Showing posts with label Senate. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Senate. Show all posts

Tuesday, February 14, 2017

Gloucester County, Virginia; Votes Made In Congress By Our Elected Representatives

presented by:
Military.com
February 13, 2017
In this MegaVote for Virginia's 1st Congressional District:
Recent Congressional Votes
  • Senate: Prohibit Sen. Elizabeth Warren to Speak on Senate Floor When Debating Sen. Sessions Nomination to be U.S. Attorney General
  • Senate: Confirmation of Sen. Jeff Sessions to be U.S. Attorney General
  • Senate: Confirmation of Rep. Tom Price to be Secretary of Health and Human Services
  • House: Disapprove BLM Land Use Planning Rule
  • House: Disapprove State Education Accountability Rule
  • House: Disapprove Teacher Education Program Rule
Upcoming Congressional Bills
  • Senate: Nomination of Steven Mnuchin to be Secretary of the Treasury
  • Senate: Nomination of David Shulkin to be Secretary of Veterans Affairs
  • House: Texas-Oklahoma Border Lands
  • House: Disapprove Unemployment Benefit Drug Testing Rule
  • House: Disapprove State Retirement Plan ERISA Exemption Rule
  • House: Disapprove Local Government Retirement Plan ERISA Exemption Rule
  • House: Disapprove Alaska Predator Control Rule
  • House: Disapprove HHS Planned Parenthood Funding Rule

Recent Senate Votes
Prohibit Sen. Elizabeth Warren to Speak on Senate Floor When Debating Sen. Sessions Nomination to be U.S. Attorney General - Vote Sustained (49-43, 8 Not Voting)

The Senate voted to sustain the ruling of the presiding officer (Montana Republican Sen. Steve Daines) in which he prohibited Massachusetts Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren from speaking on the Senate floor for the remainder of the debate concerning Alabama Republican Sen. Jeff Sessions' nomination to be U.S. attorney general. The presiding officer ruled that Sen. Warren violated Senate rule 19 prohibiting senators from "imputing" one another. 

Sen. Mark Warner voted Not Voting
Sen. Tim Kaine voted NO

Confirmation of Sen. Jeff Sessions to be U.S. Attorney General - Vote Confirmed (52-47, 1 Present)

The Senate confirmed Alabama Republican Sen. Jeff Sessions to be U.S. attorney general.

Sen. Mark Warner voted NO
Sen. Tim Kaine voted NO

Confirmation of Rep. Tom Price to be Secretary of Health and Human Services - VoteConfirmed (52-47, 1 Not Voting)

The Senate confirmed Georgia Republican Rep. Tom Price to be secretary of Health and Human Services.

Sen. Mark Warner voted NO
Sen. Tim Kaine voted NO

Recent House Votes
Disapprove BLM Land Use Planning Rule - Vote Passed (234-186, 12 Not Voting)

The joint resolution would disapprove the rule issued by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) on Dec. 12, 2016, which modified the process under which BLM develops plans for the use of the public lands it manages, including by considering a wider variety of issues and possible impacts.

Rep. Rob Wittman voted YES

Disapprove State Education Accountability Rule - Vote Passed (234-190, 8 Not Voting)

The joint resolution would disapprove the rule issued by the Education Department on Nov. 29, 2016 which addresses implementation of a state's accountability systems when receiving federal education funding under the Elementary and Secondary School Act (ESEA). Among other things, the rule requires states to identify low-performing schools for comprehensive or targeted support and improvement, and requires that each state's statewide plan use multiple indicators of student success that are the same for all public schools (including charter schools).

Rep. Rob Wittman voted YES

Disapprove Teacher Education Program Rule - Vote Passed (240-181, 11 Not Voting)

The joint resolution would disapprove the rule issued by the Education Department on Oct. 31, 2016, relating to teacher preparation programs that require states to annually evaluate the effectiveness of teacher preparation programs at institutions of higher education and to publicly report this information, including the job placement and retention rates of graduates.

Rep. Rob Wittman voted YES

Upcoming Votes
Nomination of Steven Mnuchin to be Secretary of the Treasury - PN26

The Senate is expected to take up the nomination of Steven Mnuchin to be secretary of the Treasury.


Nomination of David Shulkin to be Secretary of Veterans Affairs - PN39

The Senate is expected to take up the nomination of David Shulkin to be secretary of Veterans Affairs.


Texas-Oklahoma Border Lands - HR428

The bill would require the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to pay for a private survey to identify the south boundary line along the Red River separating Texas and Oklahoma with regards to land title and ownership, with the states of Texas and Oklahoma to determine which lands are federal lands and which are private.


Disapprove Unemployment Benefit Drug Testing Rule - HJRES42

The resolution would disapprove the rule issued by the Labor Department on Aug. 1, 2016, that defines the occupations for which states can require individuals applying for unemployment benefits to undergo drug testing.


