Summer+2010+-+Commentary+on+the+Legislature

League City Red Light Camera Dispute**
 * Leah Wood

It isn’t a shocker that League city residences are in an uproar about the five intersections in League city that are now housing red light cameras. The mayor has stated that her office is flooded with complaints daily and is now wondering if the cameras were a mistake. She went on to add that she feels they should have included the citizens more by holding more public meetings. Even though she was not the one running the show at the time this decision was made, how could anyone not think that meeting with the public more would not have been a better option, that is if it was truly in the best interest of the city. Or is it just a money making machine designed to create profit for a smaller suburban city? For the month of September alone, there were 5770 violations, which adds up to a 5.19 million dollar tax on League Cities citizens, and 3600 of these red light runners were turning right at the intersection of 45 southbound feeder and Fm 518. Shouldn’t we as residence decide how to raise funds for the city or is this turning into a dictatorship? What’s next? Cameras in your backyard to ensure you are smoking or growing marijuana? What happened to our constitutional rights to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, due process, right to appeal, right to trial by jury? Elected officials claim that these lights are there for our safety, but what have they shown to the people that shows their safety was ever in danger? And if you have ever been to the intersection of 45 southbound feeder and Fm 518, and made a right hand turn, I think you might agree with me in saying not once has my safety turning right on red ever felt at risk. The turning lane at this intersection has its very own lane. The city, at the beginning of this process, refunded $75 to 1,740 red light camera tickets. The timers on the camera on the same intersection of 45 southbound feeder and Fm 518 were set at 4 seconds rather than the state required 4.7 seconds. Would you believe that it was not the city officials who stumbled across this little accident? It was a Baytown citizen who caught the error. League city blames the red light camera company Redflex and in efforts to make amends not only dismissed the tickets, refunded money but added an extra.09 to the timer. Redflex was in charge of surveying the intersections around town and they are the ones who suggested the 45/518 intersection. They perform a very detailed measurement process that would have revealed the exact timing of the lights. Has anyone thought to stop and question the motives behind Redflex suggesting this intersection? Would you think harder about questioning their motive if you knew that League City pays Redflex $4800 per month per camera?? And that’s only in League City, Houston is also a Redflex “subscriber”, there is definitely BIG money in this red light camera business. My opinion is the cameras are naturally offensive to a law abiding citizen and I don’t believe they are there for my or anyone else safety. I think it’s a new way the city has come up with to generate funds.

__Sarah Denney__
 * Legislative Commentary**

**The Road To ARRA**

The Legislative branch is made up of the House of Representatives and the Senate. Together we know these two as Congress. “The Constitution grants Congress the sole authority to enact legislation and declare war, the right to confirm or reject many Presidential appointments, and substantial investigative powers” ([|http://www.whitehouse.gov]). Congress writes bills and then votes. They need a “simple majority” to make the bill a law. ([|http://library.thinkquest.org]) Only once a bill has made its way through Congress can it then get to the president, where he/she can choose to either veto the bill or sign it. Congress is made up of 100 senators and 435 representatives, which is a total of 535. ([|http://library.thinkquest.org]). The House of Representatives has several of its very own powers. They include “the power to initiate revenue bills, impeach federal officials, .and elect the President in the case of an electoral college tie” ([|http://www.whitehouse.gov]). There is also a complex legislative process when it comes to introducing a bill to Congress. Anyone can write the bill, but only a member of Congress can introduce it into legislation ([|http://www.whitehouse.gov]). Bills go to committees, and then subcommittees, and then are reported to the floor where they are placed on the calendar for consideration. ([|http://www.whitehouse.gov]) When and if the bill ever comes up, there is a debate process by the House and the Senate. “Once debate is over, the votes of a simple majority passes the bill” ([|http://www.whitehouse.gov]). Once such bill requested by President Obama was the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). This was and is Obama’s plan to create millions of new jobs. The House version of the bill was introduced on January 26, 2009, and the Senate version was introduced on January 6, 2009. “The bill was signed into law on February 17 by President Obama at an economic forum he was hosting in Denver, Colorado” ([|http://en.wikipedia.org]). Due to the importance of this bill, it was passed very quickly. There were 206 amendments scheduled to be voted on by the floor, but they combined these into 11 – this is what enabled the quick passage of the bill ([|http://en.wikipedia.org]). The House passed the bill on January 28, 2009 by a 244-188 vote. “All but 11 Democrats voted for the bill and 176 Republicans voted against it” ([|http://en.wikipedia.org]). The Senate version of the bill later became an amendment to the House’s bill. “A significant difference between the House version and the Senate version was the inclusion of a one-year extension of revisions to the alternative minimum tax which added $70 billion to the bill’s total” ([|http://en.wikipedia.org]). The bill had a much more difficult time getting through the Senate due to Republican opposition. A special Saturday debate session even had to be called at Obama’s request. In the end, the “Senate Republicans forced a near unprecedented level of changes (near $150 billion) in the House bill which had more closely followed the Obama plan” ([|http://en.wikipedia.org]). With Republicans and Democrats pitted against each other, there is no chance to come together and do what is best for the American people. This complicated process was created to ensure that there were checks and balances in the American government, but it is imperative for such partisanship to stop and for Congress and the President to do what is best for the American people. After all the billions of dollars that have been spent so far, there have been no major changes in the economy. This Act was designed to help, but unemployment is still at 9.7%. It is time for Congress to work together and create a real solution to the problems not addressed by the ARRA.

