Amending Constitution by convention of states unlikely to succeed

In recent years, some conservatives have responded to the gridlock in Washington with a call for a convention of states to amend the Constitution. Conservative author and talk show host, Mark Levin, has compiled a laundry list of “liberty amendments” that he would like to see ratified at a convention of the states. Those unfamiliar with the concept of such a convention might wonder how, as Levin told CNS News, Americans can “turn to the Constitution, to save the Constitution, if you love the Constitution, before there is no Constitution.”

The idea of a convention of the states comes from Article V of the Constitution, which describes the amendment process. Amendments have traditionally been proposed by Congress, but the Constitution does provide an alternative method. If the legislatures of two-thirds of the states call a convention to propose constitutional amendments, then those amendments will take effect when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the states. This means that agreement of 34 states would be required to call a convention and 38 states would be required to ratify any proposed amendments.

Alternatively, only 13 states would be needed to block any amendments proposed by a convention of the states. It is safe to assume that any Democrat-controlled state legislature would not ratify Levin’s amendments. Statescape.com lists state legislatures by party control. State legislatures that are currently controlled by the Democrats include:

1. California

2. Colorado

3. Connecticut

4. Delaware

5. Hawaii

6. Illinois

7. Maine

8. Maryland

9. Massachusetts

10. Minnesota

11. Nevada

12. New Jersey

13. New Mexico

Even though Republicans control more state legislatures than the Democrats, the Democrats clearly have control of enough states to block any proposed constitutional amendments from a state convention. There are, however, even more states under Democratic control. The list continues:

14. Oregon

15. Rhode Island

16. Vermont

17. Washington

18. West Virginia

With control of 18 state legislatures, the Democrats have the ability to go further than blocking ratification. They can block the convention of states itself. Only 17 states are required to block a convention.

The true picture is even worse for proponents of a convention of states. Of the remaining states, not all have legislatures controlled by Republicans. Even controlling only one house of a state legislature would be enough to block the convention in most cases. Another five states have legislatures where control is split between the two parties (Iowa, Kentucky, Nebraska, New Hampshire, and New York).

Split legislature states combined with Democratic states make a total of 23 states that could not be counted on to call a convention or ratify amendments. This means that convention proponents would need to persuade Democrats (as well as conservatives and moderates) in at least 11 of the above states to call a convention. Fifteen states from this list, at minimum, would be needed to ratify any amendment.

Even if a convention was called and the states present could agree on proposed amendments, it might take years for ratification. Lexis Nexis notes that the ratification time for amendments varied between three months and more than 202 years. In this time of divided political beliefs, longer is probably more likely.

In order for conservatives to make the proposed changes to the Constitution, they must win a war of ideas in the states and elect more Republicans to state legislatures. If conservatives can win this battle of ideas at the state level, they may also gain control of Congress and the White House, eliminating the need for a convention of states in the first place.

At present, according to the Convention of States Project, the total number of states whose legislatures have passed laws calling for a convention of states stands at precisely… three. Only Georgia, Florida and Alaska have issued the call for a state constitutional convention. By the time that enough states can be persuaded to call a convention, the direction of the United States, whether advancing toward big government or returning toward a limited constitutional government, is likely to already be decided.

Read the full article on National Elections Examiner

What’s next for defenders of marriage?

Wednesday’s Supreme Court rulings on marriage, while hardly unexpected by most traditional marriage advocates, have nonetheless left social conservatives disappointed. For supporters of traditional marriage, the saving grace of the rulings was that they did not apply to the 35 states with definition of marriage laws or constitutional amendments.

That situation is likely to change. If, as Justice Kennedy wrote in United States v. Windsor, a traditional marriage definition “violates basic due process and equal protection principles” then it is likely that future Supreme Court rulings will invalidate the right of the states to keep marriage between a man and a woman. This may come through a direct challenge to a state constitutional marriage amendment or through the Constitution’s Full Faith and Credit Clause, which requires that states respect “the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state.” Barring a change in the balance of the Court, it is likely that the justices will continue to chip away at traditional marriage.

