United States Congress – District 3

Congress party asked for the Rs. 1000 crores back already that was sanctioned after the Kosi floods last year. Is it a ploy to pressure Nitish Kumar to support Congress?

Congress will not bring the 75 lakh crores that is lying in swiss bank accounts but it wants 1000 crore back from poor Bihari people which was given for flood relief that displaced millions of people.

If its true then its a BIG shame,dont count my vote for them then

I got a OTH discharge with a RE-4 code. Have been fighting my discharge for the last few years but never really sought congress in this matter.

Hello Daniel,

I doubt it.

However, you have one congressman/congresswoman who represents your district where you are a legal resident.

These people have field offices in a number of towns in their district. Thus, they have staff working for them.

You certainly, as a constituent, have the right to go visit that office and inquire with the staff if your congressman/congresswoman has the ability to do something about it.

You did NOT mention what the reason for your "Other Than Honorable" discharge was. Most likely, it is for being caught using drugs. That is a typical reason more frequent than others. If that reason doesn’t apply to you then apologies are offered. It is difficult to answer questions that are vague and without the facts.

The Facts are what you will need to inform your Congressman about. But, most of the time, unless there was a huge error and failure of justice, you will not be able to get your discharge upgraded.

I would hope that you first tried the Discharge Review Board. File Department of Defense Form DD Form 293, "Application for the Review of Discharge or Dismissal from the Armed Forces of the United States." If your discharge is over 15 years old you must apply for a Correction of Military Records.

However, most requests to upgrade a discharge are not approved. You have to really have a "case" to show that it is warranted.

Best wishes,

Larry Smith
SMSgt, USAF (Ret.)
First Sergeant

How did the Congress and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) attempt to license the production and sale of pseudophedrine back fire and make the production of Meth explode instead of decline ?

It didn’t backfire. It just made it so the Pseudophedrine had to come from other sources. Like the factories that make it in other countries.

A. When Republicans control the White House.
B. When Democrats control the White House.
C. When Congress and the presidency are controlled by different political parties.
D. When Congress and the presidency are controlled by the same political party.
E. There is no correlation between success in overriding presidential vetoes and the factors mentioned above.

C

how are the deficits different?and who controls the senate and congress with obama,and what are they planning on doing?about deficits?

deficits are MUCH higher now. they all overspend but dems do it more

I am doing a research paper, and I’d like to know what acts of congress limit/infringe upon individual rights. This is purely an opinionated question, there has to be no facts or information behind it.

So far there are three other answers. One about the Prohibition of Marijuana, one against the Republican party (more or less), and the final one about the Patriot Act. I need to address all three.

First, Prohibition of Marijuana. The general argument that people (those that use it) use to say it should be legal is that it’s not a bad thing, or that there are worse things like Alcohol. But the fact remains that it is a narcotic, it has an impact on a persons senses and ability to function and operate equipment safely. It is also something that is smoked, and smoke in the air is particles of the product that are very small and heated. That means they travel into other peoples lungs, and NOBODY has a right to impose that on other people around them. That is why there are more anti-smoking laws. If you can’t keep 100% in your own lungs, then you are impacting people around you. It’s not brain surgery, so figure it out.

As for republicans. Where do I begin on this one. It’s all of the political parties. They should not even exist. Why should a view on Abortion and gun controll be bundled together? They have nothing to do with each other. the whole party mentality is if you are republican, you would have a consistant view on both of those items as other republicans. I’m agauinst abortion, and also against gun control (pro-gun).

It does not matter what party is in office, they all serve themselves. If I were in the house of representatives, I would vote on thse issues the way my constituents wanted me to vote. If a majority said they were pro-abortion, then my personal opinion does not trump theirs. I would vote pro-abortion. If a majority said they wanted gun control, then I would vote that way also. I would often be crossing party lines, but that’s too bad. Representatives are suppose to represent the people, not the parties.

Finally, the Patriot Act.

The patriot act is definately a problem, it gave far too much power to others, but it does not do as much as many people think. Higher laws trump lower laws. The highest law in the land is the U.S. Constitution.

