Wednesday, October 30, 2013


In the past few week I have posted articles concerning Term Limits for Congress, for the office of president and now for the final article in this series, The Supreme Court.  I hope that you take time to read, comment and share these ideas with others.  It is indeed past time that Limits be set on the time all these individuals can serve.  The days of the "professional politician" and "lifer" need to end if this country is to survive in any shape or form of what the Founding Fathers had in mind when they set forth on this great adventure. 

The Judiciary:  Article III of the US Constitution establishes "one supreme court" and "inferior courts to be established by the Congress.  The  law defines the types of cases that the Supreme Court will hear.  It states that "all cases, in Law and Equity, arising under the Constitution."  Unfortunately , justice is not always the result of the Courts decisions. (when the court sided with business in the 2005 takeover of homes in New London, Connecticut ( Kelo v New London, lawsuit challenging  eminent domain abuse in New London) is but one recent example. 

The Constitution established the term for these judges as being "during good behavior" which differed from British Law  which stated at the "kings pleasure".  This was done to signal a division of political independence.  Unfortunately this has not been the intended result of the Founding Fathers.   As we know and have witnessed, the procedure for nomination of Justices to the Supreme Court is the president appoints the justices and the Senate confirms them, which of course opens the door to politicizing the entire process.  A politically independent court is an oxymoron.  There are no checks applied to the judiciary. They are beyond the bounds of the democratic process.

The court was intended to be the weakest of the branches of government but has instead grown to the most powerful. Instead of being a place of "trial" to hear arguments concerning the Constitution it has become a place of legislation thus usurping the powers of the Congress.  Court decisions such as Roe v Wade have come to be declared the law of the land but yet no law has been passed by the Congress to uphold such a court ruling.

The current appointment procedures are highly politicized. The president nominates a judge more in the line of political correctness rather on the basis of highest qualifications. Many will remember Robert Bork who was nominated. He was a very highly qualified appointee but the Senate Judicial Committee interrogated him as if he were a criminal.  The reason was he failed to agree to carry out the agenda of the political party in power at the time.  The same thing occurred with Clarence Thomas who was subjected to more political scrutiny than  competent evaluation of his legal acumen.   A short time later we had two justices nominated, Sotomayer and Kagan, and the committee was nothing more than a political circus, a total dog and pony show as the questions presented to them were nothing more than political ideologue rather than being based on competence of the Constitution and rule of law.   What we need is accountability rather than proven party allegiance and unjustified protection from the peoples dissatisfaction.  This is indeed an urgent need, not a one sided political statement.

So I submit that it is indeed time that the Supremes be subject to Term limits.  What is needed is younger minds who know and understand the constitution and are willing to stand up and say so regardless of the political party in power.  They claim that with age comes wisdom and that may be true to a certain point but having judges appointed basically for life is not what the Founding Fathers intended neither did they intend that the Court usurp the powers of the Legislative branch as has been done for more than 65 years.    It's time for  a change and I hope you agree and will suggest such to those who represent you or who are suppose to represent you.  If they take no action other than sending you a form letter it is time by all means that these people discover that We The People are not stupid and demand that the elected look out for our  interest rather than their own or they will find themselves looking for a job soon. 

I realize that four articles are a lot to digest and understand so I suggest that you re-read each of the articles, check the Constitution and the meaning of the founders and then you will certain understand that what has been presented is absolutely necessary if this country is to survive as the Republic that is was established.  We can no longer allow the secular progressives to re-write the laws through Executative orders nor through Judiciary fiat. 

Thank you for reading. 

Friday, October 25, 2013


The office of President.

Last post set forth the idea of a one term president for six years.  I proposed that it was sufficient time to put forth an agenda which would either sink or swim.  It would not be put into a venue as it is now where the current office holder runs on the idea that he needs more time to complete and carry out his agenda and those who are all stupid and in  for the freebies reelect that individual knowing not that he could care less about them but only about the power which the office brings.

