Menu

Read responds to Kevin Brady article

EDITOR:
This is a counter point to Kevin Brady's article in the Aug. 14 issue in the San Jacinto News-Times. His opening commentary on the senate abandoning the ship while the Republican house worked. The only problem is the house worked on a bill that they knew the senate and president would never support. That is one of many bills the house has crafted over the session that they knew would not pass muster in the senate or the oval office.

This border crisis was created by a Republican congress and a Republican president in 2008. Since Obama did not take office until Jan. 2009, he could not have had a hand in this problem. So, when Kevin Brady needs to look for someone to put blame on for the problems of todayl, he only needs to point the finger at himself.

Our Texas governor has put the Texas National Guard on the border and for what reason I still have not figured out. All they can do down there is pick their nose. They have no power. They have weapons but they cannot use them. Now Kevin Brady and our governor and the house of representatives want the federal government to pay for these troops to be on the border and I ask, WHY? These troops were not called up by the federal government, so they should be paid for by the State of Texas.

Under the current law passed by Kevin Brady, illegal children are processed and let go into the country with a promise they will go to a judge when called to see if they can stay. Problem is, most do not report to the court and just stay in our fair country, thanks to Kevin Brady. What we need is more money to hire more judges and we need to be able to hold these children along the border and deport them to Mexico, since that is where they came form. We are not responsible for sending them to their country of origin.

Bill Clinton worked with Republicans and Ronald Reagan worked with Democrats but this Republican house refuses to work with this Democrat president. From day one the house leaders said they wanted Obama out of office and the house has worked to do that ever since. They won't give an inch but they will take a foot.

JAMES A. BLACK
Oakhurst, Texas

Reader says there are a few things learned from watching politics here

EDITOR:

As this political season bears down on our community, it is easy to see that the makings for a couple of new disasters are looming large. There are a few things that I have learned in watching politics here;
1) An official who will file false criminal charges for political purpose is corrupt.
2) An official who will NOT file legitimate criminal charges for political purpose is corrupt.
3) They will both lie to you and steal from you.
X = Liars are corrupt.
I am not interested in your party affiliation. I don't care what church you go to. Your ethnic origins aren't important to me. It doesn't matter what eternal fraternal order you belong to. If you are a liar, you are a thief. We don't need you in office here representing our interests. It seems we have had a batch of 'Pelosisms' here of late, ie: elect them first and then find out who they are, what's 'in 'em' if you will. Why? The information is out there if you are just willing to look. When someone supports a candidate who has been proven a liar and a criminal by public records, and the voter is aware of that proof, that voter takes on the candidate's corruption when they vote for or endorse the candidate. It seems we've lost our love of the truth, not just in Washington DC, but here in San Jacinto County. It seems that years of faithful service with no scandal or corruption in office doesn't sway the voters like a juicy and salacious lie will. Why? Could it be that those who thirst for political power for personal gain can't run on the truth? Lord knows, I have put the squeeze on a few corrupt cops and elected officials in my day and they all hate me and say so openly. You can spot the corrupt ones because they never pass an opportunity to malign my character and integrity. As we step forth into this new political season, be assured that I will continue to fact check and present irrefutable evidence of any claim I make. You corrupt ones better get a head start spreading your lies and attempting to defile my credibility. You are in my sights.

Stephen C. Watson
Pointblank

Is Article V in Our Future?

By Phyllis Schlafly

Attacks on the U.S. Constitution are coming from all sides. The New York Times opened its op-ed page to several liberal professors of government: One calls our Constitution "imbecilic," another claims it contains "archaic" and "evil provisions" and a third urges us to "rewrite the Second Amendment."

Out of exasperation with the flouting of the Constitution by Barack Obama and his acolytes, and the way Congress is letting them get by with these violations, several conservative authors and pundits are promoting the calling of a national convention to propose amendments to the Constitution. They believe a series of amendments can put our country on a wiser path.
The authority for such a procedure is Article V of our Constitution, so they are calling their plan of action an Article V convention. However, they are fooling themselves when they suggest that Article V creates a path to bypass Congress with a "convention of states."

The only power the states have under Article V is the opportunity to submit an "application" (petition) humbly beseeching Congress to call a convention. Hundreds of such applications have been submitted over the years, with widely different purposes and wording, many applications were later rescinded and some purport to make the application valid for only a particular amendment such as a federal balanced budget or congressional term limits.

Article V states that Congress "shall" call a convention on the application of two-thirds of state legislatures (34), but how will Congress count valid applications? We don't know, and so far, Congress has ignored them anyway.

If Congress ever decides to act, Article V gives Congress exclusive power to issue the "Call" for a convention to propose "amendments" (note the plural). The Call is the governing document which determines all the basic rules such as where and when a convention will be held, who is eligible to be a delegate (will current office-holders be eligible?), how delegates will be apportioned, how expenses will be paid and who will be the chairman.

Article V also gives Congress the power to determine whether the three-fourths of the states required for ratification of amendments can ratify by the state legislature's action or by state conventions.

The most important question to which there is no answer is how will convention delegates be apportioned? Will each state have one vote (no matter how many delegates it sends), which was the rule in the 1787 Philadelphia convention, or will the convention be apportioned according to population (like Congress or the Electoral College)?

Nothing in Article V gives the states any power to make this fundamental decision.
If apportionment is by population, the big states will control the outcome.

Article V doesn't give any power to the states to propose constitutional amendments, or to decide which amendments will be considered by the convention. Article V doesn't give any power to the courts to correct what does or does not happen.

Now imagine Democratic and Republican conventions meeting in the same hall and trying to agree on constitutional changes. Imagine the gridlock in drafting a constitutional plank by caucuses led by Sarah Palin and Al Sharpton.

Everything else about how an Article V Convention would function, including its agenda, is anybody's guess. Advocates of an Article V convention can hope and predict, but they cannot assure us that any of their plans will come true.

If we follow the model of the 1787 Convention, will the deliberations be secret? Are you kidding? Nothing is secret any more. What are the plans to deal with protesters: the gun-control lobby, the gay lobby, the abortion lobby, the green lobby, plus experienced protestors trained by Obama's Organizing for Action, at what would surely be the biggest media event of the year, if not of the century.

There is no proof that the VIPs promoting an Article V convention have any first-hand knowledge of the politics or procedures of a contested national convention. Don't they realize that the convention will set its own agenda and that states will have no say over which amendments are considered?

A recent example of how a convention chairman wielding the gavel can manipulate what happens is the way the 2012 Democratic National Convention chairman ruthlessly called the vote wrong when a delegate tried to add a reference to God in the party platform. The chairman got by with declaring the amendment passed even though we all saw on television that the "Noes" won the vote.

The whole process is a prescription for political chaos, controversy and confrontation. Alas, I don't see any George Washingtons, James Madisons, Ben Franklins or Alexander Hamiltons around today who could do as good a job as the Founding Fathers, and I'm worried about the men who think they can.