Party-line Votes

Party-line votes are unethical, immoral, and dishonest. Our senators and representatives are not voting their conscience, they are not voting the way their constituents prefer they are voting according to instructions from their party bosses. Nothing could be more against our Constitution or against what established this country. When our senators and representatives vote according to the party-line they permit themselves to be nothing more than dupes. It is sad....

Regards,
John Jenkins

865-803-8179 cell

Gatlinburg, TN
Email: jrjenki@yahoo.com 

Website: http://www.greenbriersolutions.com 
Blog: http://littlepigeon.blogspot.com/

You Say Tomato, I Say Tomato (Doesn't Make Much  Sense When You Read It)

Congress is as bad as the Banks

As outrageous the bonuses given to banks while begging for government money how about some outrage for the "raises" congress gave itself for staff and other expenses? Make them give the bonuses back make congress cancel the "raises" they just gave themselves.

Regards,
John Jenkins

865-803-8179 cell

Gatlinburg, TN
Email: jrjenki@yahoo.com 

Website: http://www.greenbriersolutions.com 
Blog: http://littlepigeon.blogspot.com/

You Say Tomato, I Say Tomato (Doesn't Make Much  Sense When You Read It)

Richard Wagner, George Mason University Professor

 

Richard Wagner,

George Mason University Professor

 

 

There is no Santa…

 

"Any so-called stimulus program is a ruse. The government can increase its spending only by reducing private spending equivalently. Whether government finances its added spending by increasing taxes, by borrowing, or by inflating the currency, the added spending will be offset by reduced private spending. Furthermore, private spending is generally more efficient than the government spending that would replace it because people act more carefully when they spend their own money than when they spend other people's money."

 

Suppose the value of all that we will produce in 2009, our gross domestic product (GDP), totals $14 trillion. There cannot be any disagreement that if Congress spends $4 trillion, of necessity there is only $10 trillion left over for us to spend privately. In other words, if Congress is going to spend $4 trillion, it must find a way to get us to spend $4 trillion less. The most open and aboveboard method to force us to spend less privately is to tax us to the tune of $4 trillion.

 

You might say, "Congress doesn't have to tax us $4 trillion. They could tax us $3 trillion and run a $1 trillion budget deficit." You have that wrong. There is no way for Congress to spend $4 trillion out of our 2009 $14 trillion GDP by getting us to spend only $3 trillion less privately. It has to be $4 trillion less. Another method to force us to spend less privately is to print money and inflate the currency. Rising prices reduce our ability to spend privately since each dollar we hold will not buy as much. Another way is for Congress to borrow, thereby reducing our ability to spend privately. By the way, all of this means that in any real economic sense the federal budget is always balanced. That is, if Congress spends $4 trillion we must privately spend $4 trillion less whether it is accomplished through taxation, inflation or borrowing.

 

The stimulus package being discussed is politically smart but economically stupid. It's that bedeviling, omnipresent Santa Claus and Tooth Fairy problem again. Let's say that Congress taxes you $500 to put toward creating construction jobs building our infrastructure. The beneficiaries will be quite visible, namely men employed building a road. The victims of Congress are invisible and are only revealed by asking what you would have done with the $500 if it were not taxed away from you. Whatever you would have spent it on would have contributed to someone's employment. That person is invisible. Politicians love it when the victims of their policies are invisible and the beneficiaries visible. Why? Because the beneficiaries know for whom to vote and the victims do not know who is to blame for their plight.

 

In stimulus package language, if Congress taxes to hand out money, one person is stimulated at the expense of another, who pays the tax, who is unstimulated. A visual representation of the stimulus package is: Imagine you see a person at work taking buckets of water from the deep end of a swimming pool and dumping them into the shallow end in an attempt to make it deeper. You would deem him stupid. That scenario is equivalent to what Congress and the new president proposes for the economy. A far more important measure that Congress can take toward a healthy economy is to ensure that the 2003 tax cuts don't expire in 2010 as scheduled. If not, there are 15 separate taxes scheduled to rise in 2010, costing Americans $200 billion a year in increased taxes. In the face of a recession, we don't need that.

 

Regards,
John Jenkins

865-803-8179 cell

Gatlinburg, TN
Email: jrjenki@yahoo.com 

Website: http://www.greenbriersolutions.com 
Blog: http://littlepigeon.blogspot.com/

You Say Tomato, I Say Tomato (Doesn't Make Much  Sense When You Read It)

There is No Santa

Richard Wagner,

George Mason University Professor

 

 

There is no Santa…

 

"Any so-called stimulus program is a ruse. The government can increase its spending only by reducing private spending equivalently. Whether government finances its added spending by increasing taxes, by borrowing, or by inflating the currency, the added spending will be offset by reduced private spending. Furthermore, private spending is generally more efficient than the government spending that would replace it because people act more carefully when they spend their own money than when they spend other people's money."

