Tag Archives: government

Time to Go

Posted on by
Reply

Here’s yet another Federal agency that needs to be eliminated, its budget returned to the Treasury, and its personnel—all of them—returned to the private sector rather than reallocated within the Federal Leviathan.

The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency [emphasis added]:

  • its role in organizing the Election Integrity Partnership—the private group that worked with social media companies to censor content during the 2020 election
  • did not implement effective controls for the selected High Value Asset (HVA) system per Federal and departmental requirements
    • DHS OIG found inactive user accounts were not consistently disabled or removed, according to established rules—40% of nearly 2,800 “users”
    • 15% of sampled users missed initial or annual cybersecurity training
  • did not follow its own recommendations when conducting its own review of the system, failing to detect the access control deficiencies identified by the watchdog

When the agency personnel aren’t being overtly corrupt, they’re being patently incompetent. The organization is far beyond redeemability, and it’s new enough (created out of whole cloth in 2018) that there are much fewer entrenched interests in preserving its corruption or its incompetence.

A Singularly Bad Idea

Posted on by
Reply

Texas Senator Ted Cruz (R) has introduced a resolution that would propose a Constitutional Amendment that would apply term limits to Congressmen. Congressman Ralph Norman (R, SC) has introduced a companion resolution in the House.

The amendment would limit US senators to two six-year terms and US House members to three two-year terms. The two-page resolution states that after the amendment is passed by Congress and ratified by the states, the amendment would go into effect “within seven years after the date of its submission by the Congress.”
The resolution proposes that after a member of the US House has served three terms, they aren’t eligible to be reelected to the House. After a US senator has served two terms, they are no longer eligible to be elected or appointed to the US Senate.

This is a bad idea. It’s not suboptimal, it’s bad. There is no legitimate reason for our government to dictate to its sovereign—us citizens—who we will choose to represent us in our government, not even via Constitutional Amendment. Beyond that, there is no legitimate reason for a current generation of citizens to limit who future generations might choose to represent them in future governments, not even via Constitutional Amendment.

The concern about longevity, built-up seniority, and the perks and power of incumbency is very legitimate and amply justified by the abuses of so many current and immediately past Congressmen.

However, our Articles of Confederation, which got many things wrong—it was, after all, a first draft of a self-governing, non-monarchist, form of government—did get the matter of term limits and the power of incumbency and seniority absolutely correct. Here’s what Article V of those Articles had to say on this matter:

[N]o person shall be capable of being a delegate for more than three years in any term of six years[]

Congress under the Articles was unicameral, and a Congressional session and a delegate’s term of office were for one year only. Thus, a delegate could serve in Congress for no more than three years of a six-year period.

That is easily adaptable to our current bicameral Congress with its Congressional sessions lasting two years (so a Senator’s term spans three sessions). One adaptation would be to limit a Representative to three terms of any six and a Senator to two terms of any four, with a Senator wishing to stand for the House being limited just one term in the House until six Congressional sessions had transpired, and a Representative wishing to stand for the Senate being ineligible to do so also until those six Congressional sessions had transpired. I’d also bar the Congressmen of either house from serving in any other Federal government capacity or work for any lobbyist, whether for pay or pro bono, except that such alternative work bars the six sessions from counting until he’s left those positions.

That Amendment, based on the Articles’ limits, would satisfy the problem of incumbency and seniority without presuming to dictate our choices of whom to select to represent us.

Is She Confused?

Posted on by
Reply

Jonathan Turley, Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University, opined in his Res ipsa loquitur blog that US Virgin Islands Delegate Stacey Plaskett (D) is mistaken about our Constitution. She did, after all, have a few things to say during the just concluded vote for a House of Representatives Speaker concerning the status of the USVI (and other territories) in our nation. She demanded, in those remarks, the “right” of territorial delegates to vote on matters before the House.

This body and this nation has [sic] a territories and a colonies problem.

And

I note that the names of representatives from American Samoa, Guam, Northern Mariana, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and the District of Columbia were not called, representing, collectively, 4 million Americans. Mr Speaker, collectively, the largest per capita of veterans in this country.

As Turley noted in the body of his essay,

The language of the Constitution is clear and unambiguous. Absent an amendment to the Constitution, only states may vote on the floor of the United States House of Representatives.

He also cited the relevant clause of our Constitution, Art I, Sect 2:

The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch in the States Legislature.

