Presidential Signing the Constitution Away

            Our forefathers came to this great land to escape tyrants and find freedom.   Standing together to declare freedom from oppression, making their voices heard and clear on the point that government was not an authority to be served but to serve.  Our founding fathers started with a weak central government under the Articles of Confederation, moving to a stronger federal government under the Constitution.  The founding fathers found freedom from a king who held all the power over the people.  This led the founding fathers to create a system of checks and balances by separating the powers of government across the different parts.  This separation of powers protects our freedoms as citizens of these United States.  If these powers were gathered together, it would open the door for tyranny by putting all of the tools of government in the reach of one man.  Over the past thirty years Presidents of both political parties, frustrated by legislation being sent to them, have acted in a way that violates the separation of powers and in doing so have gathered the separated powers together opening the doorway for tyranny to come to power.  Presidents are able to deal with legislation in a way, regardless of any overwhelming support, it could simply be silenced along with the will of every American citizen.  This tide must be stemmed through decisive action to ensure that the representative self-government fought for by our forefathers will not perish from this great land by our enslavement in tyranny that our country has consistently fought against across lands both domestic and foreign.

            The practice of the President issuing a statement in conjunction with the signing of legislation into law has become common over the past 30 years.  These statements are printed as part of the official printing of the bill and as both former Assistant Attorney General Dellinger and the American Bar Association note Signing Statements are normally praise for the legislation, thanks directed towards people instrumental in its passing or a description of its utility (Harvard Law Review 601).  This type of statement was first issued by President James Monroe (American Bar Association 7) but was not common until the presidency of Ronald Regan, who issued 276 signing statements on pieces of legislation (Roberts and Pfiffner 250). 

            Critics of Presidential Signing Statements note that they aren’t listed in the Constitution as part of the Presentment Clause (The Constitution of the United States, Article I, Section 7, Clauses 2 - 3).  The claim derives from signing statements not being part of how the Constitution dictates handling legislation passed, making them unconstitutional.  It is clear that a Signing Statements are extra-constitutional, or outside the express wording of the constitution, but that doesn’t necessarily make it unconstitutional.  Presidential rejection of legislation mandates delivery of a statement to the Congress but not when signing legislation into law.  Presidential activities are not constrained to only things listed in the constitution or else the argument could be made that any press conference, speech or statement would be unconstitutional due to it not being prescribed in the Constitution. 

            The concern or problem with Signing Statements is that recent Presidents are having them printed with legislation signed into law with the intention of it carrying legal weight (Harvard Law Review 602).  The President will write a Signing Statement questioning the constitutionality of sections of the legislation and providing interpretation it in a way that is different from the plain writing of the law (Frank qtd in Gates, pg 14).  President Regan was the first to do this (Harvard Law Review 599), followed by Clinton (Johnsen, 7) and Bush (Gate).  Then candidate Obama clearly stated his belief of the unconstitutionality of this practice and vowed he wouldn’t use them in the same (Obama qtd by CNSnews). 

                        Not long after taking office President Obama began issuing Signing Statements to modify legislation to his liking.  In the statements issued, President Obama interpreted legislation as being contrary to his authority as president (Wooley, UCSB.edu Presidency Project).  This caused furor due to his previous statements on this issue (Underwood, George Mason History News).  The continued usage of signing statements is problematic as it continues to gather the powers of the legislature and judiciary into the office of the President. 

            The first power being gathered is that of the legislator, to see how this happens an examination of the line-item veto used under the Clinton Presidency that allowed then President Clinton to accept legislation in part and not as a whole, much like the more modern usage of Signing Statements, will show how that happens.  President Clinton signed the Line-Item Veto into law on allowing him the ability to strike sections of legislation sent to him, or accepting it in part.  This was later found to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court decision in New York vs. Clinton.  The majority opinion struck on two major points.  The first was that the line-item veto gave the president the power to reshape laws by taking things only in parts to his liking and not considering the complete legislation as passed contrary to the plain reading of the Presentment Clause.  The President’s ability to reshape the meaning of the law through the line-item veto by only accepting it in part give the president the ability to change the legislation passed before it becomes law without the congress voting on the final form.  This is a de facto legislative power taken into the presidency violating the separation of powers dictated in the constitution by our founding fathers.  When the President issues a Signing Statement that openly states he is not going to follow the law as written or implement only the part of it he likes it causes the same result as the line-item veto, taking the legislative powers into his office.

