Current Events        vs.       Founding Documents

Entry 125

Current Event

Published October 31, 2011 | FoxNews.com

Obama Orders FDA to Reduce Drug Shortages

Acting once again without Congress, President Obama on Monday was directing the Food and Drug Administration to take steps to reduce drug shortages that administration officials say have placed patients at risk and led to price gouging.

The president signed an executive order  — his fifth in a week –instructing the FDA to take action absent congressional approval. Last year, the FDA reported 178 drug shortages — mainly cancer drugs, anesthetics, electrolytes and emergency room drugs — and the agency says it continues to see an increase in shortages this year. The White House also announced Obama’s support for House and Senate legislation that would require drug makers to notify the FDA six months ahead of a potential shortage. Under current regulations, drug manufactures are only required to notify the FDA if medically necessary drugs are being discontinued. Notification of shortages is strictly voluntary.

In remarks before he signed the order, Obama said drug shortages have nearly tripled over the past five years while Congress has foundered. “Even though the FDA has successfully prevented an actual crisis, this is one of those slow-rolling problems that could end up resulting in disaster for patients and health care facilities all across the country,” he said. “Congress has been trying since February to do something about this. It has not yet been able to get it done. And it is the belief of this administration … that we can’t wait for action on the Hill.”

The executive action is part of an overarching push by the White House to portray Obama, who is facing re-election, as an effective counterpoint to congressional Republicans blocking his jobs legislation. Last week, he issued an executive order to help homeowners refinance at lower mortgage rates and to allow college graduates to simplify and lower their student loan payments.

On Friday he directed government agencies to shorten the time it takes for federal research to turn into commercial products in the marketplace.

Americans for Limited Government President Bill Wilson responded to the series of executive actions by accusing the president of sidestepping the political process and “consent of the governed.” “They overstep the president’s constitutional boundaries. Obama can rhetorically dress this up however he likes, but his actions are not predicated on the consent of the governed, they are fueled by his desire to maintain and expand power. This is not the rule of law, but the rule of man,” ALG President Bill Wilson said in a statement.

The FDA says major causes of drug shortages are quality or manufacturing problems, or delays in receiving components from suppliers. Drug makers also discontinue certain drugs in favor of newer medications that are more profitable. The FDA does not have authority to force drug makers to continue production of a drug. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and FDA Commissioner Peggy Hamburg joined Obama at the White House when he signed the executive order.

Also attending were a Boston hospital pharmacy manager who has regularly encountered drug shortages, and a 49-year-old San Francisco cancer patient who told an FDA workshop last month how he grappled with a shortage in his chemotherapy drug.

VS

President Obama vs. The Constitution

Founding Document

US Constitution, Article II, Section 2

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.

We the People:

This president is governing beyond powers listed in Article II, Section  2.  According to www.Usconstitution.net; “Executive Orders have two main functions: to modify how an executive branch department or agency does its job (rule change) or to modify existing law, if such authority has been granted to the President by Congress….”

Why haven’t members of Congress called for enforcement through checks and balances?  Why don’t you call Representatives and Senators, and ask them?

For U.S. House of Representatives, go to http://www.house.gov/

For U.S. Senate, go to http://www.senate.gov/

Current Events        vs.       Founding Documents

Entry 124

Current Event

From the speech by Martin Luther King Jr., Speech at Civil Rights March on Washington, August 28, 1963

“I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: “We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal.” I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave-owners will be able to sit down together at a table of brotherhood. I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a desert state, sweltering with the heat of injustice and oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice. I have a dream that my four children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. I have a dream today.”

…

VS

Racial bias vs. The Constitution

Founding Document

Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,…

US Constitution, Article 1, Section 2

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. (The previous sentence in parentheses was modified by the 14th Amendment, section 2

US Constitution, Article I, Section 9

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.

US Constitution’ Amendment 9 –

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Quoting James Madison in Federalist 38:

THE second class of powers, lodged in the general government, consists of those which regulate the intercourse with foreign nations, ….. to regulate foreign commerce, including a power to prohibit, after the year 1808, the importation of slaves, and to lay an intermediate duty of ten dollars per head, as a discouragement to such importations.