Disapprove State Retirement Plan ERISA Exemption Rule - HJRES66

The measure would disapprove the rule issued by the Labor Department on Aug. 30, 2016, that exempts state-administered retirement plans for workers at private sector businesses and nonprofit entities that don't offer retirement plans from certain restrictions and requirements under the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA).


Disapprove Local Government Retirement Plan ERISA Exemption Rule - HJRES67

The measure would disapprove the rule issued by the Labor Department on Dec. 20, 2016, that exempts local government-administered retirement plans for workers at private sector businesses and nonprofit entities from certain restrictions and requirements under ERISA.


Disapprove Alaska Predator Control Rule - HJRES69

The resolution would disapprove the rule issued by the Interior Department on Aug. 5, 2016, that prohibits certain predator control practices in national wildlife refuges in Alaska (such as the taking of mother bears and their cubs, the killing of wolves and their pups at den sites, and aerial shooting).


Disapprove HHS Planned Parenthood Funding Rule - HJRES43

The resolution would disapprove the rule issued by the Health and Human Services Department (HHS) on Dec. 19, 2016, that modifies eligibility requirements for Title X grants for family planning services to specify that states awarding funds cannot prohibit a health care provider from participating for reasons other than its ability to provide Title X services.

http://www.military.com/

Monday, September 22, 2014

Anti Federalist Papers No. 48 – No Separation Of Departments Results In No Responsibility

In the new constitution for the future government of the thirteen United States of America, the President and Senate have all the executive and two thirds of the Legislative power.

This is a material deviation from those principles of the English constitution, for which they fought with us; and in all good governments it should be a fundamental maxim, that, to give a proper balance to the political system, the different branches of the legislature should be unconnected, and the legislative and executive powers should be separate. By the new constitution of America this union of the executive and legislative bodies operates in the most weighty matters of the state. They jointly make all treaties; they jointly appoint all officers civil and military; and, they jointly try all impeachments, either of their own members, or the officers appointed by themselves.

In this formidable combination of power, there is no responsibility. And where there is power without responsibility, how can there be liberty?
The president of the United States is elected for four years, and each of the thirteen states has one vote at his election; which vote is not of the people, but of electors two degrees from the people.

The senate is a body of six years duration; and as in the choice of presidents, the largest state has but one vote, so it is in the choice of senators. Now this shows, that responsibility is as little to be apprehended from amenability to constituents, as from the terror of impeachment; for to the members of the senate it is clear, that trial by impeachment is nothing but parade.

From such an union in governments, it requires no great depth of political knowledge to prophesy, that monarchy or aristocracy must be generated, and perhaps of the most grievous kind. The only check in favor of the democratic principle is the house of representatives; but its smallness of number, and great comparative disparity of power, render that house of little effect to promote good or restrain bad government.

The power given to this ill-constructed senate is, to judge of what may be for the general welfare; and such engagements, when made the acts of Congress, become the supreme laws of the land.

This is a power co-extensive with every possible object of human legislation. Yet there is no restraint, no charter of rights, no residuum of human privileges, not intended to be given up to society. The rights of conscience, the freedom of the press, and trial by jury, are at the mercy of this senate. Trial by jury has been already materially injured. The trial in criminal cases is not by twelve men of the vicinage, or of the county, but of the state; and the states are from fifty to seven hundred miles in extent! In criminal cases this new system says, the trial shall be by jury. On civil cases it is silent. There it is fair to infer, that as in criminal cases it has been materially impaired, in civil cases it may be altogether omitted. But it is in truth, strongly discountenanced in civil cases; for this new system gives the supreme court in matters of appeal, jurisdiction both of law and fact.
This being the beginning of American freedom, it is very clear the ending will be slavery, for it cannot be denied that this constitution is, in its first principles, highly and dangerously oligarchical; and it is every where agreed, that a government administered by a few, is, of all governments, the worst.

LEONIDAS


Learn More About American History;
Visit Jamestown, Yorktown, Colonial Williamsburg Living History

Tuesday, July 15, 2014

Undermining The Constitution A HISTORY OF LAWLESS GOVERNMENT (Part 9)

Battle of the Hook, 2013
Battle of the Hook, 2013 (Photo credit: Battleofthehook)
By Thomas James Norton

IN MAY, 1933, CONGRESS, BY THE AGRICULTURAL ADJUSTMENT ACT, UNLAWFULLY PERMITTED THE PRESIDENT TO REDUCE THE GOLD CONTENT OF THE STANDARD DOLLAR