Regards,
John Jenkins

865-803-8179 cell

Gatlinburg, TN
Email: jrjenki@yahoo.com 

Website: http://www.greenbriersolutions.com 
Blog: http://littlepigeon.blogspot.com/

You Say Tomato, I Say Tomato (Doesn't Make Much  Sense When You Read It)

Lesson Learned From the Revolutionary War

In the spring of 1776, William Howe sent a letter to London. "The scene here at present wears a lowering aspect, there not being the least prospect of conciliating this continent unless its armies are roughly dealt with; and I confess my apprehensions that such an event will not readily be brought about, the rebels get on apace, and knowing their advantages, in having the whole country, as it were, at their disposal, they will not readily be brought into a situation where the King's troops can meet them upon equal terms. Their armies retiring a few miles back fro the navigable rivers, our cannot follow them from the difficulties I expect to meet wit in procuring land carriage."

 

If he were in the Iraqi theatre today would he write a similar letter to Washington?

Regards,
John Jenkins

865-803-8179 cell

Gatlinburg, TN
Email: jrjenki@yahoo.com 

Website: http://www.greenbriersolutions.com 
Blog: http://littlepigeon.blogspot.com/

You Say Tomato, I Say Tomato (Doesn't Make Much  Sense When You Read It)

Reference Dead athletes' brains show damage from concussions

It appears to me that athletes includes football players and possibly professional wrestlers.

 

Concerning football players, Duh! what do the players expect? They use their helmets as weapons in their attempt to injure the opponent and they end up with brain damage. Are we suppose to care or be interested? As long as the rules permit, nay encourage, helmet to helmet contact, helmet to chest contact players will continue to suffer. But the good news is they are well paid. First contact with the helmet used to be called spearing with a penalty. Rules should not permit any contact with the helmet. Change the process for tackling, it can be done. Until then que, cera, cera.  

Regards,
John Jenkins

865-803-8179 cell

Gatlinburg, TN
Email: jrjenki@yahoo.com 

Website: http://www.greenbriersolutions.com 
Blog: http://littlepigeon.blogspot.com/

You Say Tomato, I Say Tomato (Doesn't Make Much  Sense When You Read It)

Do you know how to catch wild pigs?

 

 

You catch wild pigs by finding a suitable place in the woods and putting corn on the ground. The pigs find it and begin to come everyday to eat the free corn. When they are used to coming every day, you put a fence down one side of the place where they are used to coming. When they get used to the fence, they begin to eat the corn again and you put up another side of the fence. They get used to that and start to eat again. You continue until you have all four sides of the fence up with a gate in the last side. The pigs that are used to the free corn start to come through the gate to eat, and then you slam the gate on them and catch the whole herd.

 

Suddenly the wild pigs have lost their freedom. They run around and around inside the fence, but they are caught. Soon they go back to eating the free corn. They are so used to it that they have forgotten how to forage in the woods for themselves, so they accept their captivity.

 

That is exactly what is happening to America. The government keeps pushing us toward socialism and keeps spreading the free corn out in the form of programs such as supplemental income, tax credit for unearned income, tobacco subsidies, dairy subsidies, payments not to plant crops (CRP), welfare, medicine, drugs, etc, etc, etc. While we continue to lose our freedoms - just a little at a time.

 

There is no such thing as a free Lunch! A politician will never provide a service for you cheaper than you can do it yourself.

 

 

Regards,
John Jenkins

865-803-8179 cell

Gatlinburg, TN
Email: jrjenki@yahoo.com 

Website: http://www.greenbriersolutions.com 
Blog: http://littlepigeon.blogspot.com/

You Say Tomato, I Say Tomato (Doesn't Make Much  Sense When You Read It)

Lesson From History

A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have. Thomas Jefferson

Regards,
John Jenkins

865-803-8179 cell

Gatlinburg, TN
Email: jrjenki@yahoo.com 

Website: http://www.greenbriersolutions.com 
Blog: http://littlepigeon.blogspot.com/

You Say Tomato, I Say Tomato (Doesn't Make Much  Sense When You Read It)

King James I

James, as King James VI of Scotland was successor to the England's Elizabeth as James I. Elizabeth had ordered the execution of James' mother, Mary, Queen of Scotts, a Catholic who had allegedly plotted to seize the English throne.

James had been a king---as he often reminded people---since his infancy. Within a year of his birth, his father had been killed, strangled by assassins after an explosion drove him from his house. Before another year had passed, his mother, Mary, Queen of Scots, had fled Scotland, suspected of having arranged her husband's death. She left her infant son behind, and James was raised by a series of guardians, several of whom also met violent deaths.

His precarious childhood and perhaps congenital illnesses as well, took a toll on the boy. James became a strange mixture of brilliance, eccentricity, and fearfulness. Among other habitual precautions, he always wore a thick quilted doublet to ward off dagger thrusts. His appearance inspired neither confidence nor love. Observers noted that his tongue seemed too large for his mouth, causing a speech impediment, and also made him slobber when he drank from a cup. His legs were weak, causing him to lean on other men's shoulder's and walk in a circular fashion. When upset, he fiddled nervously with his codpiece, and his large, curious eyes followed strangers who entered his presence, making them uncomfortable.