It were doubtless to be wished, that the power of prohibiting the importation of slaves had not been postponed until the year 1808, or rather that it had been suffered to have immediate operation. But it is not difficult to account, either for this restriction on the general government, or for the manner in which the whole clause is expressed. It ought to be considered as a great point gained in favor of humanity, that a period of twenty years may terminate forever, within these States, a traffic which has so long and so loudly upbraided the barbarism of modern policy; that within that period, it will receive a considerable discouragement from the federal government, and may be totally abolished, by a concurrence of the few States which continue the unnatural traffic, in the prohibitory example which has been given by so great a majority of the Union. Happy would it be for the unfortunate Africans, if an equal prospect lay before them of being redeemed from the oppressions of their European brethren!

We the People:

The Founders defined the primary role of government as to secure the inalienable rights of the people.  That simple concept is still unique.  But to implement this fully, the Founders had to compromise as they wrote the U.S. Constitution in order to form the union.  Slavery was not banned immediately, but they placed provisions in it that would ensure its demise.  Since representatives were assigned based on population, the three-fifths clause in Article I, Section 2 reduced the power of the states that allowed slavery.  In addition, slave importation was curtailed per Article I, Section 9.   So it was just a matter of time until our young nation would end slavery.

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., was the right person at the right time to help us finish securing those inalienable rights.  The people must make sure our government always recognizes that all are created equal, and that it bestows no citizens with exclusive privileges.

Current Events        vs.       Founding Documents

Entry 123

Current Event

According to Insure.com; Jan. 18, 2011

Medical loss ratios will control health insurance company profits

Starting this year, health insurance companies must spend eighty to eighty-five cents on health care for every dollar they collect in premiums. Individual and small-group health plans are subject to the eighty percent rule, while large-group health plans must spend at least eighty-five percent on care.  Health insurers that spend more will have to provide rebates to their customers.

The rule, known as the “medical loss ratio,” has been one of most hotly debated provisions of health care reform.

Under the Affordable Care Act, health insurance companies in the individual and small-group markets must spend at least eighty percent of premium dollars, and insurers in the large-group market must spend at least eighty-five percent of premium dollars on medical care and quality improvement. Insurance companies that don’t meet the spending requirement will have to pay rebates to customers starting in 2012.

The provision is designed to reduce health insurance rates by limiting how much insurers can spend on administration, such as marketing and executive salaries, and collect in profit.

VS

Executive Branch vs. Private companies and the Constitution

Founding Document

The US Constitution, Amendment 10

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

We the People:

Under what Constitutional authority does the federal government have to impose these controls upon a free market?  None.  Will you invest your IRA dollars in a health care insurer?

Current Events        vs.       Founding Documents

Entry 122

Current Event

According to FoxNews.com; October 07, 2011

Atheists Demand City Remove Cross in Tennessee

The mayor of Whiteville, Tennessee said his community is under attack from a national atheist organization that is threatening to sue unless they remove a cross atop the town’s water tower.

But the Wisconsin-based Freedom From Religion Foundation said the cross is a violation of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. They’ve given the mayor until the end of October to remove the cross. If he refuses, they have threatened to sue.

According to The Blaze.com; October 27, 2011

Town Protests Atheists’ Threats by Chopping off Part of Controversial Water Tower Cross

Remember the controversial cross on a water tower in Whiteville, Tennessee? Earlier this month, the Blaze reported that Mayor James Bellar was planning to cave to atheists’ demands and have the religious symbol moved to private land.  Bellar, who defended its presence, claimed that the town could not afford to pay for an expensive legal battle with Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) — the “freethinking” group seeking its removal. Thus, moving it to a nearby highway seemed like the best possible solution.

Instead of taking the symbol down and moving it, he ordered one of its arms be removed. So, the cross (minus one of its arms) is still standing on the top of the water tower, essentially serving as a reminder of what FFRF forced the town to do.

According to FoxNews; December 14, 201

Texas Town Brace for Battle With Atheists

Driving through the tiny rural town of Athens, Texas, and you’d be hard pressed to find something that might catch national attention — or so it was until about a week ago.

