Select Page

The Supreme Court may yet rule Obamacare unconstitutional

By Dr. Harold Pease

Many may not be familiar with Article I, Section 7 of the U. S. Constitution that requires that “all bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives.” This means that any law, which extracts money from the American people, can only come from the House. The problem is The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, known as Obamacare, originated in the U.S. Senate not in the House as constitutionally required. The Pacific Legal Foundation, a Sacramento, California based foundation, is pursuing the matter before the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

So why does this matter, a tax is a tax? For thousands of years governments taxed their citizens with no limits. Rulers lived lavishly off the wealth extracted from their poor subjects with little or no mercy toward them—lavish physical structures and frivolous wars of conquest were too often the norm. The Founders wisely took this power from the rich and gave it to the poor themselves by requiring that the poor, then the majority, had to consent to any taxation over them. The power to tax is the only constitutional power exclusively given to the masses. The House of Representatives was the only branch of government designed to actually represent them as it is based upon population. The Senate was to represent the states, the people only indirectly.

As far as I know the United States is the first, possibly the only, country in world history that puts its tax base with the masses who pay the taxes. It is a priceless freedom. If we are over-taxed in the United States we have chosen to be and one body alone is responsible—The House of Representatives. No tax can constitutionally originate with the President or the Supreme Court, (even if Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. says that it is okay), not even the Senate, although it can modify as on other bills once originated by the House. The House is also in charge of spending. We must not let this freedom dwindle or allow the line between the two legislative branches to be blurred into oblivion.

In the Supreme Court’s decision of June 2012, it took great pains to establish that Obamacare is not a law passed under the Commerce Clause; this is a tax they ruled. Whether a fine, as the Administration argued throughout the case, or a tax as Roberts insisted, it is an extraction of money from the masses and therefore a tax and therefore must originate from the House, not the Senate. The philosophical switch created by Roberts made the constitutional error far more glaring. By letting origin slide the House looses its clear distinction on the origin of taxes and the people their right of first approval of taxation for generations yet unborn and probably forever.

What is worse it smacks of a sloppy cover-up by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. Now that the Supreme Court made healthcare constitutional by deeming it a tax, it mandated a House of Representative origin rather than the Senate. A House version HR 3200 was available but Reid did not like it favoring his own HR 3962, The Patient Protection and Affordable Health Choices Act. Prior to the Supreme Courts tax ruling the tax was called a fine, not a tax, so he reasoned that it did not make any difference which legislative body originated the fine. The ruling necessitated resurrecting a bill that had passed the House first but had not been acted upon in the Senate, the Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009 HR 3590, deleting its contents and pasting in the contents of the Senates bill HR 3962.

The Home Ownership Tax Act was a tax providing a first time home buyer’s credit to members of the Armed Services, never mind that it had nothing to do with healthcare and now, after being deleted leaving only the empty shell, had nothing to do with the Armed Services or home buying either. The only thing that Reid kept was the original date, September 17, 2009, which now deceptively confirmed that it preceded Senate action. Accomplices to Reid were the original authors of the deleted bill: Congressman Charlie Rangel of NY, and Senator Clare McCaskill of MO. This is the kind of morphing that reeks of illegitimacy and fraudulency (“Lawsuit to test Origination clause,” The Washington Times, April 8, 2013, p. 12. See Also www.Patriot

What is even worse. If Reid had indeed simply pasted in his own bill into the dead Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act, as believed, this tax bill HR 3962, the one that became Obamacare, has never actually been before the House of Representatives, the only body actually authorized to originate a tax. Obamacare may be the only revenue-raising bill in American history originated, processed, and implemented by the Senate alone. Nothing could be more unconstitutional!!

If left unchallenged Obamacare severely damages Article I, Section 7 of the Constitution. As an accomplice, the Senate is unlikely to sympathize but you should find a friend in your Congressperson and governor. Each should have a vested interest in this power shift. Contact them with your own summation of the problem or send them a copy of this article.

Dr. Harold Pease is an expert on the United States Constitution. He has dedicated his career to studying the writings of the Founding Fathers and applying that knowledge to current events. He has taught history and political science from this perspective for over 25 years at Taft College. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit

Does the UN influence your local government? It does if it supports Agenda 21!

