All Hail Matt Damon?

I am sure no one is surprised to see another Hollywood personality stepping onto his, or her, makeshift podium; bellyaching about the newest and trendy political issue. Who wouldn't want to hear about a another national movement to save one-legged possums residing in a remote forest; where local villagers would like to drill a well to access clean drinking water (How Could You?). And with a majority of celebrities that have nothing more than an acting school within their pedigree, I am trying to dig deep to find appreciation for their mindless dribble. Somehow, a career path in acting, actually prepares you to solve both national and international issues ranging from domestic job creation to world hunger. I mean, come on, "Method Acting" could easily equate to solving Global Climate Change".

But in all fairness to Matt Damon, he did attend Harvard for a short period (Studying English), before his big break in acting. And among all the "Limousine Liberals" from Hollywood-Nation, I was open to watching his interview and insightful comments on Governor Sarah Palin. Maybe there was something not so obvious that Matt would point out, or maybe I would walk away in full agreement with regards to a wealth of poignant facts that I somehow left out of my decision process. Unfortunately, all I heard was the same ole, same ole, same ole...only this time with such vigor and anger, that I was left asking myself "Which One Was Scarier". What was terrifying (quoting Matt Damon), was not that Matt Damon did not bring up a valid point, but that his description of Sarah Palin's credentials and background, were no different than the candidate he was supporting. Okay; Barack is much more eloquent and mesmerizing, but then again forgive me, I prefer someone "talking to me", than "talking down to me". But, the elitists were proud: rather than the "Folksy" demeanor of a moose-hunting, take charge "Hockey Mom", they had the "bravado"of a highly-educated saviour from the Ivy-league halls of "I am Great, You Suck" University.

What made this interview so entertaining, was Matt's belittling sarcasm and excessive use of the word "Scary". And yes, by definition, "Causing Fright Or Alarm", I could agree that the term was accurately portrayed in defining the possibility of Sarah Palin as President. Now, that is the opinion of Matt Damon, and for so many other Americans; and rightfully so. Sure, Sarah was not running for president, and who really cares about the Vice President pick? Well we should, but never have - that is until now, where political angst had snowballed into the style of "Target Anything - Women, Kids, Senior Citizens, The Handicapped, And Pets...If Need Be". The real point is that Matt's critique (Terrifying.....wait, "Terr-if-fornication") was hypocrisy at best, given his candidates past and blatant executive inexperience. His position that he knows nothing about her, and will not know anything about her in eight weeks, is understandable. But the same can be said for Barack, who we know little about other than an unanswered origin of birth, Kenyan ties, and "Community Organizing" for "Thug" social activist groups. He makes fun of being a small-town mayor (You know, those small-town extremists who hold on to their God, Guns, and Values), and Governor for only two years; yet Barack mysteriously shot to the top of the ticket with unidentified connections and funding, and held less than "150 Days" of experience in the senate. He questions the qualifications and education of Sarah Palin, but does not question the fact that Barack's leadership qualities and education was molded by elitists, racists, socialists, communists, and domestic terrorists. While he tears apart Sarah's upbringing in a values-oriented small town, Barack was being mentored by radical activists that preached hate towards Caucasians and America. Matt Damon is "Terrified" of a small town mayor sitting down with the leaders of Russia (though she did govern and clean up the Alaska state government in several years and was responsible for a large portion of energy reserves), yet Barack stating he would sit down with terrorist-states like Iran, without preconditions, is not? I am not defending either candidates, but if you are going to take the high-road in making a political point, you better ask yourself the same questions. In fact, I think both Sarah Palin and Barack Obama were inexperienced and not fit for the job; which by my viewpoint fits the definition of "Scary". Then again, it was John McCain running against Barack Obama, Right? At one point, Matt seemed to lose track of the few, real points he had to say; that he started rambling about how he could not vote for a Vice President who believed dinosaurs were here only 4,000 years ago. First, for the record, we really do not know when dinosaurs were born, second we can not verify the accuracy of scientific dating, and third, what the "Blank" does that have to do with anything. And apparently, she likes to ban books too (that was an assumption made by Matt). Oh ,wait, wait, wait......I see, this is an attack the belief of "Creationism" and value-centric "Christianity". So now, apparently, under the guide, "Presidential 101", there is an ammendment that you have to believe in evolution to run a country. I did not see that, but thanks Matt for pointing it out (and since you would not allow any books on "Intelligent Design", isn't that "Banning" books). I do not know how that affects your ability to run a country, but apparently in "Liberal-Nation" these are not qualifications. Could you imagine if john McCain ripped into a Muslim belief system and attacked a potential candidate, the media would have had a field day.

More surprising is that Matt Damon called the pick of Sarah Palin a "Disaster" and a political move - yeah, because we are all surprised that politicians use strategy, that Democrats are immune to this type of behavior, or that Matt really is that naive in the process of government. Of course it was politics, and so was picking Barack Obama - a point in time of distress and hunger with a need for a "Iconic" symbol of change; the Democrats picked a multi-racial individual who could be well-liked and sold to the American public. Apparently, experience was not necessary. It was an excellent political strategy, and kudos to them. The Republicans were so desperate that they indeed picked a women to offset the wave of emotion; a "Wild Card" move that proved at first to shake fear in the Democratic party. But in the end, their lackluster pick came back to haunt them; and I can understand the consensus that was against her. Beyond the political nature of the selections, race and sex should not be factors; qualifications should be. But the same logic should have been applied to both candidates, which was not the case. If your stance was that Barack was more educated and eloquent; and sounded more presidential, okay. But, apparently, that was more important that his questionable past, which I seem to value more. Do not get me wrong, I do not want any "Smmmuck" up there, but I will take experience over knowledge, since wisdom is gained from the former. But since neither had experience, I guess we were left with image over substance. And in the end, this election became the "Lessor Of Two Evils"; which isn't how it always is? It is a good thing our government has checks and balances built into it. It is a good thing that the President surrounds himself with educated people to make sure he/she is covered. And that is a reassuring, since according to Matt Damon, McCain had the potential to die once taking the oath.

But in the end Sarah's fate was sealed by "Big-City Folk", like my fellow New Yorkers, who said, "I just could not find anything in common with her". Since when do we vote for a candidate based on commonality? I see, so if the woman was wearing Prada shoes and sporting a Fendi handbag, while saving the world from her BMW; that would have satisfied the "WASP(y)" and "JAP(y)" ingrates from their plush apartments surrounded by the comforts of fine living. So yes, how scary, and how terrifying we could ever think of supporting a women who holds only small town values and has limited, but executive experience; yet we would support an "Ivy League" elitist who holds a distrust for anything "White" or "American", combined with a similar lack of experience. I agree with both; and Matt Damon does have a point, but he conveniently left half of the argument out. Then again, growing up in the comfy, wealthy, and elite are of Cambridge (Boston, MA.); raised by a "Banker" and a "Professor", one could easily see how a subjective, distorted view could materialize into "Chicken Little" (eg. The Sky Is Falling). You would have thought Paul Revere was making his final stretch through Damon's town ranting, "The British Are Coming, The British Are Coming"! But then again, time after time, "Hollywood-Nation" has proven that somehow being an actor (given the wide spectrum of credentials?); standing on a garbage can and shouting dissent, qualifies them as "someone you need to listen to". So thank you Mr. Damon, I finally found something to really fear: the threat of Al-Qaeda was starting to become old news.

Where Obama Stands On The Issues

Now that the election excitement had dwindled, and the realization of "Where Do We Go From Here" finally starts to settle in, we can start to look ahead. Though, I seem to wonder how much voters actually know about our president-elect; where he stands on the issues and what he believes. This is an exercise in prudence, and if John McCain were elected I would ask the same thing. Not only do we need to fully understand who we have elected, but also the diligence to track if his actions match his words. Or more importantly, just an overall verification of, "Crap, Is This The Guy I Voted For". It is irrelevant who you supported during the campaign, but you owe yourself an education: consider this a work-in-progress. I did not ask whether you agree or disagree; I just asked you to read.