PRE-PATRIOT ACT
Authorities show up at your home to search. they begin searching and you do not say anything. By doing that you have effectivly givern them permission, and so what they find, stands up in court. if you say stop or cease and desist, then they must obtain a warrant.

POST-PATRIOT ACT
Authorities show up at your home to search. they begin searching and you do not say anything. By doing that you have effectivly givern them permission, and so what they find, stands up in court. if you say stop or cease and desist, then they must obtain a warrant.

Those two examples are the same. Here is where it is different.

PRE-PATRIOT ACT
Authorities show up at your home to search. You are not at home and they do not have a warrant so they begin searching and so what they find, is thrown out of court because they did not obtain a warrant. Your denying them authority to search is assumed. Permission denied is the default.

POST-PATRIOT ACT
Authorities show up at your home to search. You are not at home and they do not have a warrant so they begin searching and what they find, stands up in court even though they did not obtain a warrant. You did not specifically deny them authority to search and so permission is assumed. Permission GRANTED is the default.

In all situations however you still have the autority to require them to obtain a warrant.

The Patriot act is full of situations like this, and you have to be able to read between the lines very carefully. The biggest problem is that many of those authorities assume they can trump your rights, when they really can’t and in every case I am aware of, it was the authorities that lost in court.

But, the Patriot act did go to far. President Bush and the creators of the patriot act may have had the wish to protect this nation, and the intent to not abuse power, but it does not change the fact that power can be abused by those that follow them later on. It is not the infrastructure of this nation that is most important, it is the ideas behind our ways of life.

There was no check and ballance in the patriot act to prevent abuse. Abuse ALWAYS happens. If you can think of just one thing, throughout all of history, either created or discovered by mankind, that was not uses in a way to take advantage of others, or abused in some form, then I would like to know what it is.

Where the Patriot Act is concerned, it accomplishes things by twisting the time and place of how people can apply their rights. It is a contruement of rights and of law, and so is a violation of the 9th Amendment.

This is 1 of the proposals that is before Congress. Also some states are trying to ticket a gas tax on speeders to offset their expenses for police officers. Do you agree with any of this? Why or Why not?

My mom said that in the 70’s Congess lowered the speed limit to 55 mph becfause of a gas crunch and worked out pretty well. Even saved lives due to fewer accidents.

If Congress passes a law that conflicts with the Constitution, which one are we required to follow: the new law or the U.S. Constitution?

The point of having the Judicial branch is so that they can determine if something is constitutional or not. If Congress did pass something that went against the Constitution, and the President did not veto it, the Supreme Court could rule it unconstitutional.

If a homeowner sells at a loss because the market has dropped, but his ARM has kicked in and his payments have gotten too high for him to pay, the "write-off" of part of his loan is counted by the IRS as income. This phantom income is taxable. I thought I heard that Congress passed a bill which stops this taxation. True?

Yes, in fact, VERY recently.

The House Ways and Means Committee just voted to remove a tax on forgiven debt as a result of selling a home at a loss. Apparently there are a lot of people who are being forclosed on or forced to sell their homes in "short sales" to avoid forclosure. If the sale is not enough to cover the loan, there is something left for the home owner to pay, and banks sometimes forgive this amount and cancels it.

Forgiven debts are normally treated as taxable income when the taxpayer is not in bankruptcy or insolvent. The House has now relaxed this rule so that home owners who are distressed won’t be caught in a painful position of paying taxes on income they never saw while suffering the loss of their home.

I didn’t see the effective date or if the decision will be backdated.

Everyone heard about the health care town halls and people standing and blasting congress people for supporting "reform." Lately, congressional liberals have characterized these people by accusing them of being in the back pocket of big business and being stirred up by those creating a "astro-turf" movement. I don’t understand… Isn’t this what liberals support? I thought they were all about protesting and grass-roots efforts. Isn’t this exactly what President Obama did as a community organizer? Why are these protesters being accused of these things without any evidence to back it up? I want to here the liberal explanation of this.

Liberals only support shouting, shrieking, and protesting when it’s in THEIR favor.