The U.S. Constitution Article I

Article I of the U.S. Constitution is divided into ten sections of varying length.  This article establishes Congress, describes it, and identifies its powers.

Section 1
States that "all legislative powers" are granted to Congress, which is comprised of the House of Representatives and the Senate.

Section 2
Section 2 describes the the House of Representatives, the qualifications for election to that body, and

explains how representatives are apportioned to the states.  Members of the House (Representatives) are elected every 2 years, must be at least 25 years old, and are required to have been a citizen of the U.S. for at least seven years.  They must, at the time of their election, live in the state in which they were elected (but not the specific district).  Representatives are distributed (apportioned) to the states based on the population of each state - which is determined by the census.  Each state is guaranteed at least one member of the House of Representatives, regardless of population.

Note:  Members of the House generally represent a distinct geographical unit known as a Congressional District.  Once a state knows how many representatives it will have, the state is responsible for drawing these districts.  If there are changes, this process is generally referred to as "redistricting."

The House of Representatives is entitled to select its Speaker and other officers, and is given the "sole power of impeachment."

Note:  Impeachment is commonly misunderstood as the removing of a President from office.  It is not.  Impeachment is the bringing of formal charges against the President (or other federal officials) through a vote of the House.  Only a simple majority is required to achieve an impeachment.  Only two Presidents have ever been formally impeached by the House of Representatives:  Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton.

Section 3
Section 3 describes the Senate, establishes the criteria for being a member of that body, and explains the selection process for Senators.  Each state has been allotted two senators, who are chosen every six years.

Note:  Unlike the House, only one-third of the Senate is elected every two years.  In addition, Members of the Senate were originally selected by the state legislatures.  State switched to popular elections of Senators after passage of the 17th Amendment.

Senators must be at least 30 years old, a citizen of the United States for at least nine years, and must, at the time of election, live in the state from which they are elected.

The Vice President of the United States is named as the President of the Senate.  However, the Vice President has no vote on legislation unless there is a tie.  The Senate is given authority to select a "President pro tempore" to serve when the Vice President is absent, and to select its other officers.

The Senate is given the "sole power" to try impeachment cases.  When the President of the U.S. is the subject of an impeachment trial, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court is required to preside over the proceedings.  A vote for conviction must achieve two-thirds of the members present.

The punishment for conviction may not exceed removal of office and disqualification to hold any further office  under the United States.  However, an individual who has been convicted in an impeachment trial, is still subject to criminal prosecution.

Section 4
Section 4 grants state governments the authority to create the "times, places, and manner" of holding elections for Members of the House and Senate.  But Congress is granted the authority to alter these.

Section 5
Section 5 of the Article I grants each chamber the authority to:

• Certify the elections of its own members
• Determine its rules of proceedings
• Discipline its members (including the power to expel members)

 This section also requires both chambers to keep a journal of its proceedings and to publish that journal.  It prevents either chamber from adjourning for longer than three days without the consent of the other.  It also defines what constitutes a quorum for conducting business.

Section 6
Section 6 protects Members of Congress from arrest while in session, or while going or coming from

session.  It also protects them from "questioning" regarding their participation in a speech or debate in either chamber.

This section also authorizes the compensation of Members of Congress for their service.  In addition, it prohibits Members of Congress from simultaneously holding any other office under the U.S., or from accepting a newly created position, or one whose compensation was increased, during the time of their term.

Section 7
Section 7 of Article I outlines the process for a bill (proposed law) to become a law.  It must:

• Be passed by both the House and Senate
• Be signed by the President

If the president refuses to sign a bill passed by both the House and Senate, then they may override the president's veto by a two-thirds majority vote (each chamber must achieve a two-thirds majority).  If this is accomplished, the bill becomes law.  If a bill is not signed or vetoed by a president within ten days, it becomes law - unless Congress adjourns in that time span, then the bill does not become law.

This section also requires that all bill for "raising revenue" shall be initiated by the House of Representatives.