            The second power being gathered is the one that decides that validity of a law in the light of the constitution, the judiciary.  The president will look at a piece of legislation, determine that part of it is very desirable for his agenda but dislike another part, feeling that it may be unconstitutional or infringe on his rights as President.  At this point the president may choose to veto or sign the bill as is called for in the Constitution.  As we have already seen, the problem recently is the President issuing a Signing Statement expressing his legal interpretation through commentary that he feels should carry comparable weight in the courts to what passed the legislature or rejecting parts of the legislation signed into law.  Under this point the president is using the excuse of making a judicial decision of constitutionality in determining lack of enforcement of a law.  This is a second separated power that is now being gathered into the office of the executive.

            Now we have come to a point of concentration of the powers of the central government under the Signing Statement model.  The president crafting legislation into what he wants it to be without oversight from the legislators and making decisions about the constitutionality of the law without judicial review.  The reason for the separation of powers was to provide checks and balances from any one branch of government becoming too powerful.  The prevention of tyranny through co-equal branches of governance, ensuring representation and preventing oppression of the citizens is now being violated through presidential Signing Statements.  Now is the time for solutions so that the tyranny does not grow into something menacing from the current benevolent usage.

            The first possible solution would be to allow the line-item veto eliminating the need for the President to use Signing Statements to reject part of a piece of legislation.  This would require an amendment to the Constitution or a change in the way that the line-item veto functions by re-passage of the legislation without the rejected sections.  The problem with either of these two items is that a president could easily clog the Congress with veto after veto to be dealt with on specific line items causing other legislation not to be dealt with.

            Another possible solution might be to impeach the president for breach of the constitutional duty to enforce laws (The Constitution of the United States, Article II, Section 3, Clause 4) that are passed with the Signing Statement being a clear expression of the dereliction of duty.  The problem with this approach is it would create the situation of a partisan argument over the policy that is not being enforced and not about the lack of enforcement.  Even if the President was deposed of his office it would still not solve the problem created by the way that Signing Statements are currently used and could easily be viewed as a partisan attack on the President.  This is disconcerting Presidents from both parties have utilized this tactic when encountering law they do not care for.  We must find a solution that moves the nation forward and limits the possibility of falling into partisan turmoil; this isn’t about particular laws or policies but about the health of our government’s soul we find in its founding principles. 

            A better solution is fivefold, designed to address the current problem but also its causes.  First, formally define a Signing Statement in the Constitution making it an optional item that carries no weight in law or interpretation of law by its existence alone.  Second, to prevent a President from feeling compelled to sign a piece of law because it gives something that desirable but has something less desirable inserted into it.  The houses of congress should limit the span that legislation to cover to a single topical area making all votes are up or down on one thing and less popular proposals can’t be added to popular proposals.  Third, defining the willful refusal to uphold constitutional directives explicitly assigned to the elected office held as being grounds for impeachment.  This would make the terms that a President could be impeached for in this realm much more explicit.  Fourthly, give the President the ability to immediately send a bill into the courts for review asking for a stay of enforcement on parts of the bill allowing for full constitutional review.  Lastly, a veto of legislation must be broken into two parts to explain the problem the President has with the bill but also offer specific proposals for modification of the bill to make it acceptable to him, providing a starting place for possible reform.

            This described five-part solution would give a President the ability to not enforce any part that was deemed unconstitutional and a way to instigate that review.  Any part that is constitutional and passed by the representatives of the citizens would need to be enforced and deliberate betrayal of that trust would be an impeachable offense.  Any veto would also have to list specific reasons for the objection such as questioning the constitutionality of a section or believing the policy to not be in the best interest of the country, this would set the stage for any overridden veto to have to be handled in a certain way by the President to avoid risking impeachment by either enforcing the law or sending it for Judicial review.

            While the presidents, both Republican and Democrat, have used Signing Statements with good intentions it was also the design of our well-intentioned founding fathers to separate the powers of government to keep them from being abused.  In working to solve the problem we must address the concerns that a President may have about parts of a law that they find unsuitable through veto and constitutional review.  That is balanced with the needs of the citizens to be represented and have our will carried out.  This isn’t about which party is right or wrong but about the shape of the nation’s soul in how it will conduct itself as the outpost of freedom it was founded to become.

