Leonard Nimoy Passes Away @ 83

by JASmius

He lived long, and we all prospered.

Anti-Boehner Coup Sentiment Grows In House

by JASmius



The good news?  The House Speaker isn't contemplating a total Obamnesty surrender as Mitchie The Kid has already offered up.  The bad news?  He's trying to get to the same place via ten monthly installments instead of Senator McConnell's lump sum.

And House conservatives are having none of it:

Conservatives on Capitol Hill are threatening to replace House Speaker John Boehner if he ducks a fight with the White House over illegal immigration and gives in to political pressure to fully fund the Department of Homeland Security, the Hill reports.

Talk of another coup attempt against Boehner "has grown louder," the Hill reports, now that Senate Republicans have backed away from a House bill that blocks DHS from accommodating millions of illegal [aliens].

If Boehner follows the Senate's lead, "it would be a big political mistake," a House conservative speaking on condition of anonymity told the Hill.

Republicans who tried to oust Boehner in January are again strategizing on how to take away his Speaker's gavel, the Hill reports.

From the coupsters' point of view, they have two advantages that they foolishly denied themselves in their farcical attempt to topple Boehner last month: organization and infrastructure, which is simply acknowledging that it is extraordinarily difficult to knock off a sitting House Speaker; and two primary candidate alternatives instead of the eight or nine that beat each other with tire irons at the start of this Congress.  And they're both already in the leadership: Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy and Majority Whip Steve Scalise.

And having disclosed those names, you can see the obvious drawback, as McCarthy is a long time amnesty backer whose tough talk against Obamnesty has only appeared to start this week.  And he is the "next in line" in the House GOP hierarchy, so if Boehner did fall, McCarthy would probably end up with the gavel, and conservatives would be worse off than they were before.

Could Scalise leapfrog over McCarthy to the Big Gavel?  TPers better hope and pray so.  And otherwise remember the Uhura corollary: "Be careful what you wish for; you may just get it."

Far better for Boehner to stand his ground, now against Obama AND....well, Harry (G)Reid via Mitch McConnell, I guess.  But he appears to be weakening:

With a DHS shutdown looming, Boehner was said to be eyeing a compromise on Thursday evening between the take-no-prisoners posture of his restive right flank and the more Obama-friendly Senate approach that House conservatives have branded as surrender.

The National Journal, citing "leadership sources," reports that House GOP leaders were floating an interim bill to fund DHS in full, but only for a month, giving Republicans the chance to fight another day.

"Boehner and his allies are concerned that partially closing one of the top national security agencies could do lasting damage to the party," the Hill reports.

Oh, mule fritters.  Is anybody else as sick to death of this "lasting damage to the party" quaking as I am?  The original government "shutdown" in 1995-96 was going to "do lasting damage to the party"; the GOP retained their majorities the following fall.  The impeachment of Bill Clinton was going to "do lasting damage to the party"; the GOP not only retained control of Congress but also regained the White House in 2000.  The last government shutdown sixteen months ago was going to "do lasting damage to the party"; the GOP gained nine Senate seats and twelve House seats this past November.  The Panic of 2008 did do significant damage to the party, but it wasn't "lasting" - only two years, as a matter of fact.

No, Mr. Speaker, the only "lasting damage to the party" can come from you and your caucus and their Senate counterparts not fulfilling your oaths to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States and the rule of law.  Because if you are so craven, so cowardly, such hopeless pussies that you will not fight to the political death a rampaging dictator whom your majorities were specifically elected to stop, then your own base is going to wonder what the point of electing y'all was in the first place.

Oh, I know, I know, what you're really thinking is, "What if there's another 9/11 while DHS is (15%) shut down?  We'll get blamed for it!  OH MY GOD!!!!"  But Mr. Speaker, have you looked at Obama's approval numbers on fighting ISIS and Islamic terrorism in general?  Sure, the White House and congressional Dems and the media would try to blame the GOP, but if you are doing what three quarters of the voting public sent you to Washington to do, just how effective do you think that flailing buck-passing is going to be?

Buck up, Johnny.  Gin up some self-confidence.  Have faith in your party and the American people.

And, for God's sake, learn the first thing about political strategizing.  What would kicking the DHS can down the road a month accomplish?  You already did that in the lame duck session back in December, remember?  "We don't have our Senate reinforcements yet," the base was told, "When they get here next month, we're REALLY gonna rock & roll!"  What was the Senate vote on moving ahead with McConnell's el foldo, Mr. Speaker?  98-2.  So much for those "reinforcements".  And now here we are, two months later, in the same needlessly untenable position.

In other words, what's the point of giving yourselves a chance to "fight another day" when you never fight in the first place?  Do you really believe that the conservative grassroots are paying that little attention that we would swallow such a blatant dodge?

And have you considered that all Senate Democrats have to do is filibuster your one-month "clean" DHS extension same as they have been your Obamnesty-defending full-year appropriation, and on the same ostensible "Don't shutdown our security" BS grounds?  Every time you cave to Obama and (G)Reid, you reinforce in their minds that all they have to do is wait you guys out, and as the deadline draws near you will eventually capitulate.  Thus the GOP never has any deterrent effect from any feint toward any such confrontation.

It's almost as if it's just performance art, kabuki theater to make the base believe you're carrying out our wishes, but in reality you never have any intention of doing so.

That couldn't possibly be the case - could it?