One possible response to the rulings would be to give up and move on. Polling shows substantial movement toward acceptance of gay marriage in recent years. A CNN/ORC poll from June 11-13 shows that 55 percent of Americans now believe that same-sex marriage should be recognized as valid with 44 percent opposed. Ten years ago, 55 percent opposed same-sex marriage and 39 percent approved. Much of the change has come since Barack Obama was elected president.

Public opinion is not static, however, and the stakes are high. A 2012 study reported in Examiner found that the instability of gay families is more likely to cause children to experience depression, substance abuse, delinquency, sexual abuse, and a variety of other problems. Studies from Europe’s experience with gay marriage show that childbearing has become increasingly separated from marriage in those countries. This leads to more entitlements and government debt. Likewise, the cost of Social Security and benefit payments for gay partners cannot be accurately calculated, but may well be greater than the additional tax revenues the government will receive.

On another social issue, public opinion has reversed in recent years. In 2009, for the first time in more than a decade, more Americans considered themselves to be pro-life than pro-choice according to Gallup. A Gallup poll from May 2013, found that 48 percent of the country is pro-life and 45 percent pro-choice. As recently as 1995, pro-choice Americans had outnumbered pro-lifers by 23 percentage points (56 to 33 percent).

Even though Roe v. Wade still stands, states can tighten restrictions on abortion incrementally. Many states prohibit late term abortions and some states have effectively regulated abortion clinics out of business. No such incremental restriction would be likely if the Supreme Court decrees that gay marriage is the law of the land, so what logical course, other than voting for politicians who will appoint judges friendly to traditional marriage, can marriage supporters take?

Since definition of marriage statutes have proven less resilient than amendments, gay marriage proponents will likely target those states with lawsuits or attempt to pass their own legislation. Marriage supporters are also likely to attempt to pass additional definition of marriage amendments, even though state constitutions are vulnerable to federal judges.

A more permanent solution might be to resurrect the idea of a federal marriage amendment. An amendment to the Constitution defining marriage was attempted in the past, but failed. On June 26, Rep. Tim Huelskamp (R-Kan.) announced his intention to reintroduce an amendment preserving traditional marriage.

According to the Constitution, an amendment must be passed by a two-thirds vote of both the houses of Congress. This would require 288 votes in the House and 67 votes in the Senate. Currently the GOP controls the House with 234 seats, 54 short of the necessary majority. If the amendment passes the House, it is unlikely to succeed in the Senate where Democrats hold the majority. A Constitutional amendment does not have to be signed by the president.

The Constitution does provide an alternate means of proposing an amendment. Two-thirds of the states, 30 legislatures, can call a constitutional convention. This method has never been used to amend the Constitution.

In either case, the proposed amendment must be ratified by three-fourths of the states to become law. This would require acceptance of the new amendment by 38 of the 50 states, a number very close to the number of states that already have marriage laws. With changing attitudes towards same-sex marriage, the outcome of an attempt to amend the Constitution could easily go either way, but the difficulty in amending the Constitution (there have been only 27 amendments in more than 200 years, the last in 1992) favors gay marriage advocates.

In Georgia, where a definition of marriage amendment passed with more than 70 percent of the vote in 2004, there is still strong support for traditional marriage. A Public Policy poll from December 2012 found that 65 percent of Georgians opposed same-sex marriage.

Although this week bore good news and celebrations for supporters of gay marriage, the issue is not yet decided for the majority of the country. The fight will almost certainly continue for both sides for years.

Originally published by National Elections Examiner

GOP revolt blocked Boehner’s spending amendment

According to a report by Dick Morris, Republican rebels scuttled a last minute attempt by Speaker John Boehner attach an amendment to the fiscal cliff deal that would have tied spending cuts to the tax increases. If the amendment had passed, it would have sent the bill back to the senate which would have had to vote to accept or reject it.

Bloomberg and CBS News also reported on Boehner’s attempt to tie the tax increases to spending cuts. According to CBS, the amendment would have required 217 Republican votes to pass. The final bill garnered 85 Republican votes and was passed primarily with Democratic support.

