Who is Writing Noem's Talking Points on TPA?

June 11, 2015

Well, I received my letter from Rep. Kristi Noem telling me why Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) is "the bomb," so to speak. Problem is, it seem she is reading from this playbook Mr. Thompson from the John Birch Society refers to. Take a look at the video then at her her letter. Are you being represented well, or is it more the people who wrote up the talking points, who make the audacious claim that Congress will be in control of the process of making trade agreements (which they are not even allowed to read, copy, or even see in some cases. 

Dear Eldon,

Thank you for contacting me. I appreciate you taking the time to express your concerns surrounding ongoing U.S. trade negotiations.

I've heard from a number of folks who have serious concerns about giving the President Trade Promotion Authority (TPA), which has also been incorrectly nicknamed "fast-track authority." TPA is not new; every President since Gerald Ford has utilized it. At its core, this legislation puts meaningful limitations on the President by setting more than 100 parameters – each dictating through law what U.S. negotiators must achieve for a final agreement. Without TPA, the President can still engage in trade negotiations; TPA simply enables Congress to have a say in the product of these negotiations. Additionally, any trade agreement negotiated under TPA must receive a majority vote in both the House and the Senate. So the American people—via their elected representatives—have the final say. Not the President.

TPA also slows down the final approval process, guaranteeing every American will have sixty days to review the agreement before Congress can take a vote on it. That kind of guarantee is rarely codified in law, so it's an important provision to include. In addition, either the House or Senate can "turn off" TPA if the administration doesn't stick to the plan, something that has never been included in previous TPA agreements. 

Other folks have reached out to me, wary of expanding U.S. trade altogether. Today, 95 percent of the world's consumers live outside the United States. Many of those consumers have to pay premium rates to get "Made in America" goods because our competitors put sky-high tariffs on our products and put us at a disadvantage. A trade agreement, such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership, would level the playing field for American products and help build a healthy economy that workers, ag producers, and families can benefit from. We sell 11 1/2 times more South Dakota goods to countries we have trade agreements with.

The benefits of trade agreements go beyond our ability to sell goods, however. Trade promotes our security too. Where the U.S. is not building economic partnerships, China is. China has negotiated 48 trade agreements during a time when the U.S. has negotiated just two in the region. That gives China a significant voice that is hard for even our allies to ignore. When we enter into trade agreements, we strengthen our ties with other countries and thereby enhance our national security in the region.

On April 23, I voted to pass TPA out of the Ways and Means Committee, clearing it to be considered by the full House of Representatives. I believe trade agreements must be fair and must include benefits for hardworking South Dakotans. That is what TPA helps ensure.

Thanks again for reaching out to my office. Please let me know if I can be of assistance. I encourage you to visit my website (www.noem.house.gov) for more information on what I'm working on for South Dakota.

  

Rep. Noem's Staff Responds Regarding Wrong Bill on Marriage

I know Congresswoman Kristi Noem's staff is in a hurry. However, Here's the letter I sent to her recently asking that she vote to limit the Supreme Courts appellate jurisdiction on Marriage by supporting Rep. Steven King's Restrain the Judges on Marriage Act. Instead they gave a copy and paste letter regarding the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). Maybe they didn't understand the question? Even more telling, though, she 

(1) proposes amending the US Constitution, which requires 2/3 of each chamber of Congress plus 3/4 of the states to ratify to actually go into effect, in order to remedy the Supreme Court's activism on this subject; 

(2) says that she "respect[s] the Court's authority to rule on this issue." --implying she does not intend to push for Congress to use its power to limit the Court's appellate jurisdiction regarding marriage, a power specifically granted in Article III, Section 2 of the US Constitution, and one which would only require a majority vote in each house of Congress, or in the case of a veto, a 2/3 vote in each house. Either way, it's significantly less difficult than amending the US Constitution to supposedly stop the Court from abusing power and often ignoring the Constitution. 

