Because of Obama and Reid, We Need Two New Constitutional Amendments

If there is anything we have learned by having Barack Obama in office for the last 7-1/2 years, it is that any rogue President can sidestep the balance of power -- as now theoretically outlined in our Constitution -- through the use of executive orders and memoranda.   At the same time, Harry Reid's blocking of any legislation sent over from the House, while he was the Majority Leader, also exposes another problem.

For these reasons, I believe we need to fix these holes in the Constitution with two new amendments.

The first should clearly restrict the power of the President to legislate from his office.  Any executive orders and memoranda that modifies any past legislation should be time limited to several months and not renewable. This way, Congress can either choose to pass legislation to sustain the President's executive action or, simply, let the President's actions expire.   Additionally, prosecutorial discretion needs to stop or, at the very least, also be time limited to, say, six months, and not renewable.

Similarly, another amendment is needed to insure that legislation passed in either the Senate or the House be brought to a vote in the other congressional body within some specified time frame.  If not, that legislation would automatically be sent to the President for signature.  This would stop majority leaders like Harry Reid from sitting on legislation that he thinks may be politically embarrassing for either his party members or his President.

I believe that both the House and the Senate, now controlled by the Republicans, could act on this almost immediately after being seated in January; assuming a Republican President is elected and congress still remains under the control of Republicans.  At that time, the offenders -- Reid and Obama -- will no longer be on the scene.

References:

Definition: Prosecutorial Discretion: https://www.google.com/search?q=procecrutalbe+disgression&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8#safe=off&q=prosecutorial+discretion

The Constitutional Amendment Process: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution/

The Repeal of the 14th Amendment Is Not Needed To Solve the "Anchor Baby" Issue

Leave it to Donald Trump to start one firestorm after another regarding illegal immigration.  His latest is his promise to deport all illegals and their children; even if they were born in the U.S.

Of course, this has led to a chorus of denunciation because it would violate the 14th Amendment to the constitution which guarantees citizenship to anyone born on U.S. soil; and, you can't deport citizens even if their parents are here illegally.  Thus, the term "anchor babies" came to our lexicon because no one wants to separate parents from their children by deporting those parents.  The fact that "anchor babies" has become offensive is because the political left has made it so in an effort to promote amnesty and citizenship for illegals.

Others have commented that it would be a massive undertaking to override an amendment to the Constitution in order to address the problem.

Now, I have to admit that it has been decades since I read the 14th amendment, and like everybody else, I just remember that the first sentence does guarantee citizenship to any baby born here.  Here is the actual text of Section 1:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.

Yes, it says what it says.  But, as many defenders of Trump have pointed out, most people neglect to recall Section 5 which is a one sentence article and simply states:

The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

So, a new amendment is not needed.  Congress has the power to either let the first sentence stand as is, or limit it to exclude babies born to non-citizens.  Maybe the folks at the liberal-leaning Washington Post should actually read the whole law before they proclaim that "Donald Trump and Scott Walker want to repeal birthright citizenship. It's nearly impossible."

Also understand that the only reason the 14th Amendment exists is to insure that babies born to slaves and American Indians were citizens and to combat state laws that were attempting to deny citizenship to these individuals with things like "Black Codes".   So, the concept of "anchor babies" was never the original intent.  For this reason, I think that, if it was ever adjudicated by the Supreme Court, the intent of the law would override the extension to include "anchor babies".

References:

14th Amendment of the Constitution: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Trump's Critics Are Wrong about the Fourteenth Amendment: http://www.nationalreview.com/birthright-citizenship-not-mandated-by-constitution

No, The 14th Amendment Doesn't Guarantee Birthright Citizenship: http://dailycaller.com/2015/08/19/no-the-14th-amendment-doesnt-guarantee-birthright-citizenship/

Levin: Cruz, Trump, Sessions 'Are Right,' 14th Amendment Doesn't Mandate Birthright Citizenship: http://www.breitbart.com/video/2015/08/19/levin-cruz-trump-sessions-are-right-14th-amendment-doesnt-mandate-birthright-citizenship/

Donald Trump and Scott Walker want to repeal birthright citizenship. It's nearly impossible: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/08/18/donald-trump-and-scott-walker-want-to-repeal-birthright-citizenship-its-nearly-impossible/

The End Of Private Banking In America?

