Author: Brian J. Noggle

The wheels are in motion to make it happen.

Proposing an amendment to the
Constitution of the United States to repeal the 22nd amendment to the
Constitution. (Introduced in House)

HJ 24 IH

109th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. J. RES. 24

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the 22nd amendment to the Constitution .

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

February 17, 2005

Mr. HOYER (for himself, Mr. BERMAN, Mr. SENSENBRENNER, Mr. SABO, and
Mr. PALLONE) introduced the following joint resolution; which was
referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

---

JOINT RESOLUTION

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the 22nd amendment to the Constitution.

Resolved by the Senate and House of
Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled
(two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution

when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several
States within seven years after the date of its submission for
ratification:

`Article —

`The twenty-second article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is repealed.’.

Search for it yourself at http://thomas.loc.gov/.

(Submitted to the Beltway Traffic Jam.)

From a story about the drunken, registered sex offender ice cream man:

The offending driver had a blood-alcohol level three times the legal limit, according to a New Berlin police report.

Previously, it was only 2.4 times the legal limit back in the “old days” when the legal limit was .10 BAC. Now that the legal limit is .08 BAC (so that the state of Wisconsin doesn’t lose Federal highway funds, donchaknow?), the same BAC is now 3 times the limit.

As soon as legislators pass their next compromise with MADD and lower it to .06, the same BAC will be 4 times the limit.

So the legal limit multiplier reflects more on the current state of legislation than the actual state of drunkeness.

Union wants false claims against cops prosecuted:

If Nashville’s police union has its way, anyone who makes a formal complaint against a Metro police officer could face felony criminal charges if the department’s internal investigators clear the officer of wrongdoing.

Nashville Fraternal Order of Police President Ed Mason asked for the enforcement in a March 15 e-mail to Police Chief Ronal Serpas, who has told the FOP that he has concerns about the request.

“The (Fraternal Order of Police) would like the department to present cases to the (District Attorney’s) Office when a serious allegation has been made and the case has been cleared,” Mason’s e-mail reads.

The union’s request is based on two situations in which Metro officers were targets of “blatant lies” during the police formal complaint process, Mason said.

However, when asked about the two cases, Mason said he and other FOP officials could not recall the officers’ names or the situations.

Based on cases they cannot remember, these union leaders want to penalize honest grievances that have no criminal merit.

Thankfully, the chief of police isn’t eager for a power-grab:

Serpas has raised concerns about the idea. “Charging every complainant whose complaint was not sustained has been viewed by some courts as an unconstitutional effort to intimidate citizens and keep them from making legitimate complaints,” reads a reply from Serpas to Mason, whose union represents most of Nashville’s 1,200-plus police officers.

Serpas’ written reply, obtained by The Tennessean, also states that he believes the formal complaints made by residents are often based on a misunderstanding of police procedures and policies and that “charging complainants should be considered in only the most extreme cases.”

Just because an internal police investigation clears an officer of wrongdoing, it doesn’t mean the situation stated in a complaint did not occur, Serpas said.

(Link seen on Ravenwood’s Universe.)

Some worker’s right activists don’t want you to understand at-will employment. Instead, concentrate on the right you have to an employer’s continued indulgence with a paycheck: Off-duty behavior can affect job:

Some companies are cracking down on employees’ off-duty behavior, raising questions about how far employers should go in policing what workers do on their own time.

Employees are being disciplined or fired for such behaviors as drinking on their own time, using competitors’ products and displaying political bumper stickers. No one tracks the number of such cases, but some workers rights’ groups are concerned that the practice is on the upswing.

“The shock is that there’s no legal protection,” says Lewis Maltby, of The National Workrights Institute, a non-profit based in Princeton, N.J., that focuses on employee rights. “You can get fired just for having a bumper sticker the boss doesn’t like.”

Yes, that is how it works. Kind of like the worker can leave the job at any time with two week’s notice if they’re polite or right now if their employer does something the worker doesn’t like or if the worker doesn’t like the work, if the worker has something better to do, or if the worker gets a better job.

No, workers’ rights advocates want one-way indentured servitude: they want employers on the hook for perpetual employment.

Last week’s story about the state of Missouri regulating personal watercraft use by minors drew this supportive letter from a trade group:

We cannot point blame at personal watercraft for causing accidents when operator-controlled factors such as inattention and inexperience are cited as the leading contributors (“Zippy craft, young riders are making waves,” June 4). Irresponsible boaters cause accidents. Because most accidents are preventable, steps must be taken by boaters themselves to improve safety.