An hour and a half outside of Dallas, the Athens town square is dominated by the county courthouse, and this time of year, Christmas decorations are on each corner. But it is the nativity scene across the street from the Taco Bell that has caused controversy.

It started with a simple letter. As Henderson County commissioner Joe Hall tells it, he received the shock of his life when he found out a Wisconsin group was demanding that the nativity scene be taken down.

In the meantime, one or two women standing stand each day in front of the nativity scene with a petition urging others to sign in support of keeping the nativity where it is. A group of pastors is also planning a rally this weekend. A pastor who’s planning it says he expects a couple thousand people to pack the square.

What happens next? Gaylor said the Freedom From Religion Foundation will wait and see what county government does, but the group’s next move could include legal action.

Hall has said if it comes to that, the county has already received offers of legal help. He also says the nativity scene will come down “after Christmas, or when hell freezes over.”

According to FoxNews Insider “December 19, 2011

Thousands turned up for a rally in Athens, Texas to protest the removal of a nativity scene in front of the Henderson County courthouse.  The campaign started when a Wisconsin-based atheist group, Freedom From Religion Foundation, asked officials to remove the display from the courthouse lawn.

One supporter at the rally said, “It’s not about the nativity scene.  It’s all about Jesus.  It’s the reason that we celebrate Christmas.  Jesus is Christmas.”  A judge has ruled that the scene will be able to remain in place.

VS

An atheist group vs.  Two towns and the Constitution

Founding Document

US Constitution, First Amendment

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.

To quote President John Adams:

“The highest story of the American Revolution is this: it connected in one indissoluble bond the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity.”

We the People:

They may have been able to settle the issue in Whiteville by installing religious symbols for each separate faith of the residents.  Thus the town would have not shown favoritism.  For example, they could have installed a Cross for Christians, a Star of David for those of the Jewish faith, The Wheel of Dharma for Buddhists, and the Lotus Flower for Hindus.  And for the atheist, they could have left a blank space or installed a sculpture of a big-government building.

To address the Constitutionality:  Again, the first amendment limits Congress but not states or municipalities.  Different communities react differently to the intimidating tactics.  Some will succumb to the unconstitutional restrictions.  Others will pay for and fight for their liberty.

Current Events        vs.       Founding Documents

Entry 121

Current Event

From the Making Homes Affordable website:

The Making Home Affordable © (MHA) Program is a critical part of the Obama Administration’s broad strategy to help homeowners avoid foreclosure, stabilize the country’s housing market, and improve the nation’s economy.

Homeowners can lower their monthly mortgage payments and get into more stable loans at today’s low rates. And for those homeowners for whom homeownership is no longer affordable or desirable, the program can provide a way out which avoids foreclosure. Additionally, in an effort to be responsive to the needs of today’s homeowners, there are also options for unemployed homeowners and homeowners who owe more than their homes are worth.

—————                —————————                   ——————-

According to the Washington Post;  June 10, 2008 (full article available online)

How HUD Mortgage Policy Fed The Crisis

In 2004, as regulators warned that subprime lenders were saddling borrowers with mortgages they could not afford, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development helped fuel more of that risky lending.

Eager to put more low-income and minority families into their own homes, the agency required that two government-chartered mortgage finance firms purchase far more “affordable” loans made to these borrowers. HUD stuck with an outdated policy that allowed Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae to count billions of dollars they invested in subprime loans as a public good that would foster affordable housing.

Housing experts and some congressional leaders now view those decisions as mistakes that contributed to an escalation of subprime lending that is roiling the U.S. economy.

The agency neglected to examine whether borrowers could make the payments on the loans that Freddie and Fannie classified as affordable. From 2004 to 2006, the two purchased $434 billion in securities backed by subprime loans, creating a market for more such lending. Subprime loans are targeted toward borrowers with poor credit, and they generally carry higher interest rates than conventional loans.

Fannie and Freddie finance about forty percent of all U.S. mortgages, with $5.3 trillion in outstanding debt. Owned by private shareholders but chartered by Congress, they are exempt from state and local taxes and receive an estimated $6.5 billion-a-year federal subsidy because they can borrow money more cheaply than other investors. In return, they are expected to serve “public purposes,” including helping to make home buying more affordable.