It was well settled law (293 U. S. 388) that the power conferred on Congress by the Constitution cannot be delegated to another Department. That principle of the law of Agency was found by Bryce to be the best conception of the Constitutional Convention.
Yet the Legislative Department authorized the President, by a Senate amendment to the House Agricultural Adjustment bill, to reduce the content of the gold dollar, but not below 50 per cent. In 1936 the Agricultural Adjustment Act was held (297 U. S. 1) unconstitutional for taking money from one class for the benefit of another. But in the meantime the President had acted on the Senate amendment and cut the gold dollar.
Among the powers conferred on Congress by the Constitution is that "to coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin." At the time the Constitution was written there was much coin of other nations in circulation in America. The Spanish silver dollar was the coin of first importance. By the language quoted, recognition was given to the fact that governments had found it necessary
133


134
to change the content of their standard coins, a course which conditions might make necessary in the New World.
President given no authority over money
But all the authority given by the Constitution was conferred, as the language quoted puts beyond question, on Congress alone. Neither in Article I, creating the Legislative Department, nor in Article II, establishing the Executive Department, is there even an intimation that the President should have anything to do with regulating the value of money. That is to say, the power was withheld from him. For another elementary rule of interpretation is that what is not granted is prohibited.
With the authority to regulate the value of coin limited by the Constitution to Congress, the President was, nevertheless, directed (or, what is more probable, allowed) by Congress to perform its task of fixing the value of the dollar. It was for Congress to determine whether the content of the dollar should be changed and, if so, to change it.
Constitutional power cannot be delegated
Delegation of administrative powers to fact-finding bodies which are guided, not by their own will or judgment, but by the specifications and limitations in the Acts of Congress creating them, has been common. The Federal Trade Commission, the Board of Tax Appeals, and many other agencies have been set up to relieve Congress of details not legislative .
But "the Congress, manifestly, is not permitted to abdicate, or transfer to others, the essential legislative functions with which it is invested," said the Supreme Court (293 U. S. 388) in 1934. (Italics inserted.) It pointed out


135
the settled practice that Congress, in the act of delegating administrative powers, must declare a policy, establish a standard, and lay down a rule for its agent to follow in executing the Congressional (not its own) will.
In passing to the President an "essential legislative function," not a merely administrative function, second to none conferred by the Constitution on it, Congress did not itself, so far as the Act and the Joint Resolution show, determine anything -- except that the Chief Executive might use his own judgment within a very wide range.
Here began the course of unconstitutional conduct by Congress which brought upon it and its successors the epithet of "rubber stamp."
The beginning of "directives" by the President
So, on January 31, 1934, the President "directed" that the standard gold dollar be reduced from 25.8 grains to 15-5/21 (15.238) grains.
On March 9, 1933, Congress had passed the Emergency Banking Relief Bill, which authorized the Secretary of the Treasury to require all persons to deliver to the Treasurer of the United States "any and all gold coin, gold bullion, and gold certificates" owned by them, and to accept therefor "an equivalent amount of any other form of coin or currency."
Here began the practice of the President and his rubber-stamp Congress of declaring an "emergency" when it seemed desirable to seize power not granted by the Constitution.
But "emergency does not create power," wrote Chief Justice Hughes (1934) in an opinion (290 U. S. 398) sustaining a law of Minnesota (1933) which extended the


136
time for an owner of property to redeem it after sale under foreclosure of mortgage.
Congress repudiated its contract with the people
By a Joint Resolution of June 5, 1933, Congress proclaimed that the promises of the United States in the law under which the Second, Third, and Fourth Liberty Bonds were issued "are hereby repealed" so far as they pledged any payment except "dollar for dollar in any coin or currency which at the time is legal tender." The United States had borrowed money of the people for carrying on World War I and had issued bonds therefor payable as to both principal and interest "in the United States gold coin of the present [1918] standard of value." That is, in dollars containing 25.8 grains of gold nine-tenths fine.
The vastness of the debt repudiated
Just before this legislation, in 1932, the interest-bearing debt of the Nation was $19,161,273,540.[1]
At that time the States had submerged themselves in an interest-bearing debt of $17,589,515,000.[2]
Thus, the two governments of the American had loaded him in a time of peace with a burden of $36,750,788,540.
On the National Debt he was paying a yearly interest of $599,276,631, and the debt of his States cost him yearly in interest $527,685,450.
His interest load for the two debts was $1,126,962,081 per year, or $155,399,491 more than the National Debt the year before we entered World War I.
1. Report Secretary of Treasury, p. 405.
2. Financial Statistics States, pp. 52, 64.


