Update time, enjoy

So, I figured that it was time to update you guys on some posts I did in the past, and see how they have changed or altered our course. Some of these are just updates, others discuss how our posts were used, and some are just fun factoids.
Enjoy...



USG and their job: USG voted today to accept the semester switch. I am hoping that there is a legal way to stop it which will pop up soon (KADIM, where are you??). That said, my facebook group against it has grown by over 500 members since this morning. Keep in mind that it was at 10 for about 7 months and now is at 518 and growing. Join it

Change is Coming: As most of you have noticed, we now have 5 active posters, and one sitting there doing nothing. Additionally, I am working on migrating us to our own website, as I see more traffic and potentiality with that site.

Adsense: I have not updated the authors, too bad. Adsense has been doing well in this time, and made over $121 since the post. Thanks all.

Senators to Watch For: Currently, both Fisher and Bruner have declared a campaign. As has Mr. Portman. I know that 3/8 is not good, but there still are two years left

Ten Tech. Predictions: I made ten predictions that I believed would happen in 09. So far, I have been right on several:
Apple is loosing market share
Netbooks are taking off
Rockband/Guitar Hero released a join controller
More will come as the year goes on

My Tat: My tattoo has almost fully healed, and it is doing well. Pictures next time I find my camera

Whalertly sponsoring Weight Loss: Though Gwenn is at a plateau right now, she has been losing weight. I wish her the best of luck

A name for a sports post and Blue Jackets first post: Both of these got various attention and emails, which is good. I chose ABCs of Columbus Sports as the name, and had my first blue jackets post go live. Please check out the actual posts.



Read more ...

Sir Kennedy and the Constitution

Though it seems as though this post is asked for by Peter, I was actually thinking about it since I heard on CBS news yesterday about this issue. It seems as though the last Kennedy (well, of that generation, his congressmen kid doesn't count) is officially a member of an elite (yeah right) club. He joins other Americans like Gates, Giuliani, and Spielberg. Though he can never be called 'sir' (it is reserved for UK citizens), and never have a position in the House of Lords, but he is still a knight.



Article One, Section Nine of the US Constitution says:
”No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State.”

Let's take an in depth look at the actual clause, however. There are three parts that we should look at:
-Consent of Congress
-Title of Nobility
-Emolument, specifically concerned with the presidency

Consent of Congress
Now, Peter, along with many other Americans, would interpret this portion as saying that Kennedy can not be both a knight and a senator without consent of congress. As congress has yet to give consent, technically Kennedy is no longer a Senator. This is one of those weird little conditions in the Constitution that I do not believe the FFs ever intended to be an issue. We can assume that the founders intended the permission to be relatively fast, but not needed right away, so as long as they act soon he is in the clear.

Speaking of the consent, what happens if you do not give any? The wording of the portion is that anybody with a title from any other government is not allowed to hold the office. What if Saudi Arabia randomly decides to make me a prince? Even if I do not accept the title or the office, I am still a prince. Would that ban me from becoming a holder of public trust?


Title of Nobility
This is an even more interesting portion of the section. A Title of Nobility is not really defined in the Constitution, and we must look into the actual intent of the Founders in this section. The first question is if Knighthood is this title. I am unable to find specifically which Order Kennedy now belongs to, but various Knights of the UK are nobles, and others are not. I believe this is based on where the origination of the knights title is from (former kingdoms and rules based on their assimilation). I think that we should assume that he is one of the non-nobles, as only three non-UK citizens have ever been a noble one. With that in mind, this version is not a Title of Nobility, so he is clear.

Let's look at this even further, what did the Founding Fathers intend when they added the Title of Nobility claim? A title of Nobility was traditionally rarely given out to non-nobles, and only after they did a great service to their country/king. Usually it was more about being born within the right family, thus making you upper class. This system is no longer used. I believe that the FFs were concerned with hereditary rights in our government and never wanted it to be by birth (tell that to Adams and Bush), and thus included this to avoid that issue. With this in mind, as this is not herreditary, I think it is not part of the original intent
Now, if he had been named prince...


