What really scares the administration is that the nation’s triple-A rating will be downgraded. The downgrade may not be much, maybe to double-A+.

Financial analysts estimate that a downgrade will result in Americans being charged more than $100 billion per year in higher borrowing costs. Interest rates would escalate rapidly on credit cards, mortgages, and car loans.

This would be the equivalent of a large tax increase on Americans, that both parties (they say) are trying to avoid. And, there is no guarantee that there wouldn’t be a tax increase anyway.

How’s that for trickle down economics?

The loss of the triple-A bond rating would force the huge investment funds that are allowed to hold only triple-A investments to sell their holdings as a whole. On a smaller scale, this fire sale will probably cause many smaller investors to dump their holdings as well.

Investors can move their investments to Canada, England, Hong Kong, Singapore, Australia and many other European countries who have the triple-A rating and might be more reliable in delivering safe returns. The United States will no longer be in that club.

The rating agencies are holding their threats high and visible, saying that in addition to raising the debt limit to pay current obligations, they want to see an enforceable agreement to cut $4 trillion from expenses over the next ten years as an assurance that the U.S. is indeed working to get its financial house in order.

An enforceable agreement is tough. Each two-year congressional session is unique with its elected members. Even if a law was passed limiting spending to a certain amount, a future Congress could modify or even repeal it.

Since an overall limit on most federal debt was first set up in 1939, the debt ceiling went up during every presidency with the sole exception of former President Harry S. Truman’s.

Another option that has been discussed in detail is the president invoking the 14^th amendment and raising the debt limit on his own authority if Congress fails its responsibility. 

The 14^th Amendment, Section 4 certifies the debt of the U.S. is irrefutable and it must be paid. It also includes debts for payments of pensions, which would include expenses like Social Security and Medicare, as well as government and military pensions, all validated by Congress.

“Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.”

“Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article. “

The Supreme Court in City of Boerne v. Flores (1997) said regarding Section 5:

“Any suggestion that Congress has a substantive, non-remedial power under the Fourteenth Amendment is not supported by our case law.”

That is taken to mean that Congressional action (or inaction) is not absolutely final. That would be true especially if Congress, through inaction, puts the interest of the nation at risk.

Former President Bill Clinton said last week that the 14^th Amendment states the “validity” of government debt ”shall not be questioned” means that Obama could simply ignore the congressionally imposed debt ceiling and go on borrowing.

Obama considered the possibility, but for the present appeared to rule it out. “The Constitution makes clear that Congress has the authority, not the president, to borrow money and only Congress can increase the statutory debt ceiling.”

Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution states that:

“The Congress shall have power

To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises,

To pay the Debts and provide for the common defence and general Welfare of the United States; …

To borrow Money on the credit of the United States; …

The vesting clauses establish the principle of separation of powers by specifically giving to each branch of the federal government only those powers it can exercise and no others. This means that no branch may exercise powers that properly belong to another branch.

The president says he will not bypass Congress and cite an obscure part of the U.S. Constitution to prevent a government debt default. Legal experts say it would prove difficult to challenge him in court should he change his mind.

It wouldn’t be enough for a plaintiff to claim that Obama is overstepping his authority or acting illegally. In order to sue, there has to be an injury in fact. That same standard would apply if someone preemptively filed a lawsuit to stop Obama invoking the 14^th Amendment.

Challengers might argue that relying on the 14^th Amendment to raise the debt ceiling qualified as an abuse of executive power, but it would be extremely difficult for them to show that they suffered specific harm such as lost money, property or rights.

In 1996, President Clinton signed the line-item veto act, allowing the president to veto separate parts of a spending bill. Six members of Congress who opposed the law sued the Treasury secretary and the director of the Office of Management and Budget, claiming the law was an unconstitutional over-reach of executive power.

In 1997, the Supreme Court said the members of Congress did not have qualifications to sue, ruling they did not suffer personal injury or that Congress was harmed.

The 14^th Amendment allows the president to pass the ball to Congress. It states we have to continue to pay our debts. As for social security payments and Medicare, they are contracted pension benefits that also need to be paid.

The Treasury secretary must pay all outstanding debts, and when there is no money left, Congress is obligated to borrow more to meet the obligations under the 14^th Amendment (currently $28 billion per week). Only new debts (like highway and bridge repairs) are off limits.

A third, least likely option is a legal minting trick called coin seigniorage. 

Congress provided the authority, in legislation passed in 1996, for the US Mint to create platinum bullion or proof platinum coins with arbitrarily decreed face values having no relationship to the value of the platinum used in these coins.

The Mint’s profit (coin seigniorage) is the credit provided less the cost of producing these coins. The Treasury will book these profits as miscellaneous revenue in the treasury General Account, the same way as tax revenues. Poof! No need to borrow. Plenty of cash. Mostly worthless.

It follows the same concept as the printing of Federal Reserve notes, which we know as paper money, the fiat currency backed by the “full faith and credit of the United States”.

We are getting too close to the borrowing deadline to use this trick, but we should know that it is available, and used by more than several nations as an ongoing way to finance their operations.

The bottom line is that the president has sworn to uphold both the Constitution, which prohibits default, and the laws of the United States which includes a debt ceiling. The Constitution is the final authority of law and trumps any law Congress may pass. We will therefore not have a default.

The downgrade in credit rating is another story.

As a note, the 2010 count includes legal and illegal immigrants as well as citizens who call the U.S. their home.

Compared to other countries in rough percentage terms over the last ten years, Canada’s population grew by 10 percent, France and England increased by 5 percent, Japan stayed constant, and Germany decreased.