BARACK OBAMA ON ABORTION

Barack Obama is undecided on whether life begins at conception and he would expand access to contraception. He is rated 100% by National Abortion Rights Action League on pro-choice votes in 2005, 2006 & 2007, and rated 0% by the National Right to Life. He believes the Constitution is a living document and is opposed to strict "constructionism", he thinks moral arguments from pro-lifers are counterproductive. He supports Roe v. Wade and will protect a “woman’s right to choose.”

Voted NO on defining unborn child as eligible for SCHIP. (Mar 2008)

Voted NO on prohibiting minors crossing state lines for abortion. (Mar 2008)

Voted against banning partial birth abortion. (Oct 2007)

Voted YES on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Apr 2007)

Voted NO on notifying parents of minors who get out-of-state abortions. (Jul 2006)

Voted YES on $100M to reduce teen pregnancy by education & contraceptives. (Mar 2005)

Sponsored bill providing contraceptives for low-income women. (May 2006)

BARACK OBAMA ON THE BUDGET AND ECONOMY

Barack Obama plans on saving the government $150 billion by eliminating tax cuts for people who don’t need them. He rejects a free market vision of government, and believes that Bush’s economic policies are not working.

Voted NO on $40B in reduced federal overall spending. (Dec 2005)

BARACK OBAMA ON AFFIRMATIVE ACTION

Barack Obama supports affirmative action in colleges and government and would re-introduce the Equal Rights Amendment. He is rated 100% by the NAACP.

BARACK OBAMA ON GAY RIGHTS

Barack Obama believes that being gay or lesbian is not a choice, and that decisions about marriage should be left to the states. He sees homosexuality as no more immoral than heterosexuality, and is OK with exposing 6-year-olds to gay couples. He views the gay rights movement somewhat like the civil rights movement. He supports health benefits for gay civil partners. He opposes gay marriage but supports civil union and gay equality. He would include sexual orientation in anti-discrimination laws. He is rated 89% by the HRC which indicates a pro-gay-rights stance.

Voted NO on constitutional ban of same-sex marriage. (Jun 2006)

BARACK OBAMA ON CRIME

Barack Obama would ban racial profiling and eliminate disparities in sentencing. He would create a civil rights division to enforce laws fairly and justly. He has legislated to protect detainees during interrogation, and pushed an Illinois bill to videotape all capital interrogations. He does not believe there should be any extra penalty for gang association, and thinks that the death penalty would discriminate against gang members. He has also battled against the death penalty in general.

In 1999, while in the Illinois State Legislature, Obama was the only vote AGAINST SB 485, a bill that would prohibit certain persons convicted of criminal sexual abuse from receiving credit for time served in the county jail.

In 2002, Obama voted “NO” on HB 1812, a bill designed to toughen penalties for crimes committed in furtherance of gang activities.

BARACK OBAMA ON DRUGS

Barack Obama would consider a needle exchange program. He is not the first candidate to use drugs (cocaine and marijuana), but is probably the first to be honest about it. He does smoke cigarettes, would deal with street-level drug dealing as a minimum-wage affair, and understands why youngsters want to use drugs.

BARACK OBAMA ON EDUCATION

Barack Obama sees the teaching of evolution as compatible with the Christian faith, would give $4,000 in college tuition for 100 hours of public service a year, and would put billions of dollars into early childhood education. He would pay “master teachers” extra, but only with the buy-in from teachers. He wants to create incentives to hire a million teachers over the next decade, believes that sex education is needed to help children discuss molestation, would provide free public college for any student with B-average and sends his kids to private school.

Lastly he voted to shift $11 billion from corporate deductions to education.

BARACK OBAMA ON ENERGY & OIL

Barack Obama would raise fuel efficiency standards to 40 mpg to reduce long-term demand, and push to reduce carbon emissions by 80% by 2050. He believes in aggressively addressing accelerating climate change, and supports cap-and-trade on carbon emissions. He does not believe we can drill our way out of our “addiction” to oil. He wants 20% of our nation’s power supply from renewable sources by 2020.

Passed tax credit for installing E85 ethanol at gas stations. (Feb 2008)

Voted YES on removing oil & gas exploration subsidies. (Jun 2007)

Voted YES on factoring global warming into federal project planning. (May 2007)

Voted YES on disallowing an oil leasing program in Alaska’s ANWR. (Nov 2005)

Voted YES on banning drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. (Mar 2005)

Sponsored bill for tax credit for providing 85% ethanol gas. (Apr 2005)

BARACK OBAMA ON FAMILIES & CHILDREN

Barack Obama would teach both abstinence and contraception to teens, ensure that all children learn about sexual abuse and expand flex-work and the Family and Medical Leave Act.

BARACK OBAMA ON FOREIGN POLICY

Barack Obama would meet with Cuban leaders if it is in the US’ interests, and would loosen restrictions on Cuba now and move to normalization later. He is also willing to meet with Kim Jun Il, Hugo Chavez and have open dialogue with both Syria and Iran,and believes it is a disgrace that we have not. He thinks it is important to undo the damage of the last seven years, and believes Bush engineered our biggest foreign policy disaster. He supports Israel’s right to self-defense but is distrusted by Israelis. At college he protested for divestment from South Africa.

BARACK OBAMA ON FREE TRADE

Barack Obama believes in strong labor, safety, and environmental standards on trade, and would enforce environmental and labor provisions in trade agreements. He believes NAFTA needs to be amended.

Voted YES on free trade agreement with Oman. (Jun 2006)Voted NO on implementing CAFTA for Central America free-trade. (Jul 2005)

BARACK OBAMA ON GOVERNMENT REFORM

Barack Obama does not believe that prayer can prevent disasters, but supports good policy in handling them. In 2004 he used state money for a seemingly political mailing.

Campaign Finance Reform - Barack Obama believes that money is the original sin in politics and admits that he is not sinless. He supports reduced cost of TV ads for candidates, and even has supported public financing for campaigns with free television and radio time. He is OK with taking $5 donations from drug company employees, opposes taking money from lobbyists but takes them from "bundlers" who lobby and from lobbyist spouses.

Sponsored resolution rejecting photo ID for voting. (Sep 2005)

BARACK OBAMA ON GUNS

After the Supreme Court decision he supports the right to bear arms in Washington DC, but previously supported their gun ban. He endorsed Illinois’ handgun ban. He says he respects the 2nd Amendment, but supports local gun bans. In 2000 he co-sponsored a bill to limit purchases to one gun a month. He believes Bush erred in failing to renew the assault weapons ban, and would ban semi-automatics.

Voted NO on prohibiting lawsuits against gun manufacturers. (Jul 2005)

BARACK OBAMA ON HEALTH CARE

Barack Obama supports end-of-life self-medication, but opposes euthanasia. He believes he can take on insurance companies to drive down health care costs.

AIDS - Barack Obama supports condom distribution to deal with AIDS, believes that homophobia prevents people from talking about HIV/AIDS, and would increase funding for AIDS treatment and prevention.

Universal Coverage - Barack Obama would turn no one away with illness or a preexisting condition. His definition of Universal Health Care is anyone who wants it can get it. He supports mandating that kids have insurance, but not for adults. Obama supported single-payer, but has denied it. He says we need political will to accomplish universal coverage, and does not believe that the market alone can solve our problems. He believes that health care is a right, not a privilege.

BARACK OBAMA ON HOMELAND SECURITY

Barack Obama would pursue a goal of a world without nuclear weapons. He believes that Al-Qaeda is stronger now than in 2001 because Iraq distracted us. He opposes presidential power for secret surveillance, would not hold US citizens as unlawful enemy combatants and would extend Habeus Corpus for Muslims abroad and for detainees. He sees no exceptions or loopholes in sanctioning torture, and would close Guantanamo. He does not equate going after Al-Qaeda in Pakistan as a Bush-style invasion.

National Service - Barack Obama would expand the Peace Corps and AmeriCorps to 266,000 and register women for the draft (albeit in non-combat roles).

