Select Page

Why Should Congress be Exempted from ObamaCare and Not You?

By Harold Pease, Ph. D

“If ObamaCare is hurting people, & it is, why shouldn’t it hurt the insurance companies & why should Congress not be paying what the public pays?” tweeted the President. Donald Trump wants to remove privileged taxpayer subsidies to members of Congress, their staffs, and insurance companies, at least until they pass something on healthcare.

On November 8, 2013, each member of Congress, with little media coverage, chose whether they and their staffs accepted the Obama exemption exempting them from having to live under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act as did their constituents, they could go elsewhere, costing more, and be subsidized by the taxpayer. And the exemption was made easy to accept. If lawmakers didn’t act, staffers were exempted by default—automatically. Did your two U.S. Senators and member of the House of Representatives choose to exempt themselves from ObamaCare while still pushing it on you?

Most Americans were not supportive of ObamaCare when signed into law March 23, 2010. Today, seven years later, most would vote against it as well, especially in light of its history of rate increases and higher deductibles, although President Barack Obama promised otherwise. And most have not been able to keep their doctors or providers. Big business and unions opted out of it, when possible, as fast as they could.

In what appeared aimed to mute congressional opposition to the forced healthcare law, Obama allowed Congress to opt out, leaving only the American people enslaved by the legislation they created. Last week Congress did not repeal ObamaCare in part because they would loose their ability to choose other plans because of the subsidies. Trump wants them to lose their privileged status.

At first some members of Congress convincingly denied that they had received an exemption but Senator David Vitter published the Obamacare language next to the Obama exemption. The first read in part: “If the employee purchases a qualified health plan through the Exchange the employee will lose the employer contribution (if any) to any health benefits plan offered by the employer and that all or a portion of such contribution may be excludable from income for Federal income tax purposes” (See Section 1512, number 3). The second, the Obama Congressional exemption, coming through the Office of Personnel Management, page 6, read in part: “The revisions adopted here have no impact on the availability to Member of Congress and Congressional Staff of the contribution established in 5 USC 8906” (Alex Pappas, “Republican accuses fellow lawmakers of ‘lying’ about Obamacare exemption,” 9/19/2013). Since the federal government was their employer they would not lose the subsidy as would others by not accepting ObamacCare.

Obama, who had no constitutional authority to make law, unilaterally changed the law in 2013 and voided, otherwise mandatory, congressional participation. This presumably to grease the skids for members of Congress accepