Amendment 27

No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.
____________________________________________________________

This says that if a pay increase for Congress is approved that it does not take effect until the next term. This keeps them from increasing pay rates for themselves.
____________________________________________________________

11/24/2009

Congress Votes Itself a Pay Raise

Salary will jump by $3,400 a year in 2004

By Robert Longley, About.com Guide

Want a raise? Don't beg to your boss. Just vote yourself one. That's what the United States Congress just did. For the fifth year in a row, lawmakers voted not to reject their automatic "cost of living" raise that will increase the annual salary of members by $3,400 to a total of $158,103 per year.

In 1989, Congress passed an amendment allowing for the automatic raises, unless lawmakers specifically voted to reject it. Which Congress did, until 2000.

The fiscal year 2004 Transportation and Treasury Department Appropriations bill included Congress' 2.2 percent pay raise, along with a 4.1 percent raise for federal workers and military personnel.

"Members of Congress have the only job in the country whose occupants can set their own salary without regard to performance, profit, or economic climate," said Tom Schatz, president of the Council for Citizens Against Government Waste in a press release. "Clearly, members must think that money grows on trees. With a $480 billion deficit, the escalating cost of the war in Iraq, and a stagnant economy, Congress should be curbing spending, not lining their pockets at our expense."

In the House of Representatives, Rep. Jim Matheson's (D-Utah, 2nd) motion to bring the pay raise to a separate vote was rejected 240-173. The Senate must still pass the bill and it must then be signed by President Bush before the pay raises can take effect. Individual members are free to refuse their pay increases, and some choose to do so.

Congress has now voted itself a total of $16,700 in raises over the last six years. Since 1990, congressional pay has increased from $98,400 to $154,700 in 2003.

Individual members are free to refuse their pay increases, and some choose to do so.

From 1789 to 1815, members of Congress received only a per diem (daily payment) of $6.00 while in session. Members began receiving an annual salary in 1815, when they were paid $1,500 per year.

"This underserved pay raise is no surprise, as the 108th Congress has shown a voracious appetite for spending," Schatz concluded. "It goes to show how out of touch with reality politicians can be. They forget that their salaries are paid by taxpayers. Americans are being forced to tighten their belts—if they even have a job—yet members of Congress will have an extra $3,400 to do with as they please."

This About.com page has been optimized for print. To view this page in its original form, please visit: http://usgovinfo.about.com/cs/agencies/a/raise4congress.htm

©2009 About.com, Inc., a part of The New York Times Company. All rights reserved.

Thoughts:
I think that having to vote a pay raise in for Congress was a good idea, and even more so that it doesn't take effect until the next term. The tax payers dollars are what pays their wages and I do not think its fair to raise taxes on tax payers who might only make 20,000 a year to pay members of Congress 150,000 to sit behind desks.

____________________________________________________________

11/24/2009

Congress gets $4,100 pay raise

WASHINGTON (AP) — Congress members in 2008 will receive salaries of $169,300, a boost of $4,100 over the salary they have had since January 2006.

That 2.5% increase is mirrored by similar raises for associate justices of the Supreme Court, who will see their pay go from $203,000 to $208,100, and Chief Justice John Roberts, whose pay will rise to $217,400 from $212,100.

The salary figures were published in Tuesday's edition of the Federal Register.

Last year was the first since 1999, when the pay was $136,700, that members of Congress did not receive a cost-of-living allowance raise along with other federal employees. Democrats, newly elected to the majority, had vowed to block an increase in their paychecks until Congress raised the minimum wage.

With the minimum wage increase accomplished last year, House Democratic leaders joined with their Republican counterparts to oppose a procedural vote to bring the COLA issue to the floor, leaving the way clear for their automatic raise.

The congressional COLA is linked, under a complicated formula, to the cost-of-living increase awarded civil servants. As part of a 1989 ethics bill, Congress gave up its ability to accept pay for speeches and made annual cost-of-living pay increases automatic unless lawmakers voted otherwise.

Rep. Jim Matheson, D-Utah, a leading critic of the COLA process, said in an interview that he's not proposing that members of Congress never get a pay raise. But he said that, in a time of budget deficits when many people are undergoing economic hardships, "at least we ought to have an up-and-down vote on it. The whole process appears so secretive."

Reluctance to openly discuss the salary issue comes at a time when Congress has been suffering low public approval ratings. In a December AP-Ipsos poll, 25% of those surveyed approved of the job Congress was doing.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., will also a pay boost from $212,100 last year to $217,400, the same as Chief Justice Roberts. The majority and minority leaders of the House and Senate and Senate president pro tempore Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., will get increases from $183,500 to $188,100.

Dick Cheney, in his last year as vice president, will receive $221,100, up from $215,700. President Bush's salary of $400,000 is unchanged.

Copyright 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Thoughts:
So the economy keeps getting worse yet Congress pay gets higher and higher? So when are they going to start the lay offs in Congress? They won't. Maybe if Ever member of congress would agree to decrease their pay by 30,00o each, living on 139,300 a year which is still a huge amount rather then 169,300 it would help get us out of this recession sooner.
____________________________________________________________

Amendment 26

1. The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.

2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

____________________________________________________________

This amendment set the voting age to 18 years old. It says that the right to vote can not be denied to anyone who is over the age of 18 and Congress can pass any legislation in order to enforce this amendment.
____________________________________________________________

11/19/2009

The Teen Ticket: Are Teenagers Old Enough to Vote?

Proposals to lower the voting age may say more about partisan squabbles than about precocious youngsters.

by Geoffrey James

The Expanding Tent

Credit: Illustration by William Duke

If teens are smart enough to drive a car, are they smart enough to vote? Or, perhaps, might they hold enough political clout to tip the balance in a close election? Some observers seem to say yes on both counts, and lowering the voting age to permit adolescents to cast their own ballots has (again) become a hot-button issue in a presidential-election year.