The power of the office is the next item up for discussion and one which the convention needs to address.  It is time we Rethink the office of the President. 
It appears that the office has taken on an "air" of royalty to it which flies in the face of of the founders original intent .  Pomp and protocol, inspired by a past that none can relate too have no place in the exercise of authority in the government in the 21st century.  Along with this comes compensation for the office during and after his time in office.  It is not unusual that by the time an individual reaches the office of the president that he may have already held several government positions- governor, senator, representative , or may have wealth in his own right. How is the presidents pension to be determined when he is entitled to multiple retirement plans?  The president , like other politicians make money off his experiences during and after his time in office, through books, lectures, consultations fees and more. The presidents retirement benefits which include Secret Service protection for him and his family members, the cost of maintaining a private office, travel, his widow's pension and the "royal" funeral, need to be aligned to the respect for the office, but also to the living standard of the average American. As as with the average American, his pension should start at the retirement age defined for all by Social security.  

The country has absolutely no need for a royal presidency. The president should not act as or give the impression of being a beneficent monarch.  The first lady or whatever it may be in the future is not and should not be considered an extension of the president.
The limits of executive power and the methods of exercising it need to be defined.  Secondly what is meant by "executive privilege.  "Executive waivers" not only allow the president , but other federal administrators as well, to selectively enforce laws. These are certainly questions too serious to be left to the fuzzy  notion of who is entitled to act. Should the country decide to allow them? If so, what restrictions should be imposed.

We need to move from the 19th century captivity concerning political continuity.  The validation of votes for both the president and the congress should result in a swift succession of power rather than wasting time with the "lame duck" situation which allows shenanigans of all manner of things most of which are immediately erased upon the next president and or congress taking office. Currently there is 11 weeks between Election Day and Inauguration Day and it only extends influence beyond any useful term of office.  Midnight rulings are but one example. Carter left behind 24,000 pages, Clinton , 26, 000 pages and Bush was not far behind.  No leader of any other modern country celebrates himself as does the US President because that  is what they think the people want or are told that they want. Such fantasies reflecting toward a royal aura is not the function of the presidency. 

Doing away with the notion that the president is the Commander in Chief of the military is past time.  Military action takes place much faster and in so many different ways that political decision lags behind or slows the action necessary.  Turning a man who has never served or have refused to serve in the military, as it has occurred in recent years, to command those   who have volunteered is sheer demagoguery.  The practice carried on by kings, dictators-all commanders in chief, or posing as them needs to be changed since there is a better way.  Allowing a so called  commander in chief to arbitrarily dictate torture, assassinations and other arbitrary action against friend and foe is ridiculous and this country is getting too close to such and exercise of executive power. 

Two other issues need to be addressed as well. One is "president for life". President is not a title for life nor was it ever intended to be yet we continue to address every former person who has served in the White House as president. Unfortunately this carries over to congressmen and to the justices. It borders on creation of a class of nobility.  We don't need it.  Lastly, Presidential libraries are nothing more than self-aggrandizing monuments.  They should be paid for by the individual or by contributions,  and those contributions should hold no tax exemption for it smacks of influence buying.
The records belong to the people of this country and should be in a location where they are accessible to the public who paid for them dearly. The Constitution does not support such grandeur.  

Next:  The Judiciary

Monday, October 21, 2013


On Monday of this week I presented part I on this subject and stated but one reason for term limits beginning in Congress.   

 Currently we have an elite class of individuals who hold themselves above the electorate seemingly wiser than those who have elected them and basically saying to the citizens of this country, “We know what is best for you” so just leave us alone and continue to re-elect us and all things will work out in the end.  

Well, it ain’t so as we have discovered and if you haven’t discovered it you are evidently infected by the epidemic which is sweeping the country called STUPIDITY!   If you don’t like being called stupid, then stop acting stupid and re-electing the same old same old elites who have proven them selves unworthy to lead this country or anything else in my opinion. 
We have watched for the last several decades, our so-called elected leaders continuing to kick the can of irresponsible spending and building of debt and deficit to an unsustainable level. 

 We have done nothing about it and in fact have encouraged them by allowing them to stay in office, many for more than two decades and some for over three decades. 
They are entrenched and are looking out for only themselves while proving the voter to be totally stupid!    

 By using Article V of the US Constitution to call a Constitutional Convention it will be fought tooth and nail by the under informed, the uninformed, those in power and the stupid who believe that no change can ever be to the Original since it would be a sacrilege.  Yet the Constitution has been changed over time via amendments, judicial fiat and most recently by executive order.  

