I have not read any other entries other than this one as I was asked about it from a friend.

You are correct in your understanding of the original concept in that votes were cast for President only, and the runner-up was Vice President. This meant that political opponents could and did occupy the executive offices at the same time starting with Adams/Jefferson. The election process at that time was not set up for political parties, and actually was set in this manner to discourage them. George Washington saw the burden of parties on the political process and actively warned against party politics. However, the idea of parties became the norm and in the election of 1800 (I suggest you study this important event for a variety of reasons)proved that the way America chose a President needed revamped.

Enter Amendment Twelve.

There are a couple of points that you have missed and I will attempt to help your readers understand the meaning of the Amendment.

FIRST POINT, and most important, we do not vote for a President of Vice President.

Rather “Each State shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress…” (Article II, Section 2)

POINT TWO, because the above portion of the Article is still relevant, Presidential elections are a state function. Each state makes the rules of who can be an elector and how they are chosen. In most states, we vote for electors during the primary, other states allow electors to be chosen by a party convention or cacus.

Point Three, after the primaries, parties hold conventions to endorce a particular Presidential and Vice Presidential candidate. This is a formality that is not binding because it is a party function. As such, the parties have to let the election authorities in each state know who will officially be place on the ballot for the respective parties. Again, because elections are a state function, the rules are different on how and when this must be done. It is concievable that a state may allow more than one candidate from a party on a ballot – but I don’t know of any that do.

Now let’s put this all together:

On a Tuesday in November, Americans go to the polls and cast votes for several offices, one of which is for a Presidential slate (Pres. and Vice. for a particular party), which is really non-binding as we will see. Then on Tuesday evening, sometimes into Wedesday morning, we watch the national election returns. News casters show a map of the U.S. and assign a color to each state, red or blue depending on the popular vote of the state, while at the same time adding up the electorial votes gained by each Presidential slate. We all wake up the next morning to read the news headlines of who the next President is.

Here’s the catch: the President has not been elected yet.

Article II, Section 3: “The Congress may determine [...] the day on which they shall give their votes; which day shall be the same throughout the United States.”

Remember that electors were chosen during the primary. The law states that the winning party in each state send their electors to the specified meeting place in their state. Federal statute also mandates that they meet at the same time, which is the first Monday following the first Wednesday in December.

So, now we have electors meeting in December across the states, who then cast their votes for President and Vice President, which must be certified by the Governor, and then “transmit sealed to the seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate; the President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted” (Amend. 12)
Then, and only then, do we have a duly elected President and Vice president. However, the electors DO NOT have to cast their votes how the states voted (although several states have passed laws mandating the electors vote in accordance with the state popular vote). Running mates are nothing more than “gentlemans agreements” within a party, so they too are not set in stone until the votes are counted in the Senate.

So all this explaination to answer your question about when we vote for a Vice President – Answer: during the most important elction, when we choose electors, the primary. This is the only election where, in party politics, Americans are given a choice.

Most people know that the 4th of July is America’s birthday.  In 1776, America declared its independence from England and set off on
its own course.  However, until recently, few knew that September 17th is America’s anniversary.   You see, after the War for Independence
was over, the Articles of Confederation were created as America’s first Constitution.  But problems soon arose with the Articles.  So in
May of 1787, 55 men assembled in Philadelphia, at the same place where they put their sacred honor on the line by signing the Declaration
of Independence, to fix the Articles of Confederation.

For the four hottest months of the year, May to September, in a time when clothes were hot and air conditioning did not exist, the
Founding Fathers proposed, debated, re-proposed, and re-debated, until finally, they created Our Constitution.  This new Constitution
was a revolutionary idea, as much a revolutionary idea as separating from England.  The Constitution was revolutionary because it
created a new form of government the likes of which the world had never seen.  This new Constitution mandated self governance.  It
created a government of the People, by the People, and for the People.  The men assembled at Independence Hall knew that all the
power must reside within the People for them to remain Free.  The Founders knew that Rights start with the People and end with the People, and the Constitution restricted the government from treading on those Rights.