Voted NO on removing need for FISA warrant for wiretapping abroad. (Aug 2007)Voted YES on limiting soldiers’ deployment to 12 months. (Jul 2007)Voted YES on creating Habeus Corpus rights for Guantanamo detainees. (Sep 2006)Voted YES on requiring CIA reports on detainees & interrogation methods. (Sep 2006)Voted NO on extending the PATRIOT Act’s wiretap provision. (Dec 2005)

BARACK OBAMA ON IMMIGRATION

Barack Obama believes that deporting 12 million people is ridiculous and impractical, he thinks that immigration raids are ineffective, and supports the DREAM Act for the children of illegal immigrants. He does not believe we have allocated enough for the health care of illegal immigrants. He does not think that illegals should be able to work, but that they should have a path to citizenship. He would not deputize Americans to turn in illegal immigrants. He supports government services provided in Spanish and granting driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants. He would extend welfare and Medicaid to immigrants and provide funding for social services for non-citizens.

Voted YES on continuing federal funds for declared “sanctuary cities”. (Mar 2008)Voted YES on comprehensive immigration reform. (Jun 2007)Voted NO on declaring English as the official language of the US government. (Jun 2007)Voted YES on establishing a Guest Worker program. (May 2006)Voted YES on allowing illegal aliens to participate in Social Security. (May 2006)

Voted YES on giving Guest Workers a path to citizenship. (May 2006)

BARACK OBAMA ON JOBS

Barack Obama supports the workers’ right to organize and strike and would give public safety officers collective bargaining rights. He was a chief co-sponsor of IL ENDA, against gay job discrimination and wants to make the minimum wage a living wage. He sponsored a bill allowing an Air Traffic Controller’s Union.

Voted NO on terminating legal challenges to English-only job rules. (Mar 2008)Voted YES on restricting employer interference in union organizing. (Jun 2007)Voted YES on increasing minimum wage to $7.25. (Feb 2007)

BARACK OBAMA ON PRINCIPLES & VALUES

Barack Obama is ranked the most liberal in the US Senate based on 99 votes and believes that the Clinton years were undeniably better than the Bush years. He says he reveres the American flag and that he does not refuse to wear flag pins, even though he did refuse to wear one.

Racism & Race - Rev. Wright and flag pins re distractions from real issues. (Apr 2008)

Religion - Barack Obama said that in hard times, people take refuge in traditions, God and guns. Rev. Jeremiah Wright from Trinity United Church of Christ helped bring him to Christianity. TUCC teaches “Black Liberation Theology.’ His exposure to Islam taught him that Muslims can partner with us. He was raised secular, except when he was enrolled in Muslim and Catholic schools and claims a working knowledge of world religion. He says he is a big believer in the separation of church and state. He thinks a big mistake was intervention in the Terri Schiavo case.

Voted NO on confirming Samuel Alito as Supreme Court Justice. (Jan 2006)

Voted NO on confirming John Roberts for Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. (Sep 2005)

Rated 100% by the AU, indicating support of church-state separation. (Dec 2006)

BARACK OBAMA ON SOCIAL SECURITY

Barack Obama would raise the $97K cap on payroll tax exempting earnings to $250K. (which amounts to a $1.3 trillion dollar tax increase.) He would stop any efforts to privatize Social Security, and believes that the wealthy should pay a bit more on the payroll tax.

BARACK OBAMA ON TAXES

Barack Obama would raise the capital gains tax for “fairness,” not for revenue, even if it resulted in less government revenue. He is not bashful about it, the wealthy will pay more taxes if he is elected. He would restore a progressive tax and close loopholes. He would reduce the Bush tax cuts to pay for health care and other programs, and believes that they helped corporations but not the middle class. He believes that the last thing we need now is a permanent tax cut.

Voted YES on increasing tax rate for people earning over $1 million. (Mar 2008)

Voted NO on allowing AMT reduction without budget offset. (Mar 2008)

Voted NO on raising the Death Tax exemption to $5M from $1M. (Feb 2008)

Voted NO on repealing the Alternative Minimum Tax. (Mar 2007)

Voted NO on raising estate tax exemption to $5 million. (Mar 2007)

Voted NO on supporting permanence of estate tax cuts. (Aug 2006)

Voted NO on permanently repealing the `death tax`. (Jun 2006)

Voted YES on $47B for military by repealing capital gains tax cut. (Feb 2006)

Voted NO on retaining reduced taxes on capital gains & dividends. (Feb 2006)

Voted NO on extending the tax cuts on capital gains and dividends. (Nov 2005)

Rated 100% by the CTJ, indicating support of progressive taxation. (Dec 2006)

BARACK OBAMA ON WAR AND PEACE

Barack Obama believes that the Iraq War has made the US less safe from terrorism, undermined our security, distracted us from a host of global threats, that we live in a more dangerous world because of Bush’s actions, that invading Iraq was a strategic blunder, and that Saddam had no connections to Al-Qaeda, 9/11 or WMD. He believes that the Iraq war was conceptually flawed from the start, that the surge is not working toward enduring peace (because it has ignored political issues), and wants to get our troops out by the end of 2009. He would have voted no to authorize the President to go to war.

Trouble Spots - Barack Obama would strike Al-Qaeda in northwest Pakistan if we had actionable intelligence, and would meet directly with the leadership of Iran. He believes that we are playing to Osama Bin Laden's plan for winning a war from a cave, and that Al-Qaeda is stronger than before thanks to the Bush doctrine. (Jan 2006)

BARACK OBAMA ON WELFARE AND POVERTY

Barack Obama would attempt to cut poverty in half in 10 years domestically, with faith-based help, and sponsored a bill that would impose over $800 billion dollars in taxes on the American people to combat global poverty.

Al Capone Would Be Proud: The Ethics Of Rod

I can just see the slight smirk rolling across his face (oh, not Blagojevich, but Capone); even in complete darkness "six feet under". Come on, this is how they roll in "Chi-Town", where organized crime combines the best of old-school mafioso and a laundry list of corrupt politicians. Chicago's infinite history may not not be at the top of the political hit list of corruption, but unlike Geraldo Rivera's taping of Capone's empty vault, this town is full of "business as usual".

You may be aware that Alphonse Gabriel "Al" Capone (January 17, 1899 – January 25, 1947) was an Italian-American Gangster who led a crime syndicate, which include activities ranging from smuggling, and bootlegging of liquor, as well as other illegal activities during the Prohibition Era during the 1920's and 1930's. His most notable alias was "Scarface", due to the long knife wound across his face. Though we are decades afar from the golden age of Capone, the political landscape has not changed, and in fact, Democratic politicians are now qualifying as the new "Family" in town. So, who is the new "Scarface"? Is it Rod Blagojevich? He does seem to be the most recently exposed whipping boy; and I am sure that media-nation will spin sort sort of conspiracy theory. But, unfortunately, "Scarface" is not one man, but really the entire storied history that has been unfolding for years.

Voters looked past the Obama Chicago connections during the 2008 election; party due to the overwhelming tidal wave of emphatic emotion that consumed the nation. For Pete's sake people, Tony Rezko was a wonderful, caring, and nurturing Chicago Slumlord. Former Illinois Gov. George Ryan received a sentence of six and a half years in prison on Wednesday, after being convicted on charges of racketeering, mail fraud, filing false tax returns, and lying to investigators - I am sure he was set up; right? And I suppose, Mayor Richard M. Daley was falsely charged with recent allegations of corruption and bribery in his administration. And that is just the short list; but now with the current controversy of Rod Blagojevich, we are being exposed to greater realization that "Change" in politics is a joke.

Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich was arrested after prosecutors said he was caught on wiretaps arrogantly scheming to sell Barack Obama’s vacant Senate seat for cash or a plum job for himself in the new administration. To quote the bravado of Blagojvich, “I’ve got this thing and it’s (F'N) golden,” then stated, with reference to appoint Obama’s replacement, “and I’m just not giving it up for (F'N) nothing. I’m not gonna do it.” Prosecutors did not accuse Obama of any wrongdoing; and the president-elect said, “I had no contact with the governor his office, and so I was not aware of what was happening.” But recent events would suggest otherwise: which include relationships with other parties that dealt directly with Blogojevich. These guys know the playbook; have a "A" talk to "B", and I am therefore vindicated. Based on months of investigative work and wiretapping, The FBI stated in court papers that the governor was overheard conspiring to sell the Senate seat for campaign cash or high-paying jobs for himself or his wife, Patti, who is a real estate agent. He also spoke of using the Senate appointment to acquire a job with a non-profit foundation or a union-affiliated group, and even aspired use his seat to obtain an appointment as Obama’s secretary of health and human services or an ambassador (his salary requirements were between $250,000 - $350,000, plus political contributions in excess of $500,000). According to court records, the governor apparently made it known through selected envoys, that the seat could be obtained for the right price.

Throughout the 2008 campaign, Barack Obama emphasized he was far from politics as usual. He claimed he was beyond the typical Washington politics, the insider dealing, and represented real change. Yet, if we examine his history in Chicago, past relationships, and present connections, quite a different story emerges. Regardless of party affiliation, this is a serious matter that underlines our entire faith in a re-birth of government. Critics are quick to point out Blagojevich’s crimes are insignificant next to the larger scandals of Washington and Wall Street. They point out that the glorification of the World Trade Center catastrophe promoted the reckless invasion of Iraq, and that the irresponsible gambling on Wall Street deserves more attention. Forgot that fact, that 9-11 was the worst attack perpetrated on U.S. soil, since the bombing of Pearl Harbor. Forgot the fact, that the current housing crisis was also perpetuated by thug activists and the corruption of Freddie Mac, not just greedy money-whores on Wall Street (which are to blame as well.). This is a matter of personal integrity and the confidence in our system. So let's get past all of the political rhetoric and focus on the relevance of this scandal, and the doors it continues to open; which is the very issue that defined a nation, and an election, for the need for "Change". For a society with so much compassion and and a spirit of revival, we owe it to ourselves to make sure accountability is at the forefront of our culture. We are better than the lawlessness days of Capone, we are more aware of the prostitution of our government, and we are more confident that power resides in the people's hands to enact change. Integrity in government if the most important foundation we have, since everything we do, breath, and live is a sub-context of the institution. When we ignore corruption in government, regardless of magnitude, we not only perform a disservice to our nation, but we create acceptance and immunity, rendering it insignificant. The glory days of Chicago gangland had the same power, not from public fear, but from an accepted practice behind closed doors. But In this case, political corruption is now in the open and the voters are now exposed to the effects of political conduct. And if we continue to ignore these events, we have only ourselves to blame: Capone wins, and it is as if he never left.

Why Marketing Is King: "The Birth Of Rock Star-Nation"

Once again, our society has proven that “Marketing is King”. And for all the “Big Business” opponents out there; the campaign election committees silenced the anti-corporate rhetoric, by using the same tactics that the alleged “machine” utilizes to do one thing; Sell more crap we do not need! So the Obama supporters should be proud, the free-wheeling propaganda machine won, and “by any means necessary”. In the end, this election essentially came down to which camp had the better platform for convincing advertising. Now granted, the Democrats could have selected even fictional characters such as Beavis & Butt-Head (hhmmm), and the White House would have been theirs for the taking. There was so much anger and hate from the disgruntled left, an unfair and overzealous detesting of George Bush, so much distress from a global weakening of the economy, and so much hunger for any type of change, that rational decision making could have been clearly absent from this process.

Do not get me wrong, I loved the infamous “Gotham” font, the creative use of theme driven imagery (with or without the signature artistic posters that were reminiscent of socialist revolution propaganda). Even I could respect the succinct eloquent speeches, the emphatic embracing of such a simple word like “Change”, and never ending prophetic ramblings of “A hope for all nations, and all people – Change we can believe in”. I can see how our society has been longing for a departure of politics as usual, and a historic shift in how our country is viewed. And throw in the wild card, of a first president, other than a rich, old, white guy; and you have the equivalent of having the original formula for “Coke”: easy money! No wonder the Republicans picked Sarah Palin; which ended up as a three-ring circus free-for-all. Forget Nixon era wiretapping, they just photocopied the Obama-Nation playbook; under “Audible”, under “Desperate Attempts”. The DNC called the play, and the RNC called a change mid-snap. And to be honest, the bench was not full of reliable reserves to choose from. My hat is off to the Democrats for a fine job of politicking: the first African American president (well at least 50% African American) – who could lose? So in this midst of anger, frustration, hunger, and racial pride, the election was hand-delivered to Obama. And this is not bad for a guy, at the time, with less than 150 days of executive experience under his belt. Actually, I am surprised he only won by the margin of “popular vote” that he did; I had it pinned at 70/30 given the level of emotional recklessness that had people crying and wailing in the streets before, during, and after the election concluded. Yes, people were crying over a man becoming a president. Yes, people were crying in other countries that, on a daily basis, speak out and despise the United States. Even Jesse Jackson, a man of tremendous “racial empathy” who once referred to NYC as “Hymie Town”, was shown in tears. The last time I cried over another human being, I was at a funeral. People were shouting off rooftops for hours after the election concluded, and well into the next morning, as they stumbled out of bar-fronts grasping their “Obama branded micro-brews”. Do not laugh; I am sure the committee thought of it.


So “Marketing” won, and the rock star image they sought, became reality. I will agree that a first minority president is quite an event in our nation’s history, and no one will argue with that. But the question was, “Is that enough”? This is not some racial indifference towards Barack Obama, but an exercise in understanding his substance and overall character. And I could not come to any rationale conclusion that this man would be the right individual to run the country, bring about real change, or create unity; regardless of political affiliation. And of course, there was a lot of information that should have been further explored to validate the credibility of the sources - you should never take something for face-value unless you research it. Well, I am a cynic by nature, so that explains a lot.

But people just seemed to ignore the issues that were brought up during the election...

• A man with limited experience; other than involvement in irresponsible and radical community organizations.
  

• A man with an unexamined family history, which there is still no conclusive evidence or U.S. birth certificate bearing his name.


• A man that has avoided questions about his Muslim influence, which is important given the impact of his position of power.


• A man who disrobed himself of the American flag, in place of a self-promoting iconic "Rising Sun" that looks oddly similar to a typical MASONIC (Islamic) symbol which represents the New World Order over America, which is the "globalist" goal of the dissolution of American sovereignty.


• A man that came from a moderate upbringing, with unlimited and unverified funding that catapulted him to the top of the political food chain.


• A man that with 20 years of spiritual advisement had no recollection that his pastor was spewing racist and anti-American rhetoric .


• A man that denied any relationships with unrepentant domestic terrorists.


• A man linked to extreme socialist groups and sympathetic communist off-shoots


• A man that entrenched himself with corrupt Chicago politicians and infamous slumlords.


• A man who has been supported (Campaign Contributions) by radical Islamic groups.


• A man that spent his formative years embracing the collective works of leading radical African American activists.

• A man who has written controversial books on the black-centric philosophy and anti-white sentiment; whose wife shares the same discontent for everything not-black.

• A man who has spent considerable time and support for a questionable Kenyan government.

• A man who has risen to fame in such a short period of time, with documented support of extreme-left sympathizers and foreign sources.

...A man that no one seems to really know, or even questioned by voters - They chalked it up to "It was made up; or exaggerated", which makes me happy to see voters like to be informed (sarcasm intended). Was it all truthful? No one seemed to care: after 8 years of "Bush-Hating", it was irrelevant, right?