You know what the answer to that question had better be, Mr. Speaker.  Your gavel may just depend on it.

Verizon Responds To FCC's "Throwback Thursday"

by JASmius



Yes, that is Morse Code.

Here is Verizon's statement, translated via early-twentieth century manual typewriter:







Can you hear them now, FCC?

There's a reason, after all, why sarcasm and ridicule are called "the sour cream of wit".

Of course, with this stunt, Verizon has signed its own corporate death warrant.  But there's something to be said for realizing you have nothing more to lose, and going out in a blaze of glory.

Or howls of laughter, as the case may be.

When Christianists Attack

by JASmius



Admit it, all you Christ-haters out there, you clicked here slaveringly hoping and expecting to see a piece on some pro-lifer shooting up an abortuary with an Uzi, didn'tcha?  Well, sorry to disappoint you, but we traffic in facts here at Political Pistachio, and the facts are that while Islamic Fundamentalists leave destruction and genocide in their wake in their "service" to Satan himself, Christian evangelicals leave blessings and joy in theirs in their service to their neighbors:

When homeowners on South Olive Way woke up this morning to find their driveways and walkways already shoveled, many didn’t know what to think.

They all had a flyer attached to their front doors that simply read, “You’ve been served.”

“You just don’t see that in this day and age,” said Jeff Mostellar. “They did everything. The whole driveway, the stoop, the whole sidewalk up to the fence.”

More than fifty homes in the area had definitely been served by six teenagers who chose to wake up early — around 6:30 a.m. — and shovel away.

The high schoolers said they just wanted to pay it forward.

When offered money, the teens refused. When offered hot chocolate, they couldn’t resist.

No obscene graffiti.  No vandalism.  No wounded.  No body count.  No victims.  No severed heads.  No blood.  No crime scene tape.  Just selfless, Christlike servanthood.

That is "Christianism".

Just thought I'd clear that I up.

You're welcome.

Email of the Week: Last Election Tells the Tale of America's Difficulties

Posted by Douglas V. Gibbs

The following came to me via email, and though there are a few questions to its validity (for example, in the "States Won" part the total equals 48 States, rather than 50), the underlying message is pretty much correct.  In other words, the exact details of the statistics are probably not accurate, but the message that the big cities where the murder rate is higher, and the citizens are on the dole, is from where Obama received his votes, is accurate.

The below email, as it floats around, is normally titled America's Obituary.

Professor Joseph Olson of Hamline University School of Law in 

St. Paul, Minnesota, points out some interesting facts concerning
The last Presidential election:

Number of States won by: Obama: 19 Romney: 29
Square miles of land won by: Obama: 580,000 Romney: 2,427,000
Population of counties won by: Obama: 127 million Romney: 143 million.

Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by:

Obama: 13.2 Romney: 2.1

Professor Olson adds: "In aggregate, the map of the territory
Romney won was mostly the land owned by the taxpaying citizens of the country.

Obama territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in low
Income tenements and living off various forms of government
Welfare..."

Olson believes the United Statesis now somewhere between the
"complacency and apathy" phase of Professor Tyler's definition of
Democracy, with some forty percent of the nation's population
Already having reached the "governmental dependency" phase..

If Congress grants amnesty and citizenship to twenty million
Criminal invaders called illegal's- and they vote - then we can say
Goodbye to the USA in fewer than five years.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Obama Defying Anti-Obamnesty Court Injunction

by JASmius



Remember last week, when U.S. District Court Judge Andrew Hanen injuncted the White House from beginning implementation of Obamnesty?  And then, just today, Judge Hanen rejected the Regime's request for a stay of his injunction?  Finally, remember how I predicted that if The One decided that he was unlikely to win appeals to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals and the SCOTUS, that he wouldn't waste months on that legal process and would simply defy the Judicial Branch as he already is the Legislative Branch and just roll ahead with Obamnesty anyway?

See, I told you so:

[Barack] Obama’s amnesty juggernaut has taken another step forward despite a federal judge’s order to halt it in its tracks.

The president’s plan to delay the deportation of as many as five million illegal aliens through memos issued by appointees moved ahead Tuesday when the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services announced the extension of a program allowing spouses of certain visa holders to obtain work permits.

According to the Washington Times, the move will, in ninety days, allow some 180,000 [aliens] to be eligible for the benefit “in the first year.”...

And make no mistake, folks, this isn't any furtive nibble around the edges, this is "damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead":

Then WND reported the Washington watchdog Judicial Watch revealed the Obama administration was moving quickly on contracts for the president’s amnesty even though Hanen ordered a halt.

Judicial Watch said it had a source inside the industry of government contracts who said there is “no indication that the court order has impacted, slowed down or modified the procurement in any way.”

“They’re really rushing into it,” the source said.

Judicial Watch cited a government solicitation for companies to provide services for Obama’s plans to process illegal aliens and give them many of the privileges of citizenship.

The deal is immense, Judicial Watch said, with an estimated need for between 200 and 600 contractors....

Judicial Watch said that though a federal court “has blocked President Obama’s amnesty order, the administration continues working behind the scenes to quickly award multi-million-dollar contracts to firms that can expeditiously process millions of illegal immigrants, a government source has alerted Judicial Watch.”

“The complex deal is being rushed through at a ‘full-throttle pace’ extremely rare for such a huge venture that’s sure to radically change the current system, according to JW’s source, who has worked for decades as a contract expert at the highest levels of government.