Although China grew by only 6 percent, their population grew to 1.3 billion or 20 percent of the world population. One in five of the people of the world now live in China.

Big shift U.S. population increases per 2010 Census

Michigan (-0.6)(-54K) was the only state to lose population.

In the previous census, these states were also big percentage increases with Nevada (66.3), Arizona (40.0), Utah (29.6), Idaho (28.5), Texas (22.8), Colorado (30.6), North Carolina (21.4), South Carolina (15.1), Georgia (26.4), and Florida (23.5).

This shows a big shift in population over the last twenty years to the Southeast and the West.

So why is the Census important and how does that affect our lives?

We get Representation:

There are 435 seats in the House of Representatives that are reapportioned among states with each new Census according to population. The goal is an even distribution of voting citizens across all states. In other words, the total population is divided by 435, or 710,767 as a goal for the size of a congressional legislative district starting in 2013.

From the 2000 Census, the average district population was 646,946 starting in 2003. States with population increases add new districts, and those with population decreases lose districts. And there are seven states whose population only entitle them to the minimum single district because they don’t have enough people living there for more.

District Gains:

Texas (+4), Florida (+2); Arizona, Georgia, Nevada, South Carolina, Utah and Washington (+1) each.

All but one of the gaining states (Washington) were won by Republicans in November 2010.

District Losses:

New York and Ohio (-2) each; Illinois, Iowa, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, New Jersey and Pennsylvania (-1) each.

Seven of the losing states were won by Republicans in November 2010.

Knowing where people live in the country allows the federal government to channel funding down to the states in a fair manner. It would be no fun if some states got all the road and bridge repairs, all the airports, all the post offices, all the disaster and college funding and all the other things the government pays for. Knowing where people live in the state allows the state to fairly distribute the federal money it receives to the cities and towns so schools can stay open and garbage can be collected.

And that all comes from the Census.

Congress:

When the 435 congressional districts meet in Washington, they generally discuss and act on national matters and enact national laws. That representation tries to insure that every person in the country is fairly spoken for.

Each district is represented by a member of a political party, mostly Republicans and Democrats. They vote the way their party leadership tells them to vote or how they think their district will want them to vote. When there are more Republicans in the 435 seats, things go the way the Republican leadership wants. When there are more Democrats, it goes their way. The 435 all come up for reelection every even-numbered year, and they are in their job for only two years at a time.

Electoral College

Every four years, a president is elected by the Electoral College. The Electoral College is made up of representatives of our congressional representatives. There are 535 members; the number of House representatives in the state plus the two Senators from each state.

While national elections focus mainly on electing friendly party representatives for each district and redrawing districts to their advantage, the Electoral College, in most cases, is a state-by-state, all-or-nothing voting system that protects the value of the individual state by choosing its own method of electing members without interference from other states or national parties.

The job of the Electoral College is to choose the most powerful executive leader in the world across the expanse of the nation by ignoring population concentrations, contested elections and voter turnout in other states.

The Electoral College was never meant to reflect the national popular will. It was designed to vote the individual state’s choice for the presidency. It gives as much weight to rural areas as urban centers. It enhances the status of minority groups concentrated in states with large electoral vote counts. It prevents nationalization of the government and enhances the collective opinion of the individual states. It promotes cohesion of the nation by requiring a distribution of popular support to elect.

Redistricting:

As the voting population moves South and West, new legislative districts are formed in those states to keep the population similar in all districts across the country. Constitutional law says that each district must contain approximately the same number of voters.

When a state adds or loses districts, the entire state population must be redistricted by drawing new maps to include similar populations in all districts.

The task of redistricting a state is a happy opportunity for the majority party in a state. The ruling party has the final vote (sometimes subject to governor approval) on new district lines. Shrewd politicians make every effort to redraw district lines so voters favorable to them will carry elections in all districts. And they can’t help being creative to reduce the competition.

Computer-generated simulations have made this job a lot easier and much more effective.

In June 2006 the Supreme Court issued an opinion that allowed states to redistrict at any time.

Some favored techniques are:

• “packing” where district lines are drawn to pack political opposition voters into as few districts as possible
• “cracking” or fragmenting the opposition voters thinly out into different districts so their votes become minimized or ineffective
• “kidnapping” involves redrawing the district so two strong opposition candidates reside in the same district and must run against each other. No matter who wins, one strong candidate is eliminated (see “Gerrymandering” > In Pennsylvania… further down on this page)
• “spoiler effect” provides candidates that cannot win, but draw votes away from contenders
• spreading the opposition voters thinly around a large district, causing campaign coverage expenses as high as possible for opposition candidates attempting to cover wide areas.

The purpose for the ruling party is to have as many “wasted votes“ as possible.

States such as California, Florida, Georgia, Maryland, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania and Texas have already reduced competition by skewing their district maps to prefer ruling party favorites so that competition for congressional House seats has been virtually eliminated.

There are still 36 states where the state legislature has the primary responsibility to create a redistricting plan. In many cases, this is subject to approval by the state governor. Seven states (Arizona, California, Hawaii. Idaho, Minnesota, New Jersey, Washington) use either a bipartisan or independent commission to create a plan. Three states (Florida, Iowa, Maine) use independent commissions to propose a plan which must be approved by the legislature.

Although the November 2010 elections put Republicans in full control of 35 state legislatures, their ability to redistrict in their favor is somewhat limited by population location (all districts must have roughly the same population and form one enclosed figure) and the 1965 Voting Rights Act which protects ethnic minorities (race or color) from voter bias.

There will still be redistricting plans that wind up in the courts.