Section 8

Section 8 lists the "enumerated powers" (those powers specifically granted) of Congress.  The following is an abbreviated listing of those powers:

• To assess and collect taxes, duties imposts and excises (these must be uniform throughout the country)
• To provide for the common defense
• To provide for the general welfare of the nation
• To borrow money
• To regulate commerce with foreign nations, Indian Tribes, and among the states
• To create naturalization laws
• To create bankruptcy laws
• To coin money and regulate its value and to establish a "standard of weights & measures"
• To punish counterfeiting
• To establish post offices
• To authorize patents, copyrights, and trademarks
• To create federal courts (below the Supreme Court)\
• To define and punish piracy
• To declare war
• To raise armies and maintain a navy
• To make rules for the military
• To organize, arm, discipline, and utilize militias.
• To exercise exclusive authority over Washington, DC
• To make all laws "necessary and proper" for executing these powers (this is called the "Necessary & Proper" clause)

Section 9

Section 9 specifically bans certain powers from Congress.  Such unauthorized powers include:

• Suspending the writ of habeas corpus
• Authorizing bills of attainder or ex post facto laws
• Allowing states to tax one another's exported goods
• Spending money not appropriated by Congress 
• Issuing titles of nobility

Section 10

Section 10 specifically bans certain powers from being used by the state governments.  These include:

• Entering into treaties or alliances
• Coining money
• Passing Bills of attainder or ex post facto laws
• Failing to enforce contracts
• Granting titles of nobility
• Assess imposts or duties on imports or exports
• Engage in war (unless attacked)

International School Comparisons

Few are more critical of the current U.S. public school system than myself.  However, that criticism needs to be tempered with a measure of reality.

The problem with articles such as this one is that they are comparing apples to oranges.  When comparing school districts in the U.S. to those of the "best schools" internationally, we must account for the differences in who actually is allowed to receive an education.

In many of those countries with the "best schools", low performing students are weeded out before they ever reach high school.  In the U.S., as long as someone has an active heartbeat, they are allowed to attend school.  The more egalitarian approach the U.S. has towards education guarantees our averages on standardized tests will fall below those nations who refuse to allow low performing students in their doors.

Let's not be disingenuous in our criticism.  I may be a critic, but I'd like to believe I'm an honest one.

Government Spending and Poverty

This article from the National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA) makes a point that often is missed in discussions of social welfare policy discussions.  It points out that although we have spent trillions now on various programs to assist the poor, their effect on the poverty rate is negligible at best.  Not only has the poverty rate remained consistent (between 12% - 15%) since the institution of President Lyndon Johnson's "Great Society" programs in the mid-1960s, over the last 20 years it has mirrored the jobless rate.

Think about this for a moment.  In his book, Issues in Economics Today, Robert Guell notes that the poverty gap (the amount of money it would take to bring every household under the poverty line above it) is $79 billion.  However, we spend $646 billion on various federal, state, and local programs.  In addition, Americans generously gave another $298 billion to charitable organizations.  So the total spending to alleviate poverty in the U.S. is between $646 billion and $944 billion (not all charitable donations go to assist the poor).

And yet, the poverty rate remains essentially unchanged.  Why is this?  And why do we spend over $650 billion to address what is a $79 billion problem?  Guell offers the following explanations:

• We deny those who are poor the opportunity to choose what they need because we don't trust them to make good decisions.  Says Guell, "Voters have made it clear they do not trust the judgment of the people who receive government benefits concerning what goods they buy.
• People are more concerned with the welfare of needy children, than with the welfare of adults.  Guell notes that almost all programs require a child to be in the household in order to receive benefits.
• Some benefits are designed more to make those providing them feel good about themselves than to actually benefit the recipients.
• We provide assistance to some families who are above the poverty line
• We have an inadequate definition of poverty.  The Heritage Foundation has conducted extensive research on poverty in the U.S. and has found:
• 43% of "poor households" own their own homes
• 80% of the poor have air conditioning
• 75% own their own car; and 31% own two or more cars
• Nearly 1 million "poor" families own homes worth more than $150,000
• The hundreds of thousands of people in the U.S. who have little income but are worth hundreds of thousands of dollars (in some cases worth millions) are considered "poor"

Another important reason I believe that the poverty rate remains relatively the same is because we have fundamentally altered the relationship between benefactor and recipient.  Usually, when you receive assistance from a friend or family member, you feel the urge to improve your circumstances so you don't have to ask again.  It's one way we show our gratitude for their generosity.  It's the mentality of, "I'm going to take your generosity and improve myself so I don't have to burden you again."