California lawmakers are debating whether to allow, in state elections, a one-quarter vote for fourteen- and fifteen-year-olds and a one-half vote for sixteen- and seventeen-year-olds. The legislation, sponsored by state Senator John Vasconcellos (D-San Jose), would give California the lowest voting age in the country if it passes.

Seven states (Delaware, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Mississippi, Nebraska, and Ohio) allow seventeen-year-olds to vote in primaries if they will be eighteen at the time of the general election. A similar measure is under debate in Maine, according to Jennie Bowser, an election policy analyst for the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL).

"It's about time that politicians paid attention to young people," says Katy Finn, a sixteen-year-old Californian who might get to vote before she can legally buy cigarettes. "We pay taxes, we volunteer in record numbers, we're a major segment of the economy, and we're full of idealism," she says.

She's even mature enough to know her limits. "The partial-vote concept makes sense because, frankly, we don't yet have the experience or knowledge to be full voters," Finn adds.

Finn is typical of teenagers who'd like to vote, says Adam Fletcher, founder and director of the Freechild Project, a nonprofit that promotes the participation of youth in the political process. "Politically aware teens see voting as a way to broaden their participation in civic life," he says.

Teens who want to vote aren't the ones pushing the hardest to lower the voting age, however. The real impetus is coming from crafty lawmakers hoping to increase the number of voters who may be sympathetic to their candidate or cause.

"Legislators believe that if young people have the vote when they are still developing their habits, they'll be more likely to remain engaged in the political process," says Edward M. Horowitz, a University of Oklahoma professor who researches voting patterns.

But Richard G. Niemi, who teaches political science at the University of Rochester (New York), scoffs at the notion that early voting would result in greater voter turnout in the long term. "So few of the newly eligible [voters] actually vote," he says. According to the Federal Election Commission, not even one in five adults ages 18-25 bothers to vote, a participation level that lags behind all other demographics. (By contrast, half of eligible voters over 45 make it to the polls.)

Niemi notes that when the voting age for national elections was lowered from twenty-one to eighteen in 1971, the participation of that demographic was initially similar to that of other age groups but has since shrunk. "[Lowering the voting age] increased the number of potential voters but reduced the overall turnout," he says.

One reason for the low turnout may be that politicians spend so much time on senior issues like Social Security and Medicare, observes Horowitz. "The elderly vote in such large numbers that politicians continue to cater to them," he says. He believes that politicians would quickly sing a more youthful tune if young adults began visiting the voting booth in greater numbers.

The key to increasing voter participation among young adults is to lower the voting age and couple that change with a strong high school civics curriculum, says David Skaggs, a former congressman and now executive director of the Center for Democracy and Citizenship, a Washington, DC-based nonprofit that promotes voter rights. "It would offer students the opportunity to couple their first voting experience with their in-school civics education," he says.

Such integration is rare, however, even in states where high school students can vote. The problem, as is usually the case, is money. Funding for civics education has declined for years and has been canceled entirely in some school districts, according to Myron Yoder, curriculum coordinator for the Allentown School District in Allentown, Pennsylvania. "The No Child Left Behind Act is forcing schools to focus almost exclusively on English and math," he complains. "Unfortunately, that may mean abandoning one of the original mandates of the public-school system, which was to foster good citizenship."

Lack of funding, though, has not prevented some states from implementing stopgap measures to prepare students for citizenship. In Pennsylvania, for example, every graduating senior is handed a voter-registration form with his or her diploma, according to Yoder. Similarly, the state of New Jersey now hires sixteen- and seventeen-year-olds as poll workers. "Getting young people involved will make them feel more comfortable voting in the future," says Cole Kleitsch, a civics-education specialist who coordinated the New Jersey program.

Other schools have restructured their curriculum so that civics education is built into more basic subject matter. In Hudson, Massachusetts, for example, superintendent of schools Shelley Berman instituted a program in which tenth through twelfth graders organize themselves into clusters focusing on common areas of interest, such as technology or the arts. "If we can get young people engaged in real decision making and a real political process, there's no question that they'll end up being better citizens," says Berman.

Unfortunately, both additional funding for civics education and the wider movement to lower the voting age look likely to run aground on the shoal of partisan politics. Opposition to both efforts comes primarily from Republican legislators, who look askance at the prospect of a younger pool of voters. In Iowa, for example, four Democrats recently sponsored a proposal to drop the voting age for primaries to seventeen, while Republicans spearheaded its defeat. The same political battle lines have been drawn in California.

The reason behind the partisanship is obvious. "There's a general understanding that a lower voting age would result in a larger number of Democratic voters," says Horowitz. According to a survey of fifteen- to twenty-five-year-olds jointly conducted by Democratic and Republican pollsters, 32 percent identified themselves as Democrats, while only 28 percent said they consider themselves Republicans. Those four percentage points could easily become important in states where the electorate is evenly split between the two parties, especially if newly enfranchised young people start voting.

To teens like Finn, however, the partisan squabbles are far less important than the statewide issues on which she might soon be called upon to vote. "As a group, teens have three big concerns," she says. "The first is abortion rights and the second is gay marriage." The third? "Lowering the drinking age."

http://www.edutopia.org/teen-ticket

Thoughts:
I do not think that just because you are old enough to drive makes you old enough to vote. I think the voting age of 18 is good were it is. At 16 you can not be drafted to go into war but at 18 you can, another reason the age limit to vote is perfect where it is. When you are 16 years old you are a freshmen, maybe a sophomore in high school. You still have several years ahead of you in your primary education, and although you might be will informed on politics, most people who are not responsible enough to vote in my eyes.