This seems to be a good example of offering a false solution. This is like arguing that we should climb a mountain to get to the enemy when we could simply meet them in the meadow and be ready to do battle on our own terms. Rather than using the Constitutional power Congress already has to check the Court, we'll imply that the Constitution itself needs correction. Rep. Noem "disagree[s] with [the Court's] decision to strike down portions of DOMA." OK, fine... but she doesn't want to limit their authority in a relatively simple manner? Instead, we should make marriage officially part of the Federal Constitution? Often, as we know, amendments have unintended consequences. Here's my letter and hers in response.

Dear Rep. Noem:

On April 28 the Supreme Court heard oral arguments on same-sex marriage regarding two questions: 1. Does the 14th Amendment require states to license same-sex marriages? and 2. Does it require them to recognize those marriages performed in other states?

The justices' ruling is expected in late June. The ruling is expected to determine whether same-sex marriage becomes legal nationwide or whether states retain the authority to ban it.

On April 22 Representative Steve King (R-Iowa) introduced his bill, Restrain the Judges on Marriage Act of 2015, that would strip federal courts and the Supreme Court of jurisdiction to hear cases related to marriage.

King's bill has two main provisions:
(a) JURISDICTION.  No court created by an Act of Congress shall have any jurisdiction, and the Supreme Court shall have no appellate jurisdiction, to hear or decide any question pertaining to the interpretation of, or the validity under the Constitution of, any type of marriage
(b) FUNDING.  No Federal funds may be used for any litigation in, or the enforcement of any order or judgment by, any court created by an Act of Congress, on any question pertaining to the interpretation of, or the validity under the Constitution of, any type of marriage.

King's bill can accomplish this because he is making use of Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution, which states:

'In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.'

Please help get the Restrain the Judges on Marriage Act of 2015 passed in both the House and the Senate.

Sincerely,

Eldon Stahl

Here's the response I received:

May 20, 2015

Dear Eldon,

 Thank you for contacting me regarding the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). I appreciate hearing from you on this important issue. 

I agreed with DOMA's definition of marriage and am a strong supporter of protecting traditional marriage and family.  That is why I am a cosponsor of H.J.RES 51, which would amend the Constitution to define marriage as consisting of the union between one man and one woman. 

As you may know, on June 26, 2013, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in a 5-4 decision that DOMA violates the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution. While I respect the Court's authority to rule on this issue, I disagree with their decision to strike down portions of DOMA. The American people, through their elected representatives, defined marriage as a union between one man and one woman.  Like you, I remain committed to defending traditional marriage.  

Thanks again for reaching out to my office.  Please let me know whenever I can be of assistance.  I encourage you to visit my website noem.house.gov, or click here to sign up for my monthly newsletter to get more information on the latest congressional news important to South Dakota.  

Renewing the Patriot Act: How Should Noem vote this Summer?

Here is a reply I received from Rep. Noem regarding the Patriot Act's renewal. Considering the revelations regarding NSA surveillance since that time, maybe she would want to reconsider renewing this authority this Summer. 

June 9, 2011

Dear Eldon,

Thank you for contacting me regarding the PATRIOT Act.  I appreciate hearing from you on this issue.

As you know, following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, Congress enacted the USA PATRIOT ACT, which was designed to increase communication in the law enforcement and intelligence communities and provide them with tools to apprehend terrorists.  On February 17, 2011, three provisions of this act were extended for 90 days, giving Congress time to review them and make decisions regarding the possibility of a longer extension.  On May 26, 2011, the U.S. House passed S. 990, the PATRIOT Sunsets Extension Act of 2011, with my support and was later signed into law by President Barack Obama.  This act extends the "lone wolf," roving wiretap and business record provisions until June 1, 2015, giving law enforcement the necessary tools to combat terrorism.

Specifically, the "lone wolf" provision was changed from the original definition of an "agent of foreign power" to include any person, other than a U.S. citizen, who engages in or prepares for international terrorism.  This provision allows law enforcement to monitor extremists who may try to carry out terror attacks without a support network or country.  The roving wiretap provision allows wiretaps authorized by courts to be conducted on suspects who would otherwise evade wiretaps.  The final extension is the business record provision, which allows law enforcement access to business records related to intelligence and terror investigations with a court order.