However, when the benefactor is a faceless bureaucracy that you are not concerned about continuously receiving assistance from (because it has an endless supply of money) that incentive to improve one's circumstances is reduced.  There's no relationship between giver and receiver, and hence no sense of obligation to stop asking for assistance.

Another important aspect that arises from this changed relationship is the notion of "entitlement."  Very few of us would ever assert we are entitled to a share of a family member or friend's income or wealth.  However, when it's the government doing the giving, it's easier to lay claim to some entitlement of income.  Those who receive these benefits don't develop a sense of gratitude towards the taxpayers who fund government programs, but rather a sense of entitlement to the continued support develops.

So not only does the current system have efficiency problems as noted by Guell, it also has a conceptual problem created by changing the relationship between those that provide the assistance and those who receive it.  Both sets of issues must be addressed if we want to see a significant reduction in poverty.

Comparative Economics - Chapter 1

This is the first week of classes at the University of Central Oklahoma (UCO).  I have the honor of teaching three courses during this semester:  Comparative Economics, Social Issues in Economics, and International Business Communications.

In my comparative economics class we're covering chapter 1 of our text, Comparative Economics in a Transforming World Economy. 

Here are some of the highlights of our discussion:

• Was Francis Fukuyama's bold prediction that the end of the Cold War meant the end of any real challenge to the American model of political economy as well as any meaningful competition between alternative forms of political and economic systems correct?
• There are six "frameworks" that can be used to effectively classify economies:
• Allocation Mechanisms:  Traditional, Market, or Command
• Forms of Ownership:  This concerns who owns the means of production - the state; private individuals and firms, or organized religious groups
• The Role of Planning:  Planned or Market (their does exist some combinations of the two)
• Types of Incentives:  Material or Moral
• Income Redistribution:  Ludwig Von Mises vs. John Rawls
• Politics & Ideology:  Does Redistribution lead to some form of command socialist dictatorship? Are market capitalism & democracy inexorably linked?

•  Here are 9 Criteria for evaluating Economies:
• Level of Output
• Growth Rate of Output
• Composition of Output
• Static Efficiency
• Dynamic Efficiency
• Macroeconomic Stability
• Economic security of the individual
• Degree of equality of income and wealth distribution
• Degree of freedom of the individual

Obviously, some of these criteria can be seen as conflicting with others (the higher the degree of individual freedom, the less income/wealth equality tend to be, for example).

An interesting question that arises from this chapter relates to the author's presumption that the democratic process is, by definition, anti-dictatorial.  Is it true that democracy is a guarantee against dictatorship? 

Also, how central to rational market calculation is the profit motive? 

I'm looking forward to our discussion this evening.

The Legislative Process

"Listen to advice and accept instruction, and in the end you will be wise." - Proverbs 19:20 (NIV)

I'm performing my public service for the election cycle by helping people understand how the legislative process works at the national level.  Now, before I get what has become the standard response to some of my posts of "What makes you qualified to tell us about this," or "Who made you an authority on this," type of questions (obviously meant as a way to say I don't know any more than you) let me establish my bonafides up front.

First, I have a Bachelor's Degree from Southern Nazarene University in Political Science and a Masters Degree from the University of Central Oklahoma in Political Science.  So from an academic/intellectual perspective, I've been studying this for some time.  Second, I worked for a U.S. Representative for 6 years.  So I have coupled my academic knowledge with actual real-world experience.  Finally, several local institutions of higher education have found my ability to communicate this material to others of such high quality that they have hired me to teach it to their students.  So I hope we can dispense with all the questions/attempts to say I don't know what I'm talking about.  I do.