____________________________________________________________

11/19/2009



Thoughts:
Again, I really have a problem with anyone under the age of 18 being able to vote. People who are 17, but will be 18 in the up coming presidential election voting in the primaries is fine. I just do not think that kids who are 16 will spend time looking at the people running and picking the best one, they are too busy having a social life as they should be. I feel that they would probably pick the first person who offered them a new skate park or something, without looking at all other options. Not all kids at the age of 16 are incapable of doing their research and finding a good candidate based on their beliefs, just many wont take the time.

____________________________________________________________

Amendment 25

1. In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President.

2. Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress.

3. Whenever the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that he is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, and until he transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary, such powers and duties shall be discharged by the Vice President as Acting President.

4. Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.

Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office.
____________________________________________________________

This sets the order of succession for president in case the president was to die or have to be removed from office for whatever reason. It also gives the president the right to appoint someone else president for a short period of time, in case he is unable to fulfil the duty IE having surgery. The first person who would take place of the president is the vice-president.
____________________________________________________________

11/19/2009

John Tyler, First Vice President to Suddenly Replace a President

In 1841 the "Tyler Precedent" Was Established

By Robert McNamara, About.com Guide

John Tyler, the first vice president to replace a sitting president, established a pattern that was followed for well over a century. Until the "Tyler Precedent," it was unclear precisely how the nation would replace a president who died in office.

The Vice Presidency Was Considered Unimportant

For the first five decades of the United States, the vice presidency was not considered a vitally important office. While the first two vice presidents, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, were later elected president, they both found the vice presidency to be a frustrating position.

In the controversial election of 1800, when Jefferson became president, Aaron Burr became vice president. Burr is the best-known vice president of the early 1800s, though he is mainly remembered for killing Alexander Hamilton in a duel while vice president.

Some vice presidents took the job's one defined duty, presiding over the Senate, quite seriously. Others were said to hardly care about it.

Martin Van Buren’s vice president, Richard Mentor Johnson, had a very relaxed view of the job. He owned a tavern in his home state of Kentucky, and while vice president he took a lengthy leave of absence from Washington to go home and run his tavern.

The man who followed Johnson in the office, John Tyler, was the first vice president to show how important the person in the job could become.

A Vice President Receives Tragic News

John Tyler had started his political career as a Jeffersonian Republican, serving in the Virginia legislature and as the state’s governor. He eventually was elected to the US Senate, and when he became an opponent of Andrew Jackson’s policies he resigned his Senate seat in 1836 and switched parties, becoming a Whig.

Tyler was tapped as the running mate of Whig candidate William Henry Harrison in 1840. The legendary “Log Cabin and Hard Cider” campaign was fairly free of issues, and Tyler’s name was featured in the legendary campaign slogan, “Tippecanoe and Tyler Too!”

Harrison was elected, caught a cold at his inauguration which developed into pneumonia, and died on April 4, 1841, a month after taking office. Vice president John Tyler, at home in Virginia and unaware of the president's illness, was informed that the president had died.

The Constitution Was Unclear On the Issue of Succession

Tyler returned to Washington, thinking that he was the president of the United States. But he was informed that the Constitution wasn't precisely clear about that.

The relevant wording in the Constitution, in Article II, section 1, said: “In case of removal of the President from office, or of his death, or inability to discharge the powers and duties of said office, the same shall devolve on the Vice President…”

The question arose: what did the framers mean by the word “same”? Did it mean the presidency itself, or merely duties of the office? In other words, in the event of a president’s death, would the vice president become an acting president, and not actually the president?

Back in Washington, Tyler found himself being referred to as “the vice president, acting as president.” Critics referred to him as “His Accidency.”

Tyler, who was staying at a Washington hotel (there was no vice presidential residence until modern times), summoned Harrison’s cabinet. The cabinet informed Tyler that he was not actually the president, and any decisions he would make in office would have to be approved by them.

John Tyler Holds His Ground

“I beg your pardon, gentlemen,” Tyler said. “I am sure I am very glad to have in my cabinet such able statesmen as you have proved yourselves to be, and I shall be pleased to avail myself of your counsel and advice, but I can never consent to being dictated to as to what I shall or shall not do. I, as president, will be responsible for my administration. I hope to have your cooperation in carrying out its measures. So long as you see fit to do this I shall be glad to have you with me. When you think otherwise, your resignations will be accepted.”

Tyler thus claimed the full powers of the presidency. And the members of his cabinet backed down from their threat. A compromise suggested by Daniel Webster, the secretary of state, was that Tyler would take the oath of office, and would then be the president.

After the oath was administered, all the officers of the government accepted that Tyler was the president and possessed the full powers of the office.

The taking of the oath thus came to be seen as the moment when a vice president becomes president.

John Tyler's Rough Term In Office

A headstrong individual, Tyler clashed mightily with the Congress and with his own cabinet, and his single term in office was very rocky.

Tyler’s cabinet changed several times. And he became estranged from the Whigs and was essentially a president without a party. His one noteworthy achievement as president would have been the annexation of Texas, but the Senate, out of spite, delayed that until the next president, James K. Polk, could take credit for it.

The Tyler Precedent Is Established

The presidency of John Tyler was most significant for the way it began. By establishing the “Tyler Precedent,” he ensured that future vice presidents would not become acting presidents with restricted authority.

It was under the Tyler Precedent that the following vice presidents became president:

• Millard Fillmore, following the death of Zachary Taylor in 1850
• Andrew Johnson, following the assassination of Abraham Lincoln in 1865
• Chester Alan Arthur, following the assassination of James Garfield in 1881
• Theodore Roosevelt, following the assassination of William McKinley in 1901
• Calvin Coolidge, following the death of Warren G. Harding in 1923
• Harry Truman, following the death of Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1945
• Lyndon B. Johnson, following the assassination of John F. Kennedy in 1963

Tyler’s action was affirmed by the 25th Amendment, which was ratified in 1967.