[]

[]

[]

[]

Jessica Perez Social Security pushed to 70?

I am normally not a person that pays attention to politics or much of what government does now a days but I was reading an article today and this one caught my attention and kind of tweaked a nerve. The article says that Congress’ “proposals are being taken more seriously now” about pushing the full retirement Social Security age to 70. They say that the bill won’t take effect for 20 years, so the people that will be affected are the people born in and after the 1960’s. The reasons the congressmen have for it are that 1. The National age of living has increased and 2. The National Debt is too great for them not to increase it. I’m sorry but I don’t see how the National Debt is the problem of all the hardworking tax payers to pay back!

I have watched my Grandma, who will turn 65 in December, work for as long as I can remember to pay into her social security so that she could retire on something. And now she has medical problems from working so much that she has been forced to retire. She has had surgery on her foot to repair a bone spur that was rubbing threw her Achilles Tendon. Now, what if this was 20 years in the future, the bill has been passed, and she was fixing to turn 65….she wouldn’t be able to retire because of it. I don’t know about everyone but a lot of people can’t work until they are 70! America kind of coins itself on helping it's elderly...i dont know about you but this doesnt sound like it is helping the elderly to me!

This is what caught my attention the most, “We’re lying to ourselves and our children if we say we can maintain our current levels of entitlement spending, defense spending, and taxation without bankrupting our country,” said by House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer in his major address to a Washington budget conference. Is he serious?! He is complaining about the defense spending but you don’t hear a word about his mansion or the pool or the cars that the taxpayers have paid for, for him and his family. He won’t have to worry about his family being taken care of, or how his bills are going to be paid in the future. The taxpayers have already paid for his retirement. Luxuries that most Americans do not see their entire lifetime these men and women see on a DAILY basis. And for what? Sitting in a room arguing over some nonsense most of the time?

I think before they start making decisions that affect over 220 million Americans, the 535 members of Congress need to take a step back and look at their life and see what extras they can cut from their own lives before they start cutting what little benefits we have left from ours!

Spencer Riner The War on Drugs and American Liberty

Richard Nixon coined the term “War on Drugs” in America in 1969, and the war continues to rage on in America today, putting millions of Americans in jail and spending taxpayer dollars to maintain their stay. The War on Drugs is, more accurately, a war on freedom and rights on Americans to put what they wish into their bodies. Cocaine and opiates have been illegal and regulated since 1914 as a result of the Harrison Narcotics Tax Act, while cannabis (“marijuana”) became criminalized in 1937 by the Marihuana Tax Act. This specific bill was passed in order to inhibit the growth of the hemp industry. The hemp industry thrives in many other countries and could very be a sound solution to many of the economic problems in America today, however it is held back by the unjust legislation that is the Controlled Substances Act. Passed in 1970, the Controlled Substances act classifies drugs into different schedules based on their potential for abuse, medical value, and safety of the drug. While some drugs, such as heroin and cocaine, are legitimately dangerous and do deserve to be a classified in the first Schedule (the highest degree), there are others such as cannabis and MDMA which actually do have medical benefits. Being placed in Schedule I indicates that the drug has high potential for abuse and no medical value whatsoever. As exhibited by patients in states where cannabis has been legalized, such as California or Colorado, cannabis does often have quite positive medical effects, especially in cancer patients. This is a prime example of unjust legislature by the Congress today. Not only is it unjust toward the victims, it is unjust for everyone in the country who pays taxes. In 2008, 1.5 million Americans were arrested for drug offenses, and 1/3 of those were imprisoned. Not only that, but the U.S. could actually move to make money (large amounts) by legalizing and taxing certain drugs. A Harvard economist estimated $76.8 billion would be injected into the economy, most of that being from law enforcement savings. Luckily, interest groups like NORML exist to fight for our rights as Americans to pursue that which we desire. And not only to pursue that, but to have our tax dollars spent in a way which is productive and beneficial to this country as a whole. Even alcohol was prohibited for a small stint, and it was reversed. The War on Drugs can be reversed as well as long as Americans continue to push.



