Friday, October 26, 2012

"E" Amendment would Showcase Vitter's Proposal

The amendment process does not require participation from the president. Therefore, when discussing passage of an amendment to the constitution, it merely needs to go through House and Senate. The difficult part is gaining ratification from 37 of the 50 states.

The "American English Unification Amendment" as outlined in "E" is for English would appear to have sufficient support for consideration.

87% of America favors English as the official language. 71% of the nation favors voter I.D. cards that would include the actual picture of the person who's name appeared on the card. These are two of the highlights of the "American English Unification Amendment" AKA the "E" Amendment. But there is more.

Louisiana Senator, David Vitter proposed changing Congressional representation to "citizen based" from "person based." The constitution defines "persons" and not "citizens." Vitter objects on the grounds that "citizens only" should be the benchmark for determining representation. His argument is not without merit.

Shouldn't representation be based on actual citizens? Most Americans are not aware that "persons" are the basis of determining how many Congressmen states are allotted. It has always been population based. True, these non-citizen persons are not allowed to vote. But they are included when tabulating the number of Congressional seats each state may hold.

Specifically, if Vitter's proposal were adopted, California would lose five seats, New York would lose two and Illinois would lose one seat. Gaining states would be Oregon, Nebraska, Indiana, North Carolina, Georgia, Virginia, Texas and either Montana, Tennessee or Florida. Senate Democrats who opposed Vitter's idea pointed out correctly that all eight seats that would be transferred are currently occupied by Democrats.

Vitter's plan is included intact in the "E" Amendment.

There is no way to know exactly where those new districts would fall. But when looking at the gaining states, chances are, they would ultimately end up in Republican hands. Was this Vitter's ultimate goal?

Probably not! The question becomes, "should we allow only citizens to influence our legislative decisions? You would think so! If it were otherwise, wouldn't we allow non-citizens to vote? Republicans are quick to accuse Democrats of fast track amnesty, just in time for elections. Perhaps they have a point!

The "E" Amendment jumps into the thick of Vitter's argument. Not only does it propose picture I.D. cards as necessities for voting, but it also clearly affirms the Senator's position. House seat allocation will be based on citizens, not persons.

Vitter's idea would become in full focus when the proposed amendment went back to the states. It is expected that California and New York would oppose the amendment. But they are only two states. North Dakota and Alaska would have equal say. Both would be certain to ratify the "E" Amendment.

There are other provisions included in this proposed legislation. With Republicans winning more governorships, the chances of ratification grow with each passing day. A House and Senate majority could be a reality after the election.

It is clearly time to begin discussing the 'E" Amendment.

Monday, October 8, 2012

Obama, Romney and "English as the Official Language." Where both candidates would stand and why

Would Mitt Romney support the "E" Amendment?

Would Barack Obama support the "E" Amendment?

A Chicago probate lawyer shared his perception with me. He had met Barack Obama and was a strong supporter. He believed that the President would support the proposed amendment, if the decision were left solely to him. Unfortunately, a good chunk of his constituency would be horrified at the thought!

Mitt Romney? Four months ago, I would have assumed "probably not." At that point, I considered Mitt too milk toast, too much of a flip-flopper to back anything decisive. As time passes, I am seeing him as a "problem solver." If elected, he will tackle his new job for what it is: a job.

Job one is getting the economy moving again. In order to do that, we must increase tax revenue. I didn't say increase taxes. I said revenue. To do that, we must have more people paying taxes. Which translates to more jobs. To do this, we must lower the national debt. To lower the national debt, we must cut expenses. The "E" amendment is all about circumventing previous mandates. These previous mandates cost big money. The amendment would make them unlawful.

Barack Obama's problem is basic lack of understanding of how the private sector creates jobs. In the October 3rd debate, he was so intellectually overmatched that you almost felt sorry for him. The job of President of the United States is simply over his head. He is not qualified to be president and never was! As "E" is for English pointed out, he is a "front man" for powerful global interests who seek to undermine the United States of America.

While he might personally believe that "making Americans the "masters of the English language" is a great idea, such an objective is at cross purposes with the aims of his bosses. They want "Balkanization," in the name of diversity. Well meaning supporters of the president should allow this comparison to serve as their ultimate litmus test.

87% of the country favors English as the official language. As consummate Democrats Barack Obama and his friend Bill Clinton should be urging adoption, on the basis of the 87%. Why aren't they? Maybe it depends on the master that you serve. The Council of Foreign Relations is about the world, not America.

Conservatives want to feel good about Romney. Doing so is as simple as taking him for what he is. Read his history. Review his record as Governor of Massachusetts. Know who is friends are and you will have your answer.

Like Clinton, Romney is a "pragmatist." He would look at this proposed legislation from several dimensions, starting with the fact that 87% of the country favors it. From there, he would examine the feasibility from a "dollars and cents" perspective. Upon concluding that the numbers work, he would strive to build a bi-partisan coalition. He would seek ideas from members of both parties and hammer together something that would address a multitude of issues. Immigration reform would be at the top of the list.

The "E" Amendment is so "vintage Romney" that Mitt might think that it was his own idea! He would proceed accordingly. Perhaps Mitt Romney's strongest attribute is the ability to pick up and improve upon good ideas. This framework legislation would give him a benchmark to accomplish several goals. There would be things about the "E" Amendment that both sides liked and disliked. In essence, necessary ingredients for a real bi-partisan compromise would be there.

Obama's number one priority isn't America. He sees our people as spoiled and doesn't think twice about mandating measures that would amount to major sacrifices for all of us. His peers see a better educated America as a threat. The masses are infinitely more manageable "dumbed down." When Stalinists coined the phrase, "forward," their plans did not include teaching the masses how to think.

In short, no matter what Obama might think of the "E" Amendment personally, it would be the absolute antidote of what his party leadership is trying to accomplish. Romney loves America. He wants everyone from his sons to the new immigrant from Haiti flipping burgers at McDonalds to have room to grow. To do this, you must learn how to think. For those behind Obama's heralded "hope and change," this imposes the gravest of dangers.