After serving his term in office, Tyler returned to Virginia. He remained politically active, and sought to forestall the Civil War. When efforts to avoid war failed, he was elected to the Confederate congress, but died in January 1862, before he could take his seat.

http://history1800s.about.com/od/leaders/a/johntyler01.htm

Thoughts:
It was because of John Tyler that the 25th amendment was put into effect. I think that the 25th amendment was a good idea and that the vice president taking over for the president in case of the president not being able to fulfill his duties was the best decision. The vice president should be the next one in line for president.


____________________________________________________________

11/19/2009

Thoughts:
The assassination of JFK was a very sad day for many people. Johnson had to take over a country that was in shock. I would have hated to have been the first lady who, after having just lost my husband, had to be there to see the man closest to him being sworn in.

____________________________________________________________

Amendment 24

1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.

2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
____________________________________________________________

This amendment of the Constitution made it illegal to charge poll taxes to citizens and order for them to vote, poll taxes were now illegal. Gave Congress the power to enforce it by passing needed legislation.
____________________________________________________________

11/24/2009

The Rates, the Poll Tax and Council Tax

Written by Dr Eamonn Butler

Monday, 30 March 2009 06:02

0 Comments and 0 Reactions This April marks the twentieth anniversary of the Community Charge – universally known today as the Poll Tax. Or 'the ill-fated Poll Tax', because its implementation led to violent demonstrations in Glasgow and London, and it was quickly replaced. Arguably, it was the turning point for the Thatcher Administration. We have to fess up to some involvement. It was an ASI report Revising the Rating System, written by my colleague, the late Douglas Mason, that put the idea on the public agenda. Mason recommended a flat-rate, per capita charge for local services, balanced by improvements in welfare benefits for those who would face the charge for the same time. He recommended gradual introduction, and lengthy testing. In the event, none of that happened. If anything sunk the poll tax, it was disastrously bad implementation, rather than the idea itself. Everyone agreed the rates system – a local tax based on property values – was unfair. A house occupied by a large family with teenage kids, using lots of health, education and other services, paid the same as an identical house occupied by a single pensioner. Worse, only a minority actually paid the tax – just one in seven in Scotland. So the other six voted with impunity for high-spending local authorities. Councillors became unaccountable, and extremism took hold. Spending rose, the higher rates drove out local businesses, unemployment increased, social services were expanded, and rates rose again in an unbreakable cycle. There had been various government commissions to review alternatives – a sales tax, a local income tax, and even a flat charge. They were all flawed. But Mason's report plumped firmly for the per capital charge as the least of several evils, and eventually that idea came through. Scottish Conservatives, knowing that the scheduled rates revaluation would be electorally disastrous, insisted that the Poll Tax should be introduced right away, before its problems were ironed out. There were some welfare changes to help those paying for the first time, as Mason had proposed – but they were introduced a year earlier, and by the time the tax came in, everyone had forgotten about them, and the new tax was still a shock. There were problems with students and other mobile people. And some unscrupulous councils used the tax change to increase their total budgets – by up to 30% in one case – and then blame the government. So the Poll Tax was scrapped and a compromise Council Tax introduced. Even that is getting to be as unpopular as the rates. Everyone knows that, if we are to revive local communities, more money needs to be spent and raised locally, instead of being handed out by Whitehall on their terms. So we really do need a better system of local taxation. No system is perfect, so, getting there will be painful. But until we find something that reflects Mason's ideals – a charge that reflects the volume of local services that people actually consume, but protects the poor, then we will continue to muddle along, with an over-mighty government in London dictating exactly what happens at the local level.

Thoughts:
The American people have something we take for granted. Alot people do not go out and vote for who they think should be in charge. Yet in other countries they have to pay to do it, and might even have a bigger voting turnout then in the US. They took poll taxes away because it wasn't far to charge people to vote for a government for the people, so why don't more people took advantage of it?

____________________________________________________________

11/24/2009



Thoughts:
I can understand how she would call this a poll tax. It does cost you money if you have to take a day off work. But this is not the governments fault. Yes they need to figure out a way for people to get in and out of the voting booths faster, but its also up to the people to know who they choose to vote for, be ready to vote, and get it done.

____________________________________________________________

Amendment 22

1. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this Article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President, when this Article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this Article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.

2. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission to the States by the Congress.
____________________________________________________________

This amendment limited the amount of terms the President can serve to 2 terms or 8 years. It also says that unless it was ratified by 3/4's the states before 7 years later, that it can not be removed or ratified.
____________________________________________________________

11/24/2009

2004: George W Bush wins second term

George W Bush has won a second term as president of the United States, beating his Democratic rival, John Kerry, by a comfortable margin.

Mr Bush won about 51% of the vote and at least 274 electoral college votes against John Kerry's 48% and 252 votes.

Results are still awaited in New Mexico and Iowa but they cannot affect the outcome.

Mr Bush's victory was announced after Mr Kerry phoned him at the White House to admit defeat.

In a four-minute conversation, Mr Kerry congratulated the president, while Mr Bush called the Democrat "an admirable, worthy opponent".

Strong mandate

In his victory speech, Mr Bush said, "I am proud to lead such an amazing country and I am proud to lead it forward."

He said tax reform, social security and education would be priorities for his second four-year term.

He also said the US would "help the emerging democracies of Afghanistan and Iraq to grow in strength and freedom".

The result means Mr Bush has a stronger mandate than four years ago, when he won only after a 36-day legal battle over a recount in Florida.

Florida has used electronic voting machines this year to replace the punch cards which created so many problems in the last poll.

The media has also been noticeably more cautious in their reporting of results across the country, with CBS presenter Dan Rather saying at one stage, "I would rather be last than wrong."

Close contest

The contest was again extremely close throughout, with both men neck-and-neck in opinion polls right until voting ended.

After early victories by Mr Kerry in New Jersey and Pennsylvania, Mr Bush began winning state after state.

The key state of Ohio declared for the president early this morning.

National security and the war in Iraq have dominated the campaign, with the economy largely taking second place.