Lindsey Stunson "The legislature is the branch of government that is more connected to the feneral population and shifts to meet preferences of the public." During the process of passing the new immigration reform there have been many citizen's opinions given to the press regarding what they think about the bill and its provisions. "Some parents to american born children--who think our immigration problems can be fixed if people just go back home and get in line to wait for a legal return to the US." While this seems like a very simple concept but while some citizens think it to be a good plam, others believe it will go against human will for those who think it to be impossible to legally enter the United States of America. While this is a very valid point, there is almost always a way to do thinks legally. In reviewing these concerns made by citizens the legilature needs to address these many concerns of the population regarding the immigration bill before passing the bill.


 * 

Kathie O’Donovan**
 * Legislative Commentary **

**TYRANNY OF THE MINORITY ** I have been personally affected by the economic crisis. The repercussions affected my career field mightily, and I was laid off after 12 years with the same company. Since I don’t expect my field to recover any time soon, I am attempting to change to the more robust medical field. As I pursue this goal, I am still an unemployed single parent. A constant stressor for me (along with millions of unemployed others) is the persistent and repetitive crisis that takes place in Congress regarding extension of unemployment benefits.

It has been frustrating to be so acutely affected by the legislature’s repeated inability to pass an extension that has majority support from both the House and Senate, due to what I’ve come to think of as ‘Filibuster Abuse.’ These filibusters seem to defeat the whole purpose of the Constitution’s design of the Legislative process. Hamilton described the intent behind the design of the Constitution like this: "the fundamental maxim of republican government . . . requires that the sense of the majority should prevail." The system of checks and balances was intended to interfere with //__tyranny__// of the majority, not to transfer power to the minority. By Constitutional design, legislation has to pass both houses by //__simple__// majority. It can then be vetoed by the President, and his veto can then be overturned by a //__super__//majority of the House and Senate. The requirement of a simple majority versus a supermajority to pass legislation was intentional. Madison explained the rejection of a supermajority requirement by warning that it would open the door to tyranny of the minority. A supermajority requirement was reserved for specific, more serious circumstances such as ratifying a treaty, overriding a presidential veto, impeaching a president, amending the Constitution.

The rules that allow Senators to speak their minds unimpeded during debate about a bill have merit. It's the abuse of those rules that causes filibustering. By refusing to end debate (reading the phone book), or now by simply //threatening// to refuse to end debate, the minority party wields the power of 'filibustering,' which seems to bludgeon the Constitution's design for Legislature. Since Senate rules require a supermajority (60 of 100) vote to overcome a filibuster, the Consitution's intent that legislation be passed by a simple majority is defeated. It doesn't matter if the legislation is supported by a majority of the House and Senate, the President, and the majority of the citizens. It only takes 41 of 100 Senators who oppose a bill to prevent a vote from taking place. In effect, this forces a requirement of a supermajority vote to pass any legislation not supported by a supermajority. This is in direct opposition to the Constitutional design of the legislative process. Like Madison warned... 'tyranny of the minority.**'**

Filibuster is not a power granted to Legislators by the Constitution. The term itself, in fact, is not flattering. It is derived from the Spanish word 'filibustero,' which translates into 'pirate,' and boils down to a lone member of the Senate having the power to bring the legislative process to a screeching halt by preventing a bill from reaching the floor to be voted on (and passed) by the majority. The minority-tyranny that Madison feared has dogged the Senate since the beginning over major issues like WWI and Civil Rights legislation, but it was still a rare occurrence by comparison up until the last decade or two. It has fully ripened into fruition in 2010. Legislation that is supported by the majority is held hostage by a handful of Senators. This is not how the Constitution designed the legislative process to work. Despite the masterful design of checks and balances, perhaps a tyranny more insidious than dictatorship has sneaked in, bedeviling us.

---

__**Pamela A. Morris Staigle**__ __Legislative Branch__ The U. S. Congress is set up according to Article One of the U.S. Constitution; as a bicameral system. You have a House of Representatives and a Senate. The House of Representatives is more directly connected to the people than the Senate. Representatives are elected every two years. The house of Representatives is known as the lower house, the Senate is known as the upper house. Senators serve for six year terms before re-election occurs and only one third of the Senators are up for election every two years. This is to prevent the people from making a rash decision all at once and changing the entire staff of the U.S. Congress. Section one of the U.S. Constitution gives the specifics for the U.S. Congress; it states “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United State, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.”

“The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second year by the people of the several States…., No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of the State in which he shall be chosen.” Section Two states that the number of Representatives is determined by the population of the state and that an actual enumeration is made every ten years; i.e. a census. Section Two also gives the Power of Impeachment to the House of Representatives.

Section Three: The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each state, chosen by the Legislature thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. It is here that the Senators are divided into three groups each group being up for re-election at a different time. This ensures that one third may be chosen every second year. The original language of the Constitution did not allow direct election of Senators by the people; this has now been changed to a direct election by the people and not an appointment or election by a third group. Section three also states that “No person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the age of thirty years, and been nine years a citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that State.” Section Three names the Vice President of the United States as the President of the Senate, but he shall have no vote, unless they are equally divided. The Senate has the sole power to try all Impeachments.