“Gerrymandering” is the setting of electoral boundaries to establish political advantage. Some past examples are :

California’s 23^rd congressional district is an example of the packing style of districting. It is moderately to heavily democratic and confined to a narrow strip of coast so thin it is referred to as “the district that disappears at high tide.”

Illinois’s 4th congressional district is drawn like a pair of earmuffs “packing” two Hispanic areas (Puerto Rican in the north, Mexican in the south) while remaining connected (legal requirement) by narrowly tracing a small portion of Interstate 294. It completely surrounds the Illinois 7^th congressional district.

North Carolina’s 12^th congressional district is an example of “packing” a 64 percent African-American liberal majority into a single district by following Interstate 85 almost exactly in a long and thin and in some points no wider than a single highway lane. The boundaries were contested in the Supreme Court three times and redrawn. The current version has a small plurality of whites.

In Pennsylvania, the Republican-controlled state legislature used gerrymandering to defeat Democrat Frank Mascara representing the 20^th congressional district. A large portion of his district was moved into the newly-drawn 12^th congressional district including most of his neighborhood. The district split streets down the middle to form a thin tendril that ended at his house, but not where he parked his car. Mascara was “kidnapped” into the 12^th district and had to run there against another strong Democrat. He was defeated, but whoever won, Republicans eliminated a strong opposition candidate.

In Texas, the Republican majority redistricted the state in 2003, diluting the voting power of the heavily Democratic Travis County, Texas by “cracking” or distributing the voters out to more Republican districts.

The United States Supreme Court in 2006 upheld most of the Texas congressional district map engineered by former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay. The decision allowed state legislatures to redraw districts as many times as they like and not just after the Census. This allows them to protect their political parties’ standing and number of seats, as long as they don’t harm racial and ethnic minority groups voting influence.

Ed.Note: Former U.S. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, once considered among the nation’s most powerful and feared lawmakers, representing Texas’ 22^nd congressional district from 1984-2006 was found guilty of money laundering for campaign financing, on a felony conspiracy charge to move $190,000 in corporate donations to Republican candidates in the Texas State Legislature in 2002.   He was sentenced to three years in prison for the scheme to influence elections that already cost him his job, leadership post and millions of dollars in legal fees.

How they work it:

In districts where the ruling political party is in the voting minority, districts can be redrawn to make the loyal voters the slight majority for most districts; an attempt to insure continuing congressional majority domination for the state, and the casting of all the state’s electoral votes for the presidential candidate of the ruling party’s choice.

Since any challenging candidates have little or no chance of winning, voter turnout diminishes to the point where the dominant party may run uncontested. The “wasted vote” ploy succeeds and the American citizen loses his ballot.

Partisans drawing district lines, however, face challenges between protection of their incumbents and maximizing their party’s campaign potential. Many times, the only way to increase their party’s campaign potential is to shift boundaries so reliable partisans are moved out of their districts, cutting margins of safety for incumbents, but making elections more competitive. Incumbents, finding new voters in the district, must establish their personal relationships with them if they hope to get reelected.

As a note, it has been found that when commissions or courts draw district boundaries, elections are more competitive compared to those drawn by legislatures. In 1992, statistical analysis showed that incumbents benefited from bipartisan redistricting which produced reduced competition.

How it has worked:

Favorable redistricting did not come easily. After the 1990 Census, 20 states had suits in state courts concerning redistricting plans; 28 states had suits in federal court. Eleven states had suits in both state and federal courts on the same district plan. New York had cases in four different federal courts and three different state courts.

Republicans under the leadership of House Minority Whip Newt Gingrich worked for 10 years setting up state legislatures as a basis for the 1994 Republican sweep of the congressional House of Representatives.

Gingrich worked with state party chairmen to find candidates who could win congressional districts and were aligned with favorable state and district issues such as lower business taxes, term limits, welfare reform, pro-choice and clean energy. These candidates received the most party funding, and many won their elections.

The Republican Revolution started in the 1992 elections when Republicans gained 9 congressional seats, leaving the balance at 258D-176R (+1 Independent), but it really delivered the message in the 1994 elections when Republicans gained 52 congressional seats and won two special elections, leaving the House balance at 230R-204D (+1 Independent).

Nearly one-third of those defeated by Republicans had been in office only for one term. Republicans carried the country with less than a 7 percent majority.

The “Republican Revolution of 1994″ was caused mainly by national voter discontent who showed their displeasure of Democrats, the issues they supported and their alleged corruption. Republicans built on the general voter perception that the House Democratic leadership was corrupt.

Issues causing dissatisfaction with the president was Clinton’s push for massive healthcare reforms and the 1993 tax hikes.

Foretelling the Democratic trouncing were off-year election losses of heavily Democratic mayoralties (Jersey City, Los Angeles, New York) state governorships (New Jersey, Virginia), and special elections (one Texas Senate and two House).

The Southern response to Supreme Court rulings to redraw district boundaries allowed the Southern states to draw maps that concentrated black voters in districts surrounded by white voter districts, increasing by far the white Republican dominance in those districts and those states.

As a result, Republicans swept the South, formerly a Democratic haven, at congressional and statewide levels, and in gubernatorial and special elections. It remains a Republican stronghold today.

Republicans also gained 3 out of the 7 new districts in California, 2 out of the 4 new districts in Florida and 2 out of the 3 new districts in Texas.

The Republican Revolution of 1994 was based on the preparation by the minority party, choosing candidates who could win, with platforms everyone favored, redistricting and shifting blocs of voters, waiting for the majority party to alienate the voters.

And that all came from the Census forming a way for voters to vent their displeasure at how the country was being run.