World leaders congratulated Mr Bush on his victory, although some warned of the major challenges facing him in the Middle East.

British Prime Minister Tony Blair said he looked forward to continuing his strong relationship with George Bush.

But, he added, "The need to revitalise the Middle East peace process is the single most pressing political challenge in our world today."

Thoughts:
I am extremely thankful for this amendment specifically when it comes to George Bush's presidency. After his second term in office, although If he could have ran for president again he would not have ran, I think most of the American people where probably upset that he made it to his second term.

____________________________________________________________

11/24/2009


Thoughts:
I think that this amendment was a very good idea. I agree if one person could run for president over and over it would make it easier for a monarchy to take place. Only being able to run for 2 terms keeps everything fair, and gives all people an equal chance to get who they want in the white house.
____________________________________________________________

Amendment 23

1. The District constituting the seat of Government of the United States shall appoint in such manner as the Congress may direct: A number of electors of President and Vice President equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives in Congress to which the District would be entitled if it were a State, but in no event more than the least populous State; they shall be in addition to those appointed by the States, but they shall be considered, for the purposes of the election of President and Vice President, to be electors appointed by a State; and they shall meet in the District and perform such duties as provided by the twelfth article of amendment.

2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation
____________________________________________________________

This gave the District of Columbia the same amount of votes for President as equal to the number of Senators and members of Congress they have. This is the same for the states also. It gave Congress the power to enforce this amendment.

____________________________________________________________

11/24/2009

Population shifts alter electoral college votes

New York Times Upfront, Oct 11, 2004

Americans move around a lot. Each year, thousands of families and individuals pack their bags and move from one state to another for employment or personal reasons.

Whatever the reason, population shifts produce changes in the number of Electoral College votes different states are allotted. Because there are only 538 electoral votes, a rise in one state's population means votes have to be taken away from states that lose population. Since the 2000 election, the populations of 18 states have changed. And that population shift may be working in President Bush's favor. If Bush wins all the states he won in the 2000 election, he will get seven more Electoral College votes than he did in the 2000 election because population growth in those states has increased the number of electoral votes allotted to them.

Thoughts:
I still do not think that the electoral college should be used. How can 538 electoral votes really account for all the American people?

____________________________________________________________

11/24/2009

Reading an electoral map

Junior Scholastic, Oct 27, 2003

What will it take to be elected the next U.S. President? The answer has changed since the last election!

Every 10 years, the U.S. conducts a census (count of the population), in part to determine the number of seats each state should be given in the U.S. House of Representatives.

The results also determine the number of Electoral College votes for each state, which is equal to the number of its U.S. Senators and Representatives.

The 2000 Census data changed the number of electoral votes in 18 states for the next two presidential elections. Some states, like Texas, had a big population increase according to the 2000 Census. They gained electoral votes. But other states, like New York and Ohio, had a decrease in population and lost votes.

Several of the states that gained electoral votes normally vote for Republican presidential candidates. Had the 2000 election been held using the new electoral vote numbers, President Bush would have won seven more electoral votes.

It takes 270 electoral votes to win the presidency.

Thoughts:


____________________________________________________________

Amendment 20

1. The terms of the President and Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January, and the terms of Senators and Representatives at noon on the 3d day of January, of the years in which such terms would have ended if this article had not been ratified; and the terms of their successors shall then begin.

2. The Congress shall assemble at least once in every year, and such meeting shall begin at noon on the 3d day of January, unless they shall by law appoint a different day.

3. If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.

4. The Congress may by law provide for the case of the death of any of the persons from whom the House of Representatives may choose a President whenever the right of choice shall have devolved upon them, and for the case of the death of any of the persons from whom the Senate may choose a Vice President whenever the right of choice shall have devolved upon them.

5. Sections 1 and 2 shall take effect on the 15th day of October following the ratification of this article.

6. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission.

____________________________________________________________

This amendment of the Constitution set the day for the new president to take office to January 20th. It also said that congress must meet at least once a year, at noon on the 3rd day of January. It also said that if for some reason the president was to die, resign, or be removed from office for any reason the vice president will become president. If for some reason there is no person to take over the presidents place, Congress can elect a new president.
____________________________________________________________

11/24/2009

November 3, 2009

Merkel addresses joint meeting of Congress

Posted: November 3rd, 2009 11:50 AM ET

WASHINGTON (CNN) – German Chancellor Angela Merkel addressed a joint meeting of Congress on Tuesday, telling U.S. lawmakers that the world needs an agreement on global warming.

"Icebergs are melting in the Arctic. In Africa, people become refugees because their environment has been destroyed," she said.

"We need an agreement on one objective: Global warming must not exceed two degrees Celsius."

She said the agreement must be reached at a the climate conference in Copenhagen, Denmark, next month.

Merkel is the first German chancellor to address a joint meeting of Congress

Thoughts:
Not that global warming isn't an important issue, but I do think that Congress has bigger and better things to be worried about right now. Congress should spend more time meeting about the economy, and trying to stop this health bill Obama is trying to pass.
____________________________________________________________

11/19/2009

Congress addresses the imminent martial law plan - in private.

by Mr. Charrington on July 10, 2008

Secret meeting in Congress to discuss the imminent martial law. This happened March 13th of 2008. WHY? Congress is expecting the imminent collapse of the U.S. economy sometime in late 2008 and the possibility of “Civil War” in the United States due to the economic collapse. Possibly the most disturbing, “The advance round up of insurgent U.S. citizens that are likely to move against the U.S. Government.” It goes on to project the necessary and unavoidable merger between the U.S. , Canada and Mexico to save the U.S. economy. If this doesn’t motivate you into action then nothing will…. If nothing else watch CSPAN video of Dennis Kucinich asking for the reasons for secret meeting

Thoughts:
I don't think Congress should be able to have closed door meetings, I think that the people have the right to know what is being discussed by their elected government officals. However, why make a big deal about it? The economy was failing way before this date, and look its 2009 almost 2010 yet the US hasn't entered into a civil war like this article says.
____________________________________________________________

Amendment 21

1. The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.

2. The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited.

3. The article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by conventions in the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.
____________________________________________________________

This amendment repealed the 18th amendment and made it legal to drink and consume alcoholic beverages.

____________________________________________________________

11/19/2009

A Lower Drinking Age?
That would be a bad way to deal with binge drinking on campuses.

Sunday, July 12, 2009

SOME THINGS only seem like a good idea at 3 a.m. Increasingly, the Amethyst Letter, which more than 100 college presidents and chancellors signed last year to advocate rethinking the drinking age, looks like one of them. A study just published in the Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry found that binge drinking has decreased nationwide with the increased drinking age -- everywhere but on college campuses.

A variety of factors may contribute to the decline in binge drinking among young non-students -- the presence of parents, the demands of jobs, more difficult access to drinking-age peers. But the lessons for school administrators are clear. Where the drinking age is enforced, harmful drinking behaviors have been in overall decline. But on campuses, binge drinking has remained stable -- or gotten worse. And in areas such as women's binge drinking that have increased in the population at large, the increase for college students has outpaced that for their non-student peers.

Those on college campuses who favor a lower drinking age point out that students will decide to drink regardless of the law, and forcing them to do so in secret and illegally will make behaviors such as binge drinking harder to monitor. But outside college campuses, where underage drinking is clearly prohibited, young people more often have made the decision not to drink. This, in turn, has helped drive down drunk driving, assault and other unsafe behaviors. For further proof, college administrators should consider their drug policies; the perception that drug use will not be tolerated can and does influence students' choices.

The journal's study drives home the fact that, when young people know that the law will be upheld, they adjust their behavior. It's time for college administrators to stop passing the buck to the drinking age and start taking their in loco parentis role more seriously. Instead of complaining about the drinking age, they should try enforcing it.

Thoughts:
I think that the reason more college students binge drink is because of the easy obtained in school. Although kids start university at around 19 or 20, most kids won't finish school until they are 24 or later. This means that the kids who live on campus knows more people who are over the drinking age and can get the alcohol. With the lack of adult supervision in dorms, kids party and have fun.
____________________________________________________________

11/19/2009

Alcohol: Lowering the Drinking Age to 18

(Editor's Note: This is the first part of a short two-part series on the topic of the drinking age. To read the second installment, please go here.)

by Jeff Siegel*

This is, oddly enough, one of the newest and most interesting approaches to fighting alcoholism. The theory, as propounded by a surprising number of experts, including some police as well as university presidents who are part of the Amethyst Initiative, says it may be the best way to fight an unprecedented wave of binge drinking and similar problems among college students. Take away the legal barrier, and you’ll take away a lot of the thrill and the incentive.

Or, as the police chief in Boulder, Colo., home to the hard-partying University of Colorado, told 60 Minutes: “The abuse of alcohol and the over-consumption of alcohol and DUI driving...are the areas we've got to focus our efforts. Not on chasing kids around trying to give them a ticket for having a cup of beer in their hand."


The drinking age issue, of course, is nothing new. It’s even not just about the drinking age anymore. In my part of the liquor world, where I write about wine, the dark forces that oppose more equitable laws that regulate wine distribution always play the underage drinking card to preserve their monopoly.

As Megan Haverkorn, the editor of the trade e-letter Wine & Spirits Daily wrote: “We believe the drinking age requirement at least deserves some dispassionate debate and research among policy makers. Whether it’s the right decision or not, the issue shouldn’t be squashed without giving it the attention it deserves.”

Having said all this, I don’t know the answer. On the one hand, I remember when the drinking age was 21 in Illinois, where I grew up, and 18 in neighboring Wisconsin. It was a rite of passage to hop in the car on your 18th birthday and drive across the state line to get liquored up. And if I did it, and I was a boring, responsible 18-year-old, you can imagine what everyone else did.

On the other hand, there is good evidence that underage drinking is out of control. The Amethyst group notes that “a culture of dangerous, clandestine ‘binge-drinking’ — often conducted off-campus — has developed. Alcohol education that mandates abstinence as the only legal option has not resulted in significant constructive behavioral change among our students.”

One of the most telling points on their side is that drinking bans tend to increase alcoholism. During Prohibition, the U.S. rate actually increased, and economists have discovered something called the Iron Law of Prohibition: The more intense the law enforcement, the more potent the prohibited substance becomes. Which sounds a lot like binge-drinking, doesn’t it?

*Jeff Siegel is also the author of the blog, The Wine Curmudgeon; this part of the series is adapted from a posting on that blog.

Thoughts:
I think that lowering the drinking age would possible help with all the binge drinking, but people are still going to drink. Not as much underage drinking would be going on, but you would have more people drinking and driving because more people would be able to get the alcohol and provide it.

____________________________________________________________

Amendment 19

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
____________________________________________________________

This amendment gave women the right to vote. It states that the right to vote can not be denied to anyone based on sex. It gave Congress the power to enforce this law.

____________________________________________________________

11/24/2009

Women's Rights: A Disease That Should Be Eradicated

Tuesday August 9, 2005

I've written a couple of times about Vox Day, a "libertarian" Christian whose politics are one part authoritarianism, one part religious fascism, and one part sheer nuttiness. He's been making headlines again, and for all three reasons.

Amendment 18

1. After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction

2. The Congress and the several States shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.

____________________________________________________________

This amendment made alcoholic beverages illegal. You could not consume them, sale them, or transport them. It also gave congress and each individual states the power to enforce this.

