Congress Does Not Have The Right To Not Pay Our Bills

When our US Constitution was written it gave Congress the power, and the authorization, to raise and collect taxes. It, also, gave Congress the obligation to pay the bills that our country has already run up.

 The US Supreme Court reaffirmed this in Perry v. United States, 294 U.S. 330 (1935). In fact, part of the ruling was as follows:

 4. There is a clear distinction between the power of Congress to control or interdict the contracts of private parties when they interfere with the exercise of its constitutional authority and a power in Congress to alter or repudiate the substance of its own engagements when it has borrowed money under its constitutional authority. P. 294 U. S. 350.

5. By virtue of the power to borrow money “on the credit of the United States,” Congress is authorized to pledge that credit as assurance of payment as stipulated — as the highest assurance the Government can give — its plighted faith. To say that Congress may withdraw or ignore that pledge is to assume that the Constitution contemplates a vain promise, a pledge having no other sanction than the pleasure and convenience of the pledgor. P. 294 U. S. 351.

6. When the United States, with constitutional authority, makes contracts, it has rights and incurs responsibilities similar to those of individuals who are parties to such instruments. P. 294 U. S. 352.

7. The right to make binding obligations is a power of sovereignty. P. 294 U. S. 353.

8. The sovereignty of the United States resides in the people, and Congress cannot invoke the sovereignty of the people to override their will as declared in the Constitution. P. 294 U. S. 353.

9. The power given Congress to borrow money on the credit of the United States is unqualified and vital to the Government, and the binding quality of the promise of the United States is of the essence of the credit pledged. P. 294 U. S. 353.

10. The fact that the United States may not be sued without its consent is a matter of procedure which does not affect the legality and binding character of its contracts. P. 294 U. S. 354.

11. Section 4 of the Fourteenth Amendment, declaring that “The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, . . . shall not be questioned,” is confirmatory of a fundamental principle, applying as well to bonds issued after, as to those issued before, the adoption of the Amendment, and the expression “validity of the public debt ” embraces whatever concerns the integrity of the public obligations. P. 294 U. S. 354.

 So, once a budget is agreed upon and signed into law, we do not have the right to not pay the bills that arise from it. What is being used to pay the bills, currently, is the debt ceiling. The debt ceiling is to pay for what we have already said that we would pay. It has nothing to do with new budgets. Nothing whatsoever.

 It does not matter which Congress approved of the bills, we are obliged to pay for them once they have been passed and signed by the President. The fact that a Congress is different from the one that approved the spending is completely immaterial. It still has the obligation to pay it/them no matter who approved it/them.

 I have been watching with growing anger for the last 4 years as the Republican’s in Congress have attempted to not pay for our legal obligations with various types of blackmail. What I have the most anger for, however, is the Democrats who have failed, time after time, to point this obligation out. It should have been done loudly and clearly and early.

 I have watched with growing anger as the media refuses to print the fact that we do not have the right to not pay our obligations. And they have refused to. I have written to most of the national publications to ask that they do so. They don’t do it.

 Part of the reason that I have started this blog is because nobody seems willing to point these things out. It’s like the elephant in the kitchen. Whether you acknowledge it or not, it’s still there.

 Our country needs to have more than just me to bring this to peoples attention.

As far as I’m concerned, Congress needs to stop acting like elementary school children and start doing their job. And if Boehner cries because of it, oh well.

Being Rational in the Face of Fear

I agree that service to our country should not be discounted in any way, either mainland service or overseas. I remember watching that happen at the end of Vietnam and being very upset with it. I may have only been a teenager but it affected me, and my family, greatly.

My Dad hadn’t been out of the Air Force for more than a few years and we were appalled at the conduct of the civilians who reacted violently about our returning soldiers. We understood being against the war, and we understood the protests and the sit-ins. We were taught that was part of free speech, and it was part of what our soldiers were fighting for. But the hate? No. The violence? No. Some of these people were protesting violence WITH violence.  And it made no sense to us. But then violence has never made much sense to me. It’s mostly just a waste of energy. Both mine and the person who is angry.

It’s like when we get angry or annoyed with one of our children. When you realize it, you kind of mentally step back and ask yourself  if this is going to matter in 15 minutes or an hour. If it’s not going to, step back and do nothing. You know, choose your fights. Don’t sweat the small stuff, and most of it is small stuff.

Sometimes we are just too close to a subject to look at it rationally. If we are upset about something, if we can look at it rationally, the fear and anger lessen because we understand it more. There are times when we fear something, that we need to take a step back and look to see if that fear is rational. Most of the time it isn’t, and we wind ourselves up because we don’t take the time to look at the fear. The unknown is very scary, and a lot of people are so afraid that they don’t stop to actually look at what they are afraid of.

Where are all the court employee’s that handle official documents?