If you want to understand how the legislative process works, heed the scripture quoted above, and try to put your preconceptions behind you.

Congress is divided into two separate chambers:  The House of Representatives and the Senate.  While these two bodies combined form "Congress" they are distinct institutions that have their own rules, their own calendars, their own requirements, and their own agendas.  Neither chamber is required to review legislation passed by the other.  Legislation often dies this way, especially in an environment like the current one, where each chamber is controlled by a different party.  But it happens when one party controls both institutions as well (the demise of many provisions of the "Contract with America" advanced by House Republicans is an example of this).

The House of Representatives is comprised of 435 members divided among the 50 states based on population.  These members serve two-year terms.  After each census, reapportionment occurs.  This is where the 435 seats may be re-distributed among the states should population growth/shifts require it.  The individual state governments are required to draw the districts (geographical boundaries) of each House District in their state.  Individuals running for the House of Representatives are required to live in the state for which they are running (i.e., you can't live in Oklahoma and run for Congress in Florida).  However, you do not have to live in the House district for which you are running (although as a practical matter, it's difficult to win if you don't live in the district).

The Senate is comprised of 100 members, with every state having an equal number - 2.  While each senator is elected to a 6-year term, they are set on a rotating basis, where only 1/3 of the senate is elected every two years.  This is unlike the House of Representatives, where the entire membership is elected every two years.  Senators are not bound to geographic districts within the states, like House members.  They both represent the entire state.  Because the Constitution requires equal representation in the senate, senators are not affected by the census and there is no reapportionment.  Like house members, an individual running for the senate must live in the state for which they are running.

The House of Representatives was designed to be very sensitive and responsive to the "passions" running through society.  Because House members are elected so frequently, they must have a strong connection to the people in their individual districts.  Because of this sensitivity to political movements among voters, the majority party in the House has the ability to move legislation through that institution with little resistance from the minority party.  Not only does the majority party have it's nominee elected as Speaker of the House, but it also controls all the committee and subcommittee chairmanships - which means it has control of the legislative process in the House.  The majority party does not have to be responsive to the minority party's concerns, complaints, or wishes. 

The Senate was designed to be more detached from the same political passions that so affect the House of Representatives.  Because senators have longer terms, and because they were not originally elected directly by the people, they could afford to examine proposed laws from a more "objective" view (so was the theory).  However, with the ratification of the 17th Amendment, senators did become more affected by the political winds.  But the length of their terms still provide some insulation, as compared to their counterparts in the House.  Because the Senate was expected to be more detached, it developed rules that allow the minority party greater power to slow down the legislative process.  I'll discuss these in more detail below.

Both the House and the Senate are divided into committees.  Here are two links where you can access information about specific committees in each chamber:  http://www.house.gov/committees/ and http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/committees/d_three_sections_with_teasers/committees_home.htm

As I indicated earlier, the majority party in both chambers controls the chairmanships of their committees.  This gives the majority party great power in determining what bills will actually be voted on in each chamber.  Committee chairs have virtually complete control of the process within their committees, and most bills die in committee.  In the House, the Speaker has tremendous power in the legislative process.  The Speaker approves committee chairmanships, committee assignments, and directs which committee(s) proposed legislation will be directed.  The Senate has no single individual with the same amount of power as the Speaker of the House.  The majority leader of the senate is much less able to control the legislative process than the Speaker can in the House.

Within the committees and their subcommittees, the real work of writing legislation begins.  Hearings may be held.  But such hearings are rarely "fact finding" exercises.  They simply allow the majority party (and sometimes the minority party) the opportunity to provide "witnesses" stating why they oppose or support specific proposals.  And remember, especially in the House, only that legislation which is supported by the majority party will be passed out of committee. 

In the House, once a bill has been reported out of a committee (received a majority of "yea" votes by the committee members), it goes to the Rules Committee, where the terms of debate are created.  These terms include the length of debate on the measure as well as whether or not amendments will be allowed.  Once the House has approved the Rule on a bill, it will be debated and voted upon.  But remember, at every stage of the process, the majority party has complete control of the process.  In the House, the minority party can make a lot of noise, but they can't really prevent anything from passing, or required the majority party to address their concerns.