By Dr. Harold Pease

Are your city or county government leaders ICLEI members, or is your city an ICLEI city? If so, you, or they, may not fully realize that the United Nations has a big influence over your local government decisions. You need to void this influence as quickly as possible.

I too was slow to see the influence of the United Nations on city, county, or state governments but the documentation supporting that influence is now overwhelming. I was conversant with their use of environmental prongs to standardize regulations and govern allocations of resources on the nations of the earth through the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil and through their United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), but we were okay because we had not signed the 1997 Kyoto Protocol Treaty. There were so many other fronts in trying to preserve our Constitution and Republic this seemed less unimportant.

While I battled the loss of freedom elsewhere, the United Nations formed in 1990 the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives, or ICLEI, to ideologically infiltrate local governments into “winning enactment of global-warming legislation at the state and local levels.” A tentacle of a giant UN octopus has reached into our local governments. Now becoming recognized for what it is, it appears almost everywhere. It claims over 1200 local government members in 70 different countries. Of that number 130 are members of our county and city governments in California alone. California’s ICLEI cities include Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco and Sacramento, which sheds light on how California could be so easily enticed into AB 32, formally known as the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. This legislation, sometimes referred to as “cap and trade,” is driving businesses from the state and flooding those who stay with regulatory nightmares.

ICLEI’s purpose, according to their web page, is to “Connect cities and local governments to the United Nations and other international bodies… Mobilize local governments to help their countries implement multilateral environmental agreements such as the Rio conventions…. Forge multi-stakeholder partnerships such as Resilient Cities, a global framework on urban resilience and climate adaptation where local governments, international agencies, development banks, ministries, institutes and others, collaborate.” The master plan is Chapter 28 of Agenda 21.

Agenda 21 “proposes a global regime that will monitor, oversee, and strictly regulate our planet’s oceans, lakes, streams, rivers, aquifers, sea beds, coast-lands, wetlands, forests, jungles, grasslands, farmland, deserts, tundra, and mountains. It even has a whole section on regulating and ‘protecting’ the atmosphere.”

But Agenda 21 is far more than just extreme environmental regulation—that is just the beginning. The New American magazine gave the best description of what it includes. “It proposes plans for cities, towns, suburbs, villages, and rural areas. It envisions a global scheme for healthcare, education, nutrition, agriculture, labor, production, and consumption—in short, everything; there is nothing on, in, over, or under the Earth that doesn’t fall within the purview of some part of Agenda 21” (“Your Hometown and the United Nations,” February 21, 2011, p. 14). In short, it will affect every person on earth and that affect is not likely to be positive for individuals or their local governments. Like a vacuum cleaner it siphons power from local and state jurisdiction to the United Nations.

The list of environmental groups, foundations, and government agencies supporting Agenda 21 is mind-boggling. Local opposition is underfunded and overwhelmed.

“Sustainable development” (not defined) is the wording used to describe their end result. This is the most appealing part of Agenda 21 for visionaries of a perfectly, totally managed, world governing environment. Unfortunately, it is way too open-ended allowing the ruling class (the planners, of course) to modify the rules as necessary. Gone would be the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, but Utopians do not think that far in advance. Fortunately, locally elected leaders generally do, but they need to rid themselves of this UN influence, like a cancer, to remain locally controlled and free. Once again, are your city or county leaders ICLEI members? Why not ask them?

Dr. Harold Pease is an expert on the United States Constitution. He has dedicated his career to studying the writings of the Founding Fathers and applying that knowledge to current events. He has taught history and political science from this perspective for over 25 years at Taft College. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit

“Stand with Rand,” the Patrick Henry of our Day.

By Dr. Harold Pease

The approval rating presently for Congress, according to the Washington Post, is 14 percent and few Americans believe them capable of providing the leadership that is so desperately needed in our time. Few, if any, command universal respect and there are no Patrick Henry’s, serious advocates of freedom even if they do not get reelected. The last time the parties worked together was during the Bill Clinton tenure and the last time a majority of Americans had any real hope for the future was during the Ronald Reagan Administration when he ended the “Cold War.”