Gaining and holding:

There are two major parts to control – gaining it and holding it. In the 1996 elections, Democrats made gains in 13 states, while Republicans made gains in only 9. Republicans lost the popular vote, as well as 9 of the 54 seats they had held for only one term. Republicans were still the ruling party in Congress, but Democrat Bill Clinton was elected for a second term as president with 379 Electoral College votes (270 votes elect) and 49 percent of the popular vote.

Leading up to the 1998 elections, Republicans again tried the corrupt leadership ploy against the president for his embarrassing affair with Monica Lewinsky. Newt Gingrich, now House speaker, was in the lead of the attacks. After all, it had worked in 1994.  But voters turned against the Republicans, and another 5 (net) House seats were lost.

In Florida, in the worst possible outcome of redistricting and “wasted votes,” there were only 6 races for 23 districts; 12 Republicans and 5 Democrats ran unopposed. These 17 Florida districts had their right to vote virtually eliminated. They now lived in “why bother” districts.

After the election loss, the Republicans in Congress turned against Newt Gingrich. He resigned his House seat, took his pension and went home. This was his legacy.

The 2000 Census saw Arizona, Florida, Georgia and Texas gain two congressional districts each. The rush to California had abated, and that state only gained one district but still remained the largest state with 53 districts. Republicans lost another 5 seats in California with no wins. They lost a total of 2 (net) seats in the election, were hanging on to a majority by only 9 seats and won the popular vote by only 340,000, or some 0.3% out of 93 million votes.

Florida had only 6 unopposed races. This was the last election based on the 1990 census and Republican George W. Bush from Texas was elected President.

The 2002 elections were the first election using the reapportionment from the 2000 Census. Voters were still moving South and West with two districts each added to Florida, Georgia, Texas and Arizona. Republicans gained back 8 seats to reinforce their thin majority, but mostly on national solidarity after the September 11, 2001 attacks on New York City. Most of the states saw no net change. Republicans won California’s new district 21 and the two new districts in Texas. Florida had 8 unopposed races out of their 25 districts.

In the 2004 elections, Republicans gained 5 seats in Texas, making it a solidly Republican state, with control over 21 out of 32 districts. Florida had 9 unopposed races. The partisan image of the country remained mostly red.

Voter Anger Builds:

By 2006, voters were fed up with the president and the Republican Congress. Democratic candidates fed the country’s dissatisfied voters. They campaigned against the Iraq War during its bloodiest phase. They called up fears that the country was about to fall into recession in spite of the low 4.5 percent unemployment rate which consisted of low-paying occupations. They charged that the high-paying jobs were being outsourced by big business to countries where labor was cheap. They claimed the ranks of the uninsured and those in poverty were growing, and that the anemic government response to help the powerless victims of Hurricane Katrina (2005) was too weak and too late.

The Democrats won 31 seats to take control of the House 233D-202R. Republicans still held control of most of the states, but the lead was razor-thin (25-23, 1 tie). Even with their lead, they could not have mustered enough electoral votes to elect a president if this was a presidential year, but the Democrats could.

The predictions of the economic recession came true at the end of 2007. This recession was more widespread than anyone thought, encompassing many countries around the world. Unemployment climbed to more than 10 percent nationally, and is currently locked at 9.6. Millions of Americans are out of work and many have been for more than a year. Home values have plummeted, and remain low, facing homeowners with paying a debt on a home worth half as much. Many people walked away, discouraged, with no jobs.

The Stimulus Act of 2008, valued at $152 billion and signed by Republican president Bush was the first attempt to funnel cash directly to the people through tax refund checks. This “trickle-up” effort helped the economy somewhat, increasing spending by those receiving the check by 3.5 percent.

In 2008, the first year of the recession, Democratic Senator Barack Obama was nominated to run for president. He campaigned mostly on hope for the future and bipartisanship in Washington. The historic presidential election solidified the Democratic majority with a net gain of another 21 seats (257D-178R).

But the promise of hope came while the economy was still plummeting. Job losses climbed and the government spent huge amounts of money trying to stem the flow.

In a classic example of “trickle-down” economics, banks, mortgage companies, and large businesses were bailed out to prevent bankruptcies and resulting job losses for millions more.

Mistakes were made. Businesses that were supposed to use the funding to hire workers after stability was regained, kept the money or used it to absorb struggling smaller businesses.

In a classic example of “trickle-up” economics, unemployment was extended to the long-term unemployed, jobs were created through the repair of the nation’s transportation infrastructure, states were funded to continue teacher salaries and many other examples.

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, also known as the Stimulus Recovery Act, valued at $787 billion included federal tax incentives, expansion of unemployment benefits and other social welfare provisions, and domestic spending in education, health care, and infrastructure, including the energy sector.

The bill was voted against by the entire Republican membership, who in later weeks appeared smiling in photo-ops handing out the checks in their districts.

The deficit got larger, and the population kept any extra money close, skeptical the economy would improve. Businesses, responding to slow sales, did not hire. Banks had money to lend but were cautious, so relatively little business expansion occurred. Layoffs slowly abated.

Unemployment continued to hover just under 10 percent, based mainly on that just under two million new people per year enter the Civilian labor force. If just those two million get jobs, the unemployment rate stays the same.

Businesses are still outsourcing jobs to cheaper locations outside the U.S. Those jobs will not come back. The solution to employment is the implementation of new industries based and dependent on American labor.

Americans just want their lives back, and are angry at the president and congress for not fixing things. Besides jobs, voters want a better economy, a repaired housing market, a smaller deficit, and no tax hikes. They want to end to the war and its enormous expense, and have the government do more about terrorism.