The United States has not been attacked since September 11, 2001, in part because of these three provisions of the PATRIOT Act.  They allow the law enforcement community to better engage, deter and respond to terrorist threats to our country.  Should Congress consider legislation related to this issue in the future, you can be sure I will keep your thoughts in mind.

I want you to know that I value your thoughts and concerns.  Thanks again for reaching out to my office.  Please let me know whenever I can be of assistance, and visit my website, http://noem.house.gov, to get more information on the latest congressional news important to South Dakota.

Sincerely,

Kristi Noem
Member of Congress

Rep. Kristi Noem in 2011 on Raising the Debt Ceiling

Here is a letter I received a few years ago. Has Rep. Noem lived up to her reputation as someone going to Washington to slay the fiscal dragons? What do you think?

July 27, 2011

Dear Eldon,

Thank you for contacting me regarding the federal debt limit.  I appreciate hearing from you on this issue.

As you may know, almost all federal debt is subject to the statutory debt limit.  Our nation recently hit this debt limit of more than $14 trillion dollars.  On May 31, 2011, the U.S. House of Representatives voted down H.R. 1954, to implement President Barack Obama's request to increase the statutory limit on the public debt without any spending or budget reforms.  As you may know, I joined the majority of my colleagues and voted against this measure.

Overspending throughout the past several years has put our country on an unsustainable fiscal path.  Now, the 112th Congress is faced with the tough decisions to rein in record breaking deficits and out-of-control spending.  You can be sure that I will not support an increase in the debt limit unless significant reforms to the budget are included to get our spending on a sustainable path.

Reaching the debt limit has been an opportunity for Congress and the President to honestly debate our fiscal situation and devise ways to cut spending and restore fiscal responsibility.  It is not easy to trim any budget, whether it is that of a household, a business or the federal government.  However, we need to cut and prioritize our spending in order to protect the financial future of our nation.

I want you to know that I value your thoughts and concerns. Thanks again for reaching out to my office.  Please let me know whenever I can be of assistance, and visit my website, www.noem.house.gov, to get more information on the latest congressional news important to South Dakota and to sign up for my newsletter.

Sincerely,

Kristi Noem
Member of Congress

Amending the US Constitution: South Dakota's Inconvenient History, part 1

Dear Reader:

As we start another legislative session in Pierre, there are sure to be proposals to have the Legislature apply to Congress to call a Convention to propose amendments to the US Constitution. We will be assured by proponents of this idea that there is nothing to be concerned about. What could possibly go wrong? The states will be in charge, they say. Unfortunately, history does not seem to be on the side of proponents. Here is one of a number of examples, which I ask you to consider with an open mind: 

In, 1911, the South Dakota Legislature considered ratification of the what today is known as the 16th or "Income Tax" Amendment to the US Constitution. 

The State House consisted of 105 members, of which 98 were Republican, 5 Democratic, 1 Populist, and 1 Non-Partisan. 

The State Senate had 45 members, 32 of which were Republican, 11 Democratic, 1 Populist and 1 Non-Partisan. The Senate was first to considered ratification on January 17th. All members present (41 of them) voted "yea."

The House took up ratification on February 1st. All 100 members present voted "yea."

The proposal was extremely popular at the time. However, it is quite common today for people to lament the addition of the "Income Tax" amendment to the US Constitution, especially those who consider themselves conservative or affiliate with the Republican party.

In 1911, the number of states was pretty evenly split on party control of legislatures. But, of the states that were controlled by Republicans at the time ratification was considered, only three states (Utah, Connecticut, and Rhode Island) refused to ratify.

Lesson 1: Three-fourths of the state legislatures CAN be persuaded to ratify amendments which cause more problems than they claim to solve. The argument that the 3/4's threshold is an "ultimate safeguard" against bad amendments does not stand up to the historical record.

Lesson 2: "Bipartisanship" back in 1911 gave us the 16th Amendment.

