Consitution bars Clinton nomination

A lot of people think the Constitution is a very old piece of paper hidden under glass at the National Archives in Washington, D.C. The words represent a moment in time, but an evolving society has dictated that amendments and legislation be added to accommodate changing opinions and agendas. The latest evidence of this comes with the nomination of Sen. Hillary Clinton to serve in President-elect Obama’s cabinet as Secretary of State.

According to a clause in the Constitution (Article I Section 6), no lawmaker can be appointed to any civil position that was created or received a wage increase during the lawmaker’s time in office. The clause prohibits self-dealing legislation and is intended to protect the “separation of power” of various branches of government.

In January, President George W. Bush signed an executive order increasing the salaries for the Secretary of State and other Cabinet positions by $4,700. Clinton has been in the Senate since January 2001.

“We think it’s inadequate,” said Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch. “You can’t amend the Constitution through legislation like that...the Constitution doesn’t have any caveats. Maybe she has to renounce the salary increase, but I’m sure they’ll find a way around it.”

This is not the first time this issue has arisen. In 1973, President Nixon appointed William Saxbe to be attorney general after he voted to increase cabinet pay during his term. The resolution was for Nixon to petition Congress to allow Saxbe to take the previous attorney general salary.

When faced with a similar situation during his presidency, Ronald Reagan upheld the Constitution closer to home.

“Reagan took a look at this clause and decided against appointing Orrin Hatch, who was a senator and still is, to the Supreme Court,” Fitton said.

It’s disconcerting when the Constitution is overlooked so that individuals can get away with achieving their own self-interests. As evidenced by his nominating of Clinton to a high ranking cabinet position, Obama feels she is the best person for the job, despite the fact that she is the only first lady to have been subpoenaed to testify before a Federal grand jury, a result of her role in the Whitewater controversy. He’s definitely found a lawyer who can talk her way into and out of difficult circumstances.

The Constitution serves two basic purposes: first, to limit the Federal Government; second, to enumerate our basic Rights as individuals. It serves to protect our society and way of life. The Rights of individuals never change and the limitations on the Federal Government do not change without a Constitutional Amendment or Constitutional Convention. It’s an injustice that it is not happening that way today.

http://dailyutahchronicle.com/sports/consitution_bars_clinton_nomination

Altruistic restaurant bashed unfairly

Inexperience and not implementing proven business practices seems to be the main problem for the non-profit One World Cafe at 41 S. 300 East. The restaurant touts no menus and encourages customers to pay whatever they think the meal is worth.

But if you ask Rush Limbaugh, it is the liberal ideology behind One World Cafe that is causing the current struggle.

In October, employee paychecks bounced, a long-time manager was fired and the rest of the staff walked out in protest. Bringing the issue to national prominence through his “golden microphone,” Limbaugh singled out the restaurant as a symbol of what to expect of an Obama presidency.

“It’s not just mismanagement, these are a bunch of liberals,” Limbaugh said. “These are liberals playing games with the reality known as business. The owner finally figures out she’s not making a profit and blames it on the fact that she doesn’t have enough business experience and so forth. And these same kinds of people we’ve just put in charge of much of the federal government.”

Limbaugh is out of line. Restaurant founder Denise Cerreta and her chefs make entrées, soups, salads and desserts from organic meats and locally grown produce. They have been in business for five years and turned a 4 to 6 percent profit through 2007 according to the One World Web site.

The cafe even provides volunteer options for those who would prefer a “hand up” rather than a hand out. Rather than provide One World Cafe with free advertising while pushing his conservative agenda, it would be more effective to talk about the good things the restaurant is doing for the community.

One World Cafe governing board member Don Merrill said the basic idea of “helping people fill their stomachs and their spirits” will be maintained under the new management.

When the organization started, it operated without much structure. Later, demands for accountability and efficiency required the non-profit to become not less altruistic, but more professional as time went on.

“There is an arc to altruistic endeavors like this,” Merrill said. “It’s been difficult and painful, but people just felt it was moving away from meeting those new expectations.”

Nobody is forcing any kind of ideology here. As always, we are presented with opposing liberal and conservative ideas. A restaurant needs to operate on solid business practices in order to make money, otherwise it’ll go out of business and no one can eat there. As long as the restaurant makes money, it doesn’t matter what kind of ideology it subscribes to.

It sounds like One World Cafe is making changes to return to profitability, but it will take time to see if those changes will work. Capitalism only requires voluntary agreement by buyer and seller. If you think altruism is antithetical to capitalism, you’ve been drinking the Limbaugh Kool-Aid.

http://www.dailyutahchronicle.com/opinion/altruistic_restaurant_bashed_unfairly