So, I am sorry if I can not share the same sentiment of Michelle Obama, in stating “For the first time in adult lifetime, I’m really proud of my country”. Fortunately for me, I can find several moments in history to feel good about America. Sure, there was a sense of pride in the African American community, and there should be. But pride, nor racial affinity, should steer the vote. Critics will continue to discuss the significance of race in this election, but one thing we know is that very few citizens saw the goodness in this country, so they followed this alleged messiah, like mindless sheep towards some type of envisioned promise land. Either they saw what I could not, or maybe the ideals which I thought were important, were not. Regardless, this might have been one of the first times I was disappointed in this country; or more accurately, my overall disappointment in the people that traded their belief in “substance”, for the belief of “something unknown”. It was as if voters had an exaggerated look of unconsciousness in their eyes. And with the glamour and celebrity self-promotion that people seemed to need in their dreary lives, Rock Star-Nation was an easy sell. I will admit that the only winner throughout this process was “Democracy”, which was truly represented by the people’s voice and a cry for change. The people spoke, acted, and were heard; so for that, every American should delight. Only time will tell if this "Change" will have a positive effect on our country or not; and I hope for the former. But if the result is the latter, of course I would never say, “I told you so”, I’ll leave that to the inspiring, and good-natured, wonderfully loving trio of Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, And Barney Frank. Hell, they sold you on the financial bailout; they’ll sell you on this. Remember, I did say “Marketing Is King”.

How To Write A Letter To Congress

So, you're going to write your Congressman? Good idea. Make it a good letter. People who think members of Congress pay little or no attention to constituent mail, are plain wrong. Concise, well thought out personal letters are one of the most effective ways Americans have of influencing law-makers. But, members of Congress get hundreds of letters and emails every day. Whether you choose to use the Postal Service or email, here are some tips that will help your letter have impact.

Think Locally

It's usually best to send letters to the Representative from your local Congressional District or the Senators from your state. Your vote helps elect them -- or not -- and that fact alone carries a lot of weight. It also helps personalize your letter. Sending the same "cookie-cutter" message to every member of Congress may grab attention but rarely much consideration.

Keep It Simple

Your letter should address a single topic or issue. Typed, one-page letters are best. Many PACs (Political Action Committees) recommend a three-paragraph letter structured like this:

Say why you are writing and who you are. List your "credentials." (If you want a response, you must include your name and address, even when using email.)

Provide more detail. Be factual not emotional. Provide specific rather than general information about how the topic affects you and others. If a certain bill is involved, cite the correct title or number whenever possible.

Close by requesting the action you want taken: a vote for or against a bill, or change in general policy.

The best letters are courteous, to the point, and include specific supporting examples.

Addressing Members of Congress

To Your Senator:

The Honorable (full name)

(Room #) (Name) Senate Office Building

United States Senate

Washington, DC 20510

Dear Senator:

To Your Representative:

The Honorable (full name)

(Room #) (Name) House Office Building

United States House of Representatives

Washington, DC 20515

Dear Representative:

When writing to the Chairperson of a Committee or the Speaker of the House, address them as:

Dear Mr. Chairman

Dear Madam Chairwoman

Dear Mr. Speaker

Dear Madam Speaker

Dear Justice

Dear Chief Justice

The above addresses should be used in email messages, as well as those sent through the Postal Service.

Finding Their Addresses:

Senate and House of Representatives
You can use a multitude of government websites to contact your congressional representatives, but the following site is a great resource: http://www.congress.org/congressorg/directory/congdir.tt.

Many members of Congress maintain one or more offices in their home states where they can also be contacted. These addresses are typically listed on the members' web sites.

U.S. Supreme Court
Contact Information - US Supreme Court. The Justices do not have email addresses, but they do read letters from citizens.

To Conclude
Here are some key things you should always and never do in writing to your elected representatives.

Always

Be courteous and respectful without "gushing."

Clearly and simply state the purpose of your letter. If it's about a certain bill, identify it correctly. If you need help in finding the number of a bill, use the Thomas Legislative Information System.

Say who you are. Anonymous letters go nowhere. Even in email, include your correct name, address, phone number and email address. If you don't include at least your name and address, you will not get a response.

State any professional credentials or personal experience you may have, especially those pertaining to the subject of your letter.

Keep your letter short -- one page is best.

Use specific examples or evidence to support your position.

State what it is you want done or recommend a course of action.

Thank the member for taking the time to read your letter.

Never

Use vulgarity, profanity, or threats. The first two are just plain rude and the third one can get you a visit from the Secret Service. Simply stated, don't let your passion get in the way of making your point.

Fail to include your name and address, even in email letters.

Demand a response.

Identifying Legislation

Cite these legislation identifiers when writing to members of Congress:

House Bills: "H.R._____"

House Resolutions: "H.RES._____"

House Joint Resolutions: "H.J.RES._____"

Senate Bills: "S._____"

Senate Resolutions: "S.RES._____"

Senate Joint Resolutions: "S.J.RES._____

Sample Letter to Representatives

Full block style
Your Name
Your Address
Your Town, State Zip Code
Date

The Honorable (full name)

(Room #) (Name) House Office Building

United States House of Representatives

Washington, DC 20515

Dear Mr./Ms.:

Paragraph 1: Introduce yourself and the issues that you have chosen to ask your representative about.

Paragraph 2: Discuss your issue in depth and ask a question for your representative to answer.

Paragraph 3: Close the letter with requested action to be taken: write a polite paragraph, perhaps about how wonderful it is to live in a republic!

Sincerely,

Your signature

Your name printed or typed

Feed: About.com

How A Bill Becomes A Law

Our Democracy has been quite effective because it enables three distinct branches of government to provide a checks and balances system: An Executive branch to assign leadership of the office and key cabinent posts to oversee National affairs, a Legislative branch that drafts bills/laws, with respect to representation of each state in the union, and a Judicial branch that becomes a barrier between the people and the government to interpert the law when legislation comes under the scrutiny of the constitution.

Understanding The Lawmaking Process

A. Legislation is Introduced

Any member can introduce a piece of legislation

House - Legislation is handed to the clerk of the House or placed in the hopper.

Senate - Members must gain recognition of the presiding officer to announce the introduction of a bill during the morning hour. If any senator objects, the introduction of the bill is postponed until the next day.

The bill is assigned a number. (e.g. HR 1 or S 1)
The bill is labeled with the sponsor's name.
The bill is sent to the Government Printing Office (GPO) and copies are made.
Senate bills can be jointly sponsored.
Members can cosponsor the piece of Legislation.

B. Committee Action

The bill is referred to the appropriate committee by the Speaker of the House or the presiding officer in the Senate. Most often, the actual referral decision is made by the House or Senate parliamentarian. Bills may be referred to more than one committee and it may be split so that parts are sent to different committees. The Speaker of the House may set time limits on committees. Bills are placed on the calendar of the committee to which they have been assigned. Failure to act on a bill is equivalent to killing it. Bills in the House can only be released from committee without a proper committee vote by a discharge petition signed by a majority of the House membership (218 members).

Committee Steps:

Comments about the bill's merit are requested by government agencies.
Bill can be assigned to subcommittee by Chairman.
Hearings may be held.
Subcommittees report their findings to the full committee.
Finally there is a vote by the full committee - the bill is "ordered to be reported."
A committee will hold a "mark-up" session during which it will make revisions and additions. If substantial amendments are made, the committee can order the introduction of a "clean bill" which will include the proposed amendments. This new bill will have a new number and will be sent to the floor while the old bill is discarded. The chamber must approve, change or reject all committee amendments before conducting a final passage vote.

After the bill is reported, the committee staff prepares a written report explaining why they favor the bill and why they wish to see their amendments, if any, adopted. Committee members who oppose a bill sometimes write a dissenting opinion in the report. The report is sent back to the whole chamber and is placed on the calendar.

In the House, most bills go to the Rules committee before reaching the floor. The committee adopts rules that will govern the procedures under which the bill will be considered by the House. A "closed rule" sets strict time limits on debate and forbids the introduction of amendments. These rules can have a major impact on whether the bill passes. The rules committee can be bypassed in three ways: 1) members can move rules to be suspended (requires 2/3 vote)2) a discharge petition can be filed 3) the House can use a Calendar Wednesday procedure.

C. Floor Action

Legislation is placed on the Calendar

House: Bills are placed on one of four House Calendars. They are usually placed on the calendars in the order of which they are reported yet they don't usually come to floor in this order - some bills never reach the floor at all. The Speaker of the House and the Majority Leader decide what will reach the floor and when. (Legislation can also be brought to the floor by a discharge petition.)

