Real Thought

You all decide.  I just got off the phone with my buddy Duane. He owns the Admiralty Dive Center in Charlotte Amalie, St, Thomas.  While I was thinking I might get laid off, I called him to see if I could come work for him for a while and get some sea time so that I could sit fir my Coast Guard License.  Well, he called today and I am thinking about going down to St. Thomas and working in the shop for him for room and board this summer for a couple of weeks.  I figure I can be a deck hand on one of his dive boats and help out in the shop too.  What do you all think?

In an earlier post, I stated that I believe that Presidential censure is unconstitutional. I believe that my point needs further explanation. The House and Senate are given the power to punish their own members in Article 1, section 5 of the Constitution. That punishment may include censure and, by two thirds majority, expulsion. According to Article 2, section 4, the President, Vice-president and all civil officers of the United States may be removed from office by impeachment for and conviction of treason, bribery and other high crimes and misdemeanors. There is no mention of Congressional power to censure the President or any other civil officer of the United States in the Constitution.
There is a mention of censure as a punishment of a civil official in Federalist #70, written by Alexander Hamilton under the pen name “Publius”. Many point to the following passage as “proof” of a power to censure the President:

“Responsibility is of two kinds to censure and to punishment. The first is the more important of the two, especially in an elective office. Man, in public trust, will much oftener act in such a manner as to render him unworthy of being any longer trusted, than in such a manner as to make him obnoxious to legal punishment.”

Now, this seems to indicate that Hamilton, at least, expected there to be some form of presidential censure, but I believe that this reading is mistakenly out of context. The next line reads, “But the multiplication of the Executive adds to the difficulty of detection in either case.” By adding this line it is clear that Hamilton, far from making a case for Presidential censure is instead making a case for a singular rather than plural executive. More importantly no power of presidential censure exists in the Constitution as adopted nor does it exist today.

Finally, there is only one instance of a sitting President being censured by the Senate and that was the 1834 censure of Andrew Jackson over the veto of the Second Bank of the United States. The censure was passed by a Senate in which the Whigs had an eight vote majority. After the election of 1836 the Democrats gained control of the Senate and had the censure of Jackson expunged by a majority vote in 1837. Obviously, this does not provide a clear precedent for presidential censure.

I believe that the only way for Congress to express its displeasure at the actions of a President and punishing him is by the process of impeachment or by passing bills which countermand the President’s behavior. Of course, Senators Feingold and Boxer might come to the same conclusion if they spent some time studying the Constitution instead of trying to score political points.

But what is all the uproar about the proposed immigration laws?  Over 500,000 marched in LA alone to protest stiffer penalties for illegal immigration?  What in the hell?  Some of the protesters said that the new laws would make illegal immigrants “criminals”.  Hey, Sparky, here is a reality check, illegal immigrants are criminals hence the word illegal.  What part of that don’t you understand?   Go ahead call me xenophobic or anti-immigration.  Well, idiot, I am the son of an immigrant so you can go take a long walk off a very short pier.  Of course my Mother came here legally.

One of the basic functions of any government is border security and naturalization.  It appears that years of non-enforcement of America’s immigration laws have bred the idea that people have a right to immigrate here.  Well, that is just plain wrong!  People only have a right to immigrate to America if they agree to obey our laws including not crossing the border illegally.  As far as I am concerned we don’t really need tougher immigration laws, we need to enforce the laws which are on the books.  And yes, if you come into my country in violation of its laws you are a criminal.  Get used to it.

Yep, once again I have a new tenant, the Ogre.  He focuses on the political scene in North and South Cackalaky and makes occasional forays into other areas.  He also shares my libertarian viewpoint.  Please go pay him a visit.  By the way, my Father was from the southernmost of the Carolinas and was born in Lancaster County.

At I talk too much. At first I received no smacks from Bitch Esq. She thought my blog was dry and boring. I guess it is if politics isn’t your thing. Then the reviewers discovered that I was married to one of their favorite people and I got some sympathy smacks just for being KentuckyGurl’s husband. Well, I was neither trashed nor loved so I’ll take it like a man and keep plugging away.

Go ahead, try! There are many out there, including some members of Congress who would like to begin impeachment proceedings against the President. It appears that their hackles are raised by the following beliefs: the Presidents lied to us about “weapons of mass destruction” in Iraq, there was “no connection” between Saddam’s regime and al Queda and that the use of warrantless serches is un-Constitutional and unnecessary.

OK, let me state the facts clearly and in small words so that even the most thickheaded idiot can understand. Iraq had “weapons of mass destruction”. Biological and chemical weapons were used in the Iran/Iraq War, against the Kurds in the north of Iraq and in the first Gulf War. Period. That is a fact. Furthermore, according to the book Saddam’s Secrets, former Iraqi general Georges Sada alleges that Iraq’s remaining chemical and biological weapons were smuggled into Syria just before the American invasion. So, let me restate the facts, Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. The President did not lie about it.

Iraq had no ties to terrorism and specifically al Queda. Really? You mean Saddam offering a $25,000 bounty to the families of suicide bombers is not a tie to terrorism? What about allowing terrorist training camps to be established and run in Iraq? What about giving Abu Abbas a safe haven? What about providing safe haven for Abu Nidal? What about documentary evidence which links Iraq’s ambassador to Pakistan and Al Queda? I believe that it is clear that Saddam’s regime had links to terrorism and al Queda, a fact which is completely ignored by most of the press and almost all liberals. For more evidence you can read this article.

