Veto

All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.

Ah, the Congress/House of Representatives has the power to determine the spending of the country. In addition, the Senate may propose or concur on said spending, so why is it that the President presents the budget? I guess he can present bills to Congress, right? Yep, but this clearly states that said bill are to originate in the House, not with the President. Huh, so this one has pretty much been violated by everyone, ok.

Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by Yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.

So here we have the majority vote passes, followed by Presidential signature or veto, with the 2/3 vote requirement to override veto. It is also where we find the justification for the pocket veto or for a President refusing to sign a bill but allowing it to become law by not vetoing it either. Lots of political stuff chocked into this paragraph. I love it.

Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the Same shall take Effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the Rules and Limitations prescribed in the Case of a Bill.

More wonderfully political stuff about how a bill becomes a law, again, I love it.

The U.S. Constitution, part 3

In part one of this article, I looked at what the U.S. constitution says in article I, sections 1-5. These are the first 5 sections of the legislative section of the U.S. Constitution. So, today, I saw a story talking about several members of Congress going to visit Fidel Castro in Cuba and discussing policy, etc. Now, I've never been comfortable with Congress members or congressional leaders doing this. I don't think they have the constitutional authority. I didn't like it when Dennis Hastert went to Colombia under Clinton, I really didn't like it when Nancy Pelosi went to Syria under Bush and I don't like it that these Congress members decided to go to Cuba. At least Colombia and Syria are not technically considered enemies of the United States. Cuba is, so this act is even more egregious than either of the previous ones I stated. So, let's continue with our look at the constitution and see if Congress does indeed have the power to meet with foreign leaders on behalf of the country. So, this article will be on sections 8-10 of article 1. The ultimate question above needs to be answered in one of those three sections.

Section 8 - Powers of Congress

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
This gives Congress the power to tax and through some means to gain income for the federal government and provide an army/navy, whatever, to defend the country. The next statement has widely been used to justify social programs and welfare programs, but I'd argue that is an absurd over-generalization of reality. After all, this is really talking about how Congress can provide a means of income for the country and that it should be applied to all the several states equally, having nothing to do with welfare or social security, etc. However, that is for another post.

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
Wow, Congress really does have the right to borrow against our children's future. I already knew this and therefore, while I disagree with the 700 billion dollar bailout, it is the right of Congress to vote on these things. However, AIG was not voted on by Congress, nor were many other bailouts in the past, so we've had a lot of constitutional violations in this regard.

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
To regulate commerce with foreign countries, the states and Indian tribes huh? That isn't the same thing as traveling to a foreign country to meet with a head of state. This is why Congress created the Department of Commerce or Trade. It isn't the same.

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
So, Congress determines who can and can't immigrate and under what rules. Seems like if they really wanted to change this, all they have to do is pass legislation to do it. Guess their screaming to change it is really just hot air. The other thing here is about setting rules for bankruptcies. Of course, I guess that doesn't mean that Congress has to follow their own rules, after all, what with the bailouts, they help companies avoid bankruptcy that should be bankrupt.

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
Well, to make money. We've got that covered. But wait, did Congress really give the federal reserve the right to print money as it sees fit without permission from Congress? If they did, which seems like they did, then they were stupid.

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
Hmm, the point of avoiding counterfeiters is so that money doesn't get into circulation that doesn't belong there. Maybe we should be going after the federal reserve for all the money they've been printing recently. Over 2 trillion dollars just this year, in case you hadn't heard.

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;
Huh, roads and post offices. Well, seems like the post office should be part of the government after all. Again I knew this, but I've had a bunch of people tell me recently that the post office shouldn't be funded by tax dollars. This implies otherwise.

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
Hey, copyright law! Woohoo! The exclusive lobbying effort of Disney. Ever notice how copyright gets extended every time Mickey Mouse gets close to the public domain?

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
The federal court system. Perfectly acceptable. This is also the constitutional requirement giving Congress the power to establish courts to try foreign criminals, thus those at Guantanamo. The Supreme Court got this one right and so Congress established a court. So, why is the current administration now saying that a duly constituted court, set by Congress in direct repudiation to the previous administration is no longer effective and useful but that all these cases should be "reexamined"? Hmm... I do hope it is more than just not liking the previous administration. After all, if Congress doesn't like the court they set up for this, guess who has the right to change it. The President? Nope, they do.

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;
To enforce the laws of nations and the seas through defining punishments and penalties. They do this pretty good I suppose.

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
Over the last 50 years, Congress seems to have forgotten that this power belongs to them. Through the actions of various administrations, this power has now been transferred to the President, largely, without a constitutional amendment.

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
Raise and support armies. Hmm... this suggests that maybe a draft is constitutional, but who really needs it as long as we foster a love of country in our children, we will always have enough brave men and women willing to volunteer.

To provide and maintain a Navy;
Well, the same power as in the army. Interestingly, we now also have an air force, which I suppose technically should have required a constitutional amendment for Congreess to actually have the power to raise one, but who really cares about that pesky requirement these days.

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
Ooh, Congress makes rules for the land and naval forces! This I didn't remember and it sort of takes the blame off the Presidents for the whole "no gays in the military" deal eh? After all, the President doesn't have the power to make rules for the government and regulation of the armed forces, does he. Therefore, this is a Congressional issue, not a Presidential one. So again, it seems that it is Congress that isn't really interested in fixing this issue because all they have to do is mandate it. Period.