137
National and State governments had agreed with those who lent to them $36,750,788,540 to pay in dollars containing 25.8 grains gold. They had likewise promised to pay in such dollars yearly in interest $1,126,962,081.
But the governments would henceforward measure their debt to those who had lent money to them in time of need by a dollar containing 15-5/21 grains of gold instead of the promised dollar of 25.8 grains. Nor, as before said, would their creditors, under the decision of the Supreme Court, to be noticed presently, get the lesser gold dollar. They would be obliged to take paper money. Neither would they, the Supreme Court held, be entitled to enough additional paper money to compensate for the difference between the dollar lent and the dollar paid back.
The "profits" to governments from repudiation
The measure of value by which debtor and creditor had contracted was cut down not quite 41 per cent. If the debts of the Nation and the States just before given were to be cut down 40 per cent the debtor governments would gain over 15.7 billion dollars; and, of course, the people from whom they borrowed would be out of pocket that much, only a little less than the National Debt amounted to in 1931 after Secretary Mellon, by wise management, had reduced it almost 9 billion from the World War I peak of 25 billion, 234 million.
In like manner, all the other debtors in the United States, those not holding bonds or other obligations of Government, would receive in the depleted dollar from their creditors a forced forgiveness of 40 per cent of their debts.
That this was the effect of the performance was ad-


138
mitted of record by the Secretary of the Treasury in the report for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1946, where (p. 364), under receipts of money, there was entered "increment resulting from devaluation of gold dollar, $2,811,375,756." Whether that amount was allocated to 1946, or to all the years up to that time, does not appear; but the "clip" on all the bonds of the United States outstanding was $7,760,315,773.
Chief Justice Marshall on honor in government
On the action of the Government in favoring debtors -- and most of all itself and the States -- by clipping the dollar 40 per cent, in one of the opinions of Chief Justice Marshall this is to be found:
"It may well be doubted whether the nature of society and of Government does not prescribe some limits to the legislative power; and, if any be prescribed, where are they to be found if the property of an individual, fairly and honestly acquired, may be seized without compensation."[3]
Hamilton on inviolability of governmental contracts
Long before that, Alexander Hamilton, who was Secretary of the Treasury in the Cabinet of Washington, stated with his characteristic clarity and force the position of a contracting Government, as ours was a contracting Government when it borrowed money from the people and promised to pay in dollars containing 25.8 grains of gold:
"When a government enters into a contract with an in-
3. Fletcher v. Peck, 6 Cranch. 87, 135.


139
dividual, it deposes, as to the matter of the contract, its constitutional authority, and exchanges the character of legislator for that of a moral agent, with the same rights and obligations as an individual. Its promises may justly be considered as excepted out of its power to legislate, unless in aid of them. It is in theory impossible to reconcile the idea of a promise which obliges with a power to make a law which can vary the effect of it."[4]
Hamilton was a member of the Constitutional Convention, which "told the world" that the new Government would pay the creditors of the old.
Constitutional Convention for payment of all debts
Among the final words of the Constitution are these:
"All debts contracted and engagements entered into before the adoption of this Constitution shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution as under the Confederation."
That provision gave the United States high standing and credit among the nations.
On the morality of government respecting its debt, Madison made this interesting observation ( The Federalist , No. 43):
"This can only be considered a declaratory proposition; and may have been inserted, among other reasons, for the satisfaction of the foreign creditors of the United States, who cannot be strangers to the pretended doctrine that a change in the political form of civil society has the magical effect of dissolving its moral obligations."
4. Hamilton's Works, 518.


140
The fine example set to the nations by the Constitutional Convention has not been accepted by them.
Once we upbraided governments of Europe for repudiating the obligations to us which they had incurred for World War I. But we can do that no longer.
Insolence attended repudiation of gold contracts
From the review which has been made of opinion on both sides of this subject, it is manifest that the Government of the United States, without adequate explanation to the people, took a step respecting their property of tremendous importance to them. The only pretense of explanation by the Government, as a Government, was in the authority given by a rider on the Agricultural Adjustment Act to the President to "fix the weight of the gold dollar ... as he finds necessary ... to stabilize domestic prices or to protect foreign commerce against the adverse effect of depreciated foreign currencies"; and in the Joint Resolution of Congress (June 5,1933) declaring that "the holding or dealing in gold" had been disclosed by "the existing emergency" to "obstruct the power of Congress to regulate the value of money," for which reason "any obligation" purporting to give to the lender of money "a right to require payment in gold" was "declared to be against public policy."
But just how the cut by the President of 40 per cent from the gold dollar would stabilize domestic prices or protect foreign commerce, or how the repudiation by Congress of its promises to pay its bonded debts in gold, with the release of all other debtors from such promises, would help it "to regulate the value of money," was left without