“The pricing spreadsheets are astounding and list tens of thousands of work hours – for tasks such as program management, file operations and maintenance as well as Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) scanning – that will undoubtedly end up costing American taxpayers enormous sums. The contractor that lands this monstrous government deal must also be able to respond on short notice to growth in volume due to urgent events and requirements,” JW reported.

Judicial Watch said the administration “appears to have no intention of slowing down while the Justice Department drafts an appeal.”

“JW’s government source confirms that, even after the court ruling, DHS is moving forward with its plan to seal large contracts with companies that will process millions of illegal [aliens] as soon as possible,” the report said. [emphases added]

I've said it many times over the past two-plus years, although it may have been awhile since the last time, so let me refresh everybody's memories: How do you use the law to rein in a lawless president?  Or, rather, a lawless president aided, abetted, and protected by a lawless party and media for whom winning by any means necessary, especially by steamrolling over the law and the Constitution, is their one and only ethic?  A federal judge tells the White House to cease and desist, and they ignore him.  If Senate Republicans grew the set we all wish they would and stared down the White House over the Obamnesty-defunding DHS appropriation, what would restrain or deter The One from simply stealing the money he needs from some other part of the budget?  Or ordering Janet Yellen to print up the sum and truck it over to DHS?  Or just tapping one or more of his countless-by-now slush funds?

The answer, of course, is absolutely nothing.  Court orders can't stop him; the congressional power of the purse (which Republicans are too chicken to wield anyway, so you can obviously forget about any impeachment fantasies as well) can't stop him; NOTHING can stop him.

Sometimes I even wonder if the handful of 'Pubbies who we think of as constitutionalists even full "get" this:

The Times report Wednesday noted Senator Jeff Sessions, R-AL, described the administration’s latest move as “another program that has not been authorized by law.”

True; but then Senator Sessions completely loses focus on what the core issue - yet another constitutional crisis (or that's what this sort of thing USED to be called back in the day) - really is:

“There’s been no sense at all by President Obama, the Department of Home Security [Secretary] Jeh Johnson, the Democratic members of this Congress, no concern about the employment prospects of lawful immigrants, green card holders and native-born Americans,” Sessions told the Times. “The first thing we should do is be focusing on getting jobs for Americans that are unemployed. Are we going to keep Americans on welfare and benefits while we bring in more and more foreigners to take jobs when we've got Americans ready and willing to take those jobs?”

It's not that I disagree with what Senator Sessions says here, but this is a talking point for a comprehensive immigration reform debate, not somehow stopping a rampaging dictator who is cutting a swath through the separation of powers like Godzilla stomping a mudhole through Tokyo.



Okay, Osaka, but I didn't want a long vid to illustrate the point, and the Tokyo ones didn't fit that criterion.

Where was I?  Ah, yes.  Even the Tea Party's greatest hero doesn't appear to grasp the scale Obama's tyranny has reached:

Senator Ted Cruz, R-TX, also raised the issue of compliance with the court order, the newspaper said.

“Violating an unambiguous federal court order by defying its instructions to cease and desist a particular activity would represent a significant breach of your authority, and would be an escalation in abuse of our separation of powers,” Cruz wrote to administration officials. “For a president and his cabinet to telegraph intent to violate a federal court order requires additional scrutiny from Congress.” [emphasis added]

"Additional scrutiny from Congress"?  The same Congress that is about to meekly fund that "abuse of the separation of powers?  Besides, even if that non-threat actually meant anything in practical terms, what would it mean?  Hearings.  Months and months and months of hearings.  By multiple committees, more than likely.  And congressional oversight has been soooooo effective in reigning in Obama's "abuses of the separation of powers" to date, hasn't it?

But even if "additional scrutiny from Congress" was any kind of viable countermeasure, so what?  The Regime is implementing Obamnesty NOW.  They're not waiting for the appeals process, and they're not waiting for some Republican-chaired committee to issue a report sometime next spring or later that nobody will notice in the midst of the presidential campaign O may or may not allow to take place, and which they would simply ignore just as brazenly as they are Judge Hanen's injunction.

I'll quote President Andrew Jackson's verbal bird-flip to the SCOTUS once again: "Chief Justice Marshall has made his ruling; now let him enforce it."  Somehow that despotic defiance has a certain rustic charm coming out of Old Hickory's mouth that it sorely lacks coming out of King Hussein's.

But what he lacks in tact, his White House more than makes up for in chutzpah:

But administration officials were unabashed in their intent.

The Times said Cecilia Munoz, White House domestic policy director, addressed the issue: “It’s important to put [Hanen's order] in context, because the broader executive actions are moving forward. The administration continues to implement the portions of the actions that the president and the Department of Homeland Security took, which were not affected by the court’s ruling.”

But Hanen’s order said: “The United States of America, its departments, agencies, officers, agents and employees and Jeh Johnson, secretary of the Department of Homeland Security; R. Gil Kerlikowske, commissioner of United States customs and Border Protection; Ronald D. Vitiello, deputy chief of United States Border Patrol, United States Customs and Border Protection; Thomas S. Winkowski, acting director of United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement; and Leon Rodriguez, director of United States Citizenship and Immigration Services are hereby enjoined from implementing any and all aspects or phases of the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents.” [emphasis added]

When I learned the phrase "any and all" back in grade school, it still meant "includes everything and excludes nothing".  Now, like every other word and every other jot and tittle of the law and the Constitution, they mean whatever Barack Obama says they mean on any given day.