Members of Jame's court claimed James never washed his hands, only rubbed this finger ends slightly with a wet napkin.

Yet James had real achievements. He wrote learned treatises on a number of subjects, from witchcraft (which he believed in) to tobacco (which he was the first to condemn it, calling smoking "loathsome to the eye, hateful to the nose, harmful to the brain, dangerous to the lungs)" and as a result he did not like Sir Walter Raleigh. As king of England, he sponsored a new translation of the Bible that remains one of the great literary works in the English language.

James also had definite ideas on what England's foreign policy should be. In the first year of his reign, he secured a peace treaty with Spain, ending fifteen years of warfare. Not all his courtiers were pleased; some attributed the negotiations to cowardice on James' part.

James was involved with efforts to colonize the Americas.

In 1621 he banned lotteries.

He died in 1625 and his son Charles took his place..

Is it live or is it memorex?

Remember early in the Iraq war, the statue of Saddam Hussein did not fall to the ground? It was a foretelling of how the Iraq war would proceed. Not quite victory. Now at the Obama inauguration ,instead of the people listening to a live quartet we heard a pre-recorded version, so it would sound better. Is this foretelling that with the Obama regime you hear one thing while something else is being said? Time will tell...

Regards,
John Jenkins

865-803-8179 cell

Gatlinburg, TN
Email: jrjenki@yahoo.com 

Website: http://www.greenbriersolutions.com 
Blog: http://littlepigeon.blogspot.com/

You Say Tomato, I Say Tomato (Doesn't Make Much  Sense When You Read It)

Letter to the President

President Obama:

Thank you for ending the prohibition on supplying federal family-planning funds and contraceptives to international aid groups that provide abortions, abortion referrals or abortion counseling.

What you have done is to fund the killing of babies we would eventually have had to support. Our country, indeed the world is better off without them, don't you think? Have you considered providing funds for euthanasia to those same international aid groups?

Screw the Families of the 9/11 "Victims"

The families of the 9/11 "victims" sold their relatives and forfeited future claims and opportunities to offer opinions when they received hundreds of thousands of dollars from the government. The taxpayers bought them and now own the "victims." Screw the families....

Regards,
John Jenkins

865-803-8179 cell

Gatlinburg, TN
Email: jrjenki@yahoo.com 

Website: http://www.greenbriersolutions.com 
Blog: http://littlepigeon.blogspot.com/

You Say Tomato, I Say Tomato (Doesn't Make Much  Sense When You Read It)

Miss America Contest

30 years ago girls in swimsuits permitted vicarious sex and was worthy of television. Today the swimsuits the women wear in the Miss American contest do not show enough skin. Today men do not to watch beauty contests to see skimpily dressed women. The audience is not interested in watching smart women or talented women just  teen weeny bikinis and dresses with lots of cleavage. Beauty contests are old hat...

Regards,
John Jenkins

865-803-8179 cell

Gatlinburg, TN
Email: jrjenki@yahoo.com 

Website: http://www.greenbriersolutions.com 
Blog: http://littlepigeon.blogspot.com/

You Say Tomato, I Say Tomato (Doesn't Make Much  Sense When You Read It)

Why?

On the subject of Gitmo how about asking why we take prisoners and why people who want to be martyrs, allow themselves to be captured.

Regards,
John Jenkins

865-803-8179 cell

Gatlinburg, TN
Email: jrjenki@yahoo.com 

Website: http://www.greenbriersolutions.com 
Blog: http://littlepigeon.blogspot.com/

You Say Tomato, I Say Tomato (Doesn't Make Much  Sense When You Read It)

Budget and the Treasury

The budget should be balanced, the Treasury should be refilled, public debt should be reduced, the arrogance of officialdom should be tempered and controlled, and the assistance to foreign lands should be curtailed lest Rome become bankrupt.  People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance."            

 

Cicero - 55 BC 

 

Regards,
John Jenkins

865-803-8179 cell

Gatlinburg, TN
Email: jrjenki@yahoo.com 

Website: http://www.greenbriersolutions.com 
Blog: http://littlepigeon.blogspot.com/

You Say Tomato, I Say Tomato (Doesn't Make Much  Sense When You Read It)

They want their guns back.

How about some investigative reporting? Tell Nancy Grace that they have found Caylee...Next Story......

Regards,
John Jenkins

865-803-8179 cell

Gatlinburg, TN
Email: jrjenki@yahoo.com 

Website: http://www.greenbriersolutions.com 
Blog: http://littlepigeon.blogspot.com/

You Say Tomato, I Say Tomato (Doesn't Make Much  Sense When You Read It)

Plausible Deniability

Come on media ask the hard questions and get answers. Why would anyone give Bill's foundation $25 million dollars. Why would Saudi Arabia give him $10 million? Why would any major donor donate major funds? What did they get? What are they rewarding Bill for? What did he do for them? Graft and Greed the Clinton's are poster examples.....