Approaching the 2010 midterm elections, Republicans publicly announced their main goal was to destroy the president and his programs and elect a president that will not veto their legislation. They intend to dismember and de-fund the landmark Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (that all Republicans voted against, in addition to many more bills benefiting our citizens).

During the 2010 election, voters expressed their anger with the size of the deficit, the lack of jobs, and the state of the economy. In the 2008 presidential election, 117.4 million votes were cast. In the 2010 election, 84.1 million people turned out, 25 percent of the voters were over 65 years old (who tend to be Republican and fiscal conservatives).

Republican red spilled across the national map for the last election based on the 2000 Census.

Where from here?

In the 2012 elections, considering the mood of the voter stays the same and giving weight to the majority party in each of the 18 states, it is likely, with redistricting, that Republicans will pick up another 3-6 seats from the Democrats, making the balance around 247R-188D (currently 242R-193D).

If all else stays the same, Republicans will seat a new president, carrying 35 states with at least 350 Electoral College votes (270 are needed to win).

Something we should remember; in 1994, Republicans swept into office promising fiscal reform and accountability. By 2000, the 95 programs they had promised to cut, all remained and increased in total cost by 13%.

What Americans are dealing with is similar to the five stages of grief. They have passed the Denial and Discouragement stages and appear to be in the Anger stage on the way to Acceptance of a new economy and way of life.

What is the future? Will the Democrats be able to erase enough of the 350 electoral votes to reelect Obama? How will the continuing shift to the West and Southeast affect the 2012 election?

Is John Boehner the new Newt Gingrich? He helped write the Contract with America in 1994.

Will John Boehner run? Will Newt Gingrich run? Will Sarah Palin run? Will Jim DeMint run?

Some people say that to disagree with the government in power is unpatriotic. I disagree. It is the highest form of patriotism in the spirit of our founding fathers, as they disagreed with England. Voters have only their vote, and they should use it.

Are politicians using the population shift for their own ends?

Today, some other indicators work in the GOP’s favor. The measurable enthusiasm gap between Republican voters and Democrats means that House districts, gerrymandered to include as many members of a single voting bloc as possible, may limit the number of seats gained in the House, but the increased voter turnout will undoubtedly affect the statewide Senate races.

In an article from ChattahBox Political News

“October 27, 2010– Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) admitted in a National Journal interview that the Republican Party has no intention of finding solutions to America’s many problems. And the Party of No has no intention of legislating to make the lives of ordinary Americans easier. What is on the top of McConnell’s to do list for the next two-years? Besides rolling over for special interests and giving their rich friends tax breaks, McConnell plans to lead his party on a campaign to destroy the presidency of Barack Obama, to ensure a return to power in 2012. And he has no problem saying it out loud. The Democratic National Committee released a video today shining a light on McConnell’s plan for America, asking the question “What does that mean for you?”

When asked by the National Journal to name the top Republican legislative strategies for the next two-years, McConnell responded that he has his sights set firmly on toppling the Obama administration.

“The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president,” McConnell said, adding, “Our single biggest political goal is to give [the Republican] nominee for president the maximum opportunity to be successful.” ”

And I learned all that from the Census.

The vote was 13-6 with Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) breaking party ranks to vote approval.  Senator Graham explained his approval vote:

“What’s in Elena Kagan’s heart is that of a good person who adopts a philosophy I disagree with,” Graham said. “She will serve this nation honorably, and it would not have been someone I would have chosen, but the person who did choose, President Obama, I think chose wisely.”

Elena Kagan has served as Obama’s Solicitor General, the highest-ranking trial lawyer in the country.    She has had limited courtroom experience, but her greatest attributes were noted in an open endorsement letter from sixty-nine deans of law schools and includes an “understanding of both doctrine and policy” as well as her written record of legal analysis. 

Kagan will be the third female associate justice currently serving on the Supreme Court and would be the first associate justice since 1972 without any prior bench time as a judge.  The last justice with that experience record was William Rehnquist, who rose to spend 19 years as Chief Justice and administered the oath of office to three separate presidents (two of them twice).

Republicans fear that Kagan will put her political views and her liberal agenda ahead of the law.  Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) said, “Ms. Kagan’s record shows that she supports an activist judicial philosophy, and that her personal and political views drive her legal views.”

Republicans were swift to declare their opposition to Kagan, more than they were with last year’s Supreme Court nominee, Sonia Sotomayor.  It comes at a time when November elections are drawing focus, and Republicans are working to polarize themselves from Democratic actions. 

Conservative political groups pressured Republican senators to oppose Kagan’s nomination. The National Rifle Association (NRA) urged their campaign beneficiaries to vote “no” or stage a filibuster to block Kagan outright and threatened to downgrade contributions to Kagan supporters.  This results from her time when she tried to block military recruiters from campus as Dean of the Harvard Law School. 

Senator Graham was the only Republican to publicly announce he would vote to approve, although four other Republicans joined him crossing the party line for the full confirmation vote.  Other than those few, Republicans marched in lock step to their party’s orders. 

Graham’s decision to support Obama’s Supreme Court nominee makes it increasingly likely he will face a primary challenge by his own party when he’s up for re-election in 2014.  South Carolina political gurus say the Senator’s support for Kagan “ensures he will face a serious primary challenge”

“It’s a tough political environment out there,” stated Graham. 