In all the birther nonsense I keep wondering where are all the court employee’s, the Department of Health employee’s, the Notary Public’s, the Genealogists, the historian’s? The ones that handle official documents. The ones who know what qualifies a document as being valid or not? Why are they not speaking up about the birther claims? Why are they not being listened to? They have facts on their side, not magical thinking, as the birthers do.

Why are so many people so very willing to pay attention to people like Joe Arpaio?  Donald Trump? Why isn’t Romney stating clearly that what they are doing is wrong, and that Obama was born in Hawaii? It is a fact, and it has been verified. Many times. And it has never been proven that he wasn’t.

Federal and State users are able to verify, electronically, whether a birth or death certificate is valid or not.  It is a system called The National Association for Public Health Statistics and Information Systems (NAPHSIS).  The State or Federal workers who are authorized to use the system can log on to the system, input the information they want to verify and get either a “Verify” or “Deny” answer. There is no reason for the grandstanding of Sheriff Arpaio, or anyone else. So, why isn’t it being done? And why aren’t people asking them, publicly, why they aren’t using it? The majority of states use it, including Arizona and Hawaii.

RCW 70.58.104

“The state registrar may prepare typewritten, photographic, electronic or other reproductions of records of birth, death, fetal death, marriage, or decrees of divorce, annulment, or legal separation registered under law or that portion of the record of any birth which shows the child’s full name, sex, date of birth, and date of filing of the certificate. Such reproductions, when certified by the state registrar, shall be considered for all purposes the same as the original and shall be prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein.”

This is, specifically, from the State of Washington. This is, basically, the same law in every single state, and territory, of the US.

Each state, past the basic information that the US Government requires, decides what will, and what will not, go on the official birth certificates. They decide what the certificate will look like and what will go on the certificate.

Replacement certificates are big business for states.  I’ve had 3 in my life. I am 53. They get lost, destroyed, whatever. {{shrug}}

The paper that your parents got from the hospital, with your foot prints on it, is not a legal birth certificate. And it cannot be used to verify your identity. It hasn’t been since the mid-to-late 1970′s.

If you were born 50 years ago and you requested a replacement birth certificate, you would get one that was laser printed on the current form that the state legislature has decided to use. This form changes periodically. It will have the State Seal on it and usually stamped with the stamp of the State Registrar. If those are not on it, it is not a legal document. If it does have them on it, it is a legal document. Period. No leeway.

Plus, each state decides, independently, how long vital records will be private. In Hawaii, the State of Hawaii decided that vital records are not public for 75 years. Which means that when President Obama turns 75, you have the right to request a copy of his birth certificate, non-certified (since it’s not your birth record, or your ancestors’ record), and printed on what ever form the State of Hawaii is then choosing to print it on.

I just had a Grand Nephew that was born this last Friday, in New Jersey. When his birth certificate is sent to his parents it will be on the same form, in the same format, as what someone will receive if they request a replacement birth certificate at this time. The replacement will not be a certified copy of the original hospital paper that was sent to the Department of Health. US States haven’t done that for quite a while. It will be a laser printed documented with information in the state database. That information is taken straight from the Department of Health documents.  Nowhere else.

So, lets start talking about real issues, instead of magical thinking. The fact is that President Barack Hussein Obama (a name his parents gave him, he didn’t choose it) was born in Hawaii, on 4 August 1961, and is a US Citizen.  And has been since the day of his birth.

Educational Privacy Laws, and how they apply to the demands for Obama’s school records

At one time in this country, anyone could walk up to any teacher or school and request the records, or conversation, about someone else’s academic records. That time has long been gone. Starting in the early 1970′s, school records (as well as some other records) became private, and were no longer public. Not even the parents of adult students could get them if they requested them.

This push for Obama to release his school records makes no sense, other than as a desperate act to try and bolster their argument that Obama is not eligible to be President. The only thing that I can think is that the people demanding these records are assuming that the name “Occidental”(as in Occidental College, the President’s 1st mainland college) is, somehow, suspect and they are hoping to find something to condemn our duly elected President.

The fact that it wouldn’t have any impact on Obama’s Presidency doesn’t seem to have any impact on them whatsoever.

Below is part of an explanation of what the laws are. The site where I got it is listed after the quote.

“In the United States, public opinion polls have shown a high level of concern about personal privacy since the early 1970s. Increased computerization has led to extensive collection and dissemination of sensitive personal information for a variety of reasons. The federal and state governments have responded by passing a variety of statutes and regulations in many areas to prevent dissemination of personal information. Education records are protected by a number of federal and state statutes and regulations. Generally, school records can not be released without the prior permission of the student.

The Federal Education Records and Privacy Act (FERPA), commonly known as the Buckley Amendment, requires that any school or institution that receives federal funds for education may not release school records or any other personally identifiable information without the prior consent of the student, with a few specific exceptions. This law creates a minimum standard for the protection of records which may be increased by either state or local law or regulations.

Records may also be protected by the federal Privacy Act of 1974, and state implementations, the Freedom of Information Act and state open records laws.”

http://epic.org/privacy/education/school.html