If Hillary Clinton becomes Secretary of State neither she nor her husband nor her huband's foundation for 30 years. Otherwise individuals will pass money to her or her husband without being asked. Plausible Deniability.

Regards,
John Jenkins

865-803-8179 cell

Gatlinburg, TN
Email: jrjenki@yahoo.com 

Website: http://www.greenbriersolutions.com 
Blog: http://littlepigeon.blogspot.com/

You Say Tomato, I Say Tomato (Doesn't Make Much  Sense When You Read It)

Reference your article in the WSJ "In prayer, Warren Calls for Tolerance

Ms Susan Sataline:

I find it fascinating that any Christian, such as Billy Graham you mention, would avoid the word Jesus as to not upset people. Without Jesus we have no access to the Father. The Bible says so. One either believes the Bible or they do not. The former can learn the latter will not.

God acknowledged Jesus as his Son, how can we do less; "and behold, a voice from heaven said, 'This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased.'" If we fail to acknowledge Jesus before men or if we deny Jesus before men, he will deny us before our Father who is in heaven.

I do not know if Billy Graham believed his press or if he knew it was just hype but Billy Graham was not a spiritual advisor" to any politicians. Presidents used him to get to the people who followed him, today's Religious Right. Bill Graham was what is known as a dupe.

Today it is Rick Warren. Obama wants people to stop saying he (Obama) is not a Christian. He hopes that associating with Rick Warren will do that.

It is all politics not spirituality..... But without Jesus there is no access to the Father. Prayer without Jesus is talking to ones self.

Nice article....

Let it be told to the future....

"So let us mark this day with remembrance, of who we are and how far we have traveled.  In the year of America's birth, in the coldest of months, a small band of patriots huddled by dying campfires on the shores of an icy river.  The capital was abandoned.  The enemy was advancing.  The snow was stained with blood.  At a moment when the outcome of our revolution was most in doubt, the father of our nation ordered these words be read to the people:

'Let it be told to the future world...that in the depth of winter, when nothing but hope and virtue could survive...that the city and the country, alarmed at one common danger, came forth to meet [it]."

"America.  In the face of our common dangers, in this winter of our hardship, let us remember these timeless words.  With hope and virtue, let us brave once more the icy currents, and endure what storms may come.  Let it be said by our children's children that when we were tested we refused to let this journey end, that we did not turn back nor did we falter; and with eyes fixed on the horizon and God's grace upon us, we carried forth that great gift of freedom and delivered it safely to future generations."

Obama and Lincoln

Before we jump on the band wagon for Obama to govern as Lincoln governed we should remember Lincoln closed newspapers that criticized him, did away with habeaus corpus and had no interest in freeing the slaves except to punish the South. Abe did not free the slaves in the North. Be careful for what we ask?

Regards,
John Jenkins

865-803-8179 cell

Gatlinburg, TN
Email: jrjenki@yahoo.com 

Website: http://www.greenbriersolutions.com 
Blog: http://littlepigeon.blogspot.com/

Pythagoras Math Team: It's Hip to B^2

Robert Byrd

For Robert Byrd to leave the Congress will truly be "change." 

 

West Virginia really followed Will Rogers' admonition to choose the local thief and send him to rob Washinton DC.

Regards,
John Jenkins

865-803-8179 cell

Gatlinburg, TN
Email: jrjenki@yahoo.com 

Website: http://www.greenbriersolutions.com 
Blog: http://littlepigeon.blogspot.com/

Pythagoras Math Team: It's Hip to B^2

Some Things That Are Not in The Constitution

Have you ever heard someone say, "That's unconstitutional!" or "That's my constitutional right!" and wondered if they were right? You might be surprised how often people get it wrong. You might also be surprised how often people get it right. Your best defense against misconception is reading and knowing your Constitution.

 

A lot of people presume a lot of things about the Constitution. Some are true, some are not. This page will detail some of the things that people think are in the Constitution, but are not.

 

One critique of this page is that it is full of nit-picks. Slavery, for example, may not be "in" the original Constitution, but it is in the original Constitution — the word may not have been there, but the concept was. This is absolutely true. But by studying the words and coming to know them intimately, we gain a better understanding of our history and how some arguments about the Constitution endure.

 

The Air Force

 

The Constitution was ratified in 1787, long, long before the advent of the airplane. It provides, specifically, for a navy and an army in Article 1, Section 8. Though they were aware of lighter-than-air flying craft, the Framers could not have reasonably provided for an Air Force. It should be noted at the outset that the Constitution does not provide, specifically, for the other uniformed services, the Marines and Coast Guard. The Marines, however, as an arm of the Navy, could be excepted; and the Constitution does provide for "naval forces," and the Coast Guard could thus be excepted. How, then, do we except the Air Force? The first way is via common sense - the Framers certainly did not intend to preclude the use of new technology in the U.S. military, and because of the varied roles of the Air Force, it makes sense for it to be a separate branch. The second (and less desirable) way is historical - the Air Force originated as the Army Air Corps, an arm of the Army, similar to the Navy/Marine relationship. Basically, unless your interpretation of the Constitution freezes it in 1789, the Air Force is a perfectly constitutional branch of the U.S. military.