Banks typically back prime loans with customers’ deposits. But subprime lenders often rely on money from Wall Street investors , who buy packages of loans as investments called mortgage-backed securities.

In 2000, as HUD revisited its affordable-housing goals, the housing market had shifted. With escalating home prices, subprime loans were more popular. Consumer advocates warned that lenders were trapping borrowers with low “teaser” interest rates and ignoring borrowers’ qualifications.

In 2001, HUD researchers warned of high foreclosure rates among subprime loans.

“Given the very high concentration of these loans in low-income and African American neighborhoods, the growth in subprime lending and resulting very high levels of foreclosure is a real cause for concern,” an agency report said.

But by 2004, when HUD next revised the goals, Freddie and Fannie’s purchases of subprime-backed securities had risen tenfold. Foreclosure rates also were rising.

That year, President Bush’s HUD ratcheted up the main affordable-housing goal over the next four years, from fifty percent to fifty-six percent. John C. Weicher, then an assistant HUD secretary, said the institutions lagged behind even the private market and “must do more.”

For Wall Street, high profits could be made from securities backed by subprime loans. Fannie and Freddie targeted the least-risky loans. Still, their purchases provided more cash for a larger subprime market.

“That was a huge, huge mistake,” said Patricia McCoy, who teaches securities law at the University of Connecticut. “That just pumped more capital into a very unregulated market that has turned out to be a disaster.”

In 2003, the two bought $81 billion in subprime securities. In 2004, they purchased $175 billion — forty-four percent of the market. In 2005, they bought $169 billion, or 33 percent. In 2006, they cut back to $90 billion, or 20 percent. Generally, Freddie purchased more than Fannie and relied more heavily on the securities to meet goals.

William C. Apgar Jr., who was an assistant HUD secretary under Clinton, said he regrets allowing the companies to count subprime securities as affordable.

“It was a mistake,” he said. “In hindsight, I would have done it differently.”

Judith Kennedy, president of the National Association of Affordable Housing Lenders, said that while Fannie and Freddie nurtured unregulated subprime lenders, an estimated thirty percent of subprime borrowers could have qualified for safe, lower-cost prime loans.

“The damage to homeowners, to neighborhoods, to state and local governments as the tax base erodes, and now to all American taxpayers, is almost incalculable,” she said.

VS

The Administration vs. The Constitution

Founding Document

US Constitution, Tenth Amendment

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

We the People:

“I’m home, where I belong.”  Indeed the folk music about belonging at home is inviting.  However whether they are Republican and Democrat, there is a built-in conflict of interest when politicians give tax payer’s money to potential voters.  It was the federal government’s unconstitutional subprime mortgage program that invited unqualified home ownership and unethical business practices, which seeded the high rate of foreclosures and the economic crisis.

Current Events        vs.       Founding Documents

Entry 120

Current Event

Published December 06, 2010 | FoxNews.com(full article available online)

A New Hampshire couple has pulled their son out of his local high school after the teen was assigned a book that refers to Jesus Christ as a “wine-guzzling vagrant and precocious socialist.”

Aimee Taylor says her oldest son, sixteen year old Jordan Henderson, was required to read “Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting By in America,” this fall for Bedford High School’s personal finance class.

The book is a first-person account of author Barbara Ehrenreich’s attempts to make ends meet while working minimum wage jobs in Florida, Maine and Minnesota.

But in addition to taking aim at the idea of the American Dream, and arguing for a higher minimum wage, Taylor says Ehrenreich also takes aim at Christians and other groups in the book and uses foul language — all of which made Jordan unhappy.

…

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/12/07/nh-school-assigns-book-refers-jesus-wine-guzzling-vagrant-precocious-socialist/

VS

Church vs. State

Founding Document

US Constitution, First Amendment

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.

To quote Thomas Jefferson, letter to Danbury Baptist Association, CT., Jan. 1, 1802

“Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between church and State. “

We the People:

New Testament (King James version), book of Matthew, chapter 22, verses 15-21 (full article available online.)

Shew me the tribute money. And they brought unto him a penny. And he saith unto them, Whose [is] this image and superscription?