Senate: Legislation is placed on the Legislative Calendar. There is also an Executive calendar to deal with treaties and nominations. Scheduling of legislation is the job of the Majority Leader. Bills can be brought to the floor whenever a majority of the Senate chooses.

Debate

House: Debate is limited by the rules formulated in the Rules Committee. The Committee of the Whole debates and amends the bill but cannot technically pass it. Debate is guided by the Sponsoring Committee and time is divided equally between proponents and opponents. The Committee decides how much time to allot to each person. Amendments must be germane to the subject of a bill - no riders are allowed. The bill is reported back to the House (to itself) and is voted on. A quorum call is a vote to make sure that there are enough members present (218) to have a final vote. If there is not a quorum, the House will adjourn or will send the Sergeant at Arms out to round up missing members.

Senate: debate is unlimited unless cloture is invoked. Members can speak as long as they want and amendments need not be germane - riders are often offered. Entire bills can therefore be offered as amendments to other bills. Unless cloture is invoked, Senators can use a filibuster to defeat a measure by "talking it to death."

Vote - the bill is voted on. If passed, it is then sent to the other chamber unless that chamber already has a similar measure under consideration. If either chamber does not pass the bill then it dies. If the House and Senate pass the same bill then it is sent to the President. If the House and Senate pass different bills they are sent to Conference Committee. Most major legislation goes to a Conference Committee.

D. Conference Committee

Members from each house form a conference committee and meet to work out the differences. The committee is usually made up of senior members who are appointed by the presiding officers of the committee that originally dealt with the bill. The representatives from each house work to maintain their version of the bill.

If the Conference Committee reaches a compromise, it prepares a written conference report, which is submitted to each chamber.

The conference report must be approved by both the House and the Senate.

E. The President

The bill is sent to the President for review.

A bill becomes law if signed by the President or if not signed within 10 days and Congress is in session.

If Congress adjourns before the 10 days and the President has not signed the bill then it does not become law ("Pocket Veto.")

If the President vetoes the bill it is sent back to Congress with a note listing his/her reasons. The chamber that originated the legislation can attempt to override the veto by a vote of two-thirds of those present. If the veto of the bill is overridden in both chambers then it becomes law.

F. The Bill Becomes A Law

Once a bill is signed by the President or his veto is overridden by both houses it becomes a law and is assigned an official number.

GLOSSARY OF TERMS:

House Legislative Calendars

The Union Calendar - A list of all bills that address money and may be considered by the House of Representatives. Generally, bills contained in the Union Calendar can be categorized as appropriations bills or bills raising revenue.

The House Calendar - A list of all the public bills that do not address money and maybe considered by the House of Representatives.

The Corrections Calendar - A list of bills selected by the Speaker of the House in consultation with the Minority leader that will be considered in the House and debated for one hour.

Generally, bills are selected because they focus on changing laws, rules and regulations that are judged to be outdated or unnecessary. A 3/5 majority of those present and voting is required to pass bills on the Corrections Calendar.

The Private Calendar - A list of all the private bills that are to be considered by the House. It is called on the first and third Tuesday of every month.

Types of Legislation

Bills - A legislative proposal that if passed by both the House and the Senate and approved by the President becomes law. Each bill is assigned a bill number. HR denotes bills that originate in the House and S denotes bills that originate in the Senate.

Private Bill - A bill that is introduced on behalf of a specific individual that if it is enacted into law only affects the specific person or organization the bill concerns. Often, private bills address immigration or naturalization issues.

Public Bill - A bill that affects the general public if enacted into law.

Simple Resolution - A type of legislation designated by H Res or S Res that is used primarily to express the sense of the chamber where it is introduced or passed. It only has the force of the chamber passing the resolution. A simple resolution is not signed by the President and cannot become Public Law.

Concurrent Resolutions - A type of legislation designated by H Con Res or S Con Res that is often used to express the sense of both chambers, to set annual budget or to fix adjournment dates.

Concurrent resolutions are not signed by the President and therefore do not hold the weight of law.

Joint Resolutions - A type of legislation designated by H J Res or S J Res that is treated the same as a bill unless it proposes an amendment to the Constitution. In this case, 2/3 majority of those present and voting in both the House and the Senate and ratification of the states are required for the Constitutional amendment to be adopted.

Other Terms

Calendar Wednesday - A procedure in the House of Representatives during which each standing committees may bring up for consideration any bill that has been reported on the floor on or before the previous day. The procedure also limits debate for each subject matter to two hours.

Cloture - A motion generally used in the Senate to end a filibuster. Invoking cloture requires a vote by 3/5 of the full Senate. If cloture is invoked further debate is limited to 30 hours, it is not a vote on the passage of the piece of legislation.

Committee of The Whole - A committee including all members of the House. It allows bills and resolutions to be considered without adhering to all the formal rules of a House session, such as needing a quorum of 218. All measures on the Union Calendar must be considered first by the Committee of the Whole.

Co-Sponsor - A member or members that add his or her name formally in support of another members bill. In the House a member can become a co-sponsor of a bill at any point up to the time the last authorized committee considers it. In the Senate a member can become a co-sponsor of a bill anytime before the vote takes place on the bill. However, a co-sponsor is not required and therefore, not every bill has a co-sponsor or co-sponsors.

Discharge Petition - A petition that if signed by a majority of the House, 218 members, requires a bill to come out of a committee and be moved to the floor of the House.

Filibuster - An informal term for extended debate or other procedures used to prevent a vote on a bill in the Senate.

Germane - Relevant to the bill or business either chamber is addressing. The House requires an amendment to meet a standard of relevance, being germane, unless a special rule has been passed.

Hopper - Box on House Clerk's desk where members deposit bills and resolutions to introduce them.

Morning Hour - A 90 minute period on Mondays and Tuesdays in the House of Representatives set aside for five minute speeches by members who have reserved a spot in advance on any topic.

Motion to Recommit - A motion that requests a bill be sent back to committee for further consideration. Normally, the motion is accompanied by instructions concerning what the committee should change in the legislation or general instructions such as that the committee should hold further hearings.

Motion to Table - A motion that is not debatable and that can be made by any Senator or Representative on any pending question. Agreement to the motion is equivalent to defeating the question tabled.

Quorum - The number of Representatives or Senators that must be present before business can begin. In the House 218 members must be present for a quorum. In the Senate 51 members must be present however, Senate can conduct daily business without a quorum unless it is challenged by a point of order.

Rider - An informal term for an amendment or provision that is not relevant to the legislation where it is attached.

Sponsor - The original member who introduces a bill.

Substitute Amendment - An amendment that would replace existing language of a bill or another amendment with its own.

Suspension of the Rules - A procedure in the House that limits debate on a bill to 40 minutes, bars amendments to the legislation and requires a 2/3 majority of those present and voting for the measure to be passed.

Veto - A power that allows the President, a Governor or a Mayor to refuse approval of a piece of legislation. Federally, a President returns a vetoed bill to the Congress, generally with a message. Congress can accept the veto or attempt to override the veto by a 2/3 majority of those present and voting in both the House and the Senate.

To Learn More About Lawmaking Watch This Classic SchoolHouse Rock Video

Judicial Branch

The Freedom Charters signified defining moments in American History: and part of the creation of government, was the foundation of a tri-functional democracy.




What Is Contained In The Judicial Branch

The judicial branch hears cases that challenge or require interpretation of the legislation passed by Congress and signed by the President. It consists of the Supreme Court and the lower federal courts. Appointees to the federal bench serve for life or until they voluntarily resign or retire.

The Supreme Court is the most visible of all the federal courts. The number of Justices is determined by Congress rather than the Constitution, and since 1869, the Court has been composed of one Chief Justice and eight Associate Justices. Justices are nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate.

Judiciary Courts:
United States Supreme Court
Federal Judicial Center
United States Federal Courts
United States Code
United States Tax Court
Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER)

The United States Court of Appeals
First Circuit Fifth Circuit Eighth Circuit Eleventh Circuit
Third Circuit Sixth Circuit Ninth Circuit D.C. Circuit
Fourth Circuit Seventh Circuit Tenth Circuit Federal Circuit

The role of the Judicial Branch of the U.S. Government is defined in Article III of the Constitution of the U.S.A.