There are ten sections to the set up of the U.S. Congress; all of which give specific powers, duties, and guide lines. There are many rules for the making of laws and how the Senate would like to see the implementation of these laws take place. For the peace of our country the branch that makes the law is not allowed to enforce the law. This is one of the checks and balances of the government of the United States.

One of the duties of the U. S. Congress is to vote and ratify the selection that the Executive Branch makes to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Executive Branch gets make a nomination; the Legislative branch inquires and votes on the nomination to any appointment of the U.S. Supreme Court.

Currently there is a judiciary review process proceeding for the nomination of [|Elena Kagan] as a Supreme Court Justice. The Congress has the duty to review Kagan’s qualifications. Qualifications are actually needed to become a Supreme Court Justice. Elena Kagan will be the second appointment that President Barack Obama has made since his election as the President of the United States. The first appointment he made was that of [|Sonia Sotomayor] in August 2009. Elena Kagan went to Harvard as did President Obama. Kagan is also the current Solicitor General of the United States.

The duty of the Congress is now to take Kagan’s experiences, education, affiliations, views and beliefs to come to a consensus as to whether they think she could be a Supreme Court Justice and up hold the duties of her office without being swayed by political or personal beliefs. She is to remain unbiased and to base her decisions on the constitutionality of the cases that are brought before the Supreme Court. Some say she is not qualified due to her inexperience as a judge and as a trial lawyer. Others use the fact that there have been in the past Justices who had not been judges either and that in no way should preclude her from becoming a Supreme Court Justice. The question, are the qualifications necessary to be the President of the United States, a Senator, or a Supreme Court Justice too vague; only citizenship and age? Are we as the general population even able to make that determination? Is the fact that the Judiciary is so far removed from the people good or bad?

Well no matter what your view of any of the positions of our government, I think we have the best system going. I am blessed to live in a country where I am able to worship as I want to and when and where I want to. I may speak negatively of the president or any other politician or support them and not be arrested for it. The liberties that I posses as an American Citizen far exceed anything my forefathers could have imagined. I am thankful that so much history and consideration went into the forming of our Constitution. Even if I do not agree with all that is currently in the news I am proud to be an AMERICAN.


 * __ Crystal Cross __**

__Legislature__
City Council Makes Decision in Case of Nepotism

In a recent city council meeting of a local municipality, a hearing was conducted to address discord between the dispatch supervisor and the employees she supervises. The dispatch supervisor, who has been working for the police department for more than a year, answers directly to the Chief of Police, who also happens to be her husband. Based on her qualifications for the job, she was originally put in the role as dispatch supervisor on a contract basis after the previous dispatch supervisor quit. She was only supposed to work in the position for six months until a new full-time dispatch supervisor could be hired. However, after six months passed, and no one had been hired, her husband put her in the full-time position without any apparent opposition from the mayor or city council. In a word, this is called nepotism.

Nepotism is probably something most of us don’t really give much thought to until you or someone you know if affected by it. By definition, nepotism simply means “favoritism granted to relatives or friends without regard to their merit”, and can be dated all the way to the days of Ulysses S. Grant when about 30 of his family members benefited from government appointments or employment. The Texas Labor Code has a code for nepotism prohibitions. However, these prohibitions are sometimes ignored or overlooked in the private sector and even in such places as small municipalities which can sometimes fly under the radar of the news media. This can cause problems in the workplace and can lead to complaints of discrimination if a family member is hired by an employer even when the family member was not the best candidate for the job. It can also cause problems for employees who work for someone who was hired by and works for their relative, as is depicted below in a case of nepotism that was handled not long ago by the legislative branch of a local municipality, also known as the city council. Since being put in this position of dispatch supervisor this person has, in my opinion, abused her power and has overstepped her boundaries. First and foremost, she is rude to her employees and acts in a very unprofessional manner when speaking to them. She manipulates the schedule to accommodate her own schedule, mandating when the employees will take their vacations, rather than letting them make those decisions. The employees are “not allowed” to call in sick because if they did, she would have to cover their shift. How can you tell someone they can’t call in sick? I can understand if someone chronically called in, but on occasion, people do get sick to the point where they absolutely cannot even get out of bed to come to work, yet I have known of some employees who were extremely sick and still went to work rather than possibly getting written up for “breaking policy”. In addition to making rules that I believe to be unethical, she basically makes the work place a very unpleasant environment to be in, especially if she and her husband are not getting along. Can you imagine working for your spouse? It may be fun for the first five minutes, but if there happens to be a disagreement between the chief and his wife (that has nothing to do with work), then the whole department suffers and feels like they have to walk on eggshells. It’s almost like being in an environment where the kids are miserable because mommy and daddy can’t get along. This is not an appropriate situation for the work place.