Among the Georgia delegation, the vote largely followed party lines. Rep. John Barrow (D-12) crossed party lines to vote against the bill and Rep. John Lewis (D-5), whose wife recently passed away, did not vote.

If the amendment had passed, it is unlikely that it would have passed the senate and the fiscal stalemate would have continued. A Democratic leadership aide told CBS, “We will absolutely not take up the House bill if they change the bipartisan agreement reached in the Senate" and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid told Bloomberg, “My senators have gone home.”

The Republican opposition may have been due to unwillingness to accept any tax increases as part of a compromise to avert the fiscal cliff. However, on the Dec. 21 edition of the Michael Medved Show, even Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform agreed that compromising with President Obama on tax rates for the wealthy would not be considered a vote for a tax increase because taxes were already scheduled to go up.

“They made it clear because they had a previous vote to extend it [the Bush tax rates] for everybody in the country,” Norquist told Medved, “so the two votes taken together make it very clear, we wanted to extend it for everybody, but in order to get something to the senate and get it passed, let’s extend it for as many as they [the Democrats] will allow. I mean if somebody’s thrown anybody out of the lifeboat, it’s the Democratic senate and the Democratic president….”

The Republican revolt ended quickly as the same representatives who refused to follow Speaker Boehner in fighting for spending cuts on Tuesday reelected him to a second term as speaker on Thursday. Only 12 House Republicans failed to vote for Boehner.

Originally published on Examiner.com:
http://www.examiner.com/article/gop-revolt-blocked-boehner-spending-amendment?cid=db_articles

Ga. charter school ballot measure sparks controversy

The presidential race isn’t the only reason to go to the polls over the next few weeks. One big reason in Georgia is the charter schools referendum. In Georgia, this ballot measure has generated almost as much confusion and controversy as the election between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney.

Charter schools are public schools that receive public money, but are exempt from many normal rules in exchange for being more accountable. Charter schools cannot charge tuition and often have waiting lists for admissions. In some cases admissions are assigned by lottery. Although politically popular, charter school results are mixed. Some studies have indicated that they do not perform better than traditional public schools, while others paint a better picture.

According to Ballotpedia, the proposed text of the amendment is: “Shall the Constitution of Georgia be amended to allow state or local approval of public charter schools upon the request of local communities?” According to the Georgia Department of Education, Georgia already has a number of charter schools; however these are run by local school districts. In 2011, the state Supreme Court struck down a state commission that could approve charter schools over the objections of local school boards.

What the amendment would actually do would reinstate the State Charter Commission according to the Augusta Chronicle. The commission could override local denials for charter school applications. These local charter schools would be financed by local money. The amendment would also allow the commission to set up state charter schools with a statewide “attendance zone.” These schools would be financed with money appropriated by the General Assembly, not local tax money.

Opponents of the measure see the amendment as a threat to local control of schools and tax money. The measure is opposed by many school boards, administrators, and teacher groups around the state. The NAACP has also announced its opposition to the measure, telling the Augusta Chronicle that the “amendment is not about fixing the schools and school systems, but is designed to decide who gets to spend our hard earned tax dollars for ‘special schools,’ which are not under the control of local school boards.”

In a letter to the Monroe Patch, state School Superintendent John Barge also states his reasons for opposition to the amendment. Barge says that he favors charter schools, but wants to preserve local control. He also says, “Until all of our public school students are in school for a full 180-day school year, until essential services like student transportation and student support can return to effective levels, and until teachers regain jobs with full pay for a full school year, we should not redirect one more dollar away from Georgia’s local school districts.”

Proponents argue that the amendment is not about tax money or control of schools, but school choice. In the Columbus Ledger-Inquirer, Rep. Richard Smith (R-Columbus) says, “There are some school districts around the state who will not even talk to people in their area about setting up a charter school.”

Maureen Downey wrote in the Atlanta Journal about the concern that charter schools would attract for-profit school operators to the state. Downey references a Reuters article that points out a federal program called EB-5 allows foreign investors to essentially buy visas by investing in certain projects. Over the past few years, charter schools have become a popular investment choice for wealthy would-be immigrants. Reuters notes that the program benefits both schools and investors since schools in general and charter schools in particular often face financial pressures.

