Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘United States House of Representatives’

The flags of Canada and the United States of A...

There are two major factors that keep Canada’s federal government on a tighter leash than that of the United States.

One is the French-speaking majority province of Quebec, which represents almost a quarter of Canada’s population.

While 50 U.S. states are divided and conquered to repeatedly hand over more of their exclusive constitutional authority, Canadians have a friend in Quebec, which is always sure to assert its interests, competency and exclusive jurisdiction in order to protect its unique cultural heritage within Canada.

Another major factor is the better representation in the House of Commons than in the U.S. House of Representatives. At the start of 2012, there was an elected representative for approximately every 110,500 Canadians and 719,300 Americans.

The United States has the second-lowest representation in its lower chamber in the world — less than Communist China, and second only to India.

These are two political reasons that I propose would have rendered Canada more free than the United States had it been proportionately attacked as the U.S. was on September 11, 2001.

With the 2008 financial crisis, some Representatives were getting 1000-to-1 calls against the bankster heist bill. If they had a representation factor like Canada’s, there would have undoubtedly been at least several Representatives who would’ve held firm to their original no vote and the bill may have failed to later pass the House in the form it did.

The U.S. Constitution allows up to one Representative for every 30,000 Americans, so there’s no need for the current level of representation, unless you’re a bankster or one of their agents.

It is the result of these two major factors, among others, that the United States federal government is now more centralized and expansive than Canada’s.

Read Full Post »

Jan Brewer

Please, President Obama, reward me for my faithful service to you

In vetoing Arizona’s so-called ‘birther’ bill, which was passed by a majority of the Arizona House and Senate, she said:

I never imagined being presented with a bill that could require candidates for President of the greatest and most powerful nation on earth to submit their ‘early baptismal or circumcision certificates’…this is a bridge too far,

However, the bill only presented such documents as options for proving constitutional eligibility for the office of President, otherwise no woman could be on the presidential ballot in Arizona, which she never argued the bill did.

What really was a bridge too far for her was betraying the President who appointed her to a council of governors in 2010, which, in my view, is a subversive organization to weaken the constitutional diffusion of powers in the republic that is the United States.

As I mentioned in a previous article, Canada requires candidates for political office to swear an oath to their eligibility, but no proof of eligibility is required for a far higher office in the United States, and to me, that is ironic, given the specific natural born citizenship requirement for the office of President, which was obviously important to the 39 signatories to the Constitution.

She also said the bill could lead to “arbitrary or politically motivated decisions” because of the power of government officials to make judgments as to constitutional eligibility, yet she apparently hasn’t read, or has ignored, the very Constitution she swore an oath to uphold.

Article I, Section 5 of the U.S. Constitution states:

Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members

So it’s nothing new for government officials to be given the power to decide on qualifications of political office holders, when the Constitution itself gives inherently political members of the U.S. House and Senate the sole power of judging the qualifications of its own members, even after they’ve been directly elected by the people.

Read Full Post »