As if all of that isn’t bad enough, she has even gone so far as having cameras installed in the dispatch office that not only records the employees’ every move, but also records audio. Her argument for this was that she wanted to be able to monitor how dispatch calls were being handled. However, dispatch calls are recorded anyway, especially the 911 calls, so this is not necessary. Plus, if that was truly her reason for having the cameras installed, then why does she have access to the cameras from her house so she can turn on her TV at any time and see what is going on at work? It sounds more like big sister watching rather than having video and audio proof to back up any complaints made against dispatch. Yet another decision she could get by with because would her husband really tell her no?

As time went on, the problems in dispatch got worse. The problems were finally brought to the attention of city council and put on the agenda for the June 14, 2010, meeting. The agenda read as follows: Pursuant to Section 551.074 of the Texas Government Code – to deliberate the appointment, employment, evaluation, reassignment, duties, discipline, or dismissal of a public officer or employee – Police Department Dispatch Supervisor. The supervisor was given a chance to answer to some of these accounts of unfair treatment of her employees and how the fact that she is married to the chief has caused discord in the work place. After several hours of deliberation, city council decided the dispatch supervisor could keep her job until May, 2011. In the mean time, she is to write out all daily procedures of her job step by step and basically get things in order for the next person that takes the position.

As the legislative branch of a municipality, city council has the authority to make decisions without the consent of department heads. In this situation, city council used that authority to make a decision about the supervisor’s job without the consent of the chief, who would not have handled these problems or fired his wife. I think the dispatch supervisor was very lucky that city council did not fire her on the spot because nepotism is supposed to be prohibited in the State of Texas, and this is a clear cut case as to why these rules should be enforced.


 * Harpreet Singh**

The Mid-Term Elections The Republican Party is feeling optimistic towards the upcoming elections in Congress, and the Democrats might not be able to keep their majority in Congress. The Senate and the House of Representatives might be going under some heavy reconstruction after the November elections. The Democratic Party has lost a lot of popularity and so has President Obama. At the time, many people are upset with how the Obama administration and Congress have been handling the recession and the Gulf oil spill. Since Democrats presently have majority in Congress, the Congress schedule and actions is reflective of the Democratic views. President Obama’s approval ratings are quite low. In a June AP poll there was 45% approval and 50% disapproval of President Obama. Much of the population is not feeling good about the Democratic unified government in place now. Obama and Congress have not been fixing the recession. The unemployment rate is high, and the budget deficit is increasing, as Obama pushes for more government spending. With losing majority in Congress, the committee chairs will be replaced with Republicans, and the Democrats will lose the other perks with majority party. In the Senate the Republicans will most likely gain the majority. In the House of Representatives it is more difficult to predict the results of the elections. Since it is most closely connected to the people, the public’s opinion could change drastically in favor for the Democrats. Although some people might find it hopeless for the Democratic Party, they do have some advantages in the Congressional elections. Although the oil spill is a big crisis similar to Hurricane Katrina, the oil spill isn’t as bad. In the oil spill only around 10 people died in the explosion, a lot less than Katrina. The oil spill was BP’s mistake, not the government. Democrats might not lose too many votes due to the Gulf oil spill. The oil spill will only affect the Gulf communities Representatives and Senators. The biggest advantage the Democrats have is the money. An average Democratic Senate candidate has around 2.1 million dollars, and the average Republican Senate candidate has around 1.4 million dollars. Money is a big thing for campaigning, so Democrats will be able to have a stronger campaign with better funds. Also other Left wing organizations and environmental groups have more money than conservative organizations, which the organizations will use to sponsor the Democratic Party. Another advantage for the Democrats is that the party has less ideological diversity than the Republican Party. This will get Democratic candidates more votes and Republicans less votes when they lose votes to another Republican candidate. Another advantage in the words of Tom Schaller that Democrats have is “the growing non-white v. shrinking white populations”. The demographic change of the U.S will most likely increase the number of votes the Democrats can get. With more minority population, the Democratic Party can get more support from the people. With less white population, Republican voters will decrease. The demographic change will have a long-term effect on the U.S politics. Although Republicans can definitely hope to win several seats in Congress, it definitely won’t be a complete conquest like in 1994 of the Republican Party.

= **__Tiffany Summerville__** Legislative take on the WBC =

The fight for free speech has been sought after for decades, but when one oversteps the bounds of what is right and wrong, it is hard to for the legislature to judge the ‘unfairness’ of something. The Westboro Baptist Church has been testing these boundaries for a little over 18 years now, beginning in 1991. This ‘cult’ gathers to picket funerals of deceased war Veterans, Jewish gatherings, and gay communities. Beginning in 1992, at least 14 states and Congress have passed laws against protests at funerals; most of the decisions were caused because of the WBC. Kansas began with the “Kansas Funeral Picketing Act“, in which Fred Phelps (the leader of the WBC) challenged, stating that it was unconstitutional. The response of Phelps’ challenge didn’t remove the law; it simply caused it to be re-worded three years later. Following Kansas’ lead, Indiana suggested a law that made it a felony to protest within 500 feet of a funeral. The punishment would be up to three years in prison and a $10,000 fine. A few months later Michigan passed a similar law that made it a felony if one were to intentionally picket a funeral. Illinois joined with a less punishable act called: “Let them Rest in Peace Act”, which only forces 30 days time in jail and a $1,500 fine for first offense. Congress passed the “Respect for America’s Fallen Heroes Act” in 2006. This law states that it is illegal to protest unless it has been approved by the cemetery owner. It also enforces a set number of feet and allotted time before and after the protesters can congregate.