The outside funding for charter schools may make up for the discrepancy between funding for local schools and state charter schools. Downey notes in the AJC that the state has confirmed that under the law, more money per student would be sent to state charter schools than local schools.

In an op-ed in the Savannah Morning News, Senator Buddy Carter (R-Savannah), one of the senators who drafted the amendment, explained its purpose. According to Carter, “special” schools were authorized and defined in Georgia’s 1966 constitution. When the constitution was changed in 1983, the General Assembly was authorized to create special schools, but the term was not defined. Carter says the lack of a definition led to the ruling against the Georgia Charter Schools Commission.

Carter further notes that local control is preserved because the first step to creating a charter school is to apply to the local school board. These local charter schools would receive money from the local school district.

If the applicant feels that the local school board has unfairly denied the charter application, the next step would be to appeal to the state. Carter says, “Not a single dollar will be taken out of the traditional public school system” because state charter schools will be funded by money appropriated by the General Assembly. “Voting in favor of this amendment will give the ultimate local control — it will give parents more options and allow them to be more involved in the decision-making process in public education,” according to Carter.

Given the current state of the economy and cuts to the state budget, there is some question about where the additional money for state charter schools would be found, but supporters like Carter are adamant that it would not be redirected from existing public schools. This might mean cuts in other areas of the state budget, higher taxes, or donations and investments from private individuals and businesses.

While the amendment is very controversial, polling shows that voters are in favor. The most recent poll, a September poll by Sand Mountain Communications, found 50 percent of voters favored the amendment with 25 percent against. Another 25 percent of voters are undecided. A last minute blitz of opposition ads by groups like Vote Smart Georgia could easily sway voters on such a convoluted issue.

Originally published on Examiner.com:

http://www.examiner.com/article/charter-school-ballot-measure-sparks-confusion-and-controversy

Does Obamacare establish a paramilitary secret police force?

Lt. Gen. (Ret.) William G. Boykin

I recently received in my email a video of Lt. Gen. (Ret.) W. G. Boykin entitled “Marxism in America.”  I recognized Gen. Boykin’s name, but could not immediately place him.  It took only a brief search to find that Gen. Boykin has a distinguished record as an army officer.

Boykin’s career began in 1971 as an infantry lieutenant in Vietnam.  He joined the elite Delta Force in 1978 and served within the unit 1993.  He was the Delta operations officer for the 1980 attempt to rescue the hostages being held in Iran as well as the 1983 invasion of Grenada.  He also took part in 1989 invasion of Panama and the hunt for drug lord Pablo Escobar in Colombia.  In 1993, he advised the government during the Waco standoff with David Koresh before taking command of the Delta contingent in Somalia that was tracking Mohammed Farrah Aidid.  He was wounded in a mortar attack after the Battle of Mogadishu (the battle depicted in Blackhawk Down).  Afterward, he held a number of desk jobs until his retirement in 2007.  These included Deputy Director of Special Activities at the CIA and Commanding General of the US Army Special Forces Command, where he helped plan the Special Forces strategy for the War on Terror.

General Boykin has long been a committed and outspoken Christian.  He was almost denied entry onto the Delta Force because he was “too religious.”  His wife of 28 years left him in the 1990s, citing similar opinions of his faith.  He was criticized on several occasions for framing the War on Terror in Biblical language.

In his six-minute video, Boykin cites his experience as a Special Forces officer who has studied and fought communist insurgencies around the world.  He lists six common steps of Marxist takeovers throughout history.

The first step is “nationalizing major sectors of the economy.”  He states that this was the purpose of the bailouts.  There is some truth to this statement.  President Bush’s TARP, loans to the banks, has largely been repaid.  President Obama’s use of TARP funds to bail out the auto companies has not.  President Bush’s plan gave banks loans.  President Obama’s plan had the government taking equity in companies that it still holds.