It is indeed tough when Members of Congress are more interested in their own reelection than voting what’s best for the people who elected them, and blindly obeying orders to receive support in their next election. 

~~~~~

On August 5, 2010, on the eve of the Congressional vacation, 36 GOP Senators and one Democrat — Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska – voted against the Supreme Court confirmation of Elena Kagan.  Aside from the lockstep robot Republicans, five broke ranks to vote confirmation — Senators Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe of Maine, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Richard Lugar of Indiana and Judd Gregg of New Hampshire.

Republican opponents spouted lame excuses for their ‘nay’ vote, like her opposition to military recruiters on the Harvard campus (when they were allowed access everywhere else), her opinion in a single case in her legal history, and her lack of courtroom experience as a judge. 

The major reason shared by all who opposed her seemed to be the fear that she will use her own judgement in deciding issues.  Those opponents need to read the U.S. Constitution; interpretation is why we have a Supreme Court. 

They really fear that she will put her politics ahead of the law and be a rubber stamp for Obama’s agenda. 

~~~~~

Similar treatment was given to Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor.  She was only the second jurist to be nominated to three different judicial positions by three different presidents but was still voted against by Republicans. 

See: Republicans against Obama nominee Sonia Sotomayor

1.      the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) which prohibits discrimination to employees on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin or association with those employees, and sexual harassment

2.      the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA) which prohibits discrimination to older employees in the form of hiring, promotion, wages, layoffs and forced retirement

3.      portions of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) which prohibits discrimination to employees  with physical or mental impairment that constitutes a disability

4.      the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 extends the provisions of the ADA to Federal agencies, federal contractors and those programs receiving federal financial assistance.

The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act extends filing deadlines for complaints of pay bias based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age and/or disability.  It clarifies the particulars of employment discrimination and prohibits employers from any action that may be considered retaliatory against employees involved or filing a wage discrimination complaint.

The law is retroactive and affects the handling of closed and pending complaints and suits filed after the effective date of the offense. The law eliminates the former time limit an employee has to file a pay discrimination complaint as long as they are still on that employer’s payroll.

As an example, if an employee discovers a pay bias based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age and/or disability that started many years in the past but with the same employer, causing the employee to be paid less, and that pay bias was never corrected, then each uncorrected paycheck starts the statute of limitations anew. 

The employee is now able to file wage discrimination when they discover the discrepancy in pay.  Formerly, as in the case of Lilly Ledbetter, the filer had six months from the date of the first occurrence, when the pay rate was agreed upon.  Under the new law, the six month period restarts with every unrectified paycheck.

The law provides for retroactive coverage effective May 28, 2007 and overturns the Supreme Court decision Ledbetter v. Good Year Tire & Rubber Co (decided May 29).  This is one of the few times a U.S. Supreme Court decision can be overturned. 

The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act was named for the woman who sued her employer after her early retirement in 1998 for pay discrimination dating back to 1979.  The Supreme Court decision was based on the statute of limitations to sue, not the discrimination itself.

Although the law overturned the Supreme Court decision, Lilly Ledbetter did not benefit financially, since she was not on the company payroll when she filed suit.  It is, however, a giant step in stamping out pay bias and changes the way employers manage compensation decisions.

The bill became an issue in the 2008 Presidential election campaign, with Democratic Barack Obama supporting the bill, and Republican John McCain opposed to it. 

The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act was reintroduced in the House in January 2009 (as H.R. 11 and S. 181), where it passed 247 – 171 along party lines, with nearly every Republican voting against it. 

The bill passed in the Senate, 61-36 with every Democratic senator (except Edward Kennedy D-MA, who was absent due to health issues) and all four female Republican senators voting for it along with Arlen Specter R-PA.  (Good for you, Senator Specter). 

Every Caucasian male Republican member of Congress voted to defeat this law for equal pay. 

Another bill would make it easier for women to prove violations of the Equal Pay Act of 1963, which generally requires equal pay for equal work passed 256 –163, with support from ten Republicans (out of 178).

President Bush summed up the Republican position when he threatened to veto both bills, saying they would “invite a surge of litigation” and “impose a tremendous burden on employers.” 

Ed.Note: The Republicans should be ashamed of themselves and to sit in Congress.

Understandably, they are bitter over losing the election and are showing their limited muscle by voting as a bloc against every Democratic action. 

But by voting as a bloc against the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, Republicans have insulted every category of worker except the Caucasian male and the employers who cheated employees out of their fair pay. 

Republicans have shown they think of themselves as an elite, entitled class of Caucasian males, a nobility better than anyone else.  They evidently vote only to serve themselves and their party, without regard for the people they represent. 

Republicans have spoken loudly and clearly that they endorse lower pay for women and minorities, and voters should be reminded of this when they come up for election.

Republicans recently elected Michael Steele, an African-American as head of the Republican National Committee.  I wonder if he is being paid less.

Always intent on having the last word, Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich named Roland Burris, an African-American political pioneer to Barack Obama‘s vacated Senate seat.  Burris had suggested himself as a possible caretaker for the Senate seat, promising not to run for election.

Blagojevich’s surprise move put his opponents in the awkward position of trying to block his choice from becoming the Senate’s only African-American member.

Burris was the first African-American elected to major statewide office in Illinois, previously serving as comptroller, then Attorney General for Illinois, and vice chairman of the Democratic National Committee.  According to Illinois campaign finance data. Burris has been a donor to the Friends of Blagojevich fund in recent years, donating $1,000 in 2004, 2005 and 2008, and $1,500 in 2007.

Illinois Democratic Representative Bobby Rush, who was invited to speak at Blagojevich’s news conference, urged Senate leaders not to block Burris, almost daring them to try to stop the appointment.