They say unto him, Caesar’s.

Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s.”

—-    —–     —-   —–   —-   —–    —–    ——-   ——   —  — -  – -  ——-

New Testament (King James version), Matthew, Chapter 19, verses 16-24

The young man saith unto him, All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet?

Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go [and] sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come [and] follow me.

But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions.

“What would Jesus do?”  “Was Jesus a socialist?”  These questions are practically clichés lately.  A socialist would have the government fine or jail those who did not give “charitably” through the government.  Jesus did not tell them to give to Caesar in order for the central authority to control and redistribute wealth.  Perhaps Jesus was advocating keeping a separation between church and state.  Since He allowed each person to choose how much and where they contributed to charities, Jesus was not a socialist.

Current Events        vs.       Founding Documents

Entry 119

Current Event

According to The Washington Post, 12/07/2011

The House on Wednesday approved a measure that would increase Congress’s authority over the executive branch by making any major regulations subject to its approval.

The REINS Act, H.R. 10, also known as the Regulations From the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act, passed the House on a 241-to-184 vote, with four Democrats joining every Republicans present approve this legislative initiative.” The measure was sponsored in January by Rep. Geoff Davis (R-Ky.).

The bill is unlikely to be taken up by the Democratic-controlled Senate, and even if it were to pass the chamber, President Obama has issued a veto threat.

Under the 1996 Congressional Review Act, Congress already has the power to override proposed regulations by passing a joint “resolution of disapproval.” But such a resolution faces the hurdle of having to be signed into law by the president, who would likely veto any move to do away with a regulation proposed by his or her own administration. The president’s veto can be overridden by Congress, but that, of course, takes a two-thirds vote in both chambers.

Congress has only successfully wielded its power under the Congressional Review Act once before, in 2001, when it voted to do away with a Department of Labor ergonomics regulation.

The REINS Act would change the process so that major regulations would be contingent on congressional approval — if a majority in each chamber does not vote “yes,” the regulation is not enacted.

At a news conference Wednesday morning with House Republican leaders, Davis argued that the bill “has the potential to transform the way Washington does business, to restore us to economic dominance, and to make this an American century.”

“It’s very simple,” he said. “When a rule is scored as a major rule — $100 million or more in cumulative economic impact — instead of it being forced on the American people at the end of the 60-day comment period, it comes back up to Capitol Hill under joint resolution for a stand-alone vote in the House, a stand-alone vote in the Senate, and then must be signed by the president before it can be enforced on the American people.”

In floor remarks Wednesday, Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-Texas) touted the measure as a “common sense” bill that would spur job creation.

“It forces accountability,” he said. “It simply weighs the benefits of a regulation to be balanced with the cost to our own jobs. Jobs ought to be number one in this House, and the number one jobs bill we can pass is the REINS Act.”

Democrats contend that the measure would hamper the regulatory process, increase uncertainty and allow Congress to do away with some regulations that are necessary in order to protect consumers.

The White House on Tuesday issued a veto threat against the measure, which it argued would bring about a “radical departure from the longstanding separation of powers” that would “delay and, in many cases, thwart implementation of statutory mandates and execution of duly enacted laws, increase business uncertainty, undermine much-needed protections of the American public, and create unnecessary confusion.”

“By replacing [the current] well-established framework with a blanket requirement of Congressional approval, H.R. 10 would throw all major regulations into a months-long limbo, fostering uncertainty and impeding business investment that is vital to economic growth,” the White House said in its statement.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/2chambers/post/reins-bill-to-expand-congressional-power-over-executive-regulations-passed-by-house/2011/12/07/gIQAs6VMdO_blog.html

VS

Executive Branch vs. Legislative Branch and The Constitution

Founding Document

US Constitution, Article II (The powers of the President)

Section 2:The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.

Section 3: 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; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.

We the People:

The White House’s claim that this would violate the separation of powers is untrue because the power to make or revise laws (rules) rests only with the legislative branch.  The executive powers are limited to those listed above.  However, since the modern practice is out of line with the Constitutional limits, the REINS act is a good first step for Congress to restore checks and balances.