 

Works Cited

CNS News. “ Do You Promise Not To Use Signing Statements? Candidate Obama in ’08: ‘Yes’”. YouTube Channel.  April 19, 2011. Web. 20 April 2011.

Gate, Harrison. “The Historical Roots of Presidential Signing Statements.” Washington and Lee University. ThePresidency.org. Web. 29 April 2011

Harvard Law Review. “Context-Sensitive Deference to Presidential Signing Statements.” Vol. 120, No. 2 (Dec., 2006). pp. 597-618. Jstor. Web. 15 April 2011.

Johnsen, Dawn E. “Presidential Non-Enforcement of Constitutionally Objectionable Statutes.” Law and Contemporary Problems: The Constitution under Clinton: A Critical Assessment. Duke University. Vol. 64 No ½. (2000). pp. 7-60. Jstor. Web. 15 April 2011.

Roberts, Nancy and James Piffner. “Presidential Signing Statements and Their Implications for Public Administration.“ Public Administration Review. 69.2 (2009). 249-255. ABI/INFORM. Web. 20 April 2011.

Supreme Court Of the United States. Clinton Vs. New York.  June 25, 1998. FindLaw Web.  24 April 2011.

Wooley, John and Gerhard Peters. “Presidential Signing Statements: Hoover-Obama.” The American Presidency Project. 2011. University of California Santa Barbara. Web. 19 April 2011.

US. House of Representatives. Government Printing Office. “The Constitution of the United States”. Government Printing Office. 25 July 2007. 17 Apr. 0211

Underwood, Nick. “Signing Statements: Is Obama Following in Bush’s Steps?” History News Network. George Mason University. 2009. Web. 19 April 2011

 

 

 

 

 

The Force of Misery

The ability to choose gives human beings the ability to take part in
shaping human destiny. The impact of human choices is found in chance
encounters and dramatic decisions between good and evil. The choice of
how to respond to the force of suffering and misery has a profound impact
on human destiny. Jean ValJean of the novel Les Miserables and Anakin
Skywalker of the dual Star Wars trilogies are two tragic characters that
exemplify the power of choice. Similarities are present throughout their
stories, but they each have a distinct path from fall to redemption. They
are two unique men, influenced along different paths by the force of
misery as they encounter rules and opportunities for power.




Jean Valjen and Anakin Skywalker both experience enslavement, fall from
favor, salvation and redemption. Jean ValJean is imprisoned for stealing
bread, is released, receives hospitality from a bishop, falls into
disfavor by stealing from him, is immediately redeemed by a debt enjoined
on him by the bishop and spends the rest of his life working out his
salvation. Anakin Skywalker is held in slavery, his freedom is purchased
by a Jedi, he falls into disfavor by choosing to serve a dark master to
gain powers, is redeemed by the sacrifice of his son years later and dies
working out his salvation by destroying his dark master.




The rules of a society and the enforcement of these rules set the
groundwork for how people interact with each other and have the potential
for causing much suffering. Jean ValJean is sent to jail for breaking a
window pane while stealing a piece of bread (Hugo 18). So that he can fill
his need for something to eat. The rules of society continue to punish
him as he rebels against them through multiple escape attempts (Hugo 19).
At the center of the confrontations between Javert and Jean Valjean is the
conflict between the societal rules that require Jean ValJean to return to
prison and his sense of justice that demands reparation. Jean ValJean
responds to the rules with the demand that what he feels are the demands
of justice he must fulfill to be carried out but also accepts the
punishments set forth by the rules of society. Jean ValJean’s acceptance
of punishment grows and is demonstrated by his first escaping from capture
(Hugo 104), to giving Javert his address (Hugo 490) and then having Javert
accompany him to his residence to take him to jail (Hugo 522). Even his
attempts to escape from custody are driven by his obligation to take care
of Cosette (Hugo 579). With ultimate consideration of justice for others
Jean ValJean moves from disregard for rules toward following them more
closely.