Plaskett, a duly qualified and certified lawyer, isn’t at all mistaken; she’s acting quite deliberately. She’s all too typical, too, of the Progressive-Democratic Party’s contempt for and disregard of our Constitution, canonically illustrated by ex-President Barack Obama’s (D) announcement that if Congress would not do as he told it, he would exercise his pen and telephone to bypass or overrule it, and by soon-to-be ex-President Joe Biden’s (D) lack of concern for the unconstitutionality of his student loan “forgiveness” scheme with his serial cancelations of those loans. Party’s attitude is one that reaches back at least as far as the then-Democratic Party’s head, Woodrow Wilson, who insisted that our Constitution was obsolete, in the way, and needed to be put aside in favor of his party’s Technocrat-centered “leadership.”

A Good Start

Posted on by
Reply

Arizona State Senator Warren Petersen (R), who also is the President of the Arizona Senate, promoted his State’s agency sunset law as a model for the Federal government. To make his promotion concrete, he offered this language, based on that Arizona statute, for the incoming Congress and President:

Notwithstanding any other law, beginning on an eight-year rotating basis on September 30, 2025, the statutory authorization for each agency, as defined in 5 USC § 551, shall expire, and such agency shall have no authority to engage in rulemaking, adjudication, licensing, other agency action, or enforcement of any law or rule from that date forward until Congress passes a separate joint resolution of reauthorization for the agency for an additional eight-year period.

That’s short and sweet, as appropriate for all statutes Congress seeks to enact (but fails to do across the board, a separate problem), but I’d take it a bit further, without too much more verbiage.

I’d add substitute in some words that make this law applicable to all agencies created after this law’s enactment, particularly including agencies created by Executive Order (vis., the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, which has ruined itself through politicization, aided and abetted by the Biden administration) and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, a combination of Congressional statute and Executive Branch fiat.

Rather than simply having the statutory authorization expire, I’d make explicit that that includes zeroing out its budget, including payroll; returning the employees to the private sector rather than merely reassigning them elsewhere in the Federal government Leviathan; and that the agency no longer exists.

I’d require, too, the reauthorization actions to be via stand-alone bills, with nothing included that is apart from this single subject.

Finally, to ensure the reauthorization isn’t simply a mindless rubber stamp by the Congress, I’d require the reauthorization to be by separate House of Representatives and Senate vote, with each house’s vote required to be by a supermajority of 60% of elected Congressmen (not 60% of those present or those voting Abstain or Present).

Thus:

Notwithstanding any other law, beginning on an eight-year rotating basis on September 30, 2025, the statutory authorization for each agency, as defined in 5 USC § 551 or created after September 30, 2025 by statute or by Executive action, shall expire, and such agency shall cease to exist, no agency personnel reassignable elsewhere within the Federal government, until each house of Congress separately passes by a 60% majority vote of sitting Representatives and by a 60% majority vote of Senators a separate, standalone reauthorization for the agency for an additional eight-year period.

Congressional Term Limits?

Posted on by
Reply

Sure, but only sort of.

Texas Republican Congresswoman Kay Granger has been absent from duty in Congress since last July. The discovery of that shirking (or coverup of disability) is leading to renewed calls for term limits for Congressmen. For instance,

Republican Utah Senator Mike Lee on Sunday…claimed Granger’s absence made a “compelling case” for term limits….

Yes and no. I remain adamantly opposed to Government dictating to us, in anything resembling absolute terms, who we might or might not choose to represent us in that government. I am just as adamantly opposed to one generation of Americans attempting to dictate to future generations of Americans who they might or might not choose to represent them in government.

Rather than hard and absolute limits, Article V of our erstwhile Articles of Convention has the optimal application of term limits.

…no person shall be capable of being a delegate [to Congress] for more than three years in any term of six years….

That Congress was a unicameral body, but that relative limit is easily adaptable to our bicameral Congress. It would be easy enough, too (as easily as enacting any Constitutional Amendment…), to add the requirement that no Congressman, during a period of non-Congressional service, can serve on any government staff, whether for pay or pro bono, nor can such a one work for or with any government lobbyist during that period.

Separate from that, and additional to it, former Department of Education Press Secretary Angela Morabito:

WOW: Rep. Kay Granger (R-TX), who hasn’t voted on a bill in six months, has been living in a nursing home in secret. Records show she has a staff of 25. If any of them knew—and it would be hard not to know—they are complicit[.]

Granger’s, or her staffers’, concealment of her incapacity and absence from Congress should suffer serious consequences from their deception. Those consequences should begin with Granger forfeiting her Congressional pension, if she was/is of sound mind during this period, and should include every single one of her staffers forfeiting any pension they might have accrued along with the barring of all them, including unpaid staffers in DC or in her district, from Federal and Texas government service for life.

That group openly and dishonorably and in a most unamerican fashion deprived Granger’s constituents of their Congressional representation for a quarter of the just concluding Congressional session.