Emolument, specifically concerned with the presidency
This is just a little side note on this whole issue, as there is no financial or otherwise benefit from the type of Knighthood that Kennedy was given. Quite often our governmental officials, from Bush to Condi to Barbra get gifts from other countries and governments. These gifts can not technically be kept without permission by our leaders, and are usually given to the Smithsonian. However, Congress has a blanket rule that allows them to keep it 'til the end of their term so that we don't offend and basically to make it easier. I think that this is cool, as it ensures that our government can not be bought by another country.
I just really wish that this was from local organizations as well


Overall, I believe that Kennedy is in the clear here, though very loosely. He gets around Orig. Intent merely because the term Knight has changed, and thus it is not how the founders intended it. He also gets away with it because there is no actual position given behind the word anymore. However, simply to ensure that the Constitution is followed, I believe that Congress should pass a resolution (quick and probably all for) to allow him to have this title.
Read more ...

Senator Roland Burris is in Fact, a Senator

On Friday, CNN reported that the senate leadership has decided to not accept Roland Burris, the junior Senator from Illinois, to be admitted into their caucus, their body, or even on the floor of the Senate. This move, which has only been done by the House, is a rare move that it usually used only for the purposes of removing a person who will not remove themselves. It has never been used on a new comer, and it is Constitutionally dubious.

Nobody is questioning the fact that Burris is clearly a well qualified man for the job. He is the eldest black statesman from Illinois, served as the first black elected to two high-power positions, and basically laid the groundwork for Obama. He also has a granite carving of his qualifications, and it is quite impressive. Also, nobody is arguing that Blagojevich has the power to appoint Obama’s replacement. Really, the Senate is arguing that they have the right to make a power play over the states, and this is essentially a bad move.

While currently there is a state-wide court battle to confirm Burris as appointed (the SoS is refusing to do it, but the office will probably be ordered to by a court), the bigger battle is with the Senate. The Senate is arguing that they have the power to decide who is admissible into their membership. By using Article 1, section 5 of the Constitution the Senate is arguing:

“judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of its own members”.

Basically, the Senate is saying that they have the right to decide who becomes a member of the Senate, and who does not.

The Senate, as has been their fashion lately, is conveniently ignoring the fact that the Constitution then spells out what the qualifications are in Section 3 of Article 1:

“No person shall be senator who shall not have attained to the age of 30 years, and been nine years a citizen of the United States.”

Basically, the Senate can enforce these conditions, but if the person meets them, and they were put in legally, as Burris was, then they must be allowed to be in the Senate.

The Senate, of course, disagrees with the Constitution.

The Supreme Court, who, on the other hand like the Constitution, has held that the qualifications are not up to the Senate to decide. In ruling against the House the court said that:

“The House is without power to exclude any member-elect who meets the Constitution's requirements for membership”

Basically, if they meet the requirements (age, residency, etc.) then they have the right and power to be seated in the House. This ruling should also apply to the Senate.

Basically, the Senate is ignoring the Constitution and precedent simply to make a political point.

Now, let’s take this a step further, let’s talk about the fact that this is an attack on state’s rights. While I support state’s rights somewhat, depending on the situation, I see this as a major attack on the power of each state in picking their own leaders. Sure, this is a very iffy nomination, and arguably, it shouldn’t be happening, but that is irrelevant. The Senate is blocking a legally selected appointee from their position! This should be freaking people out, I mean, the Senate could, in the future, BLOCK AND ELECTED PERSON, simply because they disagree with who the person is. No citizen of the US should support this move, as it greatly harms the states.

Lets take this even further, what if the Senate decided that it wanted to punish Ohio? Well, they could remove Voinovich and Brown, or just not let them talk. What if Brown proposed a measure that they didn’t like, but that would help Ohio out, well, they could fire him. Think about it, the body that was created to represent the states will be able to override them, simply because they disagree.

Basically, I think that the Senate should seat Burris as he is the legal appointee to the seat left vacant by Obama. Plus, if they do not at least let him vote (via phone) as the Junior Senator from Illinois, then I think the state should sue.

As a side not, I think that Blago himself should show up to the Senate. Forum rules provide him the right to walk around and address (not formally) the body. Seriously, this would be hilarious and kickass.

Read more ...