That may have changed for many on March 6, 2013, when one man stood, initially mostly alone with but a few Tea Party friends, on the Senate floor arguing for 13 hours far into the evening, even against his own party, for what he believed to be right. Most of my students have no idea what a Senate Filibuster is, as it has never occurred in their lifetime, but it allows a Senator to speak on a topic for as long as he can stand and speak. He may entertain questions from colleagues but he must never yield the floor. He may not leave the Senate Chambers, even for a restroom break, or sit down.

Such passion for liberty has never, in my lifetime, brought both ends of the political spectrum together and reminded us of our shared core values. Civil libertarians and Tea Party supporters buzzed their approval on social media. The American Civil Liberties Union referred to the event as historic and courageous. As the night wore on more people watched C-SPAN at one time then reportedly ever before.

America had a new hero and the phrase “Stand With Rand” gained popularity in a single evening. Not from the establishment press which largely ignored the new “Patrick Henry” of our day, and the significance of this moment, but decidedly without it.

Rand Paul, son of presidential contender Ron Paul, intentionally held up the confirmation of John Brennan as the new CIA Director because he had been elusive on the subject of drone use to kill Americans on U.S. soil, merely thought to have terrorist connection. This had happened in Yemen to a 16-year-old American boy Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, and Paul wanted assurance that it would not happen here. Failing to get it from the nominee he next asked for it from the Obama Administration. Certainly they would agree that such would be unconstitutional and a violation of the 5th Amendment’s due process provision to do so. Brennan’s stalling on the question amplified the need for such a statement which was even more amplified when the President seemed to be stalling also. The filibuster should have ended within the first hour. The world waited for an answer. That clarification finally arrived from Eric Holder the next day, but why was it not easily forthcoming.

Fear of the U.S. government is stronger today than at any time since the American Revolution and it does not help hearing that the Department of Homeland Security is buying up enormous quantities of ammunition to use somewhere and on someone: presumably on Americans because DHS has no function outside the country. As kind as they have been to illegal immigrants, even letting 2,000 incarcerated inmates go in early March, because of impending cuts due to the hardship anticipated from the Sequester, it is unlikely that they plan the ammo for them. Nobody seems to know. Since the word “terrorism” is not adequately defined or limited, (the best the government has given us is “Al-Qaeda-like” organizations) both ends fear a revolving definition. Vice President Joe Biden has already called the Tea Party terrorists, and Occupy Wall Street folks have already had clashes with law enforcement. If the federal government is anticipating a clash with her own citizens, it would be a short step in logic to assume drone strikes could be used on U.S. citizens on U.S. soil as well.

The assurance sought for by Paul should have been supported by everyone giving an oath to support the Constitution as such a course, by the federal government, would effectively end the Fifth Amendment of the Bill of Rights. What makes Rand Paul especially credible is that everyone who knows him attests that he would have done the same thing, and made the same case, in a George W. Bush Administration.

What was just as revealing with respect to the Rand Paul filibuster was who was not there defending our right not to be shot down by a drone in our own country. Only 15 Senators participated with Paul leaving 84 others to explain to their constituent’s why they had not defended the Constitution as their oath demanded. They were: Senators Ted Cruz (Texas), Marco Rubio (Fla.), Mike Lee (Utah), Pat Toomey (Penn.), John Thune (S.D.), John Barrasso (Wy.), Tim Scott (S.C.), John Cornyn (Texas), Jerry Moran (Kan.), Ron Johnson (Wis.), Jeff Flake (Ariz.), Mitch McConnell (Ky.) Saxby Chambliss (Ga.) and Ron Wyden (Ore.). Sadly, the following morning both Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Senator John McCain of Arizona took to the same Senate floor and castigated Paul for his stand.

For me this was a moment of truth separating those who are real patriots from those who once were. Senator McCain was a co-author of the infamous National Defense Authorization Act signed into law by President Barack Obama New Years Eve 2011, which authorized the President, through his military, to kidnap any U.S. citizen thought to be associated with a terrorist organization and ship them to Guantanamo Bay for indefinite detention. Such action would strip Americans involved of their 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, and 8th Amendments to the Bill of Rights. Rand Paul voted against that law too.