____________________________________________________________

11/24/2009

Alcohol is Being Forbidden-Limited in 80 Countries

Tourists should take into account native customs and traditions while traveling. The ignorance of national particularities and false “all-allowed” feeling, appearing within a vacation far away from home are two reasons which occasionally bring to tragic events with the tourists.
The arrest of a Swiss who has got 10 years in prison for the King insult illustrates the first reason. The second reason is reminded by the recent death of a seventeen year Danish tourist who has died at a Bulgarian resort because of alcohol abuse.

It appeared that about two thirds of the earth population lead sober lifestyles. About 600 peoples and nationalities on the earth do not smoke, do not drink alcohol and do not narcotize by force of their traditions, cultural and religious values. That’s why a drinking or smoking foreigner causes at least their disapproval.

In many countries drinking or smoking abuse can cause various administrative or criminal penalizing.

The countries with alcohol being prohibited/limited:

Albania, Algeria, Bangladesh, Bahrain, Benin, Brunei, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Bhutan, East Timor, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea - Bissau, Djibouti, Egypt, Zambia, Western Sahara, Zimbabwe, India, Indonesia, Jordan, Iraq, Iran, Iceland, Yemen, Cambodia, Cameroon, Qatar, Kenya, China, Comoro islands, Cot-Devoir, Kuwait, Laos, Lesotho, Lebanon, Libya, Mauritius, Mauritania, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Mali, Maldives, Morocco, Myanmar, Nepal, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Arabic Emirates, Oman, Pakistan, Palestine, Papua-new Guinea, Rwanda, Saudi Arabia, Swaziland, Seychelles, Senegal, Singapore, Syria, Somali, Sudan, Sierra Leone, Thailand, Tanzania, Togo, Tunis, Turkmenistan, Turkey, Uganda, Finland, Central African Republic, Chad, Sweden, Sri Lanka, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia.

Most numerous nationalities disapproving alcohol:

Chinese (1,125 billion people);

Indians (245 million);

Bengali (189 million);

Punjabi (99 million);

Bahraini (98 million);

Telugu (75 million);

Tai (70 million);

Marathi(67 million);

Tamil (64 million);

Vietnams (62 million);

Egyptians (55 million);

Turkish (53 million);

Gujarati (47 million);

Malayans (35 million);

Oreos (32 million);

Hausa (31 million);

Spamians (30 million);

Kuwiti (30 million);

Persians (26 million);

Soundians (25 million);

Algerians (22 million).

Religions and religious teachings/faiths convicting alcohol:

Islam (more than 1 billion adherents); Sounnhism (850 million); Hinduism (793 million); Buddhism (500 million); Vishnuhism (500 million); Hanafism (400 million); Pentecost (373 million); Malachite (200 million); Shiwaism(198 million); Schism (180 million) Imamhism (140 million); new century (100 million); a Calvinism (62 million); Methodism (60 million); God assembly (22 million); Amidaism (20 million); Adventists of the seventh day (16 million) and others.

Travelers should remember that even in non-prohibiting “cultural” or moderate drinking alcohol countries society imposes limits to many things – drinking alcohol in public places and in the street, driving being drunk, minimal age to purchase and drink alcohol and many other things.

The same regarding tobacco smoking, 5-10 countries annually accept a law limiting it.

But taking, storing or distributing drugs for the non-medical reason in the absolute majority of countries is prohibited under the law.

Thoughts:

I don't think that making alcohol illegal keeps people from drinking it. If alcohol is illegal then more people are going to want to do it. If people are not drinking in the countries that alcohol is illegal its because they have no way of getting it or religious or moral values keeps them from doing so not the law.
____________________________________________________________

Amendment 17

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.

When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.

This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution

____________________________________________________________

This amendment made it to were senators were elected by popular vote for a term of 6 years. It also gave each state the same amount of senators, 2. It also gave the state the power to hold elections in order to vote for who the senator will be when that state had an empty chair.

____________________________________________________________

11/19/2009
January 8, 2009, 12:45 pm

Missouri Senator Kit Bond Will Not Seek Re-Election

By MICHAEL FALCONE

Senator Kit Bond of Missouri talked to reporters following a news conference in February, 2008.

Senator Kit Bond, the Missouri Republican who became the state’s youngest governor at the age of 33 and has served in the Senate since 1987, announced on Thursday that he will not run for re-election in 2010.

In a speech to the Missouri General Assembly Mr. Bond, who sits on the Senate appropriations, commerce and intelligence committees, said that he did not aspire to be Missouri’s oldest Senator.

“As a sixth-generation Missourian, I have always loved our state,” Mr. Bond said. “Through 40 years in public life I have met many wonderful people. The people I have met along the way are the reason I ran for public office and the reason I am still here.”

In announcing his retirement, Mr. Bond, 69, puts in play another Republican-held Senate seat in 2010. The Missourian joins fellow G.O.P. senators Mel Martinez of Florida and Sam Brownback of Kansas, who have also said they will not seek another term. Republican Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson has indicated she may cut her term short to run for governor of Texas two years from now.

Mr. Bond’s retirement could pave the way for a more competitive Senate election in a state where Democrats have been making inroads. Missouri’s junior senator, Claire McCaskill, is a Democrat as is its new governor, Jay Nixon. And voters there nearly put the state in Barack Obama’s column in November. The Democratic candidate fell short by just a few thousands votes to Senator John McCain.

Possible candidates for Mr. Bond’s Senate seat include Representative Roy Blunt, the former House Republican whip, former Republican Senator Jim Talent, and two members of a prominent Missouri political family, Robin Carnahan, the secretary of state, and Representative Russ Carnahan, both Democrats.

In his remarks on Thursday, Mr. Bond made a plea for bipartisanship during challenging times.

“In a world today where enemies are real — the kind who behead others based on their religion — it is important to remember there is a lot of real estate between a political opponent and a true enemy,” he said. “Our cause is bigger than ourselves.”

