Renewable Energy Is Homeland Security

While out and about driving this late afternoon, I pulled behind a car that had a bumper sticker that read "Renewable Energy Is Homeland Security," and couldn't help but laugh.

I am a former 45 year resident of Phoenix, Arizona, a state which receives most of its energy resources from Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station about 50 miles outside Phoenix.

I was living there when the idea of nuclear power was being brought to the state, and those at our local power company, Arizona Public Service, were in the forefront of getting an initiative passed in Arizona that called for a bond election to assist with its building, and a Corporation Commission then also expanded after it was built in order to supposedly act as a check on rate increases.

Although most in Arizona still believe that Arizona Public Service Company is a public utility company that is accountable to the Arizona Corporation Commission for its rate increases and also its regulation with respect to Palo Verde, such is not the case.

Why?

Well, after Palo Verde was finished being built, which also supplies some power to California - the state which has stolen Arizona's water for literally decades, and now boycotting it due to the citizenry and state government actually attempting to stop Phoenix and Tucson and those border towns from truly becoming another L.A. - the federal and state government afforded Arizona Public Service Company to be assumed by a holding company that also is engaged in commercial building construction by the name of Pinnacle West.

And shares of Pinnacle West are currently sold over the global stock exchange, in essence affording foreigners or foreign governments to now own shares in even America's nuclear reactors and generators progressively (don't you love that word, those progressives have sold out this country right and left to foreigners in the name of "progress").

So just how secure is Palo Verde (and America itself, for that matter) if it is entirely possible that foreigners, and not even Americans, own controlling interests in the largest nuclear generating station and reactor in the country?

Another American asleep at the wheel, and couldn't stop laughing at the naiveté that is still present in a good many Americans who are under 40.

Or possibly missed the 60's, 70's and 80's.

Congressman Shadegg Reintroduces Enumerated Powers Act

Congressman John Shadegg (R-AZ) is again attempting to reintroduce the "Enumerated Powers Act" (HR-450) in order to attempt to self-regulate the U.S. Congress and constrain it to its Constitutional powers and duties as enumerated in the United States Constitution.

This "Act" has and was drafted and introduced by Mr. Shadegg during several previous Congressional sessions.

The Act provides that prior to any legislation being referred to Committee or vote of Congress, a specific reference to the Constitutional authority which grants such power to the federal government must be included within the Bill.

In short, it has been voted down by the members of Congress on each and every instance in the past to formalize this Constitutional into statute. Which speaks volumes in and of itself.

However, at the present time, there is already such an informal agreement and House Rule which provides such requirements. So what has Congress done?

They continue making end runs around this Rule and instead "liberally" again translate the Constitution by using two introductory words as the stated basis for such legislation - the phantom "general welfare" clause.

Which is really no clause at all and simply a preface stated in the Preamble to our Constitution in order to state the "intent" of the contractual nature of the Constitution and it's purpose, and also which is used again as an introductory preface to the outlined duties and functions of Congress as contained with Article I, Section 8.

In fact, James Madison, the acknowledged "Father of the Constitution" had this to say about the purported "general welfare" clause:

"Let there be no change [in the Constitution] by usurpation. For though this, in one instance may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed."

"If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands;

they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury;

they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union;

they may assume the provision of the poor;

they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads;

in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress.... Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for,
it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America."

Presidential Executive Orders

During the last presidential administration the powers of the Executive Office under former President Bush were expanded at a rate that is unsurpassed in the history of this nation. The President liberally used such methods as both "signing statements" and "executive orders" in order to both dilute the powers of Congress, and expand the duties and powers of the presidency outside Constitutional provision and authority.

The problems which such measures present should be clear to every American. It undermines and is a blatant disregard for our Constitution and also our intended representative government. The fact that those on Capitol Hill in the Halls of Congress cannot put aside their partisan political backbiting to challenge and dilute this presidential usurpation is simply nothing short of treason on the part of those claimed representatives.

There was a political challenge made at one point which made it's way to our Halls of Justice, the U.S. Supreme Court. In a divided opinion, the Court actually amended the Constitution in it's ruling in order to hold with the President. The Court also holds no power under the Constitution whatsoever to "make law," simply review any and all legislation for Constitutionality. The fact that such a power move by the President was not within the proscribed presidential powers was clear and not supported by the "evidence," our Constitution and it's clear language.

It does seem that the old addage "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely," appears to be holding true once again. And Mr. Obama is clearly on track at this point as one who's views of his presidential powers more align with his predecessor, than our Constitution.

The President actually has only two proscribed duties within the Constitution. One is as the last "check" in the "checks and balances," for Constitutionality of any legislation placed before him. The other is as Commander in Chief of the military in times of declared war.

Congress was to have the true power in Washington with respect to governance in their enumerated powers and duties, which far exceed that of the presidency.

In their negligence to enact the needed legislation in order to clarify the limited powers of the presidency and bring it back into Constitutional alignment, it does appear that cronism, "political correctness" and the new buzzword, "bipartisanship" is simply a way for those on the Hill to continue to "misrepresent" their constituents, the people of this great nation.