And nobody can stop him from doing THAT, either.

All the way back on Election Night nearly four months ago I warned everybody that the next two (or more) years were going to be uglier than anybody, including myself, could ever imagine.  He was, in his own words, liberated, free to be "the president he always wanted to be".  And just think: he's still got a whole twenty-three months to go....

...at minimum.  He's already completely ruling by imperial decree, and nobody can control or restrain him.  Mark my words, the Twenty-Second Amendment won't be immune from his pen and phone either, folks.  Not by a long shot.

Temecula Constitution Class: Legislative Powers

Constitution Class Handout

Instructor: Douglas V. Gibbs

douglasvgibbs@reagan.com

www.politicalpistachio.com

www.douglasvgibbs.com

www.constitutionassociation.com

Faith Armory

41669 Winchester Road

Temecula, CA

Thursdays at 6:30 pm

Lesson 02

Legislative Powers

Establishing the Legislative Branch

Legislative Powers

Article I, Section 1: All Legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

Article I establishes the Legislative Branch of the federal government.  Article I, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution establishes the two parts of Congress, and grants all legislative powers to the two Houses of the Congress of the United States.  When studying the language used in Article I, Section 1, the original intent by the Founding Fathers becomes clear.

The first word in the first section of Article I is the word “all.”  The definition of all is “the whole of a particular thing.”

The next words in Article I, Section 1 are legislative powers.  Legislative powers are the ability to make law, modify law, repeal law, and anything else that has to do with affecting law.

The next word in the clause is “herein.”  The primary definition of herein is “here in this document.”

After herein is the word granted.  Granted is defined as “to give,” “to allow,” or more specifically “to legally transfer.”  If powers are granted, then there must be a “grantor,” as well as a grantee.  As we learned in our discussion regarding The Preamble, the “grantor” of the authorities enumerated in the Constitution is the States.

“Shall be” is definitive.  The Constitution in its first clause reads, “All legislative powers herein granted shall be. . .,” shall be meaning “it is,” or “it will be.”

“Vested” is much like “granted.”  Vested is a legal transfer of something, or in this case, an allowance to have legislative powers at the federal level granted to Congress.

The Congress of the United States is the legislative branch of the federal government, and this clause indicates that not only will the Congress be granted all legislative powers given to the federal government, but that the branch of government consists of two houses; a Senate and House of Representatives.

All legislative powers, according to this clause, are granted to the Congress by the States for the purpose of making law, modifying law, or repealing law.  The powers are herein granted, which means that the laws must fall within the authorities granted by the text of the U.S. Constitution.  In other words, laws made must remain consistent with the “powers herein granted.”

Based on language used in the first clause of the United States Constitution, when members of the judiciary legislates from the bench, or the President issues an executive order to modify a law, such action is unconstitutional.  After all, “all legislative powers” were granted to the Congress, not to the judicial branch, or the executive branch.

Since all legislative powers belong to the Congress, that means any regulations by federal departments that are not in line with laws made by the Congress that are in line with the authorities granted by the Constitution are unconstitutional as well.  All legislative powers belong to the Congress, therefore any “legislative actions” by regulatory agencies, which are a part of the executive branch, are not in line with the original intent of the Constitution.

Powers the federal government has were “granted” by the States.  “We The People of the United States” granted those powers to the federal government through the Constitution.  Therefore, if the federal government acts in a manner that is not consistent with the contract between the States and the U.S. Government, the States have the option to ignore those unconstitutional actions by the federal government.  This action of ignoring unconstitutional law is the States’ way of being the final arbiters of the Constitution.  The term for this kind of action by a State is nullification.  Thomas Jefferson, in his draft of the Kentucky Resolutions, explained that any unconstitutional law is null and void, and as an illegal law, the States have the right to nullify it.

The concept that only Congress has legislative powers, only the executive branch has executive powers, and the judicial branch only has judicial powers, as described in the first sentence of each of the first three articles of the Constitution, is called Separation of Powers.  The purpose of this philosophy is to disallow different branches from abusing the powers not granted to that branch, as well as to protect against collusion.

The Separation of Powers also exists between the States, and the federal government.  Most authorities granted to the federal government are powers the States did not reserve to themselves.  Most authorities retained by the States are not authorized to be administered to by the federal government.  There are a few authorities that are concurrent, meaning that both the federal government, and the States, have some authority over the issue.  One issue that is concurrent is immigration, which will be addressed later in this book.  Sole authority over a particular power is called Exclusive Powers.

House of Representatives

Article I, Section 2 establishes, and defines, the House of Representatives.  The members of the House of Representatives are divided among the States proportionally.  As it is today, the House of Representatives was the voice of the people in the federal government.  Each Representative is chosen to serve for two years, which means every two years every Representative is up for re-election, if they choose to run.

The eligibility of a Representative as explained by Article I, Section 2 requires that the candidate must be at least twenty-five years of age, and been a citizen of the United States for at least seven years.  The age is lower than for Senators.  Representatives were not expected to be as politically savvy as the Senators, and tended to have less experience.  The age requirement simply reflected that.  Political knowledge and experience tends to come with age.