 In convergence with Jean ValJean’s reactions one finds the
reactions of Anakin Skywalker to the rules of society that he comes into
conflict with along his path. In The Phantom Menace, Anakin starts as a
young obedient boy who bends the rules. In one of the climactic scenes in
the fight for the planet Naboo, Anakin is told to stay in a fighter
spacecraft inside a hangar with the obvious intention of him not leaving
the hangar. The fighter spacecraft takes to the air on auto-pilot into
the midst of a battle but upon gaining control of the fighter spacecraft
Anakin Skywalker refuses to return to the planet because he is following
his orders by staying in the cockpit (The Phantom Menace). Anakin moves
from bending the rules to flagrant disregard of rules as he gets older.
Anakin is now sent to guard Padme Amidala leading to his eventual secret
marriage, which is directly against the rules of the Jedi Order (Attack of
the Clones). Anakin deepens his transgressions against rules from
breaking to outright manipulation of people by abusing how rules are
applied. In the battle scene between Mace Windu and the Emperor
Palpatine, Palpatine claims to be losing power, becoming too weak to
survive. At this point, Mace Windu decides to break the rules and kill
Palpatine. Anakin pleads that Palpatine “must stand trial,” “it’s not the
Jedi way,” and “I need him” (The Revenge of the Sith). These three
instances show how Anakin Skywalker moves from being a slave under total
control of the law, to bending of rules, on to breaking them and then
finally manipulation of how the rules are applied to serve his selfish
ends. He has a need and desire to keep Palpatine alive for personal gain
and not out of a sense of justice being fulfilled.




These two characters interact with power given to them in very different
ways. Anakin starts as a young boy setting out to help others and prove
himself as a pod-racer on the planet of Tatooine. He finds out he
possesses a special ability to manipulate the force to such a high degree
that it may be more powerful than anyone has ever possessed. His natural
inclinations with this power are enough to save him but not his mother
from slavery (The Phantom Menace). In Attack of the Clones we again see
Anakin wield his power in an attempt to save Obi-Wan and his mother. He
is unable to do so by himself and almost loses his love, Padme, as well.
Facing Count Dooku for the first time, Anakin rushes fiercely into battle
to defeat Dooku and he fails to defeat the Count. Anakin faces Count
Dooku a second time in The Revenge of the Sith and in this duel he openly
states that his “powers have doubled since the last time we met, Count.”
Dooku shows the audience the peril Anakin is in when he retorts, “twice
the pride, double the fall.” Dooku is defeated by Anakin and executed him
without due process when he is defenseless. Now, Anakin is placed on the
Jedi Council by the Emperor and Anakin desires the title of Master that
goes with the position but is denied it. He is denied the prestige,
privilege and power to command what he feels is due him. In the final
scenes with Padme on Mustafar, Anakin talks about his power, gaining it
for Padme, making “his new Empire” the way that he wants. He is furious
when Padme refuses him, similar to the way that he feels the Jedi turned
away from him. He no longer serves any purpose other that his own designs
for greatness and power. Upon being confronted by Obi-wan Kenobi he
states “I am becoming more powerful than any Jedi” (The Revenge of the
Sith). Ironically, it is Anakin’s son refusing to take power and refusal
to strike down Anakin, in the person of Vader, that brings Anakin’s
salvation (The Return of the Jedi). Up until that moment Anakin continues
to show his want for more power as an end in itself.




Opposing the desire for power is the idea of being a servant that we see
in Jean ValJean. He starts to repay his debt by running a factory so that
any of the poor could find work and just wages as an act of service.
ValJean’s rejects of the position of mayor that is given to him by the
king, showing his public rejection of the position and power (Hugo 42).
Then, after no longer being able to avoid the title of Mayor and charge
over the police, he is content to be a simple gardener without even his
own name, serving the sisters of the convent that instruct Cossette (Hugo
214). ValJean continues to serve the poor and less fortunate, even to the
point of it being a flaw, as he promises to pay rent (Hugo 289) for people
who turn out to be his adversaries, the Thenardiers, and they attempt to
rob him (Hugo 318). The greatest level of service comes at the barricade,
through protection of lives by risking his own life to bring people to
safety. He accomplishes this without attack of another or defense of
himself, his only objective was to just render aid to others (Hugo 495).
Finally, as he loses strength and is at the point of death he leaves to
Cosette the information about money that is hers (Hugo 565) and he
continues his service to poor, leaving alms to be distributed to the poor
in his final breaths (Hugo 583).




Both of these men experience the force of misery and take different paths
to salvation and redemption. Both men die in the end, after being saved
and redeemed. The human choice of Jean ValJean and Anakin Skywalker in
responding to the misery they experience and how they choose to use the
power they are given are two of the integral things that make these
characters stand in contrast to each other. The fact that they fall, are
redeemed and saved makes them the same.