 

Congressional Districts

 

Congressional Districts divide almost every state in the United States into two or more chunks; each district should be roughly equal in population throughout the state and indeed, the entire country. Each district elects one Representative to the House of Representatives. The number of districts in each state is determined by the decennial census, as mandated by the Constitution. But districts are not mentioned in the Constitution. The United States Code acknowledges districting, but leaves the "how's" to the states (gerrymandering, however, is unconstitutional [as seen in Davis v Bandemer, 478 U.S. 109 (1986), though, the intent of gerrymandering is difficult to prove]).

 

The Electoral College

 

The concept of the presidential elector is certainly in the Constitution, but never is the group of people collectively referred to as "The Electoral College." Article 1, Section 2 speaks of "Electors," as do several of the Amendments, but never the college itself. The term comes from common usage in the early 1800's, in the same way that the "College of Cardinals" elects a pope, and is based on the Latin word collegium, which simply refers to a body of people acting as a unit. The term "College of Electors" is used in U.S. law, at 3 USC 4. For more on the Electoral College, see the topic page.

 

Executive Orders

 

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. Executive orders are not mentioned by the Constitution, but they have been around a long, long time. George Washington issued several Presidential Proclamations, which are similar to EO's (Proclamations are still issued today). EO's and Proclamations are not law, but they have the effect of statutes. A typical modern Proclamation might declare a day to be in someone's honor. Historically, they have had broader effect, such as the Emancipation Proclamation. A typical EO might instruct the government to do no business with a country we are at war with. Executive orders are subject to judicial review, and can be declared unconstitutional. Today, EO's and Proclamations are sequentially numbered. The average president issues 58 EO's a year. As of March 13, 1936, all EO's must be published in the Federal Register. The first to have been so published was #7316, by President Roosevelt.

 

Executive Privilege

 

Executive privilege is a right to withhold information from the legislative and judicial branches by the President or by one of the executive departments. There is question of whether the right exists at all, a question that has lingered since the very first President, George Washington, asserted executive privilege in his very first term. Most times, executive privilege is asserted for purported national security reasons. Washington, however, asserted the privilege when the House requested details of the Jay Treaty - his rationale was that the House has no role in treaty-making and hence no right to request the documents. In modern times, Bill Clinton refused to simply comply with an order to appear before a grand jury, and instead negotiated terms under which he would appear. Richard Nixon's is the most infamous use of executive privilege, and while the Supreme Court, in U.S. v Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974), recognized that there exists a need for some secrecy in the executive branch, but that the secrecy cannot be absolute. The Court ordered Nixon to turn over tapes and documents that a special prosecutor had subpoenaed. More recently, the minutes and records of Vice President Dick Cheney's energy task force were requested and denied based on executive privilege. This case made its way to the Supreme Court, where the Court deflected the case and sent it back to a lower court for further adjudication.

 

Freedom of Expression

 

It is often said that one of the rights protected by the 1st Amendment is the freedom of expression. This site, in fact, uses that term in its quick description of the amendment: "Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression." But "expression" is not used in the amendment at all. This term has come to be used as a shorthand, a term of art, for three of the freedoms that are explicitly protected: speech, petition, and assembly. While the use of "freedom of expression" is ubiquitous in this area of 1st Amendment study, it is important to note exactly what "freedom of expression" refers to - let this be such a note.

 

(Absolute) Freedom of Speech and Press

 

The Constitution does protect the freedom of speech of every citizen, and even of non-citizens — but only from restriction by the Congress (and, by virtue of the 14th Amendment, by state legislatures, too). There are plenty of other places where you could speak but where speech can and is suppressed. For example, freedom of speech can be and often is restricted in a work place, for example: employers can restrict your right to speak in the work place about politics, about religion, about legal issues, even about Desperate Housewives. The same restrictions that apply to the government do not apply to private persons, employers, or establishments. For another example, the government could not prohibit the sale of any newspaper lest it breech the freedom of the press. No newsstand, however, must carry every paper against its owners' wishes.

 

God

 

It has often been seen on the Internet that to find God in the Constitution, all one has to do is read it, and see how often the Framers used the words "God," or "Creator," "Jesus," or "Lord." Except for one notable instance, however, none of these words ever appears in the Constitution, neither the original nor in any of the Amendments. The notable exception is found in the Signatory section, where the date is written thusly: "Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven". The use of the word "Lord" here is not a religious reference, however. This was a common way of expressing the date, in both religious and secular contexts. This lack of any these words does not mean that the Framers were not spiritual people, any more than the use of the word Lord means that they were. What this lack of these words is expositive of is not a love for or disdain for religion, but the feeling that the new government should not involve itself in matters of religion. In fact, the original Constitution bars any religious test to hold any federal office in the United States.