Divided allegiance was a serious concern to the Founding Fathers.  The requirement that Representatives have been citizens of the United States for at least seven years reflects that concern.  Seven years, for a Representative of the people, was assumed to have been long enough for the Representative to have thrown off any allegiances to other nations.

The third clause of Article I, Section 2, includes the 3/5s clause, which was changed by the 14th Amendment following the American Civil War. 

The Southern States used slaves for their agricultural economies.  The southern states were needed to ratify the new constitution.  As a condition for ratifying the Constitution, the southern states demanded that the slaves be counted as one whole person each.  The idea was that if the slaves were counted as whole persons, the apportionment would tip the scales in their favor through increased representation in the new United States House of Representatives. White populations in the southern states were lower in number when compared to the northern states, due to the rural nature of the Slave States to the south.

The Northern States, under the heavy influence of merchants, political elitists, and a group of abolitionists, wanted the slaves counted as "zero" in order to reduce the number of representatives the southern states would receive, which would give the majority to the northern states, thus giving the north more legislative power.  With this additional voting power in the House of Representatives, the northern states sought to have greater influence on the federal government through legislation.  The plan was to use their legislative power to tyrannically force the southern states into submission, and to eventually abandon slavery.

In the interest of compromise, to convince the southern states to ratify the constitution, while giving the northern states the satisfaction that the southern states did not get exactly what they wanted, the decision was made that slaves would be counted as 3/5 of a whole person for the sake of apportionment.  In other words, it was not a declaration that they believed blacks to be less than a person, but simply to affect the census in such a way that too much power through apportionment would not be given to either The North or The South, while also ensuring that the Constitution got ratified.

G.R. Mobley, author of We the People, Whose Constitution Is It Anyway?, believes the Founding Fathers missed a great opportunity to abolish slavery.  He supports the idea that the 3/5s Clause was an error in judgment by the Founders, and that the authors of the Constitution should have only allowed those States that rejected slavery to be members of the union under the Constitution.  By failing to ratify the Constitution the southern slave states would then have been on their own as a separate union.  Pressure from the Spanish in Florida, and the threat of invasion by Spanish forces, would have then encouraged the slave states to abolish slavery, so that they may rejoin the union, and enjoy the strength of the union of all thirteen States.

Historically, it is impossible to know if that is exactly how it would have played out.  Regardless of the opportunity, the Founders largely believed they had to compromise to ensure every State remained a member of the union, and ensure that they would receive the required nine ratifications of States in order to put the new federal government into motion.

Article I, Section 2, Clause 3, in addition to containing the 3/5s Clause, also establishes the census.  The census is a required a head count to be taken once every ten years in order to determine the enumeration for establishing the number of Representatives each State shall receive.  The clause also indicates that the number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty thousand.  This means there cannot be more than one Representative for a district of thirty thousand.  However, it does not indicate there must be one Representative per thirty thousand.  If that was the case, we would have thousands of Representatives.

Article I, Section 2, Clause 4 states that whenever vacancies happen in the House of Representatives, it is the duty of the Executive Authority to issue Writs of Election to fill such vacancies.  What this means is that the Governors of the States have the duty to ensure there is a special election to fill any vacancies that may happen in the House of Representatives.

The House of Representatives chooses for itself its own Speaker of the House, and other officers.

According to Article I, Section 2, Clause 5, the House of Representatives has the sole power of impeachment.  To impeach is to charge with misconduct.  The formal process of impeachment may lead to removal of an official accused of unlawful activity or other offenses deemed to be impeachable offenses.  Impeachment is not defined as removal from office, though removal from office is often the result of impeachment proceedings.  In history, two presidents have been impeached, but neither were removed from office.  The presidents who faced impeachment were Andrew Johnson (serving as President of the United States from 1865 to 1869), and William Jefferson Clinton (1993-2001).  President Richard Nixon resigned in 1974 before impeachment proceedings began.

The United States Senate

Article I, Section 3 established, and defines, the United States Senate.  The representation of the States in the U.S. Senate is equal, two per State.  The Senators serve for six years, which means every two years an election is held for one-third of the Senate seats.  The required minimum age of a Senator is thirty years, five years older than that of a Representative.  The increased age requirement for Senators reveals the importance of longer life and political experience, as considered by the Founding Fathers.  Allegiance to the United States also remained important to the framers in the U.S. Senate, requiring that Senators need to be nine years a citizen of the United States, rather than the seven years as required of Representatives.

Article I, Section 3 originally required that Senators were chosen by the legislatures of the States, rather than voted into office directly by the voters.  The appointment of Senators by their State legislatures changed to the vote of the people in 1913 with the ratification of the 17th Amendment.  By the State legislatures appointing the Senators, it made the Senate the voice of the States, while the House of Representatives was the voice of the people.  By the Houses of Congress being different, it created a natural check and balance, which did not allow the representation of the people to accomplish anything without approval of the voice of the States, and vice versa.

Article I, Section 3, Clause 4 establishes the Vice President as the President of the Senate.  The Vice President, though a member of the executive branch, is also connected to the legislative branch.  The Vice President may preside over the sessions of the U.S. Senate, and even participate in the debates, but in the end, the Vice President has no vote in the U.S. Senate, except as the tie-breaking vote.