Works Cited

Hugo, Victor. Les Miserables. New York: Dodd, Mead and Company: 1862. Google e-book.
Star Wars: Episode I – The Phantom Menace. 1999. Dir. George Lucas. Perf. Jake Lloyd .
Lucasfilm, 2001. DVD
Star Wars: Episode II – Attack of the Clones. 2002. Dir. George Lucas. Perf. Hayden
Christensen. Lucasfilm, 2002. DVD
Star Wars: Episode III – Revenge of the Sith. 2005. Dir. George Lucas. Perf. Hayden
Christensen. Lucasfilm, 2005. DVD.
Star Wars: Episode VI – Return of the Jedi 2004. Dir. George Lucas. Perf. David Prowse,
James Earl Jones, Sebastian Shaw. Lucasfilm, 2005. DVD








Matthew S.

Prepared for the Worst Case Scenario

I have always taken the Boy Scout motto of being prepared very seriously. Even before I was a Scout, the idea of being prepared for things that might happen was very important to me. I remember being a child carrying a shoebox filled with baseball cards and a Bug Zoo with my pet grasshopper during every Tornado Warning just in case the worst case scenario became a reality.
I might suffer from WCSS, Worst Case Scenario Syndrome, causing the worst possible outcome for any situation to spring into my mind. No longer was I a normal person that read over and signed off on a two page birth plan. Why did I feel the need to have a sixteen page birth plan for the birth of my third child that was complete with maps, annotations, assignments of various duties to people, checklists, contingencies for severe weather and alternate routes just in case trains blocked the railroad crossings when they derailed?
Worst Case Scenario Syndrome isn't a true mental illness but a tongue in cheek way of making fun of my over-preparedness and reflex to think of the worst thing that could ever possibly happen. Ironically, I don't always end up prepared for any eventuality, and that is part of what drives my problem. Yes, I remember what drove me to a sixteen page long birth plan, I still remember that fateful, funny and memorable day.
It was the type of warm spring day that makes the blood in my veins flow with the beat of new life. All around me green leaves were bursting up through barren black dirt and out of naked tree branches. As I was finishing my work for the day a storm was springing up out of the thin air. The air was thin only in appearance, but in reality was filled with moisture and the excitement that pressed heavily upon my body and invaded my mind with anticipation for the building storm.
Being a volunteer for the local emergency management I started driving towards the storm so I could observe it for severe and tornadic conditions. The excitement built in me with every strike of lightning, electrifying my soul with anticipation of what I was going to see this time out. Maybe this would be the time I would get on the back side of a wall cloud and see a tornado being born.
The musical 8-bit tone of my phone ringing interrupted my excitement.
"What are you doing?" asked my wife.
"I'm getting ready to drive into a storm," I said.
"I need you to come home."
"But," I tried to rebuff and keep my chance at seeing a tornado today alive.
"I'm in labor."
I rushed home quicker than any storm could rise up across the wide open prairie. My second child would soon be born and I needed to be home for that event. Part of the rush was due to the fact that one of my fears starting to come true. What if we were stuck at home and couldn't get to the hospital because of the bad weather?
My wife had always dismissed my fears as being too extreme and not realistic, but now I was driving in a severe thunderstorm to my wife who was in labor. Fortunately, my fears were alleviated as I arrived home to find my wife still in very early labor. I wouldn’t have to drive through a hailstorm to get my wife to a hospital before our baby was born.
My wife and I discussed how labor was progressing, I watched the weather from my base station at the house, my parents came and picked up our oldest daughter before her bedtime rolled around and then I took a nap. My wife's labor just kept rolling along, slow and steady, with no real progress. Everything was prepared for; my wife and I were both resting, ready for a long drawn out labor.
The waiting and worry that this would be a long labor led me to jump when my wife woke me up a few hours later saying that labor was getting harder and she needed my help. We called our doula to come to the house to help us and began using the things we had learned in our childbirth class to help my wife labor through the contractions.
My wife and I had hired a doula, a hired labor coach, to help my wife labor through the contractions without medication. My get tough, you-can-do-this approach did not translate well to my wife as a motivational speech. The doula was another way for us to better prepare for this birth.
I talked to the doula when she arrived and she thought my wife and I were doing fine and said that it was up to us when we wanted to go the hospital. We didn't really know when the right time to go the hospital was because we didn't want to go too soon and have labor stop and we didn't want to go too late and give birth in the car or at home, eventualities we had not prepared for.