If you don't think banks are making enough loans to consumers and small businesses right now, just wait until the Congress passes its "cram down" legislation (See Full Story).

As I have said before, the basic business model for banking is fairly simple. They take money in from depositors with the promise of paying interest on that money. Then, they use that money to give out loans to borrowers. The interest income derived from those loans is then used to pay interest to their depositors. In essence, the bank is a lending agent or consolidator between a diverse group of depositors and some group of select borrowers. For that, the banks take a commission; which is their profit.

Now, enter the Democrats in Congress. They believe that people struggling with their mortgages (mortgages that they couldn't really afford in the first place) should have mediation conducted by a Federal bankruptcy judge. That judge, armed with this new legislation, will be able to accomplish what the real estate industry calls a "cram down" of any principal loan amount to a new, much lower level, with lower and much more affordable interest rates.

A "cram down" is simply forgiving any loss in market value that a defaulting homeowner has realized against their original mortgage loan agreement. In essence, a person who bought a house for a high price and who has an equally high mortgage value associated with that home (a.k.a. their principal loan amount), will have a new contract written to match today's lower market value and today's low interest rates. The bank, then, has to eat the difference as a loss. For the delinquent homeowner, it is nothing but a win-win situation. They walk away with a new loan amount and a monthly mortgage that is, in many cases, more than halved. For the bank, they will have sustained losses in the 5 to 6 figure range for each home that is being crammed down on them.

The Democrats argue that this will keep people in their homes. And, it will have no cost to the tax payers. Also, the value of all homes will be maintained because there won't be any empty and foreclosed homes in our neighborhoods.

If only these people understood either business, or banking, or the real estate market!

Every time you financially benefit one group of people in some legislative or court action, you disadvantage others. In a "cram down," you are forcing banks into accepting severe losses. At the very least, those losses will result in reduced interest rates to all their depositors. In those formerly hot real estate markets, many banks won't be able to sustain all the losses that are being forced upon them and the FDIC will have to come in and takeover those banks. The savings of some people, those who exceed the current FDIC insurance levels, can and will sustain heavy losses. Federal funds, from the taxpayers, will be used to square the accounts of remaining depositors through FDIC insurance. So much for no cost to the taxpayers!

If a bank remains solvent while still sustaining tremendous losses, they are not going to be inclined to make any more moderate-to-high-risk loans for fear that some other Federal Judge, at some time in the future, will cram some more losses down on them. This will only exacerbate the current tight credit conditions that already exist in this country. It absolutely will insure that there won't be a recovery from this recession. Further, the value of homes in the real estate market will continue to decline because there won't be any loans available to drive the demand that is very much needed to clear all the existing inventory in what is already an oversupplied housing market.

Apparently, our Congress and Mr. Obama don't seem to understand that it is a lack of home buyers and not necessarily the number of foreclosed homes that is driving home prices down.

Additionally, if a bank sustains heavy losses but remains in business, it is likely to lose depositors because they won't be able to pay adequate or competitive interest rates on their checking/savings accounts. People will move their money elsewhere and, ultimately, those banks will fail as a result of runs on their deposits. Once again, Federal (FDIC) insurance money will have to be used in taking over another bank. And, once again, that's taxpayer money; just in case our Congress doesn't know.

This whole mess could result in a complete collapse of our private banking system. The net-net will ultimately be a Federally operated banking system with all the losses, the pitfalls, the inefficiencies, and all the lack of creativity of our current United States Post Office. God help us all!