Further, President Obama also nationalized the student loan industry as part of his health care reform law in March 2010.  The health care reform law itself stopped short of Obama’s desired total government takeover of the health insurance industry, but it did set up a situation in which the government will soon be required to step in again to correct the mistakes made by the current legislation.  Many Democrats hope that this will lead to a “public option” and, ultimately, a single-payer takeover of the health care industry.

Boykin says that the health care reform law reflects the second step of Marxism:  redistributing the wealth.  To support this claim, Boykin cites a quote by Donald Berwick, President Obama’s Administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.  In a 2008 speech, Berwick supported the idea that health care reform is a means of wealth redistribution:  “Any health care funding plan that is just, equitable, civilized and humane must, must redistribute wealth from the richer among us to the poorer and the less fortunate. Excellent health care is by definition redistributional.”  Berwick, who President Obama appointed during a senate recess to avoid confirmation hearings, also supported the idea that government control of health care will lead to rationing.

Third, Boykin says that Marxists discredit the opposition.  Here, he cites a 2009 Department of Homeland Security memo that warned against right-wing extremism.  The memo said that there was “no specific threat” but listed second amendment activists, disgruntled military veterans, religious extremists, as well as radicals concerned “about the election of the first African American president.”

Boykin says that censorship is the fourth step toward Marxism.  In 2009, Congress passed a federal hate crimes law that Boykin believes is meant to intimidate people, pastors in particular, from exercising their freedom of speech.  Because the law makes it a illegal to incite a hate crime, if a pastor says that homosexuality is a sin and that gay marriage is wrong, he could be prosecuted if a member of his congregation then assaulted a gay man. 

In other instances, people have already been persecuted in this country for standing up for their religious beliefs.  Notably, a Georgia woman was forced by Augusta State College to renounce her statements about homosexuality and attend re-education in order to graduate as a counselor.  The Alliance Defense Fund defends many other believers who face retribution for speaking out against abortion and the homosexual agenda.

Fifth, Boykin says that Marxists disarm the citizenry.  Gun control (as well as bans) has long been a goal of Democrats.  Boykin points out that President Obama supports a UN small arms treaty that would regulate the international weapons trade.  The goal is to eliminate insurgencies and violence, but as the Washington Times points out “not all insurgencies are bad.  As US history shows, one way to get rid of a despotic regime is to rise up against it.”  The problem is not guns.  The problem is bad people who have guns.  Many members of the UN are dictatorships who should rightly fear justice from their countrymen.

Finally, Boykin points out that Marxists usually establish a paramilitary constabulary, such as Hitler’s brown shirts.  He claims that yet another surprise in Obama’s health care reform is that it establishes such a constabulary, referred to in the law as the “Ready Reserve Corps.”  Boykin actually cited the correct bill number (HR 3590) and provided a section number (5210), so it was easy to verify his claim.  The law does establish a Ready Reserve Corps.  (In the event that the link is broken, you can view the entire section at the end of this article.)

Specifically, the law establishes a “Regular Corps” and “Ready Reserve Corps” for national emergencies.  The officers are appointed by the president and confirmed by the senate.  They are separate from normal civil service and report to the Surgeon General.  The stated purpose of the Ready Reserve is to provide manpower for “routine public health and emergency response missions.”   A total of $17.5 million per year from 2010 to 2014 is appropriated for the Ready Reserve.

Boykin believes that this Ready Reserve Corps is the basis for a civilian national security force that President Obama has championed.  Boykin and many conservatives believe that this would be on the order of a secret police force.  This sort of organization has already existed in America another Democratic president.  During WWI, Woodrow Wilson, under the Espionage Act, created the American Protective League, a paramilitary force that beat up political opponents and conducted warrantless searches and interrogations.  In reality, Boykin is off base.  When taken in context, President Obama’s remarks point toward something more like AmeriCorps than the Gestapo.

USPHS officers meet patients in Peru.

It took only a brief search to find a fact sheet on the United States Public Health Service (USPHS) Commissioned Corps.  The USPHS already has a website, www.usphs.gov, which explains its role as a group of medical professionals who respond to health crises.  Recently USPHS officers responded to the Asian tsunami, Hurricane Katrina, and the Haitian earthquake.  USPHS officers are authorized to wear Navy uniforms (as is the Surgeon General).  The Obamacare law did not create the USPHS Commissioned Corps, but it did create a Reserve Corps for the service that is similar to the reserve system for the military services.  The USPHS Commissioned Corps traces its roots back to President John Adams in 1798. 

Many of Boykin’s other claims, while factually true, are also greatly overstated.  For example, with respect to gun control, Obama would have to contend with two recent Supreme Court decisions (District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago) that the second amendment is an individual right.  Another case (Reid v. Covert) states that international treaties do not trump the US Constitution.

Ultimately, a small arms treaty might make it easier for Democrats to push through gun control measures.  Depending on the judge, a treaty might also result in court decisions that favor international law or consensus over American law and precedent.  This sort of decision occasionally comes from activist judges, including Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Woodrow Wilson

Similarly, Boykin’s concerns about a chilling effect on the freedom of speech are well founded, but hate crimes laws fall short of censorship.  Again, Woodrow Wilson sets the standard for American censorship.  His Sedition Act made it illegal to criticize the federal government.  His Post Office refused to deliver materials, such as magazines and newspapers, which were critical of the war or Wilson.  Numerous Americans were actually convicted and imprisoned for speaking “disloyally.”

Although President Obama has stated his belief that too much information is available to Americans and puts “pressure on our democracy,” he has made no move to shut down outlets critical of his administration or imprison people like Rush Limbaugh.  While some Democrats might harbor this fantasy, they have made no move to actually do so.

Domestic terrorists such as the Klan are still a threat.

The DHS memo on right wing extremism, while offensive and overblown, did make cogent points.  Although generally rejected by mainstream conservatives, there have been examples of right wing terrorists, from Timothy McVeigh to Eric Rudolph.  The Ku Klux Klan and other white supremacist groups are a legitimate concern.  A number of domestic terror groups can be described as right wing, including some whose beliefs are based in Christian theology.

One of the most horrifying domestic terror attempts was the Tyler, Texas poison gas plot in 2003.  White supremacist militia members attempted to detonate a cyanide gas bomb that could have killed thousands.  Fortunately, the FBI disrupted the plot and arrested the conspirators.

The memo was not unique.  There was also a memo warning against left wing extremism, which warns against cyber attacks by animal rights, environmental, and anarchist groups.  The radical left discussed, played games about, longed for, and even made a movie about killing George Bush.  Michigan hutaree members, who were widely portrayed as right wing Christians, were at least partially Democrats.  Similarly, the light plane attack on a Texas IRS office building was portrayed as being carried out by an anti-government, anti-tax crusader.  In reality, his manifesto railed against capitalism, religion, and the wealthy.  While the majority of terrorists are not right wingers, there are enough right wing terrorist groups to confirm that the memo addressed legitimate, if overstated, concerns.

Boykin’s last two points involve redistribution of wealth and nationalizing the economy.  It is true that Obama wants to use government to “spread the wealth around,” but his higher taxes and subsidies pale in comparison to the redistributions of other countries.  Communist redistribution often came in the garb of land reform in which the property of the wealthy was seized and distributed to the poor or held by the state.  Nothing on this scale has been attempted or proposed by the Obama Administration.

With respect to nationalizing industry, Obama’s auto bailout did give the government an equity stake in the car companies, but the stock held by the government does not entitle the government to a shareholder vote.  Nevertheless, voting rights or not, the government’s purse strings do give it influence over the auto industry, including the power to force out CEOs, name members of the board, and shape product lines.  Much of this influence was exercised through Obama’s appointed “car czar.”

Nationalization has largely been limited to Chrysler, GM, and troubled banks.  Now that the economy is stabilizing, it seems that the push toward nationalization is abating.  Even though Congress has passed legislation expanding government control of the health insurance and financial industries, they have stopped short of nationalization.  Nationalization of the auto companies, student loan industry, and certain banks has affected only a small part of the economy.