 Congressional term limits are an absolute necessity and without them any other changes to the Constitution would be for naught. With Congressional Term limits the influence peddling would be minimized and brought at least into the open.  I contend that with term limits it would no longer be profitable for lobbyist to even exist in their current form if at all.  The profit motive would be denied to both the lobbyist and those in power under the influence of the money brokers.  

I contend that the next in line for Term limit change would be the Office of  the President. 
Yes, it was done once upon a time, limiting the holder of that office to two terms but as we have seen this has not worked as well as it was intended because stupid people still vote for the one offering the most “goodies”.   

 I contend that a term of SIX years is enough for any person holding that office to work their agenda.  A one term presidential appointment will spare the Country and the world the sorry spectacle of a president, paid to govern, taking months (now years) to peddle his own wares at taxpayer expense in order to be reelected.  A six-year term is sufficient to carry through an agenda.  If a program is truly worthwhile, and in the people’s interest, it will be taken up by the next president or dropped if it is not.
The one and only allegiance will be to the folks who elected him or her, not to a party, lobbies, friends, family or business interest.

There are other items under the office of president, which should be reconsidered at the same time as the term limits for the office are taken up as well.   I will offer a few of these in the next posting.  Feel free to make your own suggestions as well.


After the most recent budget debacle and those in power once again kicking the can down the road for a few months in order to avoid facing the hard cold fact that this country can not continue to spend as if it owns a money tree without dire consequences, it is time for the American People to face the fact that this nonsense must be stopped once and for all.

How can it be stopped is the question I usually get when this subject arises and when I give the answer, "TERM LIMITS", the conversation is suddenly over.  It's impossible to get Congress to vote term limits on themselves is the answer I usually get as they turn the subject to "electing the right people" as the way of stopping this nonsense.   This is indicative of the ignorance of the common folks in this country today combined with the continued spread of stupidity which is at epidemic proportions.  

There is a way to force Term Limits WITHOUT the consent of Congress .  How? U.S. Constitution, Article 5. It is a convention of the states for the purpose of proposing amendments to all the states. According to Article V, Congress must call for an amendment-proposing convention, “on the application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States”, and therefore 34 state legislatures would have to submit applications. Once an Article V Convention has proposed amendments, then each of those amendments would have to be ratified by three-fourths of the states (i.e. 38 states) in order to become part of the Constitution. 

Under the current Constitution Americans are not allowed to control the hold of the power of the elites.  This is  how the political class formed and how it legitimizes itself.   The "iron law of oligarchy" is illustrated by the process through which the American establishment took hold of power over time. It does not matter if a politician comes from a wealthy family for a poor one they will align with the power structure and become its stalwarts. Regardless of which faction is in power (red or blue) the structure is the same, the goals never change.

 Article I of the Constitution stipulates the terms of office for representatives and senators. Term limits for all three branches of government would mitigate, at least the danger of gerontocracy, which is as risky as the power of the immature and incompetent.  There are alternatives worth considering. Term in office should be limited.  To serve for terms, not to exceed six years, in Congress, and one term as president, increased from four to six years, would reinstate the Framers' intention that the people and the nation be served, not the person holding office.  Term limits could  make government more meaningful in that no person would accumulate excessive influence.  It might also help to avoid the perpetuation of the political class. Of course, a convention for a new Constitution should not avoid the issue of financing elections. For reasons of providing a level playing field, all legitimate candidates should receive equal financial support for their campaigns. All donations, however large or small, should be pooled and equally allotted to candidates. Money should never again buy a person's office.

I would suggest that via a contract with the electorate a commitment to the office and to performing as expected (and needed) would be in order. Failure to perform should have consequences.  The current  cumbersome impeachment procedures are not effective and not democratic. Rigor and integrity can be achieved through a rational procedure, disregarding party considerations. A president, a member of Congress, or a member of the judiciary who preforms miserably, who cannot live up to campaign promises, or who fails to live up to the exigencies of the office, runs the risk of losing office and the benefits associated with it.

I leave this for your thoughts and expression of ideas and will return to this subject in more detail on Thursday.   You may make comments here or on Facebook.