Barry K Moritz

The Congress of the United States of America has proven many times over that it is incapable of running the affairs of this nation as laid out by its Constitution.

You think this is hyperbole? The following four examples may be old news, but they are perfect reasons why you would be wrong to think that the premise is invalid:

1. The Constitution of the United States specifically precludes a voting representative from the District of Columbia in the House of Delegates. That didn’t stop the House from drafting a bill that created two new seats: one for Utah (presumably Republican) and one for the District of Columbia (most decidedly Democratic).
2. Article 1, Paragraph 3 of Section 9 of the Constitution (Powers forbidden to Congress) SPECIFICALLY forbids the passing of any “bill of attainder” or “ex post facto law.”   Article 1, Section 10 Paragraph 1 forbids the states similarly, making it patently clear that no government at the federal or state level is allowed to pass either a bill of attainder or an ex post facto law.   Yet, On March 19, 2009, the Senate passed a bill which specifically violated both prohibitions. First it addressed bonuses paid to AIG employees BEFORE March 19, 2009. That would make the law retroactive and prohibited under the ex post facto law. Secondly, it specifically punishes companies by assessing huge tax increases on bonuses over a specified amount paid by companies who have received “TARP” funds. Punishment without a trial is the definition of a ‘bill of attainder.’
3. Congress passed a $700+ BILLION dollar “Stimulus Bill” without reading its content. Even worse than that, the bill was ENTIRELY written by Nancy Pelosi and her minions in the Democratic Party without incorporating a single word from the Republican members of the House or Senate. Among the other things those Democrats made into law was a paragraph, explicitly introduced by Senator Chris Dodd, that SPECIFICALLY made AIG’s payment of its bonuses legal! Congress showed yet again that it was illogical, irresponsible, and illegal, not to mention clinically ‘insane’ on March 19^th. Speaking of March madnes!
4. Congress spent untold hundreds or thousands of person hours addressing the AIG bonus which amounted to about $160 Million. By the time the bill passes through the House and the Courts, the Congress will probably spend more for its idiotic knee-jerk behavior than they would collect by any increased revenues from the new taxes (should they somehow prove Constitutional despite the obvious climate in which the bill was created). Maybe even more than the total amount of bonuses paid. And would somebody please explain why more than $3 BILLION in bonuses paid to executives in Merrill Lynch just before they were purchased by Bank of America receive no similar attention? The money is more than an order of magnitude larger than that in the AIG debacle, and the terms of the Senate bill ignore it. Yet the Bank of America is one of the LARGEST RECEIVERS of TARP money. And why has nobody questioned why the Bank of America paid an approximately 40% PREMIUM for the purchase of Merrill Lynch over its market-priced value? Speaking of a funnel down which Congress allowed taxpayer’s money to drain….

OUR QUOTE FOR THE DAY
From: Senator Patrick Leahy, D-Vt
As reported by: Douglass K. Daniel of the Associated Press

“Having only one woman on the Supreme Court does not reflect the makeup of the United States. I think we should have more women.”

Comment:

I certainly have absolutely no qualms whatsoever about placing a woman on the Supreme Court – IF, indeed, the woman is the most highly qualified, intelligent, and bias-free jurist for the office. As such may, indeed, be the case, I really shouldn’t have to say anything more. However, with today’s ‘PC’ thinking so prevalent in Congress, I think it important to note that the high court deals with Constitutional law – not family law or even criminal law. Is there some unique advantage, some insightful perspective in dealing with constitutional issues that only a woman might have? If that is the case, then a prospective appointee’s sex might be relevant. Otherwise, it should not be – as implicitly recognized by the passage of the nineteenth Amendment to the Constitution. We need the best legal minds on the highest bench – no matter the sex of the body in which the mind exists.

Senator Leahy is obviously among those who believe the Court’s makeup should reflect that of the nation’s citizens. Even if sex hadn’t been an issue when the Constitution was written, the makeup of the court NEVER reflected that of the people. Most people back then had no training in law, and many were actually illiterate. The court is not a jury chosen to ensure that the accused be judged by his or her peers. Therefore Senator Leahy is pandering to women for votes, not attending to the needs of our nation.   He is therefore very high on my list of those who must not be returned to office.