Notice how liberals are concerned about hampering the regulatory process of the executive branch; and they want to do it for the children.  This is one way that tyrants and bureaucrats cling to their illegitimate power.

Well, the House of Representative did its job.  Now it is time for the Senate.  Why don’t you call your US Senator and ask them to support this legislation?

For US Senate, go to http://www.senate.gov/

Current Events        vs.       Founding Documents

Entry 118

Current Event

By: The Associated Press  |  October 27, 2011

ST. PAUL  (AP) – Republican presidential candidate Michele Bachmann is ripping a move by President Barack Obama to ease student loan debt as an “abuse of power” that will give people incentive to dodge debt.

Bachmann reacted Thursday to a decision Obama announced a day earlier to cap payments for some college loan borrowers and forgive payments for others after 20 years. He used executive authority to accelerate a law that wasn’t supposed to go into effect until 2014.

The Minnesota congresswoman made her remarks during an education forum put on by The College Board and News Corp.

Appearing by satellite from Minneapolis, Bachmann told the gathering that the loan breaks could push costs onto other taxpayers.

She called it a “moral hazard” because it relieves people of responsibility for debt they’ve accumulated.

http://wjon.com/bachmann-obama-college-loan-move-abused-power/

VS

The Administration vs. The Constitution

Founding Document

US Constitution, Article II (The powers of the President)

Section 2:The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.

Section 3: 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; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.

We the People:

Michele Bachmann is correct.  The executive powers (listed above) do not include changing a law.  Why haven’t our Congressmen and Congresswomen stopped this and other violations through checks and balances?  Why don’t you call yours and ask?

For US House of Representatives, go to http://www.house.gov/

For US Senate, go to http://www.senate.gov/

Current Events        vs.       Founding Documents

Entry 117

Current Event

According to 58News.com; August 5, 2011

MILWAUKEE — Aldermen Bob Donovan and Joe Dudzik release a joint statement about Thursday night’s violent mob attacks at the State Fair. This is the exact press release sent to CBS 58. Nothing has been omitted.

“As elected officials, we are shocked and concerned about the senseless violence displayed by the large mob outside of State Fair Park last night. On behalf of our city, we apologize to the victims and good patrons who endured or witnessed such horrific behavior.

Sadly, what transpired near State Fair Park last night is only the most recent mob riot spawned by a culture of violence that has been brewing in Milwaukee for some time.  And let’s face it, it also has much to do with a deteriorating African American culture in our city.

Are large groups of Hispanics or Hmong going out in large mobs and viciously attacking whites?  No.

We are reaping the harvest that we’ve sown. How so? There are repercussions for the staggering illegitimacy rate in our African American community. There are repercussions for having little to no positive male involvement in the lives of African American children. There are repercussions for single-parent homes where children aren’t properly supervised, and where they aren’t held responsible for their actions. There are repercussions for a staggering, decades-long near 50% unemployment rate for African American males in our city.  There are repercussions for having a failing public school system, and an outdated juvenile justice system.  There are repercussions for having one of the highest teen pregnancy rates in the U.S., and for having kids raising kids.

The community was shocked when the violent mob of African American youths attacked white people in Kilbourn Reservoir Park on July 3. Then, a few eyebrows were raised at the F-bombs and shocking disregard and disrespect for Milwaukee police officers shown by a large and unruly group of African Americans at N. Richards St. and W. North Ave. last Saturday night.  And now this horrific mob violence near State Fair Park. But for those who live in some city neighborhoods, this violence has been like a steady rain for far too many years now. And the reality is this summer it seems we have five or six shootings each and every weekend!  Unfortunately, this behavior is now all too common in some parts of the Milwaukee community.

Our hearts go out to the older generation of African Americans in this city who remember when their community had one of the HIGHEST marriage rates in the city. Sadly, many of these same residents are now scared of their own children and grandchildren.

Although we hope our law enforcement agencies are able to bring some of the thugs who were involved in these attacks to justice, no amount of millions of dollars in government spending or resources is going to truly address this problem.

We can no longer wish this violence would just go away, and we cannot ignore it; we must see it for what it truly is.

We cannot begin to address the underlying causes of the violence without change. We believe that change must come from within the African American community, where new seeds must be sown.”

VS

Federal Government subsidies vs. The Constitution and Families

Founding Document

Per James Madison in Federalist 45

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.”

We the People:

I commend these two well-meaning Aldermen, because they were willing to identify a problem despite the risk of racial demagoguery against them.   However, this has more to do with government.

When one follows this in time, the unconstitutional federal subsidies do indeed coincide with the deterioration of African-American families.  As author and economist Thomas Sowell stated; “the black family, which had survived centuries of slavery and discrimination, began rapidly disintegrating in the liberal welfare state that subsidized unwed pregnancy and changed welfare from an emergency rescue to a way of life.”   In addition, the subsidies that discourage marriage are starting to have this impact in all ethnic groups. We must stop the federal government from buying votes by tempting single parents into permanent federal support.  If such destructive forces weaken any families, they weaken all families and the foundation of self-government.

Current Events        vs.       Founding Documents

Entry 116

Current Event

According to| FoxNews.com; January 15, 2011

The Obama administration’s plan to force new reporting requirements on thousands of gun dealers near the Mexico border is under fire from members of his own party.

At least three Democrats in the Senate and several more in the House are voicing opposition to a proposed regulation from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives that would require about 8,500 gun dealers in four states – California, New Mexico, Arizona and Texas – to report gun sales of two or more high-powered rifles sold within five consecutive business days.

The proposal isn’t connected in any way to the mass shooting in Arizona last weekend that left six people dead and 14 others wounded, including Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, D-Ariz., because the suspect used a handgun, which is already covered under these reporting requirements.

The new regulation would cover semiautomatic rifles greater than .22 caliber with detachable magazines.

Sen. Mark Begich (D-AK), has asked the ATF to withdraw its request to the White House for emergency authority to enact the regulation.

“While I understand the importance of cracking down on violence and gun trafficking along the U.S.-Mexico border, this wide-reaching regulation would punish law-abiding American gun owners and impede their Second Amendment rights,” Begich wrote in a letter last week to ATF Acting Director Kenneth Melson. “Instead, we must secure our border and target Mexican drug cartels, as well as participating offenders in the United States.”

The proposal also faces opposition from Montana’s two Democratic senators, Max Baucus and Jon Tester, as well as 36 House members in both parties who say the regulation would subject gun dealers to burdensome requirements.

They want the administration to enforce the agency’s existing power to ensure gun dealers are in compliance with the law.

In a letter to President Obama last month, House members, including Reps. Dan Boren (D-OK), Nick Rahall (D-WV), Mike Ross (D-AR), Denny Rehberg (R-MT), and Ron Paul (R-TX), said the regulation should be reviewed by Congress first.

“While Congress has authorized multiple sales reporting for handguns, we have never extended this authority to other types of firearms,” they wrote. “Expanding this power by executive decree would be an end run around Congress.”

The ATF has rejected the notion that its regulation will violate Second Amendment rights or impose burdensome paperwork on gun dealers.

“These reports will give ATF real-time leads for the investigation of gun trafficking,” Melson said in a webcast last month announcing the proposal.

“ATF’s experience in these source states proves that multiple purchases of the described rifles are strong indicators of firearms trafficking to Mexico,” he said. “By obtaining information about these multiple sales, ATF increase the likelihood of uncovering and disrupting trafficking schemes before the firearms make their way into Mexico.”

Melson called the gun dealers who would be affected by the regulation “good citizens who share ATF’s interest and commitment in keeping guns out of criminal hands.”

“Working together, we can do that without infringing on the rights of law abiding citizens,” he said.

The NRA, which says it is keeping a close eye on the ATF, has vowed to make every effort possible to block the proposal.

“ATF doesn’t have the authority to unilaterally impose this new requirement,” the group said on its website. “If the Obama administration is going to run roughshod over the statutory limitations of the ATF in this regard, what other restrictions on their authority will they attempt to undermine or ignore?”

VS

The Executive branch vs. The Constitution and The Legislative Branch

Founding Document

US Constitution; Article I, Section 7

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.

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.

We the People:

Such rulings by the executive branch are contrary to the separation of powers.  Does The Administration respect the Constitution?