During the early days of our nation the Vice President attended a large number of sessions of the Senate.  He served as the voice of the executive branch in the Senate, ensuring the States’ representation in Congress had the opportunity to be exposed to the executive branch’s opinions regarding the issues that concerned the States, and the union as a whole.

As with the House of Representatives, the Senate chooses its own officers.  One of those officers is the President pro tempore, which is the President of the Senate when the Vice President is not present.

The House of Representatives has the sole power of impeachment.  Article I, Section 3, Clause 6 gives the U.S. Senate the authority to try all impeachments.  No conviction can be reached unless two-thirds of the U.S. Senate membership is present.  Impeachment cannot extend further than the removal of the impeached from office, and the disqualification to hold any office in the future.  However, a legal case can still be brought against the convicted from other sources, according to the law.  Since the U.S. Senators were originally appointed by the legislatures of the individual States, this means that impeachment charges could be brought by the people (House of Representatives), but it took the States (Senate) to hear the case, and make the final determination after all evidence was provided.  During impeachment hearings, the Chief Justice presides over the hearing, as provided by Article I, Section 3.

The 17th Amendment changed the dynamics of our governmental system.  Note that many functions by the executive branch are subject to the advise and consent of the Senate.  The Senate ratifies treaties, holds hearings for any appointments the executive branch nominates, and the Senate holds the sole power for holding hearings on impeachments.  This is because actions by the federal government are subject to approval by the States.  The States granted the federal government its powers in the first place.

The House of Representatives, as the voice of the people, and the Senate, as the voice of the States, and the natural check and balance that is the result of that relationship between those two Houses of Congress, also enables both Houses together to be a valuable check against the executive branch.  One of the emanations of that correlation is the ability of Congress to override a veto with a 2/3 vote.  The authority to override vetoes was established to enable the People, and the States, when they are in full agreement regarding a proposed bill, to be able to ensure a law is put into place, and to constrain the executive together through the power of combined vote.

Elections and Assembly of Congress

Article I, Section 4 begins, “The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof.”  This clause establishes that each State may have its own methods for electing members of the Congress.  The same applies, as determined in Article II, to presidential elections.  If there is a discrepancy, or a question regarding the acceptance of ballots, it is not the job of the courts to make final determination.  Article I, Section 4 gives that authority to the State legislatures.

The same clause adds, after giving the State legislatures authority over federal elections, that “Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.”

Congress, as discussed earlier, is bicameral.  The two Houses of Congress are the House of Representatives, and the United States Senate.  The House of Representatives, at the time of the writing of the Constitution, was designed to be as it is now, the voice of the people.  Representatives have always been elected by a direct vote.  The United States Senate was the voice of the States, appointed by the State legislatures.  The appointment of the Senators by representatives of the people is an example of an indirect vote.

As the representation of the people, and the States, Congress was not seen as the greatest potential danger in the federal government.  Congress was the voice of the people and the States in the federal government; the eyes of the parents to ensure the central government did not grow beyond the authorities granted to it.  With Congress representing the oversight by the people, and the States, the oversight powers given to the federal legislature often led to other authorities that allowed Congress to act as a check and balance against potentially dangerous government activity.  Giving Congress oversight authorities was a way to ensure that Congress participated in the concept of a government “by the consent of the governed.”

Though elections were established with the State legislatures prescribing the times, places and manner of holding elections, as a check and balance against that authority, Congress may pass laws to “make or alter such regulations.”

At the end of the clause giving Congress the authority to act as an oversight regarding the manner in which elections are held, a qualifier is present, expressing, “except as to the Places of chusing Senators.”

A majority of delegates at the Federal Convention in 1787, by the conclusion of the assembly, were strong supporters of the sovereignty of the States, and the parental nature of the States in relation to the newly formed federal government, and the duty of the States as the final arbiters of the United States Constitution to ensure the new government functioned within the limitations granted to it.  A part of that function by the States included the very important fact that the States had a voice in Congress with appointed U.S. Senators.  The framers did not want that authority to be tinkered with, so they remind future generations at the end of this clause that though Congress has lawmaking authorities, and oversight authorities, manipulating the dynamics of government where the people, and the States, have a voice in the United States Congress is something not to be fiddled with.  A similar advisement also appears at the end of Article V., “and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.”

Oversight powers by the States were seen by the framers as being a right of the States, and as with natural rights of the people, a right is not something that should be able to be taken, but if the holder of the right wishes to give it away, no law can prevent such a foolish action.

The second paragraph of Article I, Section 4 reads, “The Congress shall assemble at least once in every Year.”  The first thought regarding this clause by the typical reader may be, “Of course.  How can they get anything done if Congress isn’t assembling?”

Another question may be, “Why did the framers feel it to be necessary to insert this clause into the Constitution?”

During the convention in 1787, there were some who felt this clause was “overburdensome.”  Government was not supposed to dominate their everyday lives.  The members of Congress were not professional politicians, nor did they care to be.  They had businesses to run, and lives to live.  Surely, the attitude of many of the Founding Fathers was, there is not enough business to compel Congress to meet every single year!

Those who supported the concept of an annual meeting reminded the others that Congress was the check the people and the States had available to them in the federal government.  It was the duty of Congress to serve as a check against the President, and the federal judiciary.  To be an effective check, Congress must meet at least once per year.  The clause, it was argued, was for the benefit of the people.