No wonder he stood for 13 hours in defense of our liberty and the Constitution. If there is any hope in our saving our Republic it will come from those who stood for our core values this day. Will you “Stand With Rand” too?

Dr. Harold Pease is an expert on the United States Constitution. He has dedicated his career to studying the writings of the Founding Fathers and applying that knowledge to current events. He has taught history and political science from this perspective for over 25 years at Taft College. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit

Sheriffs vow to Defend 2nd Amendment from Federal Government

By Dr. Harold Pease

Finally, an organization is protecting the Constitution and it is not the House of Representatives, U. S. Senate, U.S. President, the U. S. Supreme Court, or the States, as should be the case. It is the least likely of all those who swear by oath, upon condition of taking office, to preserve it—the Sheriffs’ Departments in county after county and growing. Sheriff Tim Mueller of Linn County, Oregon was the first with his January 14th directive to all sheriffs in his county that they would not be enforcing any law that violated the 2nd Amendment. Two days latter the New Mexico Sheriffs Association, with 30 of their 33 county sheriffs, next stood with “we also will protect the Second Amendment from the federal governments recent assault on it.” Then, the next day, 28 of 29 counties in Utah under the signature of the Utah Sheriffs’ Association informed the President that they will protect the 2nd Amendment for their people even with their lives—even from the federal government. In California 13 county sheriffs have made similar pledges.

The straw that broke the camels back for the county sheriffs was President Barack Obama’s signing some 23 executive orders on January 16, further restricting the rights of gun owners. The Utah backlash followed the next day. Sheriffs are the only elected law enforcement body in the United States and they understand that Congress has sole authority to make law, that law must originate with and be approved by both the House and Senate, and that the only power that belongs to the President is suggestion, through his state of the union address, and his veto, which can be overridden. The Utah sheriffs reminded the President that, “It is imperative this discussion be had in Congress, not silenced unilaterally by executive orders” and advised that he remember, “that the Founders of this great nation created the Constitution, and its accompanying Bill of Rights, in an effort to protect citizens from all forms of tyrannical subjugation.”

Some 535 individuals make all the law on the federal level, not just a single person as was the case with kings and is the case with dictators today. All executive orders that have the effect of making law are unconstitutional; the President has no authority to make law. Doing so reduces the relevancy of the Congress and is a form of tyranny. Moreover, it is well to remember that a law cannot undo an amendment to the Constitution—only another amendment and that requires the support of 3/4ths of the states, so Congress is restricted also.

The Utah Sheriffs letter said in part, “With the number of mass shootings America has endured, it is easy to demonize firearms; it is also foolish and prejudiced. Firearms are nothing more than instruments, valuable and potentially dangerous, but instruments nonetheless. Malevolent souls, like the criminals who commit mass murders, will always exploit valuable instruments in the pursuit of evil. As professional peace officers, if we understand nothing else, we understand this: lawful violence must sometimes be employed to deter and stop criminal violence. Consequently, the citizenry must continue its ability to keep and bear arms, including arms that adequately protect them from all types of illegality.” This inference also includes the government.

The letter ended aimed directly at the President. “We respect the Office of the President of the United States of America. But, make no mistake, as the duly-elected sheriffs of our respective counties, we will enforce the rights guaranteed to our citizens by the Constitution. No federal official will be permitted to descend upon our constituents and take from them what the Bill of Rights—in particular Amendment II—has given them. We, like you, swore a solemn oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, and we are prepared to trade our lives for the preservation of its traditional interpretation.”

Finally, we have a body that understands the Constitution, honors its oath, and is prepared to defend it—even against the federal government. Look for other counties all over the United States to follow. Is your sheriff, who took the same oath, willing to defend you? Why not ask him? Send him a copy of this letter. In light of the National Defense Authorization Act signed into law by the President December 31, 2011, which authorizes the arrest of U. S. citizens on U.S. soil by the military and their shipment to Guantanamo Bay, where they can be held indefinitely without trial, you might wish to have the support of your county sheriff.

