Select Page

NAFTA, “No Deal is Better than a Bad Deal.”

By Harold Pease, Ph. D

Much of why Donald Trump is president is because of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which always has been disastrous for the trades. Democratically controlled unions and their politicians were for it when signed into law by President Bill Clinton and without union support it would not be law.

Big corporations and globalists (often Republicans) have been for it because through it they could manage the regulations and productions codes thus keeping their monopolistic empires in place—it limited trade. It has never been free trade. Free trade is the absence of production codes, government regulations, and trade boundaries, when the consumer alone picks the winners and losers by the high quality and low cost of their performance or products.

Many union workers knew their party had betrayed them at the time but almost all know it now. When Trump dubbed NAFTA as “the worst trade deal maybe ever signed anywhere, but certainly ever signed in this country,” they had experienced it as such and thus his appeal to them. And when he said, “I’m going to tell our NAFTA partners that I intend to immediately renegotiate the terms of that agreement to get a better deal for our workers…. If they do not agree to a renegotiation, then I will submit notice under Article 2205 of the NAFTA agreement that America intends to withdraw from the deal,” they cheered.

He also told them. “I see the carnage that NAFTA has caused, I see the carnage. It’s been horrible. I see upstate New York, I see North Carolina, but I see every state. You look at New England. New England got really whacked. New England got hit.” “NAFTA has been very, very bad,” Trump said in a speech in Kenosha, Wisconsin, speaking of dairy farmers being hurt by recent Canadian price changes that the farmers believed violated trade standards. “The fact is that NAFTA has been a disaster for the United States and a complete and total disaster.”

Union workers saw their jobs lost (six million the first 16 years of NAFTA) and factories moving to Mexico to take advantage of lower-waged workers. Whatever bad things their party and their media said about Trump, they knew he spoke the truth on this issue and that they would have a friend in the White House if he kept his promise. This is a major reason he won the old northwest and the election. And this is why he could lose the next election if he doesn’t return the jobs.

The problem with Trump’s call for renegotiation of NAFTA, rather than just pulling out, is that when the government negotiates regulations, productions codes, and trade areas it is not free trade and is never fair, even if well intentioned. Free trade has no restrictions on transactions, (not 1,000 pages as in NAFTA) and fair trade implies that both trade parties feel justice in the outcome. NAFTA is government-managed trade.

Trump cannot win this argument. Fair for him is if our existing corporations (who fund his next election) retain advantage over competing new entrepreneurs and foreign competitors are disadvantaged. If advantage is determined by natural law, one out performs, gives better service or products at lower cost but with higher quality, as when individuals make selections, it is both free trade and fair trade. Government can never do this because it can never account for all the variables involved and is impacted too much by the use of government to get advantage. Even Trump fell victim to this as a private citizen when he made political contributions to both political parties should he need advantaged in a business deal down the road.

In the renegotiation special interests seek to enhance governmental powers in their behalf. Michael Brune, the executive director of the Sierra Club, expects the renegotiated NAFTA to include more environmental protections and climate change measures.

Richard Trumka, president of the AFL-CIO, best represents the problem with government deciding winners and losers, “We will do everything we can to make this a good agreement and to hold the president at his word and make sure we get a renegotiation. If it comes out that it is not a good deal, no deal is better than a bad deal,” But what is a “good” deal? With no government intervention both seller and buyer get a “good” deal or a transaction is not processed.

Nancy Pelosi faults President Trump “for all of his rhetoric, President Trump looks to be sorely disappointing American workers on trade.” For Democrats it will never be fair because it is never enough. For Republicans it will never be free because it must be managed. Few from either major political party really believe in limited government or they would adhere to Article I, Section 8 of which most of NAFTA violates.

Congress expects to take up the NAFTA issue mid-August. The fairest and freest trade deal for all Americans is to allow natural law under the free market to rule. If negotiation does not respect these time-tested restraints, and the Constitution, Trump would be best served to work for Article 2205 and withdrawal as suggested by AFL-CIO president Trumka— “no deal is better than a bad deal.” And this, the sooner the better, or, he may pay a heavy price in 2020.

 

Dr. Harold Pease is a syndicated columnist and 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 30 years at Taft College. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.