 

Impeachment Means Removal From Office

 

The word "impeachment" and the phrase "removal from office" are not synonymous. For a President, judge, or other federal official to be removed from office against their will (because resignation is always an option), they must be impeached. Impeachment consists of three phases - the passage of the impeachment by the House, a trial by the Senate, and the imposition of a penalty if the Senate convicts. For members of the executive branch, removal from office is automatic upon conviction. The Senate may also decide to prevent the person from holding any other public office (see Article 2, Section 4). For any other impeachable officer (including judges), there are basically two punishments, which provide four options: the Senate can do nothing; they can remove the person from their office; they can prevent the person from ever holding any office in the federal government again, or both (see Article 1, Section 3).

 

Innocent Until Proven Guilty

 

First, it should be pointed out that if you did it, you're guilty, no matter what. So you're not innocent unless you're truly innocent. However, our system presumes innocence, which means that legally speaking, even the obviously guilty are treated as though they are innocent, until they are proven otherwise.

 

The concept of the presumption of innocence is one of the most basic in our system of justice. However, in so many words, it is not codified in the text of the Constitution. This basic right comes to us, like many things, from English jurisprudence, and has been a part of that system for so long, that it is considered common law. The concept is embodied in several provisions of the Constitution, however, such as the right to remain silent and the right to a jury.

 

It's a Free Country

 

A commonly heard mantra is, "Read your Constitution - it's a free country, you know!" Well, read your Constitution - it never says it is a free country. The implication of the aphorism is that in the United States, you can do whatever you want to do, and the Constitution is there to ensure that. It is certainly true that the Constitution protects many civil rights. The 1st Amendment ensures freedom of religious choice and freedom of speech, but those things are not without limit. You cannot create a religion that allows you to kill someone without civil punishment; you cannot use libelous or slanderous words without recourse. There are other things that restrict freedom - from the ability to suspend habeas corpus to the issuance of patents. Certainly the United States is a very free country, but it is not totally free - which is actually a good thing, unless you actually like anarchy. It is interesting to note that in his confirmation hearings in 2005, John Roberts said several times, "It's a free country." It will be interesting to see how this enters into his judicial philosophy on the Court.

 

Judicial Review

 

We often hear about the Supreme Court striking down a law or a provision in a law, or, more often, reaffirming some law or provision. Take a look in the Constitution - judicial review, as this is known, is nowhere to be found. It seems like a perfectly normal action - after all, what kind of check does the Judicial Branch have on the other two branches if laws and orders cannot be declared unconstitutional. But judicial review is not specifically mentioned. So how did judicial review come to be? In the landmark case of Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803), Chief Justice John Marshall declared a federal law, the Judiciary Act of 1789, to be unconstitutional, and thus null and void. This was the first time a Supreme Court ruling overturned a law.

 

Jury of Peers

 

People often say "I have a right to have my case heard by a jury of my peers!" when there is no such right in the Constitution. The Constitution does take up the issue of juries, however. It is the nature of the jury which is not in the Constitution. In Article 3, Section 2, the Constitution requires that all criminal trials be heard by a jury. It also specifies that the trial will be heard in the state the crime was committed. The 6th Amendment narrows the definition of the jury by requiring it to be "impartial." Finally, the 7th Amendment requires that certain federal civil trials guarantee a jury trial if the amount exceeds twenty dollars.

 

Note that no where is a jury "of peers" guaranteed. This is important for some historical and contemporary reasons. Historically, the notion of a peer is one of social standing - in particular, in a monarchy such as the one the United States grew up from, commoners would never stand in judgement of lords and barons. Along these same lines, since suffrage and jury service have always been closely tied (and in the beginnings of the United States it was typical for only white, male, property-owners to be allowed the vote), any combination of gender, race, and economic status would be judged by only one kind of jury, hardly by "peers."

 

Today, the American ideal dictates that we are all peers of one another, that regardless of gender, race, religion, social status, or any other division (except age), we are all equal. In this ideal, since we are all peers, a guarantee of a jury of ones peers would be redundant. While some argue with this ideal, it is the most democratic way to approach the subject. Juries need only be impartial, and not made up of one's peers, else the jury system would be unworkable.

 

"Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness"

 

This phrase is commonly attributed to the Constitution, but it comes from the Declaration of Independence. The 5th Amendment does offer protections to our "life, liberty, or property," noting we cannot be deprived of any of them without due process of law.