141
explanation beyond the bare recitals just quoted from the acts.
The opinions of some writers on finance
Some writers on finance had contended that the value of the gold in a dollar had increased in the market, and that therefore the creditor (the holder of bonds, the depositor of money, and some others) were receiving value above that intended by their contracts, for which reason a reduction of the content of the gold dollar was called for. But, as before indicated, the representatives of the Government said that the purpose was to increase the price of agricultural commodities, to stabilize American money against foreign currencies, and to make a profit for the Treasury of the United States.
While the depletion of the dollar quickly lifted the prices of wheat and other products in demand in foreign markets, it less quickly, but just as surely, increased the costs at home -- of food, of clothing, of housing, of living. If the writers on finance were right, then the wearying burden of living costs carried by the American for fifteen years is in considerable part attributable to the devaluation of the gold dollar.
Supreme Court expounded repudiation
In one of the three Gold Clause Cases the Supreme Court held, on February 18, 1935, in an opinion by Chief Justice Hughes, that the Fourth Liberty Bonds of the United States, promising to pay the buyer (the lender of money to the Government) "in the United States gold coin of the present [1918] standard of value," could not be repudiated as to the form of payment. The bonds having


142
been issued under the clause of section 8 of Article I of the Constitution authorizing Congress "to borrow money on the credit of the United States," and being affected by the provision of the Fourteenth Amendment that "the validity of the Public Debt of the United States authorized by law . . . shall not be questioned," those quoted expressions stating the sovereign will of the people, it was not within the power of Congress, a servant of the people with inferior authority, "to override their will thus declared," and by the joint resolution of June 5, 1933, to proclaim that the promises in the law under which the bonds were issued "are hereby repealed" so far as they pledged any payment except "dollar for dollar in any coin or currency which at the time is legal tender."[5]
Yet the bondholder won a Pyrrhic victory. He got nothing but a favorable judicial declaration that he should be paid in gold when the gold of the country had been seized and withdrawn from circulation.
The holder of Government bonds thoroughly "frisked"
Nor did he get in paper money the additional sum to equate the difference between the two gold dollars for the reason that "the plaintiff," the Court said, "has not shown, or attempted to show, that in relation to buying power he has sustained any loss whatever." Congress having withdrawn gold from circulation, it was unascertained what the new gold dollar would be worth to plaintiff in the "domestic and restricted market." He had not proved that, and as he had sued for damages for violation of contract, he failed for want of proof.
5. Perry v. United States, 294 U. S. 330.


143
Dissenting Justices found the milk in the cocoanut
In the dissenting opinion in the Gold Clause Cases by Justices McReynolds, Van Devanter, Sutherland, and Butler, this was said (italics inserted):
"The Agricultural Adjustment Act of May 12,1933, discloses a fixed purpose to raise the nominal values of farm products [6] by depleting the standard dollar. It authorized the President to reduce the gold in the standard, and further provided that all forms of currency shall be legal tender. The result expected to follow was increase in nominal values of commodities and depreciation of contractual obligations. The purpose of section 43, incorporated by the Senate as an amendment to the House bill, was clearly stated by the Senator who presented it. It was the destruction of lawfully acquired rights."
Congress recognized damage by repudiation
That destructive result was admitted by the Government, for by an act of Congress of June 14, 1934, a credit of $25,862,750 was established on the books of the Treasury in favor of the Philippine Islands, that amount compensating for the cut in its gold-standard fund held by the banks in this country.
The fact deserves special emphasis that it was by an act of Congress taking a course of avowed favor to agricul-
6. Where did Congress get authority "to raise the nominal value of farm products"?
This is one more support of the statement frequently made herein, namely, that those in places in Government have generally ceased to ask or raise the question: Does the Constitution warrant this action? Or, does the Constitution forbid it?


144
ture, as the dissenting justices stated in the foregoing quotation, that the President was empowered to reduce the gold content of the dollar. In the act the purpose of stabilizing "domestic prices or to protect foreign commerce against the adverse effect of depreciated foreign currencies" is recited. It is not clear why a dollar supported by the resources and productive power of this country could not stand up against foreign money. No explanation was vouchsafed by the prestidigitators of finance who drafted and put through the bill.
A senator clearly explained the trick
But this from the senator who incorporated section 43 as an amendment to the House bill, referred to in the foregoing quotation from the dissenting justices, is to a high degree lucid (italics inserted):
"The amendment has for its purpose the bringing down or cheapening of the dollar, that being necessary in order to raise agricultural and commodity prices. . . . The first part of the amendment has to do with conditions precedent to action being taken later.
"It will be my task to show that if the amendment shall prevail it has possibilities as follows: it may transfer from one class to another class in these United States value to the extent of almost $200,000,000,000. This volume will be transferred, first from those who own the bank deposits. Secondly, this value will be transferred from those who own bonds and fixed investments."[7]
There is nothing in that about cutting the value of the dollar over 40 per cent to protect it against "depreciated
7. Congressional Record, April, 1933, pp. 2004, 2216-7, 2219.