Today, the most commonly proposed amendment for such a convention is a "Balance Budget Amendment." In light of what we know, let's consider what type of a "Balanced Budget Amendment" (BBA) might be added to the US Constitution through "bipartisanship" should one ever be proposed and ratified through a Convention under Article V of the US Constitution. Let's be honest.

• Would such a BBA be one which threatens the terribly expensive unending wars and foreign intervention favored by the Establishment Republicans? 
• How about a BBA which threatens the massive welfare state which has put federal spending on auto-pilot since the 1930's? Would 3/4 of the states ratify that? 
• How about a BBA which significantly reduces the amount state governments receive from the federal government? 

You may disagree, but I'd say probability of success on the above three questions falls in the "very unlikely" category.

Alright, one more question: 

• Considering the answers to the above three questions, what is the probability that a BBA would amount to a massive tax increase in the name of "balancing" the Federal budget?

But, just for argument's sake let's assume state legislators have wised up and won't be fooled this time around. Congress receives the 34th application and calls a Convention to propose amendments. Well, the legislators who went to Indianapolis this past Summer for the "Assembly of State Legislators" meeting in support of such a Convention will be in for a big surprise. Now the actual Amendments Convention will reflect the party makeup of all the states, rather than being a pep rally for mostly conservative activist legislators. So, the partisan makeup of the room changes dramatically from the first seating chart you see to the second. 

What type of "Balanced Budget Amendment" is likely to be proposed by such a Constitutional Convention, Article V Convention, or whatever name you call it? Also, what other items might be on the table? Would it be unreasonable to think that the Democrats in such a body, holding 48% of the seats would not try to push their amendment to overturn the "Citizens United" Supreme Court ruling on Corporate spending in political campaigns? You know, the proposal that says...

“An entity, including any organization or association of one or more persons, established or allowed by the laws of any State, the United States, or any Foreign State shall have no rights under this Constitution…”
“The privileges of any entity…shall not be construed to be inherent or inalienable.”

Ever considered the fact that a great many of the activities you do could easily be construed as being done as part of an artificial legal entity? If the entity has no rights, effectively you have no rights, either. 

Now, remember, this proposed amendment is extremely popular among Democrats and the Left. (We even had a certain candidate for US Senate from South Dakota who was pushing such an amendment.) Can you think of any reason why the Left  would not not try to push for its proposal and ratification as part of a compromise if an Article V Convention were to occur? Let's also be honest: have conservatives or liberals gotten the short end of the stick lately  bipartisan compromise achieved?

So, when someone tells you that the 3/4 ratification is the ultimate safeguard in an "Article V Convention," or that they shouldn't worry because 27 or so state legislatures are controlled by Republicans, or because the South Dakota delegation would never ratify any bad amendment, ask them if they every wondered how the 16th Amendment came to be. You might show them a few of these pictures, too.

Have you ever wondered why proponents of an Article V Convention almost never mention this easily verifiable history? Would it make a difference if you did know this before someone approached you about the idea of a modern Convention?

Yours in Liberty,

Eldon

Rep. Noem Votes to Audit the FED

Dakota Letters is a rather simple concept... share a copy of a letter you got from an elected official in South Dakota and make comments on it. Perhaps you even want to respond to the letter itself. I'm happy to host most response letters on here for all to read. Of course, since it's my blog, I have ultimate say so in whether to post the letter you receive. If you don't wish your name and address to be published to all the world, do yourself a favor and black it out before sending it over to me. Eldonstahl@hotmail.com is the best address to use for now.

So, here's the first one...

It was nice to get a letter from my own congressional representative explaining why she voted to audit the Federal Reserve, commonly called the "FED." I got a note from her in 2012 to the same effect when she voted for a similar bill. This one, like that one, though, seems to be an unsolicited "update." Seems like a politically savvy thing to do to remind constituents of the points on which they agree, especially a month and a half from an election.

As time goes on, I may also post other analysis type articles, but the main focus in this blog for now will be letters from public officials and responses. Let the comments begin!

Kristi Noem--Audit the Fed 2014