 

Marriage

 

In 2004, a lot of controversy began to swirl around the topic of marriage as homosexual marriage entered the news once again. In 1999, the Vermont Supreme Court ordered that the state must make accommodations for gay unions, bringing the issue into the public eye. Vermont created civil unions as a result. In 2004, the Massachusetts Supreme Court went a step further, and ruled that the state must accommodate not just an institution equal to marriage, as civil union was designed to be, but that gay marriage itself must be offered in the state. Subsequently, mayors in New York and California to offer gay marriage in their towns and cities, citing civil rights concerns. Those opposed to gay marriage began to urge that an amendment to the Constitution be created to define marriage as being between a man and a woman only. Opponents of the amendment pointed to the failed Prohibition Amendment as a reason why such social issues should stay out of the Constitution. In the absence of any such amendment, however, marriage is not mentioned in the Constitution at any point. More information is available on the Marriage Topic Page.

 

Martial Law

 

The terms "martial law" or "law martial" are not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution, but a key aspect of martial law, the suspension of habeas corpus certainly is - Congress cannot suspend habeas corpus except in times of rebellion or when public safety requires it. This clause, found at Article 1, Section 9, is often taken as shorthand for martial law, but in reality, martial law can exist while habeas corpus is in place - the two are commonly linked, but not mutually exclusive. More details can be found on the Martial Law Topic Page.

 

No Taxation Without Representation

 

The battle cry "No taxation without representation!" was a great political slogan coined to counter the Sugar Act of 1764. In order to help recoup the debt it incurred during the French and Indian War (or the Seven Years' War), the British Parliament passed the act, which taxed all manner of foodstuffs imported into the colonies. The Americans, in the midst of economic depression following the war, were not particularly enamored of a new tax. Some have written that the Americans were simply whining tax evaders. The slogan was good for rallying the troops with an easy issue for every one to discern: that since they were not represented in Parliament, the tax should not be levied. However, the ultimate goal of most of the agitators was not representation in Parliament, but independence.

 

The concept of "no taxation without representation" may be present in general in the United States. But those who are unrepresented (such as convicts and immigrants who cannot vote) are still subject to taxation. Notably, the citizens of Washington, DC, do not have representation in Congress (since 2000, DC license plates have included the phrase "Taxation Without Representation" in an effort to raise awareness of the issue, especially among tourists visiting the city). By virtue of the 23rd Amendment, however, DC does have at least three electoral votes.

 

Number of Justices in the Supreme Court

 

Article 3, Section 1 specifies that there will be a Supreme Court, Article 1, Section 3 mentions the Chief Justice, and Article 2, Section 2 mentions the "Judges of the Supreme Court", but aside from these small mentions, the make-up of the Supreme Court is not defined in the Constitution. There will be a Supreme Court, there will be a Chief Justice, and there will be other Justices - but how many? Originally, there were six members, and the number has fluctuated up to as many as ten. In 1869, the number was set in the law at nine, and it has remained at nine ever since. The number of justices is now set in the U.S. Code at 28 USC 1.

 

"Of the People, By the People, For the People"

 

This phrase is commonly attributed to the Constitution, but it comes from the Gettysburg Address.

 

Paper Money

 

The Constitution never does mention paper money, a staple of today's economy. It does give the Congress the power to "coin money," however. So, is paper money unconstitutional, but coins are constitutional?

 

Political Parties

 

Political parties are such a basic part of our political system today, that many people might assume the Constitution must at least mention parties in one way or another... but there is absolutely no mention of political parties anywhere in the Constitution. In fact, in the times of the Articles of Confederation, there weren't even any parties; factions, perhaps; regional blocs, yes; but no parties. Not until the Jackson and Van Buren administrations did organized parties really take hold in the American political system.

 

Primary Elections

 

The Primary Election season can be exciting and heady as candidates for the presidency, and other national and state offices, vie for their party's endorsement and spot on the ballot. Many people today assume that because the process is second nature that it must be spelled out in the Constitution. No where in the Constitution, however, will you find any mention of how elections should be conducted. Since the Constitution is silent on the issue, we have been free to develop any system we wished, and the result is the system of primary elections we now use. Though the party elections do nothing more than choose a candidate for the "real" election, the courts have still exerted influence, reasoning that through primaries, disenfranchisement can be effected. Party elections, then, must be open to anyone asserting party affiliation - parties cannot, for example, bar any person of color solely on the basis of race. Since they are party elections, however, the Supreme Court has ruled that primary elections can bar voters not registered with that party.

 

Qualifications for Judges

 

Article 1, Section 2 specifies the qualifications to be a Representative, Article 1, Section 3 specifies those for Senators, and Article 2, Section 1 those for President. The 12th Amendment adds the Vice President. But no where does the Constitution specify how federal judges are to be qualified. There is no minimum age and no residency requirement. The primary reason for this is that the Framers were well aware of how judges became judges - they were appointed because they excelled at the law. To do that, you must have had at least a minimum of knowledge in the law (though in the 18th and 19th centuries, lawyers were often self-taught).