In total, Boykin’s claims are overstated.  I can find no confirmation for the claim that President Obama is ushering in a Marxist takeover of the United States.  Rather, he is a typical Big Government Liberal who wants to expand the role of government and raise taxes.  He seems to be a true believer is the power og government and Keynesian economics.  Probably no one was as surprised at the abject failure of the stimulus package, and the looming implosion of health care reform, as President Obama himself.

President Obama completely misread the mandate of the American people after his election.  The people wanted Obama’s “post partisan” leadership.  What they got was a hard left, hyper-partisan push toward record federal spending and expansion of unpopular government bureaucracies.  The electorate responded with an overwhelming rejection of the policies of President Obama and the Democrats.

It is not out of the question that Obama and his dwindling supporters will veer even further left toward Marxism, but after the “shellacking” that the Democrats took in November 2010 Obama may be ready to seek bipartisan solutions.  The compromise to extend the Bush tax cuts may be an early indication of a new, more moderate Obama.

There have also been no indications that President Obama would violate the Constitution by rejecting the will of the voters when his term is up.  Just as some leftists were wrong when they claimed that President Bush would refuse to voluntarily leave office when his term expired, conservatives who believe that Obama will consolidate power and become a Marxist dictator will be similarly disappointed.  Hopefully, this point will be proven on January 20, 2013.

REPRINT OF SECTION 5210 OF PATIENT PROTECTION AND AFFORDABLE CARE ACT

SEC. 5210. ESTABLISHING A READY RESERVE CORPS.

Section 203 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 204) is amended to read as follows:

‘SEC. 203. COMMISSIONED CORPS AND READY RESERVE CORPS.

‘(a) Establishment-

‘(1) IN GENERAL- There shall be in the Service a commissioned Regular Corps and a Ready Reserve Corps for service in time of national emergency.

‘(2) REQUIREMENT- All commissioned officers shall be citizens of the United States and shall be appointed without regard to the civil-service laws and compensated without regard to the Classification Act of 1923, as amended.

‘(3) APPOINTMENT- Commissioned officers of the Ready Reserve Corps shall be appointed by the President and commissioned officers of the Regular Corps shall be appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate.

‘(4) ACTIVE DUTY- Commissioned officers of the Ready Reserve Corps shall at all times be subject to call to active duty by the Surgeon General, including active duty for the purpose of training.

‘(5) WARRANT OFFICERS- Warrant officers may be appointed to the Service for the purpose of providing support to the health and delivery systems maintained by the Service and any warrant officer appointed to the Service shall be considered for purposes of this Act and title 37, United States Code, to be a commissioned officer within the Commissioned Corps of the Service.

‘(b) Assimilating Reserve Corp Officers Into the Regular Corps- Effective on the date of enactment of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, all individuals classified as officers in the Reserve Corps under this section (as such section existed on the day before the date of enactment of such Act) and serving on active duty shall be deemed to be commissioned officers of the Regular Corps.

‘(c) Purpose and Use of Ready Research-

‘(1) PURPOSE- The purpose of the Ready Reserve Corps is to fulfill the need to have additional Commissioned Corps personnel available on short notice (similar to the uniformed service’s reserve program) to assist regular Commissioned Corps personnel to meet both routine public health and emergency response missions.

‘(2) USES- The Ready Reserve Corps shall--

‘(A) participate in routine training to meet the general and specific needs of the Commissioned Corps;

‘(B) be available and ready for involuntary calls to active duty during national emergencies and public health crises, similar to the uniformed service reserve personnel;

‘(C) be available for backfilling critical positions left vacant during deployment of active duty Commissioned Corps members, as well as for deployment to respond to public health emergencies, both foreign and domestic; and

‘(D) be available for service assignment in isolated, hardship, and medically underserved communities (as defined in section 799B) to improve access to health services.

‘(d) Funding- For the purpose of carrying out the duties and responsibilities of the Commissioned Corps under this section, there are authorized to be appropriated $5,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2010 through 2014 for recruitment and training and $12,500,000 for each of fiscal years 2010 through 2014 for the Ready Reserve Corps.’.