Dr. Harold Pease is an expert on the United States Constitution. He has dedicated his career to studying the writings of the Founding Fathers and applying that knowledge to current events. He has taught history and political science from this perspective for over 25 years at Taft College. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit

Fiscal Cliff Process Violated the Constitution. Does Anyone Care?

By Dr. Harold Pease

There are few parts of the Constitution more clear than, “All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other bills” (Article I, Section 7, Clause 1). In a vote taken well after midnight (the supposed deadline) December 31, the SENATE passed a bill raising taxes on those with incomes above $400,000 a year, a tax increase on this group from 35% of their annual income to 39.6%, and the removal of tax exemptions for those making $250,000 or more a year. The capitol gains tax on everyone was raised from 15% to 20% and there were many other adjustments on the tax code as well. This bill definitely did not originate in the House of Representatives as required by the Constitution. So, does anyone care?

The Senate then forwarded their “revenue raising” bill to the House the day after the deadline presenting them with a single choice, be blamed for taking the country over the so-called fiscal cliff or not. It was blackmail! With no way to modify any of its provisions and the bell having already rung ending the tournament, they agreed. It is true that the House had not presented to the Senate any revenue raising solution as it opposed such, largely because President Barack Obama had made it clear that he would not sign any law that did not raise revenue on the rich. Still, the House is the only body that had authority to do so and their intention not to support a tax increase, by not originating one, should have stood regardless of what the Senate and President thought or wanted. Allowing these other bodies to do so for them has weakened this part of the Constitution and House authority. Henceforth, past practice wrongly will be used to legitimize future revenue raising by the Senate and this part of the Constitution, in effect, will be obliterated.

So why should you care? For thousands of years, until the Constitution, governments taxed their citizens whenever and whatever they wished. The people had no say. If the pharaoh in Egypt wanted bricks without straw from the Israelites, for instance, so be it. In our republic we have two legislative bodies, the House to represent the people, and the Senate to represent the individual states. Prior to 1913 the State Legislators elected the Senate so that it could protect the interests of the states from the federal government’s natural inclination to grow, absorbing state functions. This is called federalism—shared government. The House was to protect the interests of the people as its first and major concern.

The power of the purse (both taxing and spending) is one of the most important powers of the Constitution. The Founders resolved that it should be left with the representatives of the people; “all bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives (Article I, Section 7).” This made it impossible for the people to be over-taxed for more than two years as all members of this body come up for reelection on the same date—every two years.

Addressing this subject James Madison, the father of the Constitution, observed, “This power over the purse may, in fact, be regarded as the most complete and effectual weapon with which any constitution can arm the immediate representatives of the people, for obtaining a redress of every grievance, and for carrying into effect every just and salutary measure.” The U.S. Constitution mandates that “the House of Representatives cannot only refuse, but they alone can propose the supplies requisite for the support of government.” This power alone he added, “can overcome all the overgrown prerogatives of the other branches of the government. They, in a word, hold the purse… (The Federalist 58).”

Taxes, the historic grievances of the masses of all ages, were left to this body alone to originate or initiate. The significance of this placement cannot be over-stated. In the Constitution only the masses could originate taxes as all revenue for the government came from the backs of the people. In the United States it is impossible to be over-taxed if we are following the Constitution. No other nation in all history, as far as we know, had this protection from their government. Once processed through the House, the Senate could modify as on other bills, but it must first come from the House. This cannot happen without permission from the people’s representatives.

This may seem like a small thing given all the hype on the Fiscal Cliff but the people really do not want to surrender their freedom from excessive taxation, which, prior to this document was virtually unheard of in the history of the world. Losing this is far more serious than what pundits said would be the worst-case scenario of the cliff because, once gone, it is unlikely to be retrieved. Members of congress are doing so incrementally by not insisting that the government stay within its bounds and honor the document that they individually have sworn to uphold. No one will destroy the Constitution all at one time but by their ignorance, or worshipful loyalty to party, are doing so one piece at a time. If your representatives voted for this please send him a copy of this article so that he/she will be more sensitive to this issue in the future.

Dr. Harold Pease is an expert on the United States Constitution. He has dedicated his career to studying the writings of the Founding Fathers and applying that knowledge to current events. He has taught history and political science from this perspective for over 25 years at Taft College. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit

Give Teachers the Right to Protect their Students!!

