The House Republicans are Going to Read the Consitution: That's Amazing!!! But will they understand it

Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE

The lastest grandstanding trick by the new House Republicans will be to read the US Constiuttion.  This might serve as an epiphany for some new and old Republican members.  Michele Bachman may need a dictionary for some words like "electors" or "citizen".  The one thing that most of us forget is that the original Consittution does not include the last 27 Amendments.  Which makes me wonder if they were going to include those.  Some things that have changed over the years :

 

Article I:

1.  Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within the Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by addign the whole number of free persons, including those bound for Service for a Term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.  (fancy language that was eliminated by the 16th Amendment, meaning they can have an income tax, and the 14th Amendment eliminated the 3/5 all other persons.

2.  The Senate of the United States shall be composed of 2 Senators from each State, Chosen by the Legislature thereof,  (meaning they are not accountable to the people and eliminated by the 17th Amendment)  I think it might be interesting to point out that Lincoln had won a non-binding election against Stephen Douglas in 1858, but was denied the seat since it was the legislature that chose the Senators for the state. 

When it does come to Section 9, I am a bit worried because I do think that they are more than too willing to suspend the Writ of Habeas Corpus when it suits them and for whatever reason.

Article II

it will be surprising to many that the House Republicans would advocate a return to the old system of counting electoral Votes.  I mean Al Gore and John Kerry would have been VP along time ago.  I really would not want a return to this. Luckily we have the 12th Amendment

When it comes to Article V I would be interested in their opinion on the Amending process.  I mean the foolish founder wrote right in there how the Constitution could be changed.  I am sure that was an oversight. Of course the process is so cumbersome that it has happened only 27 times in the last 230 years.

These are just some of the observations that causes one to just look at the Republicans and question what planet they have come from, especially Ms Bachman who could not understand where in the Constitution the power to have a treasury and a treasury secretary lied.  It’s in the implied executive powers by the way and fully interpreted by John Marshall in the court case McCulloch V. Maryland. 

I am wondering if they will read the amendments and the Supreme Court cases that have interpreted the legal aspects of the various amendments.  It will be an interesting exercise in futility, but then again the Republicans are not for progress they want to go back to the old oppressive days.  Yes, those days went women were property and all minorities were 3/5 all other persons.  This would be funny if it were not so tragic.

 

This is why we need

This is why we need to really stand with Wikileaks whether we like them or not personallyhttp://htxt.it/d62f

via hellotxt

I may not like WikiLeaks, but It is a wakeup call for journalism

i have been on the sidelines over the recent actions that have now plagued WikiLeaks founder Assange.  This brings to mind all too evidently the need of better journalistic standards.  Something that has been lacking since the establishment of Fox "News".  The public has been under the impression that more news means better coverage and a more "balanced" opinion.  Newsflash, it brings neither.  What has occurred over the last 20 years is a blurring of the lines between journalism and commentary.  And if one does not understand the difference, it's not surprising.  What WikiLeaks has done, whether we like what has been disclosed or not, is bring the problem of journalism into a clearer focus.

For the last 20 years, cable news programs have consisted of shouting matches sprinkled with information that is suppose to pass for news.  This kind of show is well liked by the followers of Fox News, MSNBC, CNN and others because it does not require the rigorous cost of actually going out and getting that information.  They merely take the information, break it apart, and spin it in their preferred direction.  Some stations are better than most at trying to appear that they are not spinning this information.  As a result, the production of "news" programs has become more cost efficient, in that they are now cheaper, and less able to go out and seek those stories that require months of research for a reporter.  Hence, it was no surprise that when WikiLeaks disclosed and uncovered information, they were willing to do what the other news companies did not have the guts, or the intellect, to do for fear of losing their credibility.  Sometimes one must put one's credibility on the line and risk looking like a fool.  Something many news organizations are not willing to do.  

Hence, the degeneration of the news into what we see now is a direct result of financial bean counters who all want to be 60 minutes.  Never mind that it took 60 minutes 5-10 years to build up a good following.  They all want results, and they want those results now.  This is reflected in their less than professional journalistic ethics at times.  That is why the public now needs to become more aware that organizations like WikiLeaks will become the norm more frequently, as they are filling the void left vacant due to the inability of news organizations to do more with less.  I applaud Assange for having the guts to discolose information, even if I don't like what its about, because that is what a free press is suppose to do in a democracy.  It's suppose to inform people about things that they would probably not want to hear about.  It does not fit into the endless cycles of mudslides in Peru or Java.  It challenges one to think outside of dismal commentary by O'Riley that is suppose to be "news".  We need more people willing to take these strides.  If only to wake up a press corp that is sadly lacking in its search for real news.

I may not like WikiLeaks, but It is a wakeup call for journalism

i have been on the sidelines over the recent actions that have now plagued WikiLeaks founder Assange.  This brings to mind all too evidently the need of better journalistic standards.  Something that has been lacking since the establishment of Fox "News".  The public has been under the impression that more news means better coverage and a more "balanced" opinion.  Newsflash, it brings neither.  What has occurred over the last 20 years is a blurring of the lines between journalism and commentary.  And if one does not understand the difference, it's not surprising.  What WikiLeaks has done, whether we like what has been disclosed or not, is bring the problem of journalism into a clearer focus.

For the last 20 years, cable news programs have consisted of shouting matches sprinkled with information that is suppose to pass for news.  This kind of show is well liked by the followers of Fox News, MSNBC, CNN and others because it does not require the rigorous cost of actually going out and getting that information.  They merely take the information, break it apart, and spin it in their preferred direction.  Some stations are better than most at trying to appear that they are not spinning this information.  As a result, the production of "news" programs has become more cost efficient, in that they are now cheaper, and less able to go out and seek those stories that require months of research for a reporter.  Hence, it was no surprise that when WikiLeaks disclosed and uncovered information, they were willing to do what the other news companies did not have the guts, or the intellect, to do for fear of losing their credibility.  Sometimes one must put one's credibility on the line and risk looking like a fool.  Something many news organizations are not willing to do.  

Hence, the degeneration of the news into what we see now is a direct result of financial bean counters who all want to be 60 minutes.  Never mind that it took 60 minutes 5-10 years to build up a good following.  They all want results, and they want those results now.  This is reflected in their less than professional journalistic ethics at times.  That is why the public now needs to become more aware that organizations like WikiLeaks will become the norm more frequently, as they are filling the void left vacant due to the inability of news organizations to do more with less.  I applaud Assange for having the guts to discolose information, even if I don't like what its about, because that is what a free press is suppose to do in a democracy.  It's suppose to inform people about things that they would probably not want to hear about.  It does not fit into the endless cycles of mudslides in Peru or Java.  It challenges one to think outside of dismal commentary by O'Riley that is suppose to be "news".  We need more people willing to take these strides.  If only to wake up a press corp that is sadly lacking in its search for real news.

Santa has just fille

Santa has just filled the stockings and has ascended the chimmney!!

via hellotxt

Santa has just stuff

Santa has just stuffed the stockings,

via hellotxt

Remember to look at

Remember to look at Wittgenstein's investigations?

via hellotxt