Even though my wife's water had not broken we decided it was time to go to the hospital as the contractions were intensifying. The doula worked with my wife while I loaded all of the things we had planned to take to the hospital. This was a chore as we had planned to bring a large variety of things in preparation for anything that might happen. We needed a crock-pot to keep some compresses warm, CD player, CD's, clothes, toiletry bag and of course a copy of our four page long birth plan.
As I was coming back into the house I called my brother, who was living at home in my parent's basement, telling him to go upstairs and let my mom and dad know that we were going to the hospital soon. I told my wife it was time to get up so we could go to the hospital and she informed me that she couldn't move. I tried to help her up and she let everyone in the county know that she needed to push. In an attempt to stay calm I recalled the fact that with our first child it took my wife forty-five minutes to push the baby out. Doing some quick math I realized we had nothing to worry about, fifteen minutes to the hospital, fifteen minutes to get upstairs, no problems, time to spare.
"I can't move," slipped past my wife's breathless lips.
"You need to decide right now if we are going to have this baby here or in the hospital," ordered the doula.
"I need to puuuuuuush," she loudly replied.
"We need to check and see if we can see the baby," said our doula.
We moved down to see if the baby was coming out and the bulging motion was a clear indicator that time was short. The doula ordered me to call 9-1-1 for an ambulance and I went in to auto-pilot. I picked up the cordless phone to call for an ambulance, talking to the dispatcher over my wife's guttural womanly screams as nature swept over and took control of her body. As I picked up my cell phone I realized my parents would be going to the hospital and not find us. Obviously, this would cause some type of evil and negative consequence that I just didn't have time to think up and so I called my half asleep brother back. All I had time to tell him between putting towels in the dryer to keep the baby warm and answering a few questions for the 9-1-1 dispatcher was that we weren't making it to the hospital.
I hung up with 9-1-1 after I told them that I had my hands full. At this point I saw what looked like a balloon appear out of thin air and knew that the storm of labor was getting more intense all around me. Upon seeing the baby's head come out, I remembered that my wife's water had not broken yet. This presented a whole new problem I had never planned for, I needed something to break the bag of waters with and I needed it to be in my hand. My first thought was of the long steel camping knife right behind me in the closet, not what I wanted my wife to see me holding right then.
At this point the house phone rang causing the doula to beg me not to answer it. I picked it up knowing that no one calls my house at three-something in the morning unless it is really, and I mean really important. Not that anything important was happening, right? I answered the phone to my mom wanting to know what was happening. She asked if I had called for an ambulance and I told her that I had called for one, was staring at a baby's head and needed to go. I hung up the phone and I am certain I set it down but I had other things I needed to spend my precious half-seconds paying attention too.
I urgently ran down the hallway to the laundry room to find something, really just about anything, to break the bag of waters. Thankfully, as I stepped around the corner into the laundry room I came across my one and a half foot long silver screwdriver. Grabbing it, I jogged back to the bedroom and my wife's side. The doula informed me that she had ruptured the bag of waters and I responded by grabbing my wife's hand as I hid the screwdriver on the end table hoping my wife didn't see it. As my daughter slid out into this chaotic world everything turned into a blur of memories.
I remember wrapping towels around the baby, rubbing her back to stimulate breathing, hearing her sweet and joyful cry reach into the night while realizing the ambulance hadn't made it to our house. I ran outside to see the ambulance crew down the road from our house circling in the intersection.
The world returned to normal as I talked to the paramedics and told them how my wife and new daughter were okay. Everything was fine, I hadn't been prepared but I had made it through. Everything had turned out wonderful and I held my beautiful baby as the ambulance crew loaded my wife onto the cot for the trip to the hospital.
It's amazing how calm the world is at almost four in the morning. The sun isn't up and hardly anyone is out driving on the road. Almost no activity, nothing bad could happen in this stillness. As I was thinking these thoughts I realized that I needed to call my boss and let him know that I wouldn't be in to work. I would hate to get fired for forgetting that! That may seem far fetched to you and I do admit, that it is probably the worst case scenario.

Matthew S.