Argument for a Constitutional Amendment for Term Limits

I've been surprised at the lack of interest for Congressional Term Limits so I thought I'd offer some thoughts as to why we need term limits.

The argument I've heard most often against term limits for Congress is that there are some good congressmen and women that we would lose if term limits were imposed. Well yeah, but there are a lot more bad ones that we would get rid of in the process. For every good politician you can name, someone else can easily name three or four corrupt ones. Besides, history should tell you that even the goods ones that stay long enough most often forget from whence they come.

Also, in my post laying out what a Constitutional Amendment on term limits might include, an elected representative could remain in office for 24 years if re-elected to the Senate for two terms and then to the House for six terms. That sure seems like a sufficient political career to me. And, if they are good enough they might get elected to President for two more terms totalling eight years. I think that is a recipe for keeping the best, and losing the rest.

By allowing someone to serve in both Houses, but limiting terms in each we should be able to significantly reduce the power accumulated by any one person or group of persons. The way the Senate and House leaders have recently pushed through bills on government health care should be reason enough to implement term limits to limit that kind of abuse of power.

Others might argue that it will take too long to pass a Constitutional Amendment, and I agree; but that is the process we have available to us, and this is too important to cast it aside because it's too hard. Anything worth having is worth working for, and our Freedom is worth whatever it takes to keep powerful, corrupt politicians from taking it away from us, our children, and our grandchildren.

Your thoughts would be much appreciated.

Energy 105, Thoughts on Wind Power

Wind power, like solar, is touted as the solution to the world's energy crisis (in itself a lie used by the Progressives to enslave the world's masses). As with solar power, and other green energies, wind power has been slow to catch on because without massive government subsidies wind power cannot compete on the economic level with fossil and nuclear power.

But, there are other problems with the use of wind power as a replacement for conventional power. These include:

• Like solar power, wind is unreliable. The wind does not blow equally or consistently throughout the world. Wind sometimes blows, and sometimes doesn't. When it doesn't blow electricity is not produced; the fall back is always alternatives that are reliable - fossil or nuclear power. So neither wind, solar, or any other renewable source of energy can or will completely replace fossil and nuclear power in the near future (~50 years to 100 years). Common sense tells us that these alternatives are pipe dreams designed to slow down or stop progress.
• Wind power is also not acceptable to the elites, like Senator John Kerry and former Senator Ted Kennedy who only support wind turbines NIMBY (not in my backyard). In fact, almost everyone who is in favor of wind turbines are in favor only if they are located where they can't see them; even the most ardent environmentalist or socialist are only okay with wind turbines if they can't see them.
• Just as with solar power, no one really knows what impacts wind turbines (or massive solar farms) have on the environment and weather patterns. It is known that wind turbines kill birds (reference http://www.moorsydeactiongroup.org.uk/birds.html), sometimes in massive numbers. But how might wind turbines affect weather patterns? No one knows, but we do know that wind is created by heating and cooling of the sun. We also know that the Law of Conservation of Energy "energy cannot be created or destroyed." (reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy) So solar energy is converted (partially) to wind energy which through the wind turbine is converted to electrical energy. That means energy is "extracted" from the wind to create electricity. Since, "energy is not created or destroyed" and energy is taken out of the wind by the wind turbine, the wind energy (or speed) will be reduced by the energy removed by the turbine. Might that lower wind energy affect low-pressure and high-pressure winds that also affect where rain is deposited? Since weather is such a chaotic system, the construction of massive wind farms is completely unknown. Many will argue one way, and many will argue the other, but the fact remains that the impact of wind, or solar energy generation is unknown and will certainly have unknown consequences.

The point is, the movement to so-called green or renewable energies is not as simple as the proponents want you to believe. Their agenda is not about what they want you to believe. If they were concerned about the environment, they would want to thoroughly study the potential impacts on the environment (plants, animals and meteorological). But, they don't because that is not their concern.

Constitutional Amendment for Congressional Term Limits

Given the recent events in Congress to pass a health care bill in the House of Representatives and the Senate, it is clear that Congress no longer represents the majority of "The People" so The People now must take their country back. The People can take back the country in a variety of peaceful ways. Some of these include:

• Kicking them out in an election; however, only half of them are up for re-election in the Senate, while all of the seats are up for grabs in the House. Not only that, we have to wait until 2010 for the election.
• Laws passed by Congress can be challenged in the courts to determine Constutionality. The problem with that is whose going to file the law suit? Whose going to pay for it? Any challenge would be only for the legislation challenged, so there would have to be multiple lawsuits for each piece of legislation. And with politics infused in the Supreme Court, the outcome(s) are uncertain. Law suits maybe the only immediate alternative to health care legislation should it pass, and for other laws and regulations such as EPA's proposed "Greenhouse Gas" blackmail.
• The only long-term solution as I see it is to amend the US Constitution to prevent any Congress EVER trying something like this again.

So, just how is the US Constitution Amended?

There are essentially two ways spelled out in the Constitution for how to propose an amendment. One has never been used. Reference: http://www.usconstitution.net/constam.html">>>

"The first method is for a bill to pass both houses of the legislature, by a two-thirds majority in each. Once the bill has passed both houses, it goes on to the states. This is the route taken by all current amendments. Because of some long outstanding amendments, such as the 27th, Congress will normally put a time limit (typically seven years) for the bill to be approved as an amendment (for example, see the 21st and 22nd)." Although this method is the only one that has been used to amend the Constitution, it seems unlikely that we could get both houses to craft a bill limiting their terms, much less pass each house by two-thirds majority.

"The second method prescribed is for a Constitutional Convention to be called by two-thirds of the legislatures of the States, and for that Convention to propose one or more amendments. These amendments are then sent to the states to be approved by three-fourths of the legislatures or conventions. This route has never been taken, and there is discussion in political science circles about just how such a convention would be convened, and what kind of changes it would bring about." This method never having been tried will require some smart people to figure out how to get this done, but I believe is the only way to be successful in passing term limits.

"Regardless of which of the two proposal routes is taken, the amendment must be ratified, or approved, by three-fourths of states. There are two ways to do this, too. The text of the amendment may specify whether the bill must be passed by the state legislatures or by a state convention. See the Ratification Convention Page for a discussion of the make up of a convention. Amendments are sent to the legislatures of the states by default. Only one amendment, the 21st, specified a convention. In any case, passage by the legislature or convention is by simple majority."

"The Constitution, then, spells out four paths for an amendment:

•Proposal by convention of states, ratification by state conventions (never used)
•Proposal by convention of states, ratification by state legislatures (never used)
•Proposal by Congress, ratification by state conventions (used once)
•Proposal by Congress, ratification by state legislatures (used all other times)"

It will take years to amend the Constitution, but amend we must. Congress is completely out-of-control; both Parties, Democrats and Republicans. This country was founded by people who were afraid of "big government" and who had personal experience with out-of-control government. They tried very hard to design a system where "The People" would be protected from big government. The Progressives (a misnomer designed to lull the less astute into believing they are what they are not) have been nibbling away at the Constitution for over 80 years. They have been and are being successful while the majority has been asleep at the wheel. It's time to wake up America!

I propose starting by soliciting ideas for the "Congressional Amendment." The following is a straw man:

1. Congressional terms are limited to Six two-year terms (12 years total) for the House of Representatives, and Two six-year terms (12 years total) for the Senate.
2. Upon completing the maximum number of terms set by this amendment, House and Senate members may run for election in either house in which they have not previously served for the term prescribed for that house.
3. House and Senate members may run for the Office of President at any time for the term prescribed by the 22nd Amendment, two four-year terms.
4. Former or present Congressional members may serve in any position in the Executive Branch for which they are confirmed by the Senate.
5. Former Congressional members are prohibited from being lobbyist at any time
6. Any active member of Congress from any state can be recalled in a national election by all eligible voters nationwide. Any member recalled forfeits all congressional retirement and benefits.
7. End gerrymandering throughout the United States by which electoral district or constituency boundaries (reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering)
8. All congressional pay increases and benefits must be approved by the electorate every two years. Congress shall not enact any law that circumvents this requiretment.
9. Congress shall not enact any law that does not apply to the Congress and the President, and their staffs. All such laws enacted in the past are null and void.
   
   "Government is not reason, it is not eloquence — it is force! Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action" - George Washington
   

Energy 104-O'Reilly on Nuclear Power

O'Reilly said on his show, Tuesday, December 8, 2009 that "we [USA] have not advanced nuclear power in this country."


I'm not sure if he meant "politically" or "technically" or something else.

Politically O'Reilly is correct. President Carter halted research and development on new nuclear technology when he was in office. We are still in the Carter "dark-ages." We have not built a new nuclear power plant in the US in decades. We have no nuclear reprocessing capability in the US, and we have no active safe nuclear waste storage facility in the US. We have a cumbersome, slow, and expensive permitting process which adds years to the construction of nuclear facilities.

To President Bush's credit, he tried to open the nuclear waste storage facility at Yucca Mountain, NV. But President Obama has indicated his intention to close the Yucca Mountain facility, http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=f2cbe309-802a-23ad-4925-643845f220b5. President Bush began to streamline the permit process at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, but President Obama put all the roadblocks back into place upon taking office.

Technically, O'Reilly is dead wrong. The US is on par with the rest of the world. We have the capability to build new nuclear power plants, although the number of trained nuclear professionals in the US is dwindling. And the longer we delay in restarting a comprehensive nuclear program, the fewer technical resources we will have in this country.

The US taxpayer has been "taxed" for this facility for many years, and even thought President Obama has decided not to open Yucca Mountain, the tax is still being levied.

By changing some political decisions, nuclear power could represent nearly all of the US energy needs in less than 20 years (see France for proof). Every year of political delay moves that possibility out years.

Nuclear power is a zero carbon energy source, and we would never run out of nuclear energy. Nuclear plants work when the wind isn't blowing, and when the sun isn't shinning. The latter energy sources will always be secondary or backup energy; never our primary source of energy. Using nuclear power in the US combined with developing our on fossil fuel resources (natural gas, and off-shore and Alaskan oil) would make us independent of foreign oil.