Article One, Section 3, Clause 4 says:

The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided.

This provision is typically seen as one of the “checks and balances” built into the U.S. Constitution, whereby the 3 branches of the federal government (Congress, President, and the courts) are given the ability to influence the others. In this case, the Vice President’s ability to preside over the deliberations of the Senate and (more importantly) break tie votes, presumably in favor of the presidential administration’s preferences, allows the Executive Branch to influence the behavior of the Senate (and, consequently, Congress).

Sarah Palin, for the second time, has claimed broad powers for the role of the Veep. In the most recent occurrence she explained the role to a group of elementary school students by saying the the Vice President is “in charge” of the U.S. Senate and “can really get in there with the senators and make a lot of good policy changes.”

ABC News says the claim is “more expansive role for the vice president than the U.S. Constitution outlines.”

Article One, Section 3, Clause 4 is FULLY quoted above. That is ALL the constitution outlines. It specifies that the veep is president of the senate and has no vote, that’s it. The word president is pretty broad if you ask me. A president is one that presides over an organization, the chief officer, the highest executive. Who’s definition of president means a powerless puppet? Granted, the role has typically been one of non-interference with the day-to-day activities of the Senate with the exception of John Adams (the first V.P.) BUT contrary to what ABC News represents this IS NOT what the constitution outlines.

Now to wear another pair of shoes for a while, it is obvious by both the concept of separation of powers clearly outlined in the Constitution of the United States as well as the “non-voting” specification that the executive branch should not rule over the legislative branch. In a clear matter of principle the executive branch is not “in charge” of the senate.

It seems to this non-law scholar that the principle our founding fathers intended was that the executive branch would have a representative in the senate to advocate the executive branches agenda as well as ensure order in procedures as a facilitator only of the same senates activities. As facilitator there would be no real power to effect change except to help processes flow smoothly. So in a limited sense the veep is “in charge” but in a broader sense they are only in charge of ensuring things are happening and in a deadlock step in to break the tie.

Here I go again … Why does everyone have to tell us what someone or something says? Why can’t the lemmings of the world get up and find out for themselves. YOU should be seeing red flags and hearing warning bells when Palin says, she’s “in charge” AND when the media tells you that the role is “more more expansive than the U.S. Constitution outlines.” YOU should be saying, “hmmm neither sound right on the money, let me check it out MYSELF and discern the facts.”

Come on, we don’t need an instruction manual when we buy a new telephone! How many decades did an earlier generation communicate using that device and have NO MANUAL whatsoever? We’ve been duped into thinking that we can’t think for ourselves. Don’t buy it, you can check it out yourself, really, it’s not that hard.

I don’t know if this poster says it all, but it says most of it.

USA Today reports a judge rules that paper money should accommodate the blind – click here to view article.

I won’t comment on my thoughts about the basis of this ruling so as not to dilute the real focus of this post. Read the following quote which comes from the end of the article.

Government lawyers said they plan to argue that Robertson does not have the authority to interfere with the Treasury’s printing responsibilities.

The judge said he’d consider the argument but quipped that, if he didn’t have authority to require changes, how was he supposed to enforce the ruling? What would the court order say, he asked, “Go out and have a good time? We’ll see you when it’s all over?”
USA Today online – September 4, 2008

Does anyone but me see a problem here? A judge enforce his ruling against the federal government? Isn’t that the job of the enforcement branch of government? It’s been a while since I was in an American government class but I seem to recall that there were legislative, judicial and executive branches each having their own authority and power.

When Thomas Jefferson, the third president of the United States, took over the office from John Adams, the transfer of power occurred in an orderly manner which was an extremely rare event especially in light of the vastly different political views.

During the presidencies of George Washington and John Adams the was no political party system in America. Both Washington and Adams were strong believers on a strong central government and Jefferson felt equally passionate about a significantly weaker central government in favor of strong states rights. There was no small chasm between the viewpoint of John Adams and Thomas Jefferson. Sharp barbs were exchanged between the two during the election of 1800.

The exchange of power was a test of an infant nations ability to prove that power could be handed over without a coup. A rare event indeed, in the history the world.