Finally, there is the entire issue of warrantless searches. The President’s position is that Congress authorized them when it authorized him to use “all necessary and appropriate force” in combatting terrorism. Furthermore, Senate Joint Resolution 23 allows the use of force against “those nations, organizations or persons” which the President determines committed attacks, or harbored, aided, planned or authorized past, present or future attacks against the United States. Sounds like Congress pretty much gave the President a blank check to do what ever he wishes.

Of course, there are members of Congress who say that we really didn’t mean all of this when we voted for it. If that is the case, then I believe that they are either lying or idiots. I suspect the latter. Now, don’t get me wrong, I believe that warrantless searches are unconstitutional; that they are a direct violation of the Fourth Amendment but, if that is the case then every senator and representative who voted for the resolution should be impeached. If not for “high crimes and misdemeanors” then for terminal stupidity.

Back to the failing education system here in California. Just a couple of weeks ago I was in danger of receiving a lay off notice. My wife wrote about it on her blog. How could that happen? After all, I have been with the same school district for 19 years. I am a “highly qualified teacher” according to the provisions of “No Child Left Behind’ what ever that means. I suppose it means that I am highly qualified to teach in Texas. I served for a year as a temporary site administrator and for sixteen as a department chair. What in the hell is going on? Simple, two years ago my district went belly up and was taken over by the state. The state administrator was given four goals to achieve in our district; pay back the $60 million emergency loan, make the district financially solvent , raise student test scores and get the hell out as fast as possible.

How did this put my job in peril? In the state administrator’s infinite wisdom he has decided to eliminate History and Science classes at the middle school level for the lowest performing students in favor of three hours of “intensive ” English and two hours of “intensive” Mathematics instruction. Unfortunately for your’s truly, roughly 60% of the students in my district fail to qualify at a basic competency level on the state exams in those two subjects. That means only 40% of the students will have any History or Science instruction. Fewer students taking those classes, fewer jobs. Supposedly all of this is going to raise student scores.

How in the hell did we get to the point where 60% of the students are failing the state exams? Simple, at least thirty five years ago my school district adopted the “social promotion” model. For those of you who are unfamiliar with this model it is simply that in the elementary and middle school children are promoted because of their age, not because of their academic achievement. To put it another way, no student was ever retained for failing. All consequences for not doing any work or not learning were taken away. Fail miserably in 8th grade? That’s OK, we’ll promote you anyway so as not to hurt your self-esteem. I know that there is a direct correlation between “social promotion” and declining student performance but no matter, that is what we are going to do.

So what happened? Test scores tanked. Parents who gave a shit about their children’s education left the public schools in droves and I was left with classes of students who couldn’t read, write or think any better than Paris Hilton on a three day drunk. Currently, the majority of my students come from single parent homes, a large percentage are on public assistance and fewer than 25% of their parents have even attended junior college. All of these factors contribute to poor student performance. Throw in no consequence for poor performance and these kids are set up for failure. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see that.

What is the answer? Well, you could do what the state administrator is suggesting, but I believe that ultimately this too will fail. Why? Because it has already been implemented in the elementary schools and there has been no increase in performance; in fact, test scores have fallen even further. I have a better solution. Integrate Mathematics and Science. Make the Science instruction from Kindergarten on up mathematics based. Let the students solve real world problems using their math skills. Similarly, integrate English ans History. Make History classes literature and primary source based. Scrap the old comprehensive textbooks. Include at least three writing assignments with every unit. Allow the students to practice their reading and writing skills in history class.

Finally, end social promotion! It is an abject failure. Retain those children who do not master the state standards and set up summer remediation programs for them. Of course, what do I know? I only graduated from the school district where I teach and have been teaching for 19 years. Funny how no one asks the teachers what should be done.

Lately the Western world has been in a furor over the case of an Afghani man who was under threat of execution for converting from Islam to Christianity. In an article on the case of Abdul Rahman in the Houston Chronicle I found this rather telling quote:

“Another cleric, Ayatullah Asife Muhseni, told a gathering of preachers and intellectuals at a Kabul hotel that the Afghan president had no right to overturn the punishment of an apostate. He also demanded that clerics be able to question Rahman in jail to discover why he had converted to Christianity. He suggested it could have been the result of a conspiracy by Western nations or Jews.”

Now, I ask you, is this statement compatible with democracy? I think not. Rather it is compatible with a theocracy which Afghanistan remains even though the Afghani Constitution guarantees religious freedom. All is not lost though, according to a report in the Malaysian New Straits Times, Abdul Rahman may be released because he “may be psychologically unfit to stand trial.” I see, so now converting to Christianity is a mental illness in Afghanistan. How nice.

is mine and KentuckyGirl’s anniversary.  We have decided to go light on the presents this year and save our money for our vacation.  Generally we buy each other presents when we feel like it, not for any special occasion.  Anyone else do this?

OK, am I the only one here who has noticed that NOWHERE in the constitution is there a provision for censuring the President? Ever since the Korean War, Congress has been reluctant to use its powers to check the Executive branch and now we have this????? If Senators Feingold and Durban really feel that the President overstepped his Constitutional authority by ordering warrantless wiretaps then let them get their collegues in the House to impeach the President as called for in the Constitution. Quit pussy footing around and do what the Constitution calls for.

The fact is that the Congress has not done its duty when it comes to war since Korea. Congress has the sole power to declare war and if we are at war or need to go to war, it should do so. No more “authorizations of war power”. No more funding military actions which are not a declared war. Do your duty! That is what we elected you for! Furthermore, if the president has overstepped his authority, impeach him! Hold a bloody trial! Don’t muddy up things with a half hearted slap on the wrist. Just do what the Constitution authorizes you to do and move on.

How hard is that?