In present day politics, the opposite seems to be the norm.  Government is viewed as being broken if they do not act on an endless and constant flow of issues, committees, and crises.  Politicians view their position as their job, rather than a service they are providing.

Originally, the required meeting day was the first Monday in December.  That was later changed to noon on the third day of January by the 20th Amendment.

Congressional Procedure

Article I, Section 5 requires Congress to have a minimum number of members present in order to do business.  That majority constitutes a quorum, and if the Congress deems it necessary, the present members may set fines for members who do not show up. The Houses of Congress may remain in session, during which no formal business is conducted because the House does not have a quorum, so as to prevent executive actions that may be carried out during recess.  This kind of session is called a pro forma session.

In Article II, Section 2, the President is given the authority to make recess appointments, when Congress is not in session.  Normally, the United States Senate has advise and consent authority over appointments, which means that appointments of personnel to fill vacancies are possible for the President to grant, but such appointments requires the approval of the United States Senate (voice of the States).  If the Senate is not in session, and an appointment is necessary, the President may make appointments, but the terms of those appointments only last to the end of the Senate’s next session.  If the Senate is in a pro-forma session, the President may not make any appointments.  With Congress only in session when there is work to be done, and the Founders believing that would likely only be once a year, the ability of the President to make appointments when Congress is not in session was a valuable, and necessary, tool.  In today’s political environment, it seems like Congress is always in session, so recess appointments are not as common.

In early January of 2012, President Barack Obama used a recess appointment to name Richard Cordray the new Director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB).  The CFPB is a powerful bureaucracy created by the 2010 Dodd-Frank financial overhaul legislation.  However, even though most of the members of Congress were on vacation, the United States Senate was still in session.  President Obama’s definition of recess, it turned out, was broader than the Constitution’s definition.  In reality, the U.S. Senate was in pro-forma session.  John Berlau, Director of CEI's Center for Investors and Entrepreneurs, called the nomination of former Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray "very troubling," criticizing both Obama's controversial use of a recess appointment, and the selection of Cordray itself.  Berlau later asked, “What's next, appointing nominees when the Senate takes a bathroom break?”

Article I, Section 5 also allows each House of Congress to determine its own rules, keep a journal to record proceedings and votes, and that neither house may adjourn without the permission of the other.  Section 5 also establishes that if a member of a house does not follow the established rules, the house may punish its members for disorderly behavior, and by a two thirds vote may actually expel a member from Congress.

The establishment of rules, holding a hearing in regards to the breaking of those rules, and punishing a member for his behavior, as set forth by Article I, Section 5, was used when Charles Rangel broke the rules of the House of Representatives.  He faced a panel for his actions, and was punished by censure in December of 2010.  He later sued, spending about a third of his 2014 campaign cash on legal bills in a failed bid to overturn his fall from congressional grace.  On December 11, 2013, a federal judge in Washington dismissed the lawsuit, filed by Rangel in the previous April, to get the censure overturned.

The mandate to keep a journal to record proceedings and votes was included in this section because the Founders wanted government to be transparent, accessible, and accountable to the people.  Deals behind closed doors were not supposed to be a part of our political system.

Congressional Compensation, Privileges, Restrictions

When President George Washington took office, he refused to accept the constitutionally allowed compensation for holding the office.  He viewed his office as being a privilege, and an opportunity to once again serve the country he loved.  During the Constitutional Convention, Benjamin Franklin considered proposing that elected government officials not be paid for their service.  By the end of the debate, it was decided that government representatives should receive fixed stipends by which they may be compensated for the devotion of their time to public service.  It was also determined, however, that the compensation should not be so high that it would become the motive for seeking office.

Article I, Section 6 of the Constitution addresses compensation, and the rules regarding such.  Section 6 also establishes that members of Congress may not be detained while traveling to and from Congress, and that they cannot hold any other office in government while in Congress.

Protection from arrest while traveling to and from Congress was not only a privilege based on those enjoyed by their counterparts in the British Parliament, but also a protection from political enemies who may wish to keep certain members of Congress from voting.

This section also indicates that no member of Congress shall be appointed to a later office if while in Congress the office was created, or a raise in pay was enacted for that office.

To explain this clause, let’s visit a recent violation of it during the Obama administration.

After Barack Obama won the 2008 Presidential Election, he announced that Hillary Clinton would be his new Secretary of State.  The position of Secretary of State received a pay raise while Hillary Clinton was a member of the United States Senate.  Article I, Section 6 states that “No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States, which shall be been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been encreased during such time.”  Since Clinton was a Senator at the time the position of Secretary of State was given a raise, technically she was not eligible for the position to which she was appointed.  To resolve this problem, and still allow Mrs. Clinton to accept the position, the Democrats applied the Saxbe Fix, meaning they undid the raise, and Hillary Clinton received the compensation that was in place before the vote she participated in while in the Senate. The Saxbe Fix, or a Salary rollback, is an unconstitutional action.  The clause in the Constitution is clear: “No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been encreased during such time.”

The Saxbe Fix, or the rollback of the salary, does not change the fact that the emoluments increased during the time Hillary Clinton was in the U.S. Senate.

As a tool, the Saxbe fix was nothing new.  The salary rollback in the case of a violation of Article I, Section 6, a mechanism by which the President of the United States can avoid restrictions by the United States Constitution which prohibits the President from appointing a current or former member of Congress to a position that was created, or to an office position for which the pay and/or benefits were increased, during the term for which that member was elected until the term has expired, was first used in 1909.  The “Saxbe” name was applied to the political maneuver later in history.  The Saxbe Fix is named for William Saxbe, a Senator appointed Attorney General by President Richard Nixon in 1973.