Trump May Only Repeal Obamacare

By Harold Pease, Ph. D

For eight years Republicans promised to repeal Obamacare when they had the power.  None had voted for it.  The word replace was never used.  Senator Ted Cruz was the only presidential candidate promising to repeal it “day one.” But when Republicans got the power they broke this promise.

Candidate Donald Trump had promised to “repeal and replace” and has tried to keep both promises but Democrats refuse to support anything he does and Republicans are now divided on the topic. The Republican holdouts are rightly doing so on constitutional grounds and they and the Democrats together make it impossible for Trump to get the votes he needs to replace it.  So why not keep half his promise rather than none, repeal and move on to tax reform?  Republicans have the power to repeal now but will never have the power from those loyal to the Constitution to replace it without an amendment to the Constitution.

Senator Rand Paul is making a similar case, “Repeal now, Replace Later” and is getting the President’s ear in several private meetings. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell promises to hold the Senate hostage by delaying the August recess to further “arm-twist” vulnerable senators but, as was the case with House Speaker Paul Ryan, has been stopped by the constitutionalists of his party, the Freedom Caucus.

The Founders knew that all governments tend to grow in power. To stop this they made a list of the areas of federal jurisdiction with the understanding that all areas not mentioned belonged to the states.  All convention delegates understood this and curiously placed every power in one sentence with 18 paragraphs (Article I, Section 8).  The strange construction was to make it even more difficult for future power grabbers to isolate and enhance a power.  Everything had to be considered in the context of the one sentence.  Probably not one in a thousand knows what you have just learned. To make this interpretation even more powerful they later added the 10th Amendment ” The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution… are reserved to the states respectively….”

Equally unknown, because the document is no longer seriously treated in today’s educational process, is the following.  The Founders gave the federal government only four areas of power: taxes, paying the debts, providing for the general welfare (that’s not the same as providing the general welfare), and providing for the common defense.  That is it my friends.  All of it!  All four powers are identified before the first semi-colon.  That following are simply qualifiers of these four.  “But all Duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the U.S.” These were different types of taxes.  There were no qualifiers on paying our debts.  The Founders rejected the normal practice of just refusing to honor the commitments of the previous government even though it would have been easy to do.

Now to the heart of why Article I, Section 8 is so long and so hated by big government advocates who would do anything to explain away what I now share and why they would rather you not read it.  Please stay with me; this is so critical to your personal liberty.  The Founders did not dare to leave the phrases “general welfare” or  “common defense” for future power grabbers.  No telling what they could do with these vague phases.  They understood that it is the nature of all government to grow.  Notice that clauses 2-9 detail what they meant by general welfare and clauses 10 to 17 what they meant by common defense.

For now let us stay with general welfare.  Listed are 14 powers, five dealing with borrowing money, regulating its value, and dealing with counterfeiting.  The other nine included naturalization, bankruptcies, establishing post offices, protecting inventors and authors, establishing “tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court” and “regulating commerce with foreign nations and among the several states.”

Who decided the division of powers—the states?  They forfeited only specific powers and only those they could not reasonably do as states as, for example a common currency.  Why would they give any more?  They had just rejected the flow of power from the Colonies to Parliament and the resultant avalanche of rules descending from them in return. After all, the cause of the American Revolution was excessive government.  Their intent was to handcuff the federal government so that such could never happen again, not give it free reign.  In fact, our first national government, The Articles of Confederation, was left so weak that it could not function properly, thus the Constitutional Convention.

My point!!  National health care is not on the list, in fact, it is a million miles from any of the 14 powers detailing general welfare.  Now you know why so many use the word unconstitutional in the same sentence with national healthcare.  If national healthcare can be prostituted from this list anything can and any pretense of a government with limited powers ends.  If the people really want the government to control healthcare and 1/6th of the economy, they must get an amendment to the Constitution ratified by the states as outlined in Article V of the Constitution.  Hopefully Trump, under the tutelage of Senator Rand Paul, is catching on.  Presently Congress has only the power to repeal that which has never been constitutional.

Dr. Harold Pease is a syndicated columnist and 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 30 years at Taft College. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.