“There is no rhyme or reason why he should not be seated in the U.S. Senate,” Rush said. “I don’t think any U.S. senator … wants to go on record to deny one African-American from being seated in the U.S. Senate.”

He told reporters that Senate Democrats should not “hang and lynch the appointee as you try to castigate the appointer.”

Illinois Secretary of State Jesse White, who must certify the appointment, ‘declined’ to do so “because of the current cloud of controversy surround the governor.”

Illinois law gives the governor sole power to fill a Senate vacancy. Legislators tried stripping Blagojevich of that power after his arrest but could not agree on legislation wording.  The governor said he would support a bill calling for a special election.

Blagojevich was arrested December 9 after federal prosecutors allegedly recorded conversations in which he discussed appointing someone Obama favored in exchange for a position in the new president’s Cabinet or naming someone favored by a union if he got a high-level union job.

The Illinois House has begun impeachment proceedings. Blagojevich maintains his innocence, and has vowed to stay in office.

Senate leaders avowed they would not accept anyone appointed by the embattled governor.  “Under these circumstances, anyone appointed by Governor Blagojevich cannot be an effective representative of the people of Illinois and, as we have said, will not be seated by the Democratic caucus.”

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid responded to the announcement by saying that the Senate will not seat Burris, citing Article I, Section 5 of the United States Constitution, which states that “Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members.”

President-elect Barack Obama, looking to distance himself from the Blagojevich allegation, said he was disappointed that the Governor had appointed Roland Burris to fill the vacancy.

“Roland Burris is a good man and a fine public servant, but the Senate Democrats made it clear weeks ago that they cannot accept an appointment made by a governor who is accused of selling this very Senate seat. I agree with their decision,” the president-elect said in a statement.

“I believe the best resolution would be for the Governor to resign his office and allow a lawful and appropriate process of succession to take place.”

***Update: January 5:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, appearing on ‘Meet the Press’ was asked about telephone conversations he had with Governor Blagojevich, in which he named three African-American candidates that would not be acceptable to him, yet named white females who were. 

Reid replied with the ‘Enron defense’ of “This is part of Blagojevich’s cloud.  He’s making all this up … I don’t remember …”  Reid became noticably nervous when reminded those conversations were most likely on tape and would be reviewed by the U.S. Attorney General as part of the Blagojevich investigation.  It could result in a conflict of interest charge against Reid.

Reid backpedaled strongly from his previous position on Roland Burris and said he plans to meet with Blagojevich’s choice. Asked if there was room for a possible settlement, Reid said, “I’m an old trial lawyer. There is always room to negotiate.”  Denying Burris is entirely a political move by Reid.  Under Reid’s leadership, the Senate has repeatedly taken action not because of the rule of law, but rather because of the perceived political outcome.

Start saying your farewells to Harry Reid in the Senate. This is a political move that will end his career. He is starting down the path to becoming an old trial lawyer again.

***Update: January 15:

Roland Burris presented himself and his appointment letter to the U.S. Senate on January 6, the day of swearing in new Senators, and was turned away due to his credientials lacking the signature of the Illinois Secretary of State.

The Illinois Supreme Court ruled that Governor Blagojevich’s appointment to the U.S. Senate was valid and required only the signature of the sitting governor.  It ruled the Secretary of State’s signature was not a requirement on the appointment form.  Jesse White, the Illinois Secretary of State had already signed and filed a separate statement registering the appointment and Burris retrieved a copy of that form complete with the state seal to present to the U.S. Senate Secretary.

The Illinois Supreme Court also ruled that the form contained in rule II of the Standing Rules of the U.S. Senate was only a recommended form, and no rule of the Senate ” … could supercede the authority to fill vacancies conferred on the states by the federal constitution”

Burris delivered his appointment form and a certified copy of the registration to the Secretary of the Senate, and in concert with the Senate Parliamentarian on January 12, declared the credentials valid.

Senator Roland Burris was sworn in as the junior Senator from Illinois on January 15 by Dick Cheney, President of the Senate and Vice President of the United States. 

The Analysis

Let’s take things one at a time. 

1. Governor Blagojevich was arrested after federal prosecutors allegedly recorded conversations …

Of course, allegations look pretty bad for the Governor, but every one of the public officials involved, seem to have forgotten the first ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution known as the Bill of Rights.

• Fifth Amendment: forbids trial for a major crime except after indictment by a grand jury; forbids punishment without due process of law.
• Sixth Amendment: guarantees the accused the right to know the charges against him, a speedy public trial by jury for criminal offenses, the right to legal counsel, and that the accused may require witnesses to attend the trial and testify before the accused.
• Seventh Amendment: assures trial by jury in civil cases.
• Eighth Amendment: forbids excessive bail or fines, and cruel and unusual punishment.

The Fourteenth Amendment states, in part, that:

“No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; not shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; not deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. … “ 

Innocent until proven guilty.  This is what we fought England about.  This is what the Constitution is about.  And the United States Constitution is the supreme law of the United States of America.

Governor Blagojevich may be totally guilty, but let’s not hang him until the verdict says guilty.  There was an arrest.  There hasn’t yet been an indictment, a trial or a conviction, so the Governor is still the elected head of the Illinois government until then. 

1. Illinois Secretary of State Jesse White, who must certify the appointment, said he will not do so “because of the current cloud of controversy surround the governor.”

There is a dereliction of duty there.  Jesse White doesn’t get to choose on his own what he will certify or not certify.  He can and perhaps should be fired if he doesn’t do his job.  The Illinois Attorney General should instruct him of his sworn duties. 
 

1. Illinois law gives the governor sole power to fill a Senate vacancy. Legislators tried stripping Blagojevich of that power after his arrest but could not agree on legislation wording.  The governor said he would support a bill calling for a special election.

According to Illinois law, the Governor still has the power to appoint whomever he chooses.
 

1. President-elect Barack Obama, looking to distance himself from the Blagojevich allegation, said he was disappointed that the Governor had appointed Roland Burris to fill the vacancy.  “I believe the best resolution would be for the Governor to resign his office and allow a lawful and appropriate process of succession to take place.”

Big mistake on Obama’s part.  He thinks he is still a Senator.  He is the President-elect and not even in office yet.  The President doesn’t get involved in legislative laundry.  President-elect Obama should perhaps review separation of powers under the U.S. Constitution, and the Bill of Rights, especially due process under the law.  Obama’s approval rating is now 82% according to a recent national poll.  Flipping out comments is the fastest way to push that down.
 

1. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid responded to the announcement by saying that the Senate will not seat Burris (in the Democratic caucus), citing Article I, Section 5 of the United States Constitution, which states that “Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members.”

Harry Reid thinks he is running the country, and only uses the Constitution for his own purposes.  He thinks he doesn’t have to research precedent or go by the Constitution.

In the United States Supreme Court ruling of Powell v. McCormack, the issue was with a House of Representative member who was stripped of committee assignments, fined, censured, and had his seat declared vacant.  The Representative sued various officers of the House for refusing to administer the oath office to him, refusing to perform duties due a Representative, withholding his salary and barring him from the meeting chamber.

The Supreme Court ruled that Congress does not have the power to develop qualifications other than those specified in Article I Section 2, Clause 1-2.

The Supreme Court ruled that under Article I, Section 5, that expulsion was the only method to determine the qualifications of members.  That means that a Congressional representative elected or appointed by the rules of the Constitution must have the oath of office administered, and be enrolled into the legislative body before qualifications can be examined, and the member expelled. 

The Senate could vote for expulsion, but it would take two-thirds to expel.  Democrats have only 58 seats (now that Minnesota went Democtratic) and may have a hard time rounding up 66 votes after they meet Burris.

Qualification of Senators in Article I Section 3 Clause 3 states the Senator must be at least 30 years old, been a citizen for nine years, and a resident of his home state.  No other qualifications named. 

I would think the Senate would have to have a reason for an expulsion vote, more than I didn’t like the person who appointed you.

When news of Burris’ appointment was announced, a conference call went out to all the Senators.  Many did not want to offer an opinion or even have their names mentioned because they might be labeled ‘racist.’ 

In my opinion, they will not have the courage to stand up when their names are called, look at the only African-American in the Senate, and with full coverage by CNN and other news agencies, vote for expulsion.

For reference:

Article One of the United States Constitution describes the powers of the legislative branch of the United States government, known as Congress, which includes the House of Representatives and the Senate.

Section 3: Senate  Clause 2: Vacancies

Section 5: Procedure

Seventeenth Amendment vests in the State Legislature the authority to allow the Governor to appoint a temporary replacement until the special election is held.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Minnesota runoff election finally over.

***Update January 5:

Democratic candidate Al Franken has been declared the winner by 225 votes in Minnesota over incumbent Republican Senator Norm Coleman after a two-month absentee ballot reexamination, recertification and recount.  The state Canvassing board will certify Franken as the junior Senator from Minnesota. 

Republican Norm Coleman will probably take the issue to the state Supreme Court, where they will appoint three judges to investigate the claims. 

The argument centered around the counting (or not counting) of some ballots in both parties’ mainstay areas.  Some absentee ballots had initially been rejected by election officials due to minor errors such as signatures not exactly like the one on file with the county, or dates on the outside of the envelope. 

The number of mistakenly rejected ballots was around 1,350 and Coleman’s team is looking to add another 654 to that number.  Each of the 87 counties receives local absentee ballot names agreed upon by both campaigns for recount, then decides whether they will comply with recounting or not. 

The Minnesota Supreme court had told both candidates to agree on which rejected absentee ballot names will be counted.  The new challenge, in my opinion, will certify the election to Franken.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

***Update: February 6:

Illinois:

Roland Burris was sworn in January 16, 2009 as the junior Senator from Illinois.  Rod Blagojevich was impeached and convicted by the Ilinois legislature and removed from office as governor of Illinois. He has still not been charged or indicted of any crime.

Although prior to his appointment as junior Senator from Illinois,  Roland Burris had promised not to run for election for the Senate seat, Senator Burris signed a statement of candidacy for the 2010 election and filed it with the Federal Election Commission.

So much for promises.
 

Minnesota:

Norm Coleman and Al Franken are still slugging it out in the Minnesota Supreme court.  Three judges have been appointed and are investigating claims from both sides.  Until the issue is resolved, Minnesota will have only one Senator.

The U.S. Senate could use an extra Democratic vote as it tries to pass a stimulus bill to get our country moving again.
 

U.S. Senate

The republicans are acting like “cry-babies”, impeding every move and voting against every issue the Democrats bring up for a vote.

The single-minded Republicans who insist their “tax cuts will solve anything” plan will still work will continue to hold this country for ransom by delaying the stimulus bill rather than give in. 

It is one thing to vote as a bloc against the other party because they took more seats, but the Caucasian male bloc of senators voted in unison against the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act,  which means they voted against equal pay for women, minorities, disabled and older workers — unforgivable in our society.  Every one of them should be un-elected out of office.

The Republicans have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, in my mind at least, that they do not care what is good for the people of this country, they care only that their party will get it’s demands. 

The U.S. Senate score is:
Democrats         58
Republicans       41
Contested            1.