However, as I mentioned earlier, the Founding Fathers expected an engaged populace for this new system to work.  While many of us complain that this Right or that Right is being eroded, the Founders would remind us that with every Right also comes a Responsibility.

Let us take a moment to look at some Rights and Responsibilities.  Since we are in front of this courthouse, it seems fitting to discuss some of the Rights that are exercised here everyday.

Who likes the idea that the police cannot come busting into your house, but must first obtain a warrant?

Who likes the idea of knowing why you are being arrested?

Who likes the idea of being able to face your accuser in court?

Who likes the idea of not being tortured while in jail?

All of these examples are within the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, and Eight Amendments.

What is Our Responsibility that protects these Rights?  Jury Duty.  But how many of us actively try to get out of serving on a jury?  Every Right has a Responsibility a Responsibility that goes with it.

Friends, my time here is running short.  There are more speakers to come, so I must wrap up.

There are people here today that are here to support the political candidates and other speakers.  There are people that are here to raise awareness for one cause or another.  There are people here just to see why all the other people are here.

I am here to celebrate the 222nd anniversary of the gift handed to us by the Founding Fathers, the Constitution.  No other Constitution in the world has lasted as long.  I would like to close with the same words that Benjamin Franklin spoke at the closing of the Constitutional Convention:

“[Mr. Chairman], I agree to this Constitution with all its faults, if they are such; because I think a general Government necessary for us, and
there is no form of Government but what may be a blessing to the people if well administered, and believe farther that this [Constitution] is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in Despotism, … when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic Government, being incapable of any other.”

If you agree with what I’ve said and like to know more about the Constitution, you can find me at www.centeronfreedom.org and I will be around
for a while too.  Thank you for listening.

I wonder if anyone else noticed the similarities?

H.J. Res. 5:

111th CONGRESSCommentsClose CommentsPermalink

1st SessionCommentsClose CommentsPermalink

H. J. RES. 5CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVESCommentsClose CommentsPermalink

January 6, 2009CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

Mr. SERRANO introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the JudiciaryCommentsClose CommentsPermalink

JOINT RESOLUTIONCommentsClose CommentsPermalink

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the twenty-second article of amendment, thereby removing the limitation on the number of terms an individual may serve as President.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification:CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

‘Article–

‘The twenty-second article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.’.

I think there may be enough votes to pass through Congress, however I’m skeptical that 3/4 of the states would ratify this Amendment.  Similiar attempts have failed in the past.

I was reading a post at The Peoria Chronicle regarding the proposed museum and its projected attendance.  The attendance numbers are at question (at least to some in the community) and therefore whether the museum can cover its operating costs.  Already the museum is not meeting its fund raising goals and has had to ask the public to help foot the bill through a county sales tax increase.  The Peoria County Board has voted to place a referendum on the ballot asking the residents of Peoria County whether or not they agree with the tax increase in order to help build the museum.

The purpose for this post is because I take issue with one of the anonymous posters’ comment.  The comment in question:

“As a constituent of his, I was embarrassed and fustrated at [Merle Widmer's] County Board vote to disallow the citizens of Peoria County the opportunity to vote on a tax referendum. From my perspective, that’s one of the founding principles of liberty which defines this county, that the people get the opportunity to vote, and that right is not to be trampled on by arrogant and pompous elected officials who feel their opinions are sufficient to bypass the rights of the citizens.”

I will dissect this comment in parts, and explain why I take issue with it.

#1) As a constituent of his, I was embarrassed and fustrated at [Merle Widmer's] County Board vote

-This is part of a representative form of government and sometimes we will be unsatisfied with the way a representative cast a vote.  As a constituent, one needs to be informed about issues and then let your representative know where you stand and why.

#2) to disallow the citizens of Peoria County the opportunity to vote on a tax referendum.