Although it is hard to justify the protests as ‘good-deeds’, Robert Richards and Robert O’Neil look at the situation from another point of view. “While most people — myself included — would sympathize with grieving family members at a funeral, I don’t find it to be a compelling governmental interest to restrict speech in the area of a funeral.” Richards stated. And it is agreed, although the protesters are disregarding the feelings of others and doing it in a manner of disrespect, the government placing laws on what can be said, at what time and where is a touchy issue and is breaching the first amendment entirely. Richards also brings up a valid point by stating “The other question I would have is what would happen if people who loved the deceased held up signs outside the church or funeral home saying, ‘We love you. We’ll miss you,’ Would those folks face criminal charges? If not, there’s a viewpoint-based discrimination issue.” It really opens one’s eye to the fact that, when ruling on something, other factors come into play. More governmental power will come with the decision if the legislature were to rule in that favor. What will come next? What other powers can they designate to themselves if they allow themselves to rule what is and is not allowed to be picketed? A decision needs to be made regardless; something can be done to confine these hateful, close minded people.


 * __Whitney Hoffpauir

Flood Insurance tied up in Congress__**

On June 1, 2010 the flood insurance program went into hibernation. Homeowners, real-estate agents and insurance brokers with homes located in flood zones are at the mercy of federal policy. The homeowners who have a current flood policy on their home are in the clear. According to insurance officials only people looking to upgrade their policies or purchase new policies will not be able to obtain this until congress makes a move. This lapse in flood insurance coverage happened to take in affect the same day the hurricane season started in the Gulf of Mexico. Also, in the same month that the National Oceanic and Atmosphere Administration reported that the chances of us experiencing a more active and above average hurricane season. Action by congress is vital to the housing market. They must re-activate the flood insurance program. Homeowners, real estate companies, brokers and banks will all feel the effect if this bill if not passed. On June 16, 2010 the United States Senate rejected a bill that would have extended the NFIP through the end of the year. They threw this back; one factor could have been that the NFIP was not the only government program receiving an extension. Finally congress reached some sort of agreement for an extension. Homeowners and real estate brokers are able to take a deep breath, because on Wednesday, June 30th the Senate passed a measure to reauthorize the flood insurance program through Sept. 30, 2010. President Obama is expected to sign the legislation, which the House of Representatives approved last week. This is the fourth temporary extension of the program since last December. A previous extension expired on June 1, just as the Atlantic hurricane season began. During the hiatus, no new flood insurance policies could be issued or renewed, though previously issued policies remained in force and claims were paid. The bill allows new and renewed policies to be retroactive, but there is still a 30-day waiting period after issuance until new policies take effect. Major concerns lye in communities near the Gulf of Mexico, because the chances of homes being damaged are very high the next storm that blows in. Also let’s not forget to mention the Gulf of Mexico’s contaminated waters by the oil spill. This could cause a major problem for us. Mostly all mortgage lenders require homes in high-risk area to maintain flood insurance to receive and continued for the life of the loan. 35% of homes in Louisiana and Florida are required to own the policies, the highest proportion in the country. South Carolina, Florida and Texas are other states where double-digit percentages of homes are required by lenders to own flood insurance. The NFIP has about 5.6 million policies in force, and insures about $1.2 trillion in property, according to the Federal Emergency Management Agency, which runs the program. The flood bills’ extension comes as the fifth anniversary of Hurricane Katrina approaches next month. A number of bills proposing an overhaul of the flood program were proposed in the wake of the nation’s costliest hurricane, but Congress hasn’t acted to significantly overhaul the 42-year-old flood-insurance program. What we are hoping for is raising the $250,000 flood loss limit for residential properties and $500,000 for commercial ones. But many people argue that there needs to be a bigger plan in action that that. Thousands of sales were delayed each day that the flood insurance program was in hiatus. Being a real estate agent doing 98% of my work on or near the coast has affected me greatly. I can only imagine how this is affecting the brokers and leaders in Galveston, South Padre and many other coastal lining communities