The Right To Privacy

 

The Constitution does not specifically mention a right to privacy. However, Supreme Court decisions over the years have established that the right to privacy is a basic human right, and as such is protected by virtue of the 9th Amendment. The right to privacy has come to the public's attention via several controversial Supreme Court rulings, including several dealing with contraception (the Griswold and Eisenstadt cases), interracial marriage (the Loving case), and abortion (the well-known Roe v Wade case). In addition, it is said that a right to privacy is inherent in many of the amendments in the Bill of Rights, such as the 3rd, the 4th's search and seizure limits, and the 5th's self-incrimination limit.

 

The Right To Travel

 

As the Supreme Court notes in Saenz v Roe, 98-97 (1999), the Constitution does not contain the word "travel" in any context, let alone an explicit right to travel (except for members of Congress, who are guaranteed the right to travel to and from Congress). The presumed right to travel, however, is firmly established in U.S. law and precedent. In U.S. v Guest, 383 U.S. 745 (1966), the Court noted, "It is a right that has been firmly established and repeatedly recognized." In fact, in Shapiro v Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 (1969), Justice Stewart noted in a concurring opinion that "it is a right broadly assertable against private interference as well as governmental action. Like the right of association, ... it is a virtually unconditional personal right, guaranteed by the Constitution to us all." It is interesting to note that the Articles of Confederation had an explicit right to travel; it is now thought that the right is so fundamental that the Framers may have thought it unnecessary to include it in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.

 

The Right To Vote

 

The Constitution contains many phrases, clauses, and amendments detailing ways people cannot be denied the right to vote. You cannot deny the right to vote because of race or gender. Citizens of Washington DC can vote for President; 18-year-olds can vote; you can vote even if you fail to pay a poll tax. The Constitution also requires that anyone who can vote for the "most numerous branch" of their state legislature can vote for House members and Senate members.

 

Note that in all of this, though, the Constitution never explicitly ensures the right to vote, as it does the right to speech, for example. It does require that Representatives be chosen and Senators be elected by "the People," and who comprises "the People" has been expanded by the aforementioned amendments several times. Aside from these requirements, though, the qualifications for voters are left to the states. And as long as the qualifications do not conflict with anything in the Constitution, that right can be withheld. For example, in Texas, persons declared mentally incompetent and felons currently in prison or on probation are denied the right to vote. It is interesting to note that though the 26th Amendment requires that 18-year-olds must be able to vote, states can allow persons younger than 18 to vote, if they chose to.

 

The Separation Of Church and State

 

The phrase "separation of church and state" does not appear anywhere in the Constitution. Thomas Jefferson wrote that the 1st Amendment erected a "wall of separation" between the church and the state (James Madison said it "drew a line," but it is Jefferson's term that sticks with us today). The phrase is commonly thought to mean that the government should not establish, support, or otherwise involve itself in any religion. The Religion Topic Page addresses this issue in much greater detail.

 

The Separation Of Powers Clause

 

Though it may be implied or even directly stated in some news reports, blog postings, or web sites, there is no clause of the Constitution that is called the "Separation of Powers Clause." This is because there is no one clause that says "separation of powers" or "checks and balances" or any other phrase that is used synonymously. The concept of the Separation of Powers is written into the first three articles of the Constitution, as detailed elsewhere.

 

Slavery

 

Originally, the Framers were very careful about avoiding the words "slave" and "slavery" in the text of the Constitution. Instead, they used phrases like "importation of Persons" at Article 1, Section 9 for the slave trade, "other persons" at Article 1, Section 2, and "person held to service or labor" at Article 4, Section 2 for slaves. Not until the 13th Amendment was slavery mentioned specifically in the Constitution. There the term was used to ensure that there was to be no ambiguity as what exactly the words were eliminating. In the 14th Amendment, the euphemism "other persons" (and the three-fifths value given a slave) was eliminated. The Slavery Topic Page has a lot more detail.

 

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal"

 

This phrase is commonly attributed to the Constitution, but it comes from the Declaration of Independence.

 

Immigration

 

The Constitution never mentions immigration, so how is it that the rules for immigrants, and quotas from countries, are set by the federal government and not be the state governments? After all, as the 10th Amendment states, are the powers not delegated to the United States held by the states, or the people?

 

The Supreme Court has ruled that the Congressional power to regulate naturalization, in Article 1, Section 8, includes the power to regulate immigration. It would not make sense to allow Congress to pass laws to determine how an immigrant becomes a naturalized resident if the Congress cannot determine how that immigrant can come into the country in the first place.

 

There is also an argument that immigration is an implied power of any sovereign nation, and as such, the federal government has the power to regulate immigration because the United States is a sovereign nation. While it is true that the United States is a sovereign nation, and it may be true that all sovereign nations have some powers inherent in that status, it is not necessary to determine if immigration is such a power that does not even require constitutional mention, because the Naturalization Clause handles the power.

 

 

 

Regards,
John Jenkins

865-803-8179 cell

Gatlinburg, TN
Email: jrjenki@yahoo.com 

Website: http://www.greenbriersolutions.com 
Blog: http://littlepigeon.blogspot.com/

Pythagoras Math Team: It's Hip to B^2