People who take a boating safety education course are less likely to be involved in an accident. Rental-business owners should more thoroughly explain the rules to customers, so that they know how and where to ride, in addition to not jumping a boat’s wake or riding to close to another personal watercraft.

We applaud Missouri for its new boater education law that requires all boaters born after Jan. 1, 1984, to pass a safety course. But older boaters should take a class, too. Personal watercraft manufacturers support laws that require all PWC operators, regardless of age or previous experience, to take a course. We also support a minimum age requirement of 16 years to operate a personal watercraft and 18 years to rent one.

To prevent an enjoyable boating day from becoming an unfortunate tragedy, we all must take steps to assure that safety and responsibility come first.

Maureen Healey
Executive Director
Personal Watercraft
Industry Association
Washington D.C.

Instead of lobbying for regulation, perhaps Ms. Healey could have told her association’s members and customers to just not rent to minors. However, it’s cheaper for the members if the state handles all the expense of the entrepreneurs’ costs of business. After all, it’s working wonders for the airline industry.

(Submitted to the Outside the Beltway Traffic Jam.)

I’ve owned a Gillette Mach 3 since the razor came to market, and I’ve spent hundreds if not thousands of dollars in recurring revenue on the expensive little cartridges. But when my current supply is out (unfortunately, quite some time since I buy them at a warehouse store), I shall switch to the Schick Quattro. Why?

Because Gillette lied to me.

I saw the commercials for the Mach 3 Turbo, which allows you to put a battery into your razor. In return, it has a little green light on it and, Gillette claimed, micropulses of electricity would lift the hairs for a closer shave. Well, at least the light worked.

The judge ruled that Gillette’s claims that its M3Power could raise the stubble on one’s face were not true.

The court ordered Gillette to change the TV and print ads and the packaging for the product in 30 days.

Gillette yesterday asked the court for a clarification. The razor maker argued that neither the packaging nor the instore displays for M3Power depict hairs “changing angle or changing length.”

“‘Gentle micro-pulses stimulate hair up and away from skin,’ does not suggest that hairs are changing angle or changing length,” it argued in court papers.

I was never tempted to buy the stupid thing because I’ve already got an expensive handle for an expensive razor cartridge, but Gillette brought an expensive product to market that does not do what Gillette says the product does; that is, its selling point is untrue and its value above and beyond the regular Mach 3 does not exist. Gillette did this to try to relieve me of more of my money, and now it will henceforth relieve me of none.

And now that it’s caught, it’s trying to Clinton its way out of changing its packaging to marketing copy that does not outright lie. Splitting, but not changing the angle or length, of legalistic definitions to save itself 1.6 million dollars.

You know what punishment I would prefer? Gillette would have to run advertisements in the same markets and media as its previous ads with its leaders admitting they tried to pull one over the shaving public.

Man, the Patriot Act / Homeland Security blah blah blah investigates everything:

A clump of cloth mixed with plastic was found in the stomach of the bear, who died of surgical shock and cardiac arrest.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture will review the St. Louis Zoo’s care of Churchill, a polar bear who died May 26 during surgery to remove an abdominal obstruction.

“An investigation is just a closer look,” Jim Rogers, an agency spokesman in Washington, said Friday. “It doesn’t mean any laws were broken.”

Man, what riveting television that would be. Who poisoned the polar bear with a plastic and cloth capsule? I suspect the shifty looking penguin.

But all mirth aside, how many tax dollars will we expend to collectively, as a society, possibly spare another polar bear the same circumstantial fate? No, don’t tell me, I don’t want to know.

Meanwhile, in an unrelated story, Government investigates possible case of mad cow; I suspect they’re acting on a jailhouse tip from an enraged sheep.

Hey, Michelle Malkin has a picture of a young Muslim lad urinating on the American flag.

As a person who votes Republican more than 40% of the time (and Democrat about 5% of the time, so don’t ostracize me from the cool blogoclique), I saw we should start burning down Indian restaurants in the United States reach a greater understanding between our culture and theirs.

In our culture, some people put a decal of a young man from an old comic strip urinating on some symbol or another into their rear windows of their automobiles to show the owner’s contempt for what the symbol represents. In theirs, some people put a decapitation of a young man onto their Web sites to show the people’s contempt for the infidels.

Okay, I understand aplenty now.

However, pardon me if I look at the picture and say, hey, it’s a kid peeing on a square of cloth that represents free speech. How precocious. If he peed on a Koran amidst all those Muslims, he’d be dead.