The judiciary is expressly prohibited from making law.

The judiciary is here to administer the courts.

There is no need for the judiciary to interpret the law as Common Law mandates that law must be simple enough to be understood by the common man, thus if a law is ambiguous or not easily understood the function of the judiciary is not to try and interpret some meaning for the law, but only to send the law back to Congress.

The Judicial branch is meant to act as a barrier or wall between the government and the people.

"The judicial branch has only one duty --- to lay the article of the Constitution which is involved beside the statue which is challenged and to decide whether the latter squares with the former. . .the only power it (the Court) has. . .is the power of judgment." - U.S. V. BUTLER, 297 US (1936)

Supreme Court:

The Supreme Court, created by the Judiciary Act of September 24, 1789, has final authority in all legal questions or controversies arising under the Constitution or the laws of the United States.The Supreme Court justices have lifetime appointments and are not subject to election - they are annointed by presidential nomination, with congressional oversight/approval. Their decisions have a broad scope and are difficult to overturn. They can decide which cases they will hear. The executive and legislative branches, whether republican or democrat, have to deal with the Supreme Court's composition. A district court can issue permanent injunctions against the enforcement of a city ordinance passed by a city council. A criminal court judge can interpret the law as to acceptance of evidence, how and when to apply 4th, 6th and 14th amendment protections, and use the sentencing recommendations as loosely or strictly as he/she deems appropriate. If someone appeals a judge's decision, who hears the appeal? Other judges. Interpreting the law is a powerful responsibility and its consequences are far reaching.

Whose Power is This, Anyway?

"Federalism" is the process by which two or more governments share powers over the same geographic area.

In America, both the state governments and the U.S. government have certain powers.

Which government gets what powers is spelled out by the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution as follows:

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

For example, under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, grants the U.S. Congress certain powers such as coining money, regulating interstate trade and commerce, declaring war, raising an army and navy and to establish laws of immigration.

Things the states cannot do are listed in Article I, Section 9. Among these, states are forbidden from coining money, entering into treaties, charging duties on imports and exports and declaring war.

Since the Constitution does not mention them, powers like requiring drivers licenses and collecting property taxes are among the many powers "reserved" to the states.

Most of the time, the line between the powers of the U.S. government and those of the states is clear. Sometimes, it is not. Whenever a state government's exercise of power might be in conflict with the Constitution, we end up with a battle of states' rights which must often be settled by the Supreme Court.

Probably the greatest battle over states' rights -- segregation -- took place during the 1960's civil rights struggle.

Segregation: The Supreme Battle of State's Rights

In 1954, the Supreme Court in its landmark Brown v. Board of Education decision ruled that separate school facilities based on race are inherently unequal and thus in violation of the 14th Amendment which states, in part: "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

However, several predominately Southern states, chose to ignore Brown. v. Board of Education and continued the practice of racial segregation in schools and other public facilities.

The states based their stance on the 1896 Supreme Court ruling in Plessy vs. Ferguson. In this historic case, the Court, with only one dissenting vote, ruled racial segregation was not in violation of the 14th Amendment if the separate facilities were "substantially equal."

Protests against segregation built steadily during the 1950s and 60s, but the states continued to declare their constitutional power to regulate access to public facilities based on race.

In June of 1963, Alabama Governor George Wallace stood in front of the doors of the University of Alabama preventing black students from entering and challenging the federal government to intervene. Later the same day, Wallace gave in to demands by Asst. Attorney Gen. Nicholas Katzenbach and the Alabama National Guard allowing black students Vivian Malone and Jimmy Hood to register.

During the rest of 1963, federal courts ordered the integration of black students into public schools throughout the South. In spite of the court orders, and with only 2 percent of Southern black children attending formerly all-white schools, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 authorizing the U.S. Justice Department to initiate school desegregation suits was signed into law by President Lyndon Johnson.

A less momentous, but perhaps more illustrative case of a constitutional battle of "states' rights" went before the Supreme Court last November when the Attorney General of the United States Reno took on the Attorney General of South Carolina Condon.

Reno v. Condon - November 1999

The Founding Fathers can certainly be forgiven for forgetting to mention motor vehicles in the Constitution, but by doing so, they granted the power to require and issue drivers licenses to the states under the Tenth Amendment. That much is clear and not at all disputed, but all powers have limits.

State departments of motor vehicles (DMVs) typically require applicants for driver's licenses to provide personal information including name, address, telephone number, vehicle description, Social Security number, medical information and a photograph.

After learning that many state DMVs were selling this information to individuals and businesses, the U.S. Congress enacted the Driver's Privacy Protection Act of 1994 (DPPA), establishing a regulatory system restricting the states' ability to disclose a driver's personal information without the driver's consent.

In conflict with the DPPA, South Carolina laws allowed the State's DMV to sell this personal information. South Carolina's Attorney General Condon filed a suit claiming that the DPPA violated the Tenth and Eleventh Amendments to the United States Constitution.

The District Court ruled in favor of South Carolina, declaring the DPPA incompatible with the principles of federalism inherent in the Constitution's division of power between the States and the Federal Government. The District Court's action essentially blocked the U.S. governments power to enforce the DPPA in South Carolina. This ruling was further upheld by the Fourth District Court of Appeals.

United States Attorney General Reno appealed the District Courts' decisions to the Supreme Court.

On Jan. 12, 2000, the U.S. Supreme Court, in the case of Reno v. Condon, ruled that the DPPA did not violate the Constitution due to the U.S. Congress' power to regulate interstate commerce granted to it by Article I, Section 8, clause 3 of the Constitution.

According to the Supreme Court, "The motor vehicle information which the States have historically sold is used by insurers, manufacturers, direct marketers, and others engaged in interstate commerce to contact drivers with customized solicitations. The information is also used in the stream of interstate commerce by various public and private entities for matters related to interstate motoring. Because drivers' personal identifying information is, in this context, an article of commerce, its sale or release into the interstate stream of business is sufficient to support congressional regulation."

So, the Supreme Court upheld the Driver's Privacy Protection Act of 1994 and the States cannot sell our personal drivers' license personal information without our permission, which is a good thing. On the other hand, the revenue from those lost sales must be made up in taxes, which is not such a good thing. But, that's how federalism works.

National Vs. State Government

The U.S. Constitution establishes a government based on "federalism," or the sharing of power between the national, and state (and local) governments. Our power-sharing form of government is the opposite of "centralized" governments, such as those in England and France, under which national government maintains total power.

While each of the 50 states has its own constitution, all provisions of state constitutions must comply with the U.S. Constitution. For example, a state constitution cannot deny accused criminals the right to a trial by jury, as assured by the U.S. Constitution's 6th Amendment.

Under the U.S. Constitution, both the national and state governments are granted certain exclusive powers and share other powers.

Exclusive Powers of the National Government

Under the Constitution, powers reserved to the national government include:

Print money (bills and coins)

Declare war

Establish an army and navy

Enter into treaties with foreign governments

Regulate commerce between states and international trade

Establish post offices and issue postage

Make laws necessary to enforce the Constitution

Exclusive Powers of State Governments

Powers reserved to state governments include:

Establish local governments

Issue licenses (driver, hunting, marriage, etc.)

Regulate intrastate (within the state) commerce

Conduct elections

Ratify amendments to the U.S. Constitution

Provide for public health and safety

Exercise powers neither delegated to the national government or prohibited from the states by the U.S.

Constitution (For example, setting legal drinking and smoking ages.)

Powers Shared by National and State Government

Shared, or "concurrent" powers include:

Setting up courts

Creating and collecting taxes

Building highways

Borrowing money

Making and enforcing laws

Chartering banks and corporations

Spending money for the betterment of the general welfare

Taking (condemning) private property with just compensation

Federal Rule Making Process

The Clean Air Act,The Food and Drug Act, The Civil Rights Act -- examples of landmark legislation requiring months, even years of highly publicized planning, debate, compromise and reconciliation in Congress. Yet the work of creating the vast and ever-growing volumes of "federal regulations," the real and enforceable laws behind the acts, happens largely unnoticed in the offices of the government agencies rather than the halls of Congress.