Thoughts:

The choice whether or not to run for senator is a choice only he can make. Obviously if he has been elected to the senate since 1987 he must be doing something right. If he chooses not to run for senate again and wants to retire that is fine, but I hope that his reason for doing so is not because he doesn't want to be Missouri's oldest Senator. If he ran again he may or may not be elected again, its all up to the voters.
____________________________________________________________

11/19/2009

Democratic Governor Mel Carnahan of Missouri killed in plane crash
Tuesday, October 17, 2000

---

Governor Carnahan, his son Randy, and an aide were killed in a plane crash Monday evening October 16, 2000.

Governor Carnahan was elected to the Governor's chair in 1992 and re-elected in 1996. Due to term limits, he was unable to run for a third term as governor. Mel Carnahan was running for the Senate seat currently held by Republican Senator John Ashcroft.

Tuesday morning, October 17, 2000, Lieutenant Governor Roger B. Wilson was sworn in as Governor.

---

Political Implications of Governor Carnahan's passing

A Carnahan victory against Incumbent Republican Senator John Ashcroft was key to the Democrats' plans for regaining control of the United States Senate. Under Missouri law, even though he is dead, Carnahan remains on the ballot. That is, the Democratic Party cannot change the ballot. We are now 3 weeks away from the election and the filing deadline has passed.

Should former Governor Carnahan win the election for the Senate seat, the Missouri governor would appoint a replacement to serve until the next general election. What's unclear is which governor: the Lt. Governor taking the Governor's chair in place of Carnahan, or the governor elect who wins the November election.

http://www.thegreenpapers.com/News/20001017-0.html

Thoughts:

I have mixed feelings about the government leaving someone who has passed on the ballot. The people would know that he has passed and would be less likely to vote for him knowing that they would not have a say on who is put in to fill his seat if he was to win. I think that they should allow another person to take his spot on the ballot of the same party. But this amendment does give the government the right to make laws to enforce this amendment and that is how Missouri chooses to do so, not sure that I agree.
____________________________________________________________

Amendment 16

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration
____________________________________________________________

This amendment of the Constitution gave the government the power to tax citizens and businesses.

____________________________________________________________

11/19/2009




Thoughts:

I can see why in some cases income tax is needed. I do think everyone should help pay for certain things like city roads, and city schools because we all benefit from this. But I think the government takes the power to tax too far. Not everyone agrees on the war in Iraq just like they didn't agree with WWII like this video is talking about. I do not believe that the American money should be spent on the war today because the war on Iraq seems pointless to me.
____________________________________________________________

11/19/2009

Friday, March 20, 2009

Increase in cigarette tax packs punch

Kansas City Business Journal - by Mike Sherry Staff Writer

Luci Messina doesn’t know what to think about the 62-cent increase in the federal cigarette tax that takes effect April 1.

The owner of Time Out Deli & Market in downtown Kansas City, Messina already is confronting a recent increase of 70 cents a pack for Philip Morris USA Inc. products.

If manufacturers add the tax to their recent increases, she’s looking at a roughly 34 percent boost in the price she pays for the cigarettes from her supplier. She said she hopes that isn’t the case but that she isn’t sure.

“That’s why everybody is a little bit confused at this point,” Messina said.

Cigarette sales account for about 15 percent of her business, and she anticipates a decrease in business because of the higher prices, she said. She’s not too worried, though.

“The heavy-duty smokers will pay no matter what,” Messina said.

The increase in the federal cigarette tax from 39 cents a pack to $1.01 a pack is a result of the Children’s Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act, enacted Feb. 4. The tax increase is to pay for an expansion of health care benefits for low-income children.

R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. in Winston-Salem, N.C., increased its wholesale price by as much as 44 cents a pack as of March 16, spokesman David Howard said.

He said the new price incorporates the additional federal tax. The company also has reduced its costs by decreasing some discounts offered to retailers.

R.J. Reynolds increased prices a couple of weeks early, Howard said, to give customers a chance to adjust their prices in advance of the new tax.

He said retailers and wholesalers might want to generate additional revenue to cover the “floor tax” the government will levy on existing stocks as of March 31, which basically applies the tax increase to existing inventory.

According to the National Association for Convenience and Petroleum Retailing in Alexandria, Va., Messina is not alone in her uncertainty about the increase. Some of the main questions involve the floor tax, said Chris Tampio, an association lobbyist.

Cigarettes account for a third of the sales generated inside convenience stores, according to the association.

The percentage is lower for QuikTrip Corp., which has 74 stores in the Kansas City area, but spokesman Mike Thornbrugh declined to specify how big a chunk it is of the company’s sales.

For several years, the company, based in Tulsa, Okla., has been diversifying to depend less on cigarette sales.

Thornbrugh said the impending tax increase will a have more dramatic effect on QuikTrips and other convenience stores on the Kansas side of the state line as customers become even more price-conscious.

Kansas has a state cigarette tax of 79 cents a pack, and Missouri’s is 17 cents.

“If you’re on the Kansas side,” Thornbrugh said, “your stores are going to get killed. (Customers) are just going to go across to Missouri to make their purchase. That one we know will happen immediately.”

Dr. Rex Archer said he doesn’t see the increase as anti-business at all.

The director of the Kansas City Health Department, Archer said that most companies should be happy about the prospect of a healthier work force — and lower health insurance costs — that would result if the higher prices prompt people to kick the habit.

“For 95 percent of the businesses out there,” Archer said, “this is great.”

Thoughts:

Again I think the government takes the power of taking too far. Why should someone who has a bad habit have to pay so much in taxes? How is this right? Although I am not a smoker myself, I do not think the government should be able to tax tobacco so heavily. The people who smoke are not going to quit smoking, it will just make it harder and harder for them to get by and buy other things they need on a daily bases. This effects me personally as both my mother and father smokes. Because of the increase on taxes we are having to cut back in other areas like grocery's and other personal needs.
____________________________________________________________