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
So the Congress has the power to call up the militias to support the law and repel invasion. This is really interesting because it supports the concept that there can't be military forces inside the U.S., but should rather be militias, which under some definitions are state run military organizations or are also loose citizen organizations. In fact, the use of militia is intentional here because the founders were very afraid of having standing armies on our home soil, so this power is NOT the military.

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
Again, this power suggests that the militia is somehow an institution of the individual states, not of the federal government and that the federal government is to pay for organizing and arming, etc. the militia if they want to use it.

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And
The power to Congress to exercise authority over the District of Columbia and other federal property throughout the various states. I still have to think it would require a constitutional amendment to give full representation to DC in Congress, but apparently the current Congress doesn't think so.

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
This is commonly known as the necessary and proper clause and has most commonly been used to justify legislation that supported carrying out the above stated powers or the occasional unforseen power listed nowhere else in the Constitution. This clause has now been horribly abused and has basically now been interpreted to give Congress the power to do whatever the heck it wants. A horrible constitutional abuse.

So, the power vested in Congress do NOT give it the power to negotiate or visit with foreign leaders. Huh. So, what about the limits to Congressional power in section 9.

Section 9 - Limits on Congress

The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.
Ooh, here's one of the stains on the Constitution developed by well meaning men trying to form a unified, strong country rather than end up as weak separate parts. It expired as of 1808, so thus became irrelevant. There are other stains not so easy to dismiss.

The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.
Okay, so this has only ever happened when President Lincoln suspended the writ during the Civil War. The thing is this. This is listed as a limit on the power of Congress, meaning only Congress can suspend the writ and only in times of rebellion or invasion, etc. That is what it says to me. This means Lincoln was in violation by using Presidential authority to suspend the writ. It is Congress that can suspend it and only Congress and only in the instances specifically stated. Anything else is unacceptable.

No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.
I recently dealth with this in another post, but Congress has been pretty good about not violating this one, at least until recently.

(No capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.) (Section in parentheses clarified by the 16th Amendment.)
The "clarification" stated in the 16th amendment is the income tax. Before that, it was just that no direct taxes could be levied on us, at least that was the common understanding.

No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.
Oh, the states can't tax each other and the federal government can't tax interstate commerce. Interesting.

No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.
This is very similar to the above, but referencing the law of the seas, etc. It basically comes out of abuses by England against the colonies where they tried to make colonial products go through England before they could go anywhere else, or else they'd be taxed. This seemed extremely inefficient to people in Boston who wanted to ship products in and out of the Carribean, thus this part of the constitution.

No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.
No money can be paid out by the treasury without a law justifying it huh? Well this has been violated constantly, especially with any bailout money not part of the 700 billion actually approved by Congress.

No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State.
Okay, I don't think this one has really been a problem up to now. Any disagreement?

So, Congress has a few limits on its power, but nothing there suggests they have any foreign policy power whatsoever either. Huh?

Section 10 - Powers prohibited of States

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.
So the states can't do anything that falls within the powers of Congress stated above. In fact, this clearly prohibits actions taken by local communities recently and during the Great Depression by issuing script or alternative currencies. However, I want to mention the prohibition on laws impairing the obligation of contracts. It seems the attorney general of Connecticut is in the wrong, constitutionally, when he is saying he wants to go after the bonuses of the AIG executives. It may be popular, but it is clearly unconstitutional.

No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.
So the states can't collect taxes on imports and exports without consent of Congress and any monies so collected go to the U.S. treasury, not the state. Pretty straightforward, but completely ignored today.

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.
This prohibits states from raising and keeping their own militaries unless in time of war or invasion. Pretty clear, and clearly meant to mean military, not militia, which is not exactly the same thing. Good, we don't need the states attacking each other, eh? Oh wait.

At any rate, this completes article I or the U.S. Constitution, which defines the powers of Congress, or the legislative branch. Nowhere in these sections, or in the sections I've previously dealth with does the Constitution provide Congress any kind of foreign policy negotiating authority. Therefore, the 6 or 7 democratic Congress members had no business going down and talking with Fidel, just as Hastert and Pelosi had no business going on their "official" trips. Every instance of this is and should be considered an abuse of power. Period.

Broken promises

I'll start this with a disclaimer. Every single President has broken his campaign promises. Every one of them. Campaign promises are about as reliable as the American auto industry. That said, I've stated to friends and family on several occasions that our current President's pledge on taxes was nothing more than a campaign promise, empty of value and was constantly told that, no, he's different, he's going to change things. My response was always, we'll see. Well, he's just like the rest folks, sorry to say. Here is a YouTube video showing his "pledge" on the campaign trail. In fact, this is a pledge, which one would think should hold more weight than just a promise. Nonetheless, a story today, from CNN, completely leaves that "pledge" in the dust. The pledge states that no American who makes less than 250,000 dollars a year will see an increase in their taxes, any kind of taxes. Well, the majority of people in this country who smoke cigarettes makes well under 250,000 dollars, so I guess this latest "sin" tax increase applies to them, doesn't it? So, obviously the "not any kind of taxes" pledge didn't apply to sin taxes? Well, that's not what he said, is it. Those of us who rely on plain English rather than political mumbo jumbo still see "any" as applying to all. This isn't just some sin tax increase. I'm not defending smoking. However, I'm not a smoker, so this increase doesn't effect me. But, 20 percent of the country does smoke. This is a 62 cent per pack increase. That's a lot of money to some of the least able to pay it in the country. After all, this 20 percent smokers isn't made up primarily of the uber rich, this is everyday America here. This affects many many people who make less than 250,000 dollars. How's that for keeping promises, no wait, pledges.