In the Senate, the minority party has much more power to demand the majority party listen and address its concerns.  The senate has the rule of "unlimited debate."  So discussion of a proposal can go on indefinitely.  In order to stop debate, the senate must take a cloture vote.  To successfully enact cloture 60 senators must vote to do so.  In a period in which neither party has 60 senators, achieving cloture on the most controversial measures can become very difficult.  Unlimited debate allows senators to filibuster a bill - in effect to talk it to death.  Since the senate does not have a rules committee like the House, it utilizes unanimous consent agreements to set the parameters of debate for proposed laws.  However, a senator can prevent "unanimous consent" by placing a hold on the legislation.  The one measure that is specifically not subject to a filibuster in the Senate is the budget reconciliation legislation passed by Congress.  The Budget Act of 1974 specifically exempts reconciliation measures from filibuster attempts by only requiring 51 votes to pass (Senate Democrats used reconciliation to pass the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act since they could not produce 60 votes for cloture).

If the House and Senate produce differing versions of the same legislation, a conference committee is created which has members of both chambers and is designed to reconcile the differences.  Once a conference committee has completed its work, the measure is scheduled for a straight up or down vote in both chambers. 

Once legislation has been passed by both chambers, it proceeds to the President where it will be signed or vetoed.

Some important things to take away from this.  The majority party, in both chambers has control of the process.  In the House, it's almost complete.  In the Senate, that control is not as complete, but the majority party still gets its way, generally.

Also, when a party has a slim majority in either chamber, it gives factions within that party much more power to demand concessions from its leadership.  This means, especially on controversial legislation, it is usually the majority having to make agreements with individual or groups of members within its party to pass legislation more often than having to reach compromise with the minority party.  Again, this is particularly true in the House.

In addition, don't confuse legislative "debate" with actual persuasion.  Debate in either chamber is not about trying to convince anyone that they should change their position.  Debate in Congress is more about individual Representatives and Senators being able to make small speeches about legislation so they can ensure their constituents know where they stand on proposed laws.

Also, realize that most proposed laws never get past the committee stage.  Perhaps 1 in 10 proposals are reported out of committees for a full vote by either chamber.  Given that the majority party in each chamber controls committees, it is not surprising that the legislation that party desires is what is approved.

Finally, let go of the notion that their is much in the way of "cooperation" between the majority and minority parties in Congress.  First, they aren't elected with an expectation of cooperation.  In other words, people don't elect a Republican to go to Congress and start voting with Democrats, or vice versa.  They expect legislators to vote in a manner that is consistent with their party labels.  Second, the majority party holds almost all the cards at the legislative table.  It rarely, if ever, needs the cooperation of the minority party to pass anything.  It can, and has "steamrolled" the minority party on legislation for a long time.

I hope this has been helpful in understanding how the institution of Congress actually produces laws.  I'll admit, it's a basic introduction, but it should give you a good overview of what happens in Congress.

In Support of Kyle Loveless

Kyle Loveless is a good friend of mine who will take office as a State Senator in December.  Kyle and I got our starts in politics and government together on the staff of then-Congressman Ernest Istook back in the 1990s.  We've had the opportunity to work on a variety of projects and campaigns together over the years, as well as play some basketball, too.

This evening, Governor Mary Fallin will host a reception for Kyle at the Chesapeake Boathouse (725 S. Lincoln Blvd.).  I want to encourage you to take a few minutes from your evening and get to know Kyle.  I believe he's going to make an exceptional legislator.

Let me offer you a few brief reasons why I believe you should not only visit with Kyle, but support him as well.