-Again, it is a citizens’ duty to inform their representative how they feel on an issue.  However, referendum are inherently unfair.  They are written to be unclear, or worded in favor of those who worked to get it on the ballot.

#3) From my perspective, that’s one of the founding principles of liberty which defines this count[r]y,

-Referendum are NOT a founding principle, rather just the opposite.  America was founded as a Republic with a representative form of government, and not a Democracy with majority rule. (more on this later)

#4) that the people get the opportunity to vote, and that right is not to be trampled on

-There are several Constitutional provisions that provide for the protection of the peoples right to vote.  American adults cannot be disallowed to vote because race, gender, and a whole hosts of other reasons.  Here in Illinois, one can vote every year, including primaries.

#5) by arrogant and pompous elected officials who feel their opinions are sufficient to bypass the rights of the citizens.

-See #1.  It is very important for voters to educated themelves on candidates before they become elected.  Any and all elected officials that bypass the rights of the citizenry should be held accountable either through removal from office or at the next election.

In Summary:

At the end of the Constitutional Convention, Benjamin Franklin was asked about the form of governemnt that had just been created, to which he replied “a Republic, if you can keep it”.  A Republic is a representative form of government wherein the minority opinion must at least be considered.  A Democracy is majority rule, without regard to the voice of the minority, or mob rule if you like.  Franklin is also sometimes credited with describing a Democracy as “three wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for dinner”.  America was founded as a Republic and ought to stay that way.

To the anoymous commenter and all others I say, first learn and understand the founding principles, then become an educated voter regarding issues and candidates before elections, and finally hold your elected officials accountable for their votes and actions while serving in office.

It is not a stretch to say that the current economic situation can be tied to the bursting of the real estate bubble.  Democrats and Republicans are pointing their fingers at one another, while accepting no blame themselves.  The truth is both sides of the political aisle are to blame.  The roots of the problem go back quite aways.

Some History:

-In the 1930’s, as a result of the 1929 stock market crash, several federal programs were established to guarantee mortgages, both the lender and borrower, and provide subsidized housing.  Created at this time was the Federal Housing Administration (FHA), the United States Housing Authority (precursor to HUD), and the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie May).

-In the 1940’s following WWII, more federal programs were adopted or enhanced to help war veterans find housing.

-In the 1950’s, urban redevelopment programs were adopted at the federal level to clean up slums and blight.

-In the 1960’s, the Housing and Urban Development (HUD) agency came into existence.  It took over the role of earlier agency, while at the same time was given a broader direction.  A few of HUD’s purposes now included assisting minorities and moderate income households in achiving home ownership and greater range in subsidized housing programs.

-In the 1970’s, the Community Reinvestment Act was established to require banks to lend to low income households.

-In the 1990’s, federal programs were put into place giving grants to those who otherwise could not afford home ownership.

-In the early 2000’s, regulations were further relaxed by FHA and Fannie May so everyone could prusue the “American Dream” of home ownership.

Other things also affected the real estate market during these times too, such as intrest rate manupulation by the FED and other easing of banking standards.  As you can see there was much fidling in the real estate market by both Democrats and Republican administrations.  Congress is also to blame.  Most of the acts listed above had to go through both cambers before the Presidents could sign them into law.

Is the Free Market and Capitalism to blame?  A generalized definition of both Free Market (economic system) and Capitalism (social system) is a system in which there is no unneccesary government intervention.  This, then leads to the question what is unneccesary intervention?  It is easier to answer in reverse, in other words when is intervention neccesary in either system?

1) To prevent force

2) To prevent fraud

3) To prevent monopolies

4) To uphold agreed upon moral standards

That’s it!  Those are the four principles that were designed to guide both our social and economic systems.  With few exceptions from the earlier list of regualtions, each was an unneccesary intervention.  In actuallity, as I see it, every federal act led to the breaking of each of the four principles.  While I believe that each of the interventions had good intentions, the unintended consiquences have led to the need of further intervention, perpetuating the problem to the brink of disaster.  Now the programs that were put into place to help people have homes are leading people to lose those homes.