When Patriotism Becomes Mostly Seasonal

By Harold Pease, Ph. D

Following our annual celebration of the 4th of July, sometimes reflection is helpful. A week before this holiday everyone dons a patriotic tie. A week later few do. This is when patriotism is seasonal. The event comes and goes; essentially colors red, white, and blue are popular for a day, and then out. You might even be viewed as “super patriotic” (as though this were bad) were one to wear the tie a second week.

The evening is filled with fireworks (the bigger the better) but few know why. When asked, the most common response is freedom. “Freedom from what or whom?” I ask. If a stare could kill, I’d be dead. There is no real understanding behind the expression. It is rare when anyone answers correctly, “Freedom from excessive government.”

The cause of the American Revolution was excessive government. Some say, “taxation without representation” but this is only a part of excessive government. Every U.S. History text has a chapter dealing with the Revolution. It is filled with the rules and regulations that were most oppressive to the colonists: the Stamp Act, Tea Act, Currency Act, Iron Act, Molasses Act, Sugar Act, even the Hat Act. Such acts were viewed by the colonist as restrictive to their freedom to act independent of governmental permission. Essentially when they came down like rain, as they did just prior to the Revolution, the colonists said why, grieved the rulings without success, then, “Where is my rifle?”

For one day of the year there is peace between liberals and conservatives. Each wears the emblems of the Revolution and demonstrates their patriotism by rising bigger flags, exploding bigger fireworks, eating bigger steaks and guzzling more alcohol. Parades too are non-contentious and show patriotism, but for what? The next day we ask the federal government to manage one-seventh of the economy, whether Obamacare or Trumpcare, totally ignoring the Constitution and the reason for the Revolution.

Few share with their children the reasons behind these symbols and still fewer tie the Declaration of Independence to the Constitution which essentially ended the need for a second revolution by restricting the federal government to a handful of areas in which they can constitutionally restrict our behavior (Article I, Sec. 8), freezing forever, if we adhere to the Constitution as designed, our legislative branch doing the same thing to us as had parliament to the colonists. If the two are not tied together then the American Revolution was just a revolution, rightly commemorated by having a longer weekend and an excuse to get drunk. It is okay then if patriotism becomes mostly seasonal.

Lost in the translation and replaced by the blank stare, previously mentioned, is your right to do most everything you wish without permission from a government located hundreds, often thousands, of miles away. Outside the short list in Article I, Section 8, which, incidentally, has no restrictions on the individual himself, the Constitution left the individual to manage himself. When his behavior offended the right of others to also self-manage, his community, starting at the lowest level (cities, counties, and finally his state government), may regulate his behavior protecting the right of self-managing for others as well.

This is called freedom. And this is the end result of a 13-year transformative period from the Declaration of Independence through the Articles of Federation to the Constitution, which included the Bill of Rights. The federal government constitutionally could only increase its power through Article V, which required the permission of the states.

The collective view of the Founders was to never elevate to a higher level that which could be resolved at a lessor level. Resolvement at the lowest level, the city for example, allows the individual unable to self-manage, to access his elected representatives for redress. He also answers to those he has most directly offended. A more just outcome is likely. Imagine resolvement issues if he had to answer to someone in Washington D. C.

The 4th of July and Constitution Week in September are our best opportunities to share the message of why the Revolution and the Constitution interconnect and are among the more important events in U.S., even world, history. When patriotism is largely seasonal, as it has become, what I have just explained loses its best chance of being remembered and retained when we do not gather our family, church and civic organizations around us using every means to enlightening others.

We are grateful to those who know the real meaning and significance of this event in history and are willing to share it with others. We remain grateful for the bigger fireworks, lights shows, and parades just as long as we do not forget that most of us remain opposed to excessive government, as were those who gave their lives for this cause in the Revolutionary War, whether it comes, as it did for them, from a parliament, or a Congress.

Dr. Harold Pease is a syndicated columnist and 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 30 years at Taft College. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.

Getting Out of the United Nations

By Harold Pease, Ph. D

I remember when grade schools promoted UNICEF (United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund) by asking students to raise money while Trick-or-Treating every Halloween. In fact, looking back the UN was always treated favorably in school. I never heard a negative comment in my university experience either. Out of school, when I controlled what I read, the literature on the subject was quite different—even opposite. I came to realize that I had to undo some serious programing.