• Kyle is a person you can trust - He is hard working, dedicated, and straightforward.  He may not always agree with you, but he'll never cause you to doubt his integrity.
• Kyle is invested in our community - His family has built a business over several generations.  They have established a reputation for exceptional work and service both locally, and nationally.  Kyle wants to see our state continue to grow and prosper.
• Kyle won't be learning on the job - Because of his experience, Kyle will be able to establish himself as a leader in the State Senate.  He'll be an effective legislator from day one.
• Kyle is eager to hear from you - Kyle wants input from his fellow citizens.  He knows that great ideas are often created from outside the state capitol.  He wants to hear from you about the issues you believe are important and the solutions you believe will work.

So I hope you will take a few minutes from your evening and join Governor Fallin in congratulating Kyle on his election to the State Senate.  I know he'll enjoy the opportunity to visit with you.

I hope to see you there.

You can learn more about Kyle and the event this evening at http://kyleloveless.com/

What I like about John Roberts' Ruling

Like most conservatives/libertarians, I would have wished the Court had firmly and undeniably squashed the individual mandate portion of the health care reform legislation passed by Democrats in 2010.  But I have found quite a bit to like from Chief Justice Robert's majority opinion.

First, the Court firmly stated that legislation such as this could not be brought forward under the guise of the Commerce Clause.  While the Court has allowed Congress broad leeway in using that portion of the Constitution to increase its regulatory powers, it drew a line in the sand on the ability to compel individuals to participate in commerce.  That's a good victory for those who would like Constitutional limits to be something more than historical footnotes.

Second, they also eschewed the notion that the Necessary & Proper clause could, on it's own allow Congress to compel individual action such as is required under the new law.  Again, the Court (and Justice Roberts) clearly articulated a conservative view on this point.

Unfortunately, Justice Roberts left the "conservative" perspective when upholding the individual mandate as a part of Congress' taxing powers.  But did he really abandon the conservative cause on this issue?  While the outcome was one no conservative really supports, Robert's reasoning can be substantiated through a conservative line of thought.

Robert's most effective point in supporting upholding the mandate as a "tax" is that we already use the tax code to reward or punish individual behavior.  I won't go through an exhaustive list, but the most obvious is the tax reward for purchasing a home.  By allowing home owners to deduct the interest on their mortgage, the government punishes non-home owners by requiring them to pay higher taxes. 

Since most conservatives believe home ownership is a "good" thing, they haven't minded this, or many other such utilization of the tax code.  But if we allow that the tax code can be used to reward or punish individual behavior, then whatever behavior Congress determines as desirable can be rewarded - and whatever it deems undesirable can be punished.  I hate to use the "slippery slope" moniker, but...

Another strong point from Robert's opinion was a very simple one:  If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it's a duck.  This "penalty" as the Obama Administration refers to it, is collected by the IRS via the normal income tax process, and enforcement of it comes through the IRS as well.  Despite what the President and his supporters want to argue, this is, and always has been, a tax.  Roberts simply confirmed what conservatives and others had been arguing since the legislation was introduced in Congress.

However, something happened between the oral arguments before the court and it's final ruling.  Conservatives were stunned when Roberts took a truly conservative stance.  A little acknowledged part of Robert's opinion explains that the Court has an affirmative obligation to sustain the constitutionality of legislation, if it can be done in a reasonable manner.  Roberts cited precedent in previous Supreme Court rulings to support this perspective and, to my knowledge, no one has stepped forward to challenge it.

So if it's accepted practice to use the tax code to reward or punish individual behavior, and if this "mandate" is indeed a tax, then Robert's reasoning makes sense, even if it creates a result I, or my fellow conservatives, oppose.

But here's what I really like about the ruling.  It will force conservatives to rethink this habit of utilizing the tax code for "behavior modification."  If they are at all serious about personal liberty, it should also compel conservatives to rethink the income tax entirely.  And not just changing from our current system to a "flat" tax.  But repealing the 16th Amendment and eliminating the thing completely. 

Will this happen?  I don't know.  But, if those who hold themselves out as conservative leaders have any intellectual integrity at all, they will take Robert's ruling as the cue to free our nation from the most insidious form of government financing developed.  If they do, Robert's opinion will become the catalyst for the single greatest freedom enhancing action in my lifetime.