As I read back through the regulations and the list of principles, I can only find one isnstance that was neccesary.  Part of HUD’s existance is because of the discrimination that was happening against black people by lending institutions = upholding moral standards.

The Free Market and Capitalism are not the cause of the economic problems facing America today.  Perhaps it is time to try these sytems for a change.

“I… do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the Unit  States…; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same…”

They both have already broken this sacred oath as they cosponsored H.B. 899 (the text of the bill has not yet been received at the Library of Congress).  The gist of the bill, as reported by the local media outlets and the Peoria Journal Star, would force states to hold special elections in the event that a Senate seat is vacated.  This is in response to former Illinois Governor Rod Blogojevich’s alleged attempt to sell now President Obama’s Senate seat to the highest bidder.

This bill flies in the face of our Constitution.

From the Seventeenth Amendment:

“When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.”

In other words, the Constitution specifically mandates that governors call for special elections in the event of a Senate vacancy, unless a state grants their governor the ability to appoint.  Governors appointing Congressional vacancies (either house) is a tradition that goes back prior to the ratification of the Seventeenth Amendment to Article I, Sec. 3, where governors could make appointments to fill vacancies if their state legislatures were not in session.  If an appointment had been made, the state legislature would then confirm the appointment or call for a special election (the appointment stood until after the special election).

It appears that the Illinois Congressmen either don’t know and understand the Constitution or have no respect for it.  Or perhaps a little of both.  Again H.B. 899 would force states to hold costly special elections.  As reported in the Journal Star “The Ethical and Legal Elections for Congressional Transitions (ELECT) Act also would provide a 50-50 cost-share between the states and federal governments to pay for the special election.”  In other words, taxpayers from a state holding a special election would be responsible for one half the cost of the election, while every other American taxpayer would be responsible for the other half.  Apparently Shimkus and Schock believe they understand the financial status and responsibilities  of all fifty states along with the wishes of all the voters in every state to make this bold move.  Even though all but sixteen states have given the power to appoint to their governor.  There are sixteen states that have provisions for special elections, but only five of those states make special elections mandatory.  Shimkus and Schock must also believe that every other state is as politically messed up as Illinois and the only thing that can be done it to usurp the Constitution and the sovereign rights of every state.

H.B. 899 may be well intended, ie. to keep another Blagojevich situation from happening.  Blagojevich’s alleged selling of a Senate seat was the catalyst that led to his impeachment.  However, he was impeached for things he did during his first term, four to five years earlier.  If the Illinois General Assembly had been doing their job back then, there would be not Senate seat selling controversy.  Here’s the kicker: U.S. Rep. Schock was Il State Rep. Schock during most of that time.  Had Arron Schock and the rest of the Illinois House understood the importance of their duty as a check and balance against a rouge governor, as well as the check and balance of the governor to Congress, Illinois would not be the scourge of the country.

It is essential that those who would serve in public office fully understand their duties and responsibilities before they seek election.  More importantly though, it is the duty and responsibility of every American to know the same.  Only then can we truly expect more from those whom we chose to govern us.

Please Contact the Representatives and ask them to remove their names from H.B. 899:

Arron Schock 18th District (IL)

Phone: (202) 225-6201

509 Cannon HOB

Washington, DC 2051

or email using the form here

John Shimkus 19th District (IL)

Phone: (202) 225-5271

2452 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

or email using the form here

So here we are, an alleged crook for a Governor who still holding the power to appoint Obama’s Senate replacement. The Attorney General went to the Illinois State Supreme Court to try to get Blagojevich found unfit to hold office, to no avail. The Illinois House of Representatives has formed a committee to potentially start the impeachment process, yet Blagojevich may have plenty of time to make the appointment before the full General Assembly finishes the process.

There is also a movement on several fronts to hold a special election so the people can vote for Obama’s replacement. Illinois Republicans and Civil Liberty groups are behind this movement, though I’m sure there are others who also think this idea prudent. This is where this post is going to center.