145
foreign currencies," which Congress gave as one of its reasons, without saying how that would help against what.
Secretary of Treasury not concerned about foreign moneys
Justice McReynolds quoted from a radio address of the Secretary of the Treasury to the American people on August 28, 1934, the following unctuousness:
"But we have another cash drawer in the Treasury, in addition to the drawer which carries our working balance. This second drawer I will call the 'gold' drawer. In it is the very large sum of 2,800,000,000, representing 'profit' resulting from the change in the gold content of the dollar. Practically all of this 'profit' the Treasury holds in the form of gold and silver. The rest is in other assets.
"I do not propose here to subtract this $2,800,000,000 from the net increase of $4,400,000,000 in the National Debt, thereby reducing the figure to $1,600,000,000. And the reason why I do not subtract it is this: for the present this $2,800,000,000 is under lock and key. Most of it, by authority of Congress, 1s segregated in the so-called stabilization fund, and for the present we propose to keep it there. But I call your attention to the fact that ultimately we expect this 'profit' to flow back into the stream of our other revenues and thereby reduce the National Debt."
Usefulness of gold clause in American life stated
The dissenting justices pointed out that the gold clause in any agreement, employed by Americans for more than 100 years, "secures protection, one against decrease in the


146
value of the currency, the other against an increase." Such clauses, they said, "have rendered possible our great undertakings -- public works, railroads, buildings. . . . Furthermore," the dissenters wrote, "they furnish means for computing the sum payable in currency if gold should become unobtainable." Then the borrower pays "for each dollar loaned the currency value of that number of grains." He would thereby get, what was denied by the Supreme Court, enough additional currency to make up the difference between the value of the money lent by him and that paid back.
The whole case, as seen by the dissenting justices, was stated as follows:
"The fundamental problem now presented is whether recent statutes passed by Congress in respect of money and credits were designed to attain a legitimate end. Or whether, under the guise of pursuing a monetary policy, Congress has really inaugurated a plan primarily designed to destroy private obligations, repudiate National debts, and drive into the Treasury all gold within the country in exchange for inconvertible promises to pay, of much less value."
The President did not guard against foreign currencies
It was reported in the dispatches on March 15, 1941, that President Roosevelt told his conferees of the Press, whom he used as boosters of his exploits, that "the Treasury's $2,000,000,000 stabilization fund had made a profit of $22,000,000," which, he said, was "not such a bad record for what he called facetiously a bunch of rank amateurs in


147
finance." The stabilization fund was established in 1934, the dispatch said, "from profits obtained from the devaluation of the dollar." It was the opinion of the President that he had given "a pretty good illustration of the fact that the American Government was not wholly amateurish in the financial part it plays in the country."
What the Government accomplished proceeded, not from its financial ability, but from an illegal and ruthless exertion of power.
Did predatory wealth or economic royalty ever "put over" anything comparable to that? Did either, even in its dreams, ever see such easy money picked from the gullible?
On "just compensation" for private property taken
Were Congress to authorize the Secretary of the Treasury to order all of the farmers in the country to drive in their herds and accept the pay offered by the Government, "just compensation" would be given for them under the command of Article V of the Bill of Rights. On whether gold could thus be called in and appropriated by the Government without paying grain for grain, the dissenting justices said:
"Congress has power to coin money, but this cannot be exercised without the possession of metal. Can Congress authorize appropriation without compensation of the necessary gold? Congress has power to regulate commerce, to establish post roads, etc. Some approved plan may involve the use or destruction of A's land or a private way. May Congress authorize the appropriation or de-


148
struction of these things without adequate payment? Of course not. The limitations prescribed by the Constitution restrict the exercise of all power."
On the point in the opinion of the majority of the Court, that as the holders of the bonds were forbidden to possess gold, it would do them no good to get payment in coin which they would be obliged to surrender immediately, and that consequently they were without damage, the dissenting justices said:
"Congress brought about the condition in respect of gold which existed when the obligation matured. Having made payment in this metal impossible, the Government cannot defend by saying that if the obligation had been met the creditor could not have retained the gold; consequently he suffered no damage because of the non-delivery.
Had an individual done such a thing
"Obligations cannot be legally avoided by prohibiting the creditor from receiving the thing promised. . . .
"If an individual should undertake to annul or lessen his obligation by secreting or manipulating his assets with the intent to place them beyond the reach of creditors, the attempt would be denounced as fraudulent."
The dissenting opinion concluded:
"Under the challenged statute it is said the United States have realized profits amounting to $2,800,000,000. But this assumes that gain may be generated by legislative fiat. To such counterfeit profits there would be no limit; with each new debasement of the dollar they would


149
expand. Two billions might be ballooned indefinitely -- to twenty, thirty, or what you will.
"Loss of reputation for honorable dealing will bring us unending humiliation; the impending legal and moral chaos is appalling."



Thursday, June 26, 2014

Statement of Governor Terence McAuliffe on 2015-2016 Budget Actions

Virginia General Assembly
Virginia General Assembly (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
Good Morning.