By Dr. Harold Pease

One of the revelations that surfaced from the Sandy Hook Elementary School Massacre was that deranged gunman, Adam Lanza, carried hundreds of rounds of ammunition, enough to kill all 450 children in the school. What stopped him? Apparently he decided to kill himself when he heard police sirens and knew that the officers were nearing the scene and their guns would soon confront his. They say it takes a gun to stop a gun. Besides suggesting a possible solution, not here-to-fore considered, of having a recording of sirens approaching on some external sound system to frighten away those committing crimes on school grounds, why not give teachers and others assigned care of the children, the right to protect their students if they wish it.

Just one gun somewhere on the premise could have been enough. Lanza had ten minutes of unrestrained killing time before police arrived after 911 notification and before he took his life ending the massacre. If but one armed concealed weapons permit holder had been nearby he/she could have saved perhaps eight minutes of unchallenged slaughter. How many lives is that?

This is not to suggest that every teacher must participate, only those who wish to. Hundreds of regular citizens in my county already carry concealed weapons everywhere except in gun free zones. Such is the same in most counties throughout the nation. Law enforcement normally see them as an asset, the ultimate backup should they need extra help, and also because cops know they can’t be everywhere at the same time, as Sandy Hook demonstrated. Why not let them do so on school grounds as well allowing them to be an asset of protection wherever they are? They are already on the scene, love children, are the most trusted element of society, and are themselves threatened. It would cost the school nothing. Chances are every school already has two or three concealed weapons permit holders among its faculty and staff now. Again, why not let those who wish to protect their students do so?

Permit holders are among our finest citizens. Obtaining a concealed weapons permit requires a thorough investigation, a near perfect record from law enforcement, a stated need to carry, and some training. Normally they are older more mature folks and, in the case of teachers, we already trust our children with them. They are already on the scene where a policeman could not possibly be. What a deterrent to a would-be killer if he knew schools are no longer entirely gun free.

Gun free zones clearly do not work. They certainly do not keep killers away. Most massacres in the United States happen in gun-free zones. Anticipating no resistance, rather then deter, they entice killers giving them access to large groups of unprotected, good, and innocent victims—often children. Presently the only hope that a teacher, wishing to protect his/her students has is to hide them and at Sandy Hook that helped a few.

In my classroom, as in most, there is but one door. Everyone inside, including me, has been set up by his own government to be a victim. In my classroom the door cannot be locked from inside should I hear gunfire outside. There is a small back room (often kept locked by the school because it houses sensitive computer wiring connections) where students near by could hide if they had access and time.
Hopefully a potential gunman would then think no one was inside and move on to another classroom—but this is not enough. Since Sandy Hook happened, I ask students sitting on the door side of the room, upon hearing gunfire from outside the room, to lineup next to the wall, remove the fire extinguisher from the wall next to a door that opens outwardly, and spray or hit the intruder as he enters. Those behind him then overwhelm the intruder after the distraction, but this is all that I can do and it is not enough. Since my students are adults this might work. Better yet, a teacher or student with a concealed weapons permit, need only pull out a weapon from pocket or purse and fire a couple of rounds at a very surprised, then very dead, killer.

Elected officials, please give students and teachers a fighting chance to survive. Teachers have done nothing that should justify disarming us, or fearing us, and thus leaving us with virtually no hope of survival. You may answer, “We can’t just let anyone have a weapon of mass destruction!” You already do!! Anyone, 16 and older, can have access to an automobile, which is decidedly a weapon of mass destruction—even if he might commit crimes with it. This brings us back to the lessons of Sandy. Adam Lanza did his deed in a location that he knew was gun free and ceased his rampage of killing only because someone else, in this case the police, would soon be firing at him. Next time let that person be a teacher with a concealed weapon whose action would allow so many more students to live. Please!!

Dr. Harold Pease is an expert on the United States Constitution. He has dedicated his career to studying the writings of the Founding Fathers and applying that knowledge to current events. He has taught history and political science from this perspective for over 25 years at Taft College. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit