The section on Letters in the politics web page is probably a too long so here is a link to a page describing letters to our representatives. This page presents some of the letters I have written. It is an explicit request to the readers to write their own letters on these topics and more of their chosing.
If you have sent some letters than merit additional attention, please send them here for posting. And when my bulletin board is working well, there will be a section there so you can present your letters a bit more personally and with less delay.
A reasonable interpretation is that he does not want to seat Representative elect Adelita Grijalva. She could be the one to force a vote he does not like. Another is that he does not want to negotiate terms to end the government shutdown. He is pawning that off on the Senate and blaming Democrats.
But, the constitution provides a method to require the House to open for business. Here is a section from the Constitution, Article I – The Legislative Branch, Section 5, first paragraph.
Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members, and a Majority of each shall constitute a Quorum to do Business; but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the Attendance of absent Members, in such Manner, and under such Penalties as each House may provide.
The bold and underlined emphasis is mine.
Consider the bolded section: “…but a smaller number…” Read it carefully. It can be interpreted and saying a smaller number may be authorized to compel the attendance of absent members, may compel the House to come to order.
Further down I note that the Constitution may have used the word adjourn in a different manner.
To this end, here is the contents of a postcard written to my representative of the 52nd California district.
Representative Vargas,
Constitution, Article I, Section 5, “… but a smaller number...
and may be authorized to compel the Attendance of absent
Members, in such Manner, and under such Penalties as each
House may provide.”
Sir: Force the issue. Check the written House rules. Publicly
petition Speaker Johnson and “compel the Attendance” of
all the members of the House.
Extremely Sincerely,
It is overly brief, but fits on a postcard. He and his staff know much more about House rules than the general public. Presumably this will initiate some thoughts as to specific action to take.
The postcard,formatted in Microsoft Word, for your use in any manner, is on this site here: Force House into Session
Hopefully this is a downloadable link: download Force House into Session
Back to the Constitution, same place, fourth paragraph:
Neither House, during the Session of Congress, shall, without the Consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other Place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting.
Does Speaker Johnson have explicit permission from the Senate to adjourn? Per the Constitution he cannot adjourn the House without explicit permission. But he has, and Democrats say nothing about that.
That quoted section implies the word adjourn is not limited to closing for business, but moving to a different location for business. This possible second and obscure meeting can be applied to the first phrase quoted above.
Please, write to your representative and encourage them to take immediate action.
Here is a question that merits consideration for letters to the Supreme Court.
Please reference this article describing a case before the Supreme Court:
In essence, can the state Oklahoma provide government funds to a Catholic charter school?
First, from the Constitution, the first amendment, the very first phrase:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; …
There are no exceptions. None what-so-ever.
In the article Justice Kavanuagh is quoted as saying: "They're not asking for special treatment. They're not asking for favoritism. They're just saying don't treat us worse because we're religious,"
That is a strong and somewhat valid statement. But there is more to this, very much more.
First, go back to the first amendment. If the government supports Catholic schools, they will be supporting schools that teach religion. That is a direct contradiction with the Constitution. Go back to those words: Congress shall make no law... Its not favoritism, it’s the Constitution. If Oklahoma supports Catholic charter schools, then they are supporting schools that are backed by religion. A direct conflict with the Constitution.
The second argument is more fundamental. And possibly more controversial. I, average citizen in every single state of these United States, pay taxes to the state to support public schools. Schools that every citizen can attend. For the state to turn my tax money, collected through force of law, over to a private charter school is just flat out wrong. Any private school. It matters not who attends the school, or who is supposedly allowed to attend the schools. It takes money, that I pay, away from the public schools and reduces the quality of those schools. I pay my taxes to support public schools, to construct the buildings, and pay the teachers and staff, and many other directly related costs. I do not want my taxes to support charter schools, and even worse, to support religious indoctrination. I have no doubts that a Christian Charter School will find a way to indoctrinate their students to some significant degree.
Any thoughts on this topic?
The Supreme Court ruling giving the president general immunity, almost, but not completely, was a rather bad decision. Moreover, and possibly more important, it is vague. Congress can turn the around rather simply. Pass a law such that when a government official claims immunity, a trial is held to determine the sole legal point of immunity. No fine or jail term, just the question: Does this official have a valid claim. An example letter is provided here:
We have all seen videos of White House briefings and times where the Communications Director does not answer a posed question. We know that in the current White House, there is a strong tendency to select known sycophants from the press corps and ignore others. Here is a new suggestion:
The members of White House Correspondents Association, yes it does exist, get to select some number of correspondents who cannot be denied presence in all briefing. Those members get to ask selected questions and have the authority to require, yes to demand, that the questions be answered. The White House official holding the briefing is required by law to answer the question.
This thought has been addressed in a bit more detail here: Press Corps Authority.pdf here. At the top of the letter is a list of some members of that association and the USPS address. I was unable to find email address so sent letters. If you think this might be a good idea, please read that letter and write to me.
End of page
Bryan Kelly, March 2025 email to webmaster at mbkelly dot net
Please put the word letter
in the subject line. I get so many newsletters and the such
that it is difficult pick out the sent to me the person as opposed to a member of the public.
I have a rule that sends everything with the word letter to a specific folder in my in-box.
Thank you.