Terms:

Adjourn: Suspend proceedings to a later time and/or place.

Censure: Procedure for publicly reprimanding a public official for inappropriate behavior. There are normally no legal consequences. Censure is not mentioned in the Constitution, but is a procedure devised by the legislature as a tool for formal condemnation of a member of the congressional body.

Congress of the United States: The legislative branch of the federal government which consists of two houses; a Senate and House of Representatives.  The Congress is the only part of the federal government granted the authority of legislative powers.

Granted: To confer, give, or bestow. A gift of legal rights or privileges, or a recognition of asserted rights, as in treaty.  To legally transfer.

Impeachment: To charge with misconduct.  Formal process that may lead to removal of an official accused of unlawful activity; impeachment does not mean the removal from office, though removal from office is often the result of impeachment proceedings.

Legislative Powers: The ability to make law, modify law, repeal law, and anything else that has to do with affecting law.

Nullification: State power to ignore unconstitutional federal law.

President pro tempore:  Second highest ranking official of the United States Senate. Vice President is President of the Senate and the highest-ranking official of the Senate despite not being a member of the body. During the Vice President's absence, the president pro tempore presides over its sessions or appoints another senator to do so. The president pro tempore is elected by the Senate and is customarily the most senior senator in the majority party.

Pro Forma Session: A session in either house of the United States Congress at which no formal business is expected to be conducted, so as to fulfill the obligation "that neither chamber can adjourn for more than three days without the consent of the other."  Pro forma sessions are also used to prevent the President from pocket-vetoing bills, calling the Congress into a special session, and to prevent the President from making recess appointments.

Quorum: Minimum number of members of an assembly necessary to conduct the business of that group.

Saxby Fix: Salary rollback. A mechanism by which the President of the United States can avoid restrictions by the United States Constitution which prohibits the President from appointing a current or former member of Congress to a position that was created, or to an office position for which the pay and/or benefits were increased, during the term for which that member was elected until the term has expired. First used in 1909, the Saxbe Fix is named for William Saxbe, a Senator appointed to Attorney General by Nixon in 1973.

Questions for Discussion:

1.  If only Congress can make law, then why do some politicians believe that Executive Orders can modify law, or that regulatory agencies can create new regulations to enforce laws that were never passed by Congress?

2.  The word “granted” reminds us that all powers once belonged to the States, and some of those authorities were “granted” to the federal government for the purpose of carrying out the tasks necessary for the protection, preservation, and promotion of the union.  If the federal government was created by the States, then how can statists justify their belief that all federal laws trump all State laws?

3.  Why do you think the Congress has two legislative houses?

4.  Why do you think representatives are only elected for two years?

5.  Why is it significant that only the House can originate bills for raising revenue?

6.  Why is the power of impeachment belonging to the House so important?

7.  As President of the Senate, what kind of role should the Vice President play in the day to day activities of the United States Senate?

8.  Why do you think the House of Representatives has the sole power of impeachment, but the Senate has the task of hearing the case?

9.  How are the dynamics of our governmental system different in relation to how the Senators are appointed, or voted for?

10.  How was the Senate expected to check the House of Representatives, and work together with the House to check the Executive and Judiciary?

11.  Why do you think the authority for prescribing the times, places, and manner of holding elections was given to the State Legislatures?

12.  Why was Congress given the allowance to pass laws that may make or alter such regulations?

13.  Why was the federal government prohibited from influencing the places for choosing Senators?

14.  To conduct business, the houses of Congress need a quorum.  If they do not have a majority, they may remain in session through a rule established by Congress called pro forma.  What advantages does pro forma give the houses of Congress when it comes as serving as a check against the executive branch?

15.  Why do you think neither house can adjourn without the permission of the other?

16.  The houses of Congress establish their own rules of procedure.  If a member breaks any of these rules, Congress also has the authority to punish the rule breaker.  One type of punishment is called censure.  How is censure an adequate punishment?

17.  How has the concept of transparency changed over the last two hundred years?

Resources:

Edwin Mora, “Top Democrat Dodges Question on Constitutionality of Obama Appointments, Says Pro Forma Sessions Are ‘Games Being Played’,” CNSnews.com (January 6, 2012): http://cnsnews.com/news/article/top-democrat-dodges-question-constitutionality-obama-appointments-says-pro-forma

Free Dictionary by Farlex; http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Grant

Joseph Andrews, A Guide for Learning and Teaching The Declaration of Independence and The U.S. Constitution - Learning from the Original Texts Using Classical Learning Methods of the Founders; San Marcos: The Center for Teaching the Constitution (2010).

Larry Schweikart and Michael Allen, A Patriot’s History of the United States; New York: Sentinel (2004).

Madison’s Notes on the Constitutional Convention, Avalon Project, Yale University: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/debcont.asp

Philip B. Kurland and Ralph Lerner, The Founder’s Constitution - Volume Two - Preamble through Article I, Section 8, Clause 4; Indianapolis: Liberty Fund (1987).

Saxbe, William B. I've Seen the Elephant: An Autobiography. Kent State University Press (2000).

Copyright: Douglas V. Gibbs, 2014