But getting kids to deny themselves candy for UNICEF programing was universal. Prior to 2012, U. S. Trick-or-Treaters had contributed $157 million and Canadians $91 million. If parents, or bullies, took candy from children it would be frowned upon but if the UN does it, approved—even commended. If an organization targeted children for a political outcome it would be unacceptable. Apparently UNICEF money was also used to produce cartoons promoting children’s rights, so political is the organization.

U.N. involvement in education, especially espousing globalism, world government if you prefer, is not new. Even last year their “Global Education Monitoring Report” dubbed “Policy Paper 28,” called for textbooks to include heavier doses of “global citizenship,” and the viewing of environmental problems as global issues requiring global solutions requiring global government. It also wanted textbooks to increase favorable coverage of sexual diversity including: homosexuality, homosexual parenting, bisexuality, and transgenderism.

In a UN summit for youth, held January 30, 2017, UN General Assembly President Peter Thomson, referred to the UN Agenda 2030 “Sustainable Development Goals,” as the “master plan for humanity.” But the master plan presented to the youth always leaves problem solving with the UN and increases planetary economic controls and wealth redistribution, each of which eventually destroys national sovereignty and liberty.

But amid these efforts to radicalize our youth in favor of globalism emerges the evidence that the UN is also the world’s leading governmental sexual abuser of children, its peacekeepers repeatedly raping children, some as young as ten. In an Associated Press Report, April 13, 2017, U. S. Ambassador to the U.N. Nikki Haley, gave a graphic depiction of U.N. peacekeepers sexually abusing homeless children. She disclosed one boy, in 2011, being “raped by peacekeepers who disgustingly filmed it on a cell phone.” UN Sri Lankan troops raped a 15-year-old boy over 100 times. One girl was raped, sharing later, “I did not even have breasts.” Between ages 12 and 15 “she was raped by almost 50 UN peace troops.”

But it is not just an occasional rape. The Report alleged some 2,000 allegations of rape, pedophilia, and sexual abuse of civilians in a little over a decade and it is assumed that the number is vastly under-reported.

But even this is not new. The United Nations has a long history of the same. Prostitution almost always increases wherever UN peacekeeping troops are stationed. Such was so in Cambodia, Mozambique, Central Africa, Sudan, “Bosnia, and Kosovo after UN, and in the case of the latter two, when NATO peacekeeping forces moved in.” Amnesty International disclosed, “A Kosovo victims support group reported that of the local prostitutes, a third were under 14, and 80% were under 18. The victims were routinely “raped ‘as a means of control and coercion’ and kept in terrible conditions as slaves by their ‘owners’; sometimes kept in darkened rooms unable to go out.”   In 2004, they reported, “that under-age girls were being kidnapped, tortured and forced into prostitution in Kosovo with U.N. and NATO personnel being the customers driving the demand for the sex slaves.” A simple reference to Wikipedia documents these and similar reports

Much of the information on corruption in the UN (child sexual rings and etc.) come from whistleblowers such as Povl Bang-Jensen, Anders Kompass, and Rasna Warah who appear to have no other motive than to right wrongs against humanity. The latest book on the subject is by Rasna Warah, “UNsilenced: Unmasking the United Nations’ Culture of Cover-ups, Corruption and Impunity.” As the title indicates, along with the revelation of sexual exploitation of children, it reveals corruption, abuse of power, and criminal activity for the last 15 years.

The revelations of this column are important. Globalism is the process of transcending into a world government with the United Nations, created by the globalists, to be the new government and in time the only “real” power on earth. The United States would be as a state, like South Carolina, in a bigger union. Government schools have propagandized for it since my youth. Innocently I was conned into helping them by raising money while Trick-or-Treating. There was never another side presented. But the real history of the United Nations, where they have power, is that of indoctrination, corruption, cover-ups and sexual abuse of children. Why should I expect it to be any different in this country when world government is in place and they have all the power?

I support current House bill, the American Sovereignty Restoration Act, bipartisan legislation to remove the United States from the UN. Proposed every year, it has more support now than ever. I find no good reason to continue Trick-or-Treating, or anything else, for an organization that undermines our sovereignty, the Constitution, and molests children.