Over the past six days, my finance team and I have carefully reviewed the Biennial Budget that was transmitted to my office last Sunday by the General Assembly.

This budget was completed almost three months late, after the Republican leadership of the House of Delegates stubbornly refused to take even the most modest steps toward closing the health care coverage gap. 

Virginians in every corner of the Commonwealth know that the lack of health care is hurting families, stunting economic growth, damaging hospitals and clinics, and causing too many of our citizens to suffer needlessly.

It is unconscionable that one of the wealthiest states in one of the wealthiest nations in the world does not provide health care to its needy citizens, particularly when we have already paid for it. 

Providing health care to people who are sick is a moral imperative.

Time and time again, a bipartisan coalition in the Senate and I offered the House Republicans the opportunity to compromise.  They had the chance to come to the table and help fix this serious problem, and every single time, they said NO.

When I took the oath of office in January, I had just come off a campaign in which I ran and won on a platform of expanding Medicaid services to 400,000 Virginians.  This was a program just like 27 other states have enacted. 

Some of the most conservative Governors in the nation have implemented this program.  Not only did the Republican leadership refuse to compromise, they refused to even discuss the issue.

My team and I then worked very closely with Republican members of the Senate on a compromise plan called Marketplace Virginia. 

As with any compromise, I didn’t like every part of Marketplace Virginia, but I knew that it was our best chance to get a plan through the House of Delegates, and to thereby help those Virginians who desperately need health care.

Presented with the idea of Marketplace Virginia, the Republican leadership of the House of Delegates responded with a resounding NO.

Again, they rejected compromise.

When the General Assembly failed to complete its work on time and adjourned March 8th without a budget, I offered yet another compromise.

I proposed to close the health care coverage gap with a two-year pilot program and received a written commitment from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services affirming that Virginia could withdraw from the expanded program at any point we wanted with no ongoing obligation to the beneficiaries.

Once again, the Republican leadership of the House of Delegates said NO and refused to compromise. 

They chose instead to subject our citizens to a protracted budget stalemate that was unfair to local governments, veterans, law enforcement officers, our state workforce and most importantly the vulnerable men, women and children who depend on state government for important human services.

Then, last Thursday night, after the Senate of Virginia acceded to the demands of the House to “decouple” health care from the budget, and to drop Marketplace Virginia completely, the House again said NO. 

Together with their new-found majority in the Senate, House Republicans demanded an amendment that effectively eliminated the Medicaid Innovation and Reform Commission or MIRC as a vehicle for closing the coverage gap.

By refusing any and all compromise, the House leadership has turned its back on people all over Virginia who were looking to us to help them and their families gain access to life-saving treatments and medicine.

By refusing any and all compromise, the Republican leadership has elected to forfeit more than $5 million per day in funding that our people have already sent to Washington.

We have already lost $852 million as of this morning.

This is the context in which I had to evaluate this budget. 

It was long overdue. 

It failed to address health care – one of the most pressing needs of our people. 

And it contained reductions in spending that were much deeper than necessary because the General Assembly refused to accept Medicaid funding.

Frankly, if it were not June 20th – with only 10 days left in this fiscal year, I may well have vetoed the entire budget.  But given the severe difficulties the General Assembly had in getting even this weak budget to me, I seriously doubt that they could have prepared a budget in the next week without disrupting or imperiling critical services or jeopardizing our AAA Bond Rating.

Let me be crystal clear, I am moving forward to get Virginians health care.   

I intend to sign this legislation, but not without using my constitutional authority to make several line item vetoes.  Today, I am announcing that I will be vetoing several items in this budget:

First, I am vetoing the MIRC entirely.  It is increasingly clear to me that the MIRC is merely a sham to pretend that the legislature is serious about Medicaid reform and expansion. Even the former Attorney General questioned its constitutionality. 

My administration will continue to press for and achieve greater efficiency in Medicaid and other health care delivery programs.  My administration has demonstrated time and time again that we will work with anyone in the General Assembly – Democrat or Republican – to advance these goals. 

What we will NOT do is waste any more time on a process in which:
·         the needs of real people are not even discussed;
·         the metrics of reform are ignored; and,
·         the goal posts are moved or even uprooted constantly.

I have instructed Secretary Hazel and Secretary Brown and their teams not to attend or assist with any more meaningless MIRC meetings.

Second, I am vetoing the Stanley floor amendment because it is unnecessary given that there is no appropriation for expanded Medicaid pursuant to the Affordable Care Act. 

It restricts something that doesn’t exist.

With respect to health care, I am moving forward. There are several options available to me.

I have directed Secretary Hazel to work with our federal partners in Washington, the insurance industry, health care providers, our university medical centers, non-profit organizations, our local health departments, and the hospital industry to extend the promise of health care to our people.

Secretary Hazel will have a plan on my desk by no later than September 1st detailing how we can move Virginia health care forward even in the face of the demagoguery, lies, fear and cowardice that have gripped this debate for too long.

Third, I am vetoing funding for all new judgeships in which confirmation is limited to a regular or special session of the General Assembly.  This language is plainly an attempt to significantly limit the power of the Governor and is thus unacceptable.

Fourth, I am vetoing an appropriation that will allow Chesterfield County to partner with the City of Petersburg to address challenges confronted by the Petersburg schools.  This presents a number of legal problems and bad precedents, and was not requested by either locality.

Fifth, I am vetoing the item that would take $4.6 million from the Federal Action Contingency Trust (FACT) fund.  My intent would be to use some or all of this money to protect our interests in military facilities that may otherwise be at risk of federal cut backs.

I will not sit idle and allow the General Assembly to cripple our military assets. 

Sixth, I am vetoing the appropriation for the newly created Virginia Conflicts of Interest and Ethics Advisory Commission.  The ethics reform bill passed by the General Assembly was far weaker than what Virginians deserve of proper ethics reform. 

I plan to present revised legislation to the 2015 General Assembly session on this topic, and the creation of a new bureaucracy beforehand would be unwise and premature.  I also question the constitutionality of the commission given its scope of responsibilities. 

My Administration and their families live under a $100 gift band.  Virginians deserve a General Assembly that gets closer to that standard. 

Seventh, at the request of the Attorney General, I am vetoing language dealing with asset forfeiture settlements. 

The Attorney General has indicated that while they are willing to continue to work on a possible resolution of issues, the adopted language will cause the Commonwealth difficulty in executing future settlements of this type.  Put simply, the language is half baked and needs more work.

While not a veto, I have also directed the Department of General Services and other staff to suspend all activities to advance the replacement of the General Assembly building, the renovation of Old City Hall or the construction of the new parking deck near Capitol Square. 

In my view, it simply sends the wrong signal to our people to be constructing expensive new facilities in Richmond at a time when we can’t find $10 million to decrease homelessness.

My staff and I will continue to examine the budget through the weekend, and it is likely that we will have additional vetoes or amendments. 

I appreciate the work that the money committee staffs have done and will continue to do on this budget during the weekend.

Finally, I want to thank Virginia’s dedicated state workforce for their patience and continued hard work during this period of uncertainty.

It is our workforce that makes state government so effective and I am grateful to them for all they do.

Thank you.



Governor McAuliffe’s Announced Budget Actions:
1.      Governor McAuliffe intends to veto language authorizing the Medicaid Innovation and Reform Commission to Approve Medicaid reforms as a requirement for Medicaid Expansion (MIRC). The General Assembly made the Commission irrelevant by removing their appropriations authority from the budget. The MIRC has also consistently allowed partisan political considerations prevent action despite the criteria for Medicaid expansion having been fulfilled.

2.      Governor McAuliffe intends to veto the amendment limiting any appropriation or expenditure of funds in the State Treasury to address the health care coverage gap without specific authorization or an appropriation bill enacted by the General Assembly on or after July 1, 2014. The amendment is unnecessary given its intent to restrict an appropriation that does not exist anywhere in the budget.

3.      Governor McAuliffe intends to veto funding for all new judges to which the General Assembly has attached language limiting the Governor from making appointments when the legislature is out of session. The Governor’s right to fill judicial vacancies when the General Assembly is out of session is key to keeping the judiciary running efficiently.

4.      Governor McAuliffe intends to veto an appropriation that will allow Chesterfield County to partner with the City of Petersburg to improve the quality of Petersburg schools. The Governor is committed to improving underperforming schools, but he is concerned about the constitutionality of the legislation and neither locality requested the change.
5.      Governor McAuliffe intends to veto an item that would revert $4.6 million away from the Federal Action Contingency Trust (FACT) Fund. This money is needed to help protect Virginia’s military installations from federal cuts or potential actions of the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) Commission.

6.      Governor McAuliffe intends to veto the appropriation for the newly created Virginia Conflicts of Interest Advisory Commission out of his concern over the weakness of the ethics legislation passed by the General Assembly. He intends to introduce stronger legislation in the next session, making the creation of a new bureaucracy premature and unwise.

7.      Governor McAuliffe intends to veto budget language dealing with asset forfeiture settlements at the request of the Office of the Attorney General. The Attorney General has indicated that while they are willing to continue to work on a possible resolution of issues, the adopted language will cause the Commonwealth difficulty in executing future settlements of this type.

8.      The Governor also announced that, in addition to his actions on the budget, he has directed the Virginia Department of General Services to suspend any actions on the new $300 million General Assembly Building in Richmond. He believes building new expensive offices for legislators to use part time is wrong when the General Assembly could not even find additional money to fight homelessness in Virginia.