Taxes**
 * Ronald Vavra

The economic recovery has slowed (some say regressed), unemployment at 9.5%, the country is 13 trillion in debt, the government needs money and it’s an election year. Not a good place for any political party to be in but with high expectations of “Hope and Change” put forth by the DNC during the past election it’s a partially bad time to be a Democrat. As the Bush tax cuts set to expire in 2010 no politician (trying to get reelected) wants to talk about raising taxes. The House Democrats are trying to spin that the Bush tax cuts are only for the wealthy and need to be allowed to expire while at the same time trying to pass a short term extension on middle class tax breaks. Talk of increasing taxes on the wealthy to pay for new or increased government programs has been a good selling point for many Americans but now that the “card has been charged” it’s time to make the payments. The House is caught between a “rock and a hard place”. Get the deficit under control but don’t raise taxes. The House only has two chooses. One is to cut back on spending. The other is to raise taxes. Neither of these options is good during an election year. The best thing that they can do at this time is to buy time. Extend the Bush tax cuts until after the election. “House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer raised the possibility that Congress will only temporarily extend middle-class tax cuts set to expire at the end of the year. He pointedly suggested that making them permanent would be too costly” (http://www.startribune.com/business). Some argue that any tax increase will further hurt the recovery. Historians and economists who've studied the 1930s conclude that the tax increases passed during that decade derailed the recovery and slowed the decline in unemployment. That was true of the 1935 tax on corporate earnings and of the 1937 introduction of the payroll tax. The current outlook for the economic recovery isn’t good. The stimulus helped give a boost to growth in a current quarter but it’s not enough to offset low customer spending, downward housing and other negative factors (wsj.com/article). The tax cuts will be a big political issue in many congressional elections this fall, providing potential fodder for both political parties. Democratic leaders have yet to lay out a schedule for dealing with the tax cuts, but many rank-and-file Democrats want to extend them before the elections, so they can campaign on passing tax cuts for the middle class (.startribune.com). Republicans and the RNC will no doubt be screaming about how the Demarcates plan to raise taxes after the elections but the real questions is what will they do if they win. Will they also be forced to raise taxes or cut spending? I myself have no easy answers. What is best for the long term growth of the country? How do you answer the short term needs of the now? I will leave those questions to the ones (I hope) who are smarter than me.

Megan Keesler

Currently, there has been many issues and contraversies focusing on the nursing shortage in American. Too many people are going without proper care which has led to the legislative branch having to step in and create programs and offer grants to ease and help support the issue of this shortage. The legislative branch essentially makes and represents the laws. The process that the bill has to go through is very long and tedious and can often times take months to pass through to the next branch. The bill is first introduced, and then sent to the appropriate committee for review. The bill is passed from subcommittee to the full committees, and hearings are also taken place at the same time. The house of representatives is later approached with the bill and is debated whether to pass it on to the executive branch. This branch is mostly centered around the people and the public needs and concerns of the issues. The concerns of the nursing shortage have reached a point were the people thought it to be necessary to make a law regaurding safety issues of the patients.

This particular issue has been seen by each of the three branches, but has to first pass through the legislative branch. The nursing shortage has been proposed as an issue because patients in hospitals are not getting enough attention and medical care. There are certain laws that require having ICU patients to have one on one care, and this is often times not being seen in multiple hospitals. This can cause considerable amounts of issues regaurding the health of the patient and will sooner or later cause lawsuits against the hospital. The NACNEP was issued in order to help and protect the rights of patients in 1998. This stands for National Advisory Council and Nurse Education and Practice, which requires an adequate number of nurses that can provide enough care and attention to properly tend to the needs of each person. Another issue that has been taken into focus is the education that nursing are recieving to become RN’s and LVN’s today. The Bureau of Health Professions has formally awarded 37 million dollars to various educational schools and nursing education programs. It is important to focus on creating better educational schools and teaching workforce to then expand the amount of well educated nursing going out into the workforce.

Failure to solve this nursing shortage could result in the lose of many people who have put their full trust in the health care system. Overall, the legislative branch has offered a way of making the ideas and actions of the people become a guidline and law in the state. This process can often times take a considerable amount of time, but in the end it is worth it to make a statement on issues that are deemed to be unconstitutional. To solve this issue, the bill must now go on into the executive branch to be processed and then to the judicial to become a law.