Dr. Harold Pease is a syndicated columnist and 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 30 years at Taft College. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.

Please Don’t Call Me Conservative or Liberal

By Harold Pease, Ph. D

Please understand! I am deeply offended when called either conservative or liberal. These are traps for the ignorant who wish to reduce my years of serious contemplation to a word so that a part of my readers can praise me (“Well done! “ “You are one of us!”). And the other part can dismiss me by a single word—even hate me. This is war, every bit as much as it was for the Founding Fathers and I will not be dismissed. There are Loyalist or Tories in our day just as there were in theirs and I stand to call them out, whether Democrats or Republicans.

My views are the Founders collective view. I draw from the same fountain of natural law as they did and appeal to the same “father of lights to illuminate my understanding” (Ben Franklin’s words at the Constitutional Convention), as they did. I am my own thinker.

I have been a college professor for many years and students sit in front of me just waiting to tag me with some label that did not then exist in the same way and dismiss me or marginalize me so that they do not have to think. As long as they are not successful they are teachable and have to deal with the inconsistencies of both ideologies—liberal and conservative. I have friends in both camps and sooner or latter they say to me, somewhat surprised, “I thought you were one of us.”

I, like George Washington, dislike political parties. Today both major parties undermine the Constitution and collective ignorance, reinforced by numbers, is more dangerous than individual ignorance. Neither uses the Constitution as first consideration in governing.

I publicly challenged the Republican Party for leading us into the Iraq Wars against Saddam Hussein because the evidence for doing so (9 11, weapons of mass destruction, preemption-–the concept that they would do something to us eventually) did not exist and had to be constantly changed to justify our presence. I did not oppose the war in Afghanistan because the evidence was there for 9 11 but I do now because we have no clear definable win objectives and lack the will to unleash everything we have to win. It is another Vietnam quagmire.

It was the George W. Bush administration that gave us the Patriot Act, which allowed the government to define terrorists as her own people and severely damaged the Bill of Rights. Republicans looked the other way as the National Security Agency (NSA) gave itself authority to gather and store in Bluffdale, Utah every electronic message of her own people. While the government looks within for the enemy, it fails to secure our borders, until now, from Middle Eastern intruders from countries with a known intent to harm us. With respect to national health care, something they unanimously opposed, and which has no constitutional basis, they now look more like Democrats who at least were not hypocritical in their desire to take-over a third of the economy. “Obamacare-light” is still Obamacare.

Democrats have taken spending to an unacceptable level and seem intent to risk collapsing the entire economy in doing so. With each crisis they help create, their remedy is always more government as they hamstring businesses that create our jobs with numberless rules and regulations.

Their model is not the Founders or the Constitution but socialist countries in Europe some of whom tax their people over 50% of their income and have far less freedom. A worshipful press has never properly explained Obama’s past connection with revolutionary Bill Ayer, Founder of the militant Whether Underground, which bombed government buildings in the seventies. While China, Cuba, and even Canada are showing clear signs of backing off socialism we seemed “hell bent” to rush into it under either Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders.

Moreover, instead of investigating the Clinton Foundation or Clinton Classified Emails Scandals, that jeopardized national security of which there exists extensive documentation, far more than on Nixon’s Watergate, they push Russian influence in the Donald Trump election for which real documentation is non-existent. Amazing!

So what do I embrace? I usually drop a tear or two when the National Anthem is played. I am touched by George Washington who loved his country enough to risk his life in a doubtful cause failing to win a single battle the first year against England, the most powerful nation on earth, and refused pay from the government for his services as a general or as president. I love knowing that Founders and presidents acknowledge the hand of God in crisis and shamelessly went to him for help. I love the stories of servicemen who put their lives on the line to save a buddy. I have undying respect for those who served their country with the primary intent of saving freedom—even if they did not understand the motives of the politicians who sent them. I love people who stand for traditional values of honesty, integrity and morality and did not justify President Clinton’s numerous White House affairs.

So what am I? Only a typical American that wants to return to our base and thinks more people embrace this description than either party ideology. So please just call me a patriotic American. That is a title that I wear with honor.