Test passed on March 4th, 1801

I am currently studying the American Revolution in my history class and ran across some interesting facts with fascinating parallels.

The British military of the eighteenth century was mightier than all other European or colonial forces. The continental (colonial) military was composed of undertrained, under armed militiamen from each of the 13 colonies. Discipline was lacking, enlistments were typically 1 year and men walked away when their enlistment was over.

An analysis of the military campaigns waged by the British were amazingly restrained. In general the British expected to be supplied from ships traveling 3,000 miles across an ocean. They did not want to pillage the land and resources. They did not advance when they had the obvious advantage. Why?

The British did not intend to conquer the colonies and establish rule. Their intention was to reestablish allegiance and restore preexisting relationships.

Fast forward twenty-three decades and change the roles. Now America has the mightiest military. America invades a small country which has no chance of standing against the might of its military. Yet, rebels and insurgents stall progress and prolong the war. How can this happen?

Maybe, just possibly, the U.S. has no intention of conquering this country. Maybe the goal is to establish an ally in a troubled area.

Will history repeat itself with the big, mighty country finally admitting defeat? Or will its goal succeed?

I’m sure by the time I am done with this post it will be clear that it should be filed under “Rants.”

Let’s talk about math. Over the last few decades this seemingly straightforward school subject has been twisted every which way to make math more palatable for those not so inclined. While I think there is wisdom in understanding that we’re not all wired the same, I also feel that there is a point where the concepts are so diluted in order to bring up the rear that those in the lead are left with nothing to chew on. The net result, everyone passes, everyone goes on. Problem, those that were so inclined to learn mathematical concepts via the more traditional methods never get challenged. They move onto college level math with only rudimentary knowledge. They were handicapped at the expense of not handicapping someone else.

Math is a precise science. The skills and disciplines are essential in grasping more advanced mathematical concepts.

All subjects are not created equal. I say teach sciences as a discipline, teach the arts with the freedom to express and create, after all that’s what will cause one to excel in either area.

When the achievers are handicapped, someone is still losing – it’s just the other team.

Oh yeah, why is this posted under Politics? Philosophy, philosophy – it’s all about what is believed and what the goals are. Math is not immune nor has it been for several decades.

It’s Super Tuesday and time select a candidate to represent the party of your choice – if your particular political party has more than one running for office.

I have a problem: As I look at the candidates running for my registered party I am having a difficult time distinguishing a tangible difference.

I have a question: Since the result is that my preferred my candidate wins in November, should I select the one most likely to win against the anticipated opponent or should I select the one I would most like to represent my interests and values?

If I select the one that best represents me and that person is not a strong enough candidate to win in November then I get someone representing me I really didn’t want in the first place. If I select the one that is more likely to overcome their opponent in November but this is not the one that best suits my preferences then I still get someone that I didn’t want in the first place. So should I cast my vote for the lesser of two evils and cast it based purely along lines of conscience?

New Jersey is the second state to jump on the bandwagon (albeit a small wagon as this time) to reform the electoral college by requiring it’s electors vote in accordance with the states popular vote.

That’s not especially interesting but a U.S. senators comments were interesting.

Senate Minority Leader Leonard Lance, R-Hunterdon, said if the states want to change the Electoral College, it “should be done in the appropriate manner” by amending the Constitution.

I am confused, last time I read the constitution (and I have) the twelfth amendment does not specify how each state assigns electors, it just specifies that each state have them and how many. The implicit interpretation is that each state can make that determination within its own constitution. It can be winner-take-all, assigned-by-legislature, split-by-popular-vote, or whatever.

Maybe there should be a test prior assuming a political position to ensure you know which constitution you’re swearing to protect and defend.

Now we’re getting serious…. The news item of the day is that divorce IS NOT green.

That’s right splitting up is not eco-friendly. It means more households for the planet to support, more smaller households. More energy consumed, more natural resources consumed and more garbage generated.

Forget what divorce does to kids of any age. Forget the emotional baggage it creates for future partners. Let’s look at what we’re doing to our home, mother Earth.