What are federal regulations? Where do they come from and under what oversight are they written, enacted and, at least once so far, de-enacted?

Regulatory Agencies: Agencies, like the FDA, EPA, OSHA and at least 50 others, are called "regulatory" agencies, because they are empowered to create and enforce rules - regulations - that carry the full force of a law. Individuals, businesses, and private and public organizations can be fined, sanctioned, forced to close, and even jailed for violating federal regulations. The oldest Federal regulatory agency still in existence is the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, established in 1863 to charter and regulate national banks. See: History of Regulatory Programs.

The Federal Rulemaking Process: is how federal regulations are created and it goes something like this:

First, Congress passes a law designed to address a social or economic need or problem. The appropriate regulatory agency then create regulations necessary to implement the law. For example, the Food and Drug Administration creates its regulations under the authority of the Food Drug and Cosmetics Act, the Controlled Substances Act and several other actscreated by Congress over the years. Acts such as these are known as "enabling legislation," because the literally enable the regulatory agencies to create the regulations required to administer enforce them.

The "Rules" of Rulemaking: Regulatory agencies create regulations according to rules and processes defined by another law known as the Administration Procedure Act APA).

The APA defines a "rule" or "regulation" as...

The whole or a part of an agency statement of general or particular applicability and future effect designed to implement, interpret, or prescribe law or policy or describing the organization, procedure, or practice requirements of an agency.

... and, the process of "rulemaking" is defined as:

Agency action which regulates the future conduct of either groups of persons or a single person; it is essentially legislative in nature, not only because it operates in the future but because it is primarily concerned with policy considerations.

Under the APA, the agencies must publish all proposed new regulations in the Federal Register at least 30 days before they take effect, and they must provide a way for interested parties to comment, offer amendments, or to object to the regulation.

Some regulations require only publication and an opportunity for comments to become effective. Others require publication and one or more formal public hearings. The enabling legislations states which process is to be used in creating the regulations. Regulations requiring hearings can take several months to become final.

New regulations or amendments to existing regulations are known as "proposed rules". Notices of public hearings or requests for comments on proposed rules are published in the Federal Register, on the Web sites of the regulatory agencies and in many newspapers and other publications. The notices will include information on how to submit comments, or participate in public hearings on the proposed rule.

In addition, the complete text of all proposed rules is published in the Federal Register and typically posted on the agencies' Web sites.

Once a regulation takes effect, it becomes a "final rule" and is printed in the Federal Register, the Code of Federal Regulations and usually posted on the Web site of the regulatory agency. For example, the Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA) lists all of the agencies' final rules on the OSHA Regulations & Compliance Links page of its Web site.

Legislative Branch

The Freedom Charters signified defining moments in American History: and part of the creation of government, was the foundation of a tri-functional democracy.




What Is Contained In The Legislative Branch

The legislative branch of the federal government consists of the Congress, which is divided into two chambers -- the Senate and the House of Representatives. Each member of Congress is elected by the people of his or her state. The House of Representatives, with membership based on state populations, has 435 seats, while the Senate, with two members from each state, has 100 seats. Members of the House of Representatives are elected for two-year terms, and Senators are elected for six-year terms.

Why do we have two chambers in Congress, the House and Senate? Since members of both are elected by, and represent the people, wouldn't the lawmaking process be more efficient if bills were considered by only one body?

While it may appear clumsy and often overly time-consuming, the two-chamber or "bicameral" setup of Congress works today exactly the way a majority of the Founding Fathers envisioned in 1787. Clearly expressed in the Constitution is the Founders' belief that power should be shared among all units of government. Dividing Congress into two chambers, with the positive vote of both required to approve legislation, is a natural extension of the Founders' concept of employing "checks and balances" to prevent tyranny. The Founding Fathers explain the formation of Congress to the people in the Federalist Papers.

Why are the House and Senate so Different?

Have you ever noticed that major bills are often debated and voted on by the House in a single day, while the Senate's deliberations on the same bill take weeks? Again, this reflects the Founding Fathers' intent that the House and Senate not be carbon-copies of each other. By designing differences into the House and Senate, the Founders assured that all legislation would be carefully considered, taking both the short and long-term effects into account.

Why are the Differences Important?

The Founders intended that the House be seen as more closely representing the will of the people than the Senate.

To this end, they provided that members of the House - U.S. Representatives - be elected by and represent limited groups of citizens living in small geographically defined districts within each state. Senators, on the other hand, are elected by and represent all voters of their state. When the House considers a bill, individual members tend to base their votes primarily on how the bill might impact the people of their local district, while Senators tend to consider how the bill would impact the nation as a whole. This is just as the Founders intended.

All members of the House are up for election every two years. In effect, they are always running for election. This insures that members will maintain close personal contact with their local constituents, thus remaining constantly aware of their opinions and needs, and better able to act as their advocates in Washington. Elected for six-year terms, Senators remain somewhat more insulated from the people, thus less likely to be tempted to vote according to the short-term passions of public opinion.

By setting the constitutionally-required minimum age for Senators at 30, as opposed to 25 for members of the House, the Founders hoped Senators would be more likely to consider the long-term effects of legislation and practice a more mature, thoughtful and deeply deliberative approach in their deliberations. Setting aside the validity of this "maturity" factor, the Senate undeniably does take longer to consider bills, often brings up points not considered by the House and just as often votes down bills passed easily by the House.

A famous (though perhaps fictional) simile often quoted to point out the differences between the House and Senate involves an argument between George Washington, who favored having two chambers of Congress and Thomas Jefferson, who believed a second chamber to be unnecessary. The story goes that the two Founders were arguing the issue while drinking coffee. Suddenly, Washington asked Jefferson, "Why did you pour that coffee into your saucer?" "To cool it," replied Jefferson. "Even so," said Washington, "we pour legislation into the senatorial saucer to cool it."

Senate Information:

The United States Senate is the upper house of the bicameral United States Congress, the lower house being the House of Representatives. The composition and powers of the Senate and the House are established in Article One of the Constitution (which does not use the terms "upper" and "lower"). Each U.S state is represented by two senators, rather than basing the number of senators on population. This ensures equal representation of each state in the Senate. Senators serve six-year terms that are staggered, so that every two years, a third of all Senate seats would be up for election. According to a theory long popular among scholars of United States government, the Senate is regarded as a more deliberative body than the House of Representatives because the Senate is smaller and its members serve longer terms, allowing for a more collegial and less partisan atmosphere that is somewhat more insulated from public opinion than the House. The Senate has several exclusive powers not granted to the House, including consenting to treaties as a precondition to their ratification and consenting or confirmation of appointments of Cabinet secretaries, federal judges, other federal government officials and military officers.

Due to the high volume and complexity of its work, the Senate divides its tasks among 20 committees, 68 subcommittees, and 4 joint committees. Although the Senate committee system is similar to that of the House of Representatives, it has its own guidelines, within which each committee adopts its own rules. This creates considerable variation among the panels. Informal congressional groups and organizations of Members with shared interests in specific issues or philosophies have been part of the American policymaking process since colonial times. Typically, these groups organize without official recognition by the chamber and are not funded through the appropriation process.In the Senate there is one officially recognized caucus -- the Senate Caucus on International Narcotics Control established by law in 1985.

House Of Representatives Information:

The United States House of Representatives is one of the two chambers of the United States Congress; the other is the Senate. Each state receives representation in the House proportional to its population but is entitled to at least one Representative; the most populous state, California, currently has 53 representatives. The total number of voting representatives is currently fixed at 435.[1] Each representative serves for a two-year term. The presiding officer of the House is the Speaker, and is elected by the members.

Because its members are generally elected from smaller (an average of 693,000 residents as of 2007) and more commonly homogenous districts than those from the Senate, the House is generally considered by some sources to be a more partisan chamber. The House was granted its own exclusive powers: the power to initiate revenue bills, impeach officials, and elect the President in electoral college deadlocks.

The House meets in the south wing of the United States Capitol.