A Special Election to for the Purpose to Fulfill a Vacated Senate Seat is ILLEGAL!

U. S. Constitution, Amendment XVII(in part):

…When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.

From www.Senate.gov:

“Appointment of Interim Senators. Prevailing practice is for state governors to fill Senate vacancies by appointment, with the appointee serving until a special election has been held, at which time the appointment expires immediately. In the event a seat becomes vacant between the time of a general election and the expiration of the term, however, the appointee usually serves the balance of the term, until the next regularly scheduled general election. This practice originated with the constitutional provision that applied prior to the popular election of senators, under which governors were directed to

make temporary appointments when state legislatures were in recess. It was intended to ensure continuity in a state’s Senate representation during the lengthy intervals between state legislative sessions.

The governor’s direct authority to make interim appointments is specified in the various state laws. Oregon and Wisconsin do not allow the governor to make interim appointments, requiring, instead, a special election to fill any Senate vacancy. The State of Oklahoma also requires that Senate vacancies be filled by special elections, with an exception. If the vacancy occurs after March 1 of any even-numbered year and the term expires the following year, no special election is held; rather, the governor is required to appoint the candidate elected in the regular general election to fill the unexpired term. At least five states restrict the governor’s power to appoint interim Senators. Alaska, Arizona, and Hawaii require the governor to fill Senate vacancies with a person affiliated with the same political party as the previous incumbent. Utah and Wyoming require the governor to select an interim senator from a list of three candidates proposed by the state central committee of the political party with which the previous incumbent was affiliated.

Many states limit the term of office for interim senators to the date set for the special election. In these cases, the term of the interim senator expires immediately upon the election of the popularly chosen successor, who serves the balance of the Senate term, whether it is a few weeks or several years. Moreover, when an interim appointment is made late in the term, it is often customary for the interim senator to resign his or her seat immediately after the election, and for the governor to appoint the special election winner to serve the balance of the term. It is also customary, for the purposes of determining seniority, for the newly elected replacement senator to be sworn in as soon as possible.”

Illinois is not one of these states!

Unless Blagojevich is impeached, or found unfit (the Court refused to hear Madigan’s case) he will indeed get to appoint Illinois’ interim Senator. However, if he is removed from office, Lt. Governor Pat Quinn will have the honor.

Illinois Constitution, Article V. SECTION 6. GUBERNATORIAL SUCCESSION(in part):

(a) In the event of a vacancy, the order of succession to the office of Governor or to the position of Acting Governor shall be the Lieutenant Governor, the elected Attorney General, the elected Secretary of State, and then as provided by law.

(b) If the Governor is unable to serve because of death,conviction on impeachment, failure to qualify, resignation or other disability, the office of Governor shall be filled by the officer next in line of succession for the remainder of the term or until the disability is removed.

There is nothing about holding special elections, there is nothing about not trusting the successor (except that the state legislature can impeach any and all in the executive branch). There are several elected officials in Illinois, from elected city officials to elected Federal officials, that clearly do not understand either the U.S. Constitution nor the Constitution of the State of Illinois. That, or they do not care. Even though each and every on of them swear an oath to uphold and protect the Constitutions. These are the very reasons why it is important to understand and know the law and those whom you would vote to uphold it.

So let us examine the predictions:
1)Citi will fail or receive a bailout before November 29.
- Today November 24, the federal government an agreement to give Citi $20 bn
2)WaMu will fail or receive a bailout before September 2.
-WaMu was seized September 25 by the federal government and sold to J. P. Morgan Chase (I was 2 weeks too early)
3)90 banks will fail in the next 12 months
-according to http://ml-implode.com/ over 300 lending institutions have failed, not counting Citi
While I am not proud that these particular predictions have come true, I do feel that I have been vindicated in my understanding of the financial crisis. Also see my post Bank Local – No Crisis Here
to see that locally owned banks are still the best place to keep your money.