__**Jessica Flores**__ __**Obama and Congress Share Power?**__ Can Obama and Congress share power? Executive power has been one of the defining characteristics of President George W. Bush's administration. President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and many members of the White House pushed to expand executive power -- as much as any specific domestic or foreign policy -- from the beginning of the administration. The administration formed a direct conversation with the presidential politics of 1970s. They watched an assertive Congress respond to the Watergate scandal by revitalizing legislative power. Bush administration thought vesting Congress with so much power was dangerous, because it saw the legislative branch as inefficient. Since President Reagan, the White House has spent enormous political time trying to reclaim power for the executive branch. There has been a dramatic increase in congressional oversight since Democrats took control of Congress in 2006. Legislators have been more willing to hold hearings and conduct investigations into everything from the ethical conduct of the White House to the administration of key government programs. Congress should not be timid about passing legislation to empower the legislative branch. After The Boston Globe reported the extensive use of executive signing statements by the Bush administration, there was discussion about legislation to curtail the power, but proposals for the legislation faded away. But oversight under divided government is easier politically than under the united government -- Democrats in charge of the White House and Congress. The aim of stronger oversight is to avoid failures such as FEMA's inadequate response to Hurricane Katrina or the politicization at the Department of Justice. The fact that Democrats control the White House is no excuse for the party's leaders in Congress to become lapdogs. Obama must be held responsible as well. While presidents don't like to give up power, maybe this president will be different. At a minimum, Obama should avoid the techniques used so often in recent years to circumvent legislative will. It is not enough to reverse Bush's executive orders -- the crucial question is whether Obama uses such orders as frequently himself. If the nation can create a better balance between the executive and legislative branches, the country will benefit. The New Deal proved when both branches work together, the nation can produce some of its finest and most effective programs. The President should have its own power to deal with the things he needs to deal with, and Congress should do their job and finish it thoroughly. For example, the oil spill has left Congress blank with a plan because they cannot decide how to stop it. If President Barack Obama got into it, it would make things hectic because he has other things to worry about. We need an executive branch that is accountable and a Congress that is active.

Nicolas Garza Bill Against “iTax”

Due to the increase in demand for electronic devices such as e-books, ipods, ext. state tax collectors impose an “iTax” In order to make money. Congress aims to pass a bill in curb this tax that seems to be popping up everywhere. The [|bill], sponsored by Reps. Rick Boucher and Lamar Smith, is part of a broader effort by technology firms and telecommunications providers to push back against what they view as tax agencies that are unreasonably singling out electronic purchases with unfair, expensive, and confusing rules. Apple, AT&T, Electronic Arts, Cox Communications, Verizon, T-Mobile, and Time Warner Cable are among the companies that have endorsed the legislation, saying that "fast-paced technological and commercial changes are making it increasingly difficult, and in some cases nearly impossible" to comply with "confusing and conflicting" state tax laws. Even cloud-computing applications, which might seem straightforward enough, can create tax headaches for Internet companies. New York and Utah both tax cloud computing, but New York taxes it based on the address of the customer, while Utah calculates rates based on where the server is located. Though the tax may seem wrong, opposition has surfaced. The Digital Goods and Services Tax Fairness Act, is likely to come from state and local officials concerned that Washington might slap unreasonable limits on their tax collection procedures. Though it may seem that the state legislatures are being controlled, this tax is discriminating against certain companies. The bill aims to stop this “singling out” and unfairness that which will ultimately lead to a less competitive market. There is a forgotten law that exists now prohibiting electronic-only tax, but it expires soon. Without this bill, states will be free to levy discriminatory taxes. I will continue to follow this bill and hopes this injustice is put to an end.

Silly Laws – Michael Nemitz

Can frivolous laws keep an entire state from passing legislature properly? Would endless worthless laws affect the economy? What I know is, silly unjustifiable laws, while fun in trivia, put a serious hamper on the functioning of every day lives. If a cop or nemesis wants to get your goat, so to speak they can by, saying you took one of their carrots. Funny as that story sounds its not far from the truth. Nearly every state has some law that has lost its reason to be created. Most of these laws are silly and have lost their meaning through the years. These old and some strange laws should be reexamined to access their cohesiveness with modern practices. In Texas it is illegal for to shoot a buffalo from the second story of a hotel. Also in Texas it’s illegal to carry wire cutters your pocket, this law was laid down for the men of the old west who were infringing on each others land with their herds. In Kansas rabbits may not be shot from motorboats, speaks for itself. In Hawaii All residents may be fined as a result of not owning a boat which makes sense but what if you don’t plan to go boating ever? Also in Hawaii, coins are not allowed to be placed in one’s ears. Montana has somewhat more humorous laws, it is illegal to have a sheep in the cab of your truck without a chaperone, and its illegal to bring a bomb or rocket at city council proceedings unless you’re a cop. New Hampshire has some of the greediest: You may not tap your feet, nod your head, or in any way keep time to the music in a tavern, restaurant, or café, and you cannot sell the clothes you are wearing to pay off a gambling debt. Also in New Hampshire, on Sundays citizens may not relieve themselves while looking up. And in a city in New Hampshire, White Mountain National, If a person is caught raking the beaches, picking up litter, hauling away trash, building a bench for the park, or many other kind things without a permit, he/she may be fined $150 for ”maintaining the national forest without a permit”. Most of these laws speak for themselves as far as relevance in today’s modern society. The added bureaucracy for these states makes for silly fines and offences. Some of these silly and useless laws, infringe on constitutional rights, telling you what you can and cant do, for instance my pursuit of happiness is shooting rabbits from a motorboat, I would be arrested in Kansas. Modern society and the evolution of law can prevent most of these comical laws from ever being necessary in the first place.