 

Dr. Harold Pease is a syndicated columnist and 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 30 years at Taft College. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.

Will Next President be “Elected” by End Run Around the Constitution?

Harold Pease, Ph. D

Opponents of the Electoral College seek to alter a process that has worked for well over two hundred years. Fueled by Hillary’s winning the popular vote yet denied the White House and unable to get two-thirds of the states as required to consider altering this part of the Constitution, some seek an end run around it instead. They say that the Electoral College is not democratic enough. They call their plan the National Popular Vote Plan. In it participating states would allocate their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote rather than the winner of the popular vote in their state.

There exists no language in the Constitution authorizing a popular vote for the executive branch of government. Such came about in 1824 after the Electoral College denied the presidency to Andrew Jackson, the most popular man in America due to his success in the Battle of New Orleans in the War of 1812. His supporters, believing the denial to be an injustice, created a straw vote so that the people could participate in the election although this vote had no power.

Over time the media empowered it by treating it as the “legitimate” vote for the president belittling the College process as unfair and undemocratic. Seldom do they remind us that it works because we are not a democracy, but a republic, and that none of the branches of government are democratic; most especially the Senate and Supreme Court. Andrew Jackson had to wait until he could convince the seasoned citizen voters of the Electoral College that he was not too emotional for the office. He did so four years later in 1828. Moreover, today the media seldom cover the real election for the president in December such is their distain for it.

Those unable to get a two-thirds vote to destroy the Electoral College have conceived a brilliant plan to do just that without the constitutional amendment required. The plan is to have each state legislature commit their state to support the national popular winner instead of the candidate winning their state. When enough states do so that the Electoral College numbers exceed 270, remaining states will be required to support as well. Wham!! Almost without any public debate outside state legislatures, and seemingly overnight, the popular vote will replace the Electoral College as the means by which a president is elected. We would be back to a few highly populated states deciding for the rest of the country—so opposed by our Founders.

Ironically proponents ignorantly use a small portion of the Constitution to destroy a larger portion. They cite Article II, Section 1 which reads, “Each State shall appoint, in such manner as the legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress.” This, they say, gives state legislatures the right to award their electors as they see fit. Actually, the phrase allows the state legislatures appointing powers only. To suggest that they should have influence over their voting once selected, nullifies the reason for their existence. The Electoral College was to be a non-governmental body completely separate and unaccountable to the State Legislature once appointed, as per the rest of the section. Certainly the phrase did not authorize states to simply alter or dump Article II, Section 1 and Amendment 12 of the Constitution.

Moreover, the National Popular Vote Plan also violates Article I, Section 10. This prohibits states from entering into “alliances” with other states unless Congress gives its consent. Certainly agreeing states have entered into an alliance with one another to nullify the Electoral College, which mandates the right of individual states, through their people, to chose the president.

At present ten states and the District of Columbia, a combined electoral vote total of 165, have come on board delivering about half the 270 electoral votes needed to impose this upon the rest of the country and nullify a long standing pillar of the Constitution. States voting to change the Constitution without amending it, as required by the document, are: California 55, Hawaii 4, Illinois 20, Maryland 10, Massachusetts 11, New Jersey 14, New York 29, Rhode Island 4, Vermont 3, and Washington 12. New York is the most recent addition joining the unconstitutional alliance March 25, 2014.

Unfortunately for those who revere the Constitution and the wisdom of the Founding Fathers to balance the vote so that rural American would not be disenfranchised by urban American, are emboldened by Hillary Clinton’s receiving the popular vote in the 2016 presidential election yet denied the presidency. Still, it is well to remember that only California gave Clinton its popular vote. In the other forty-nine Donald Trump won the popular vote. Without the Electoral College Clinton would be president by the vote of but a single state, disfavored by all others. How is that just, balanced or even democratic?

Granted the Electoral College is the most difficult part of the Constitution to understand and is easy to oppose because it is undemocratic. Spend some time to understand it. A patriot and constitutionalist will see through the scheme to destroy it without the debate and transparency required in Article V. No end run around this document should ever be permitted.

 

Dr. Harold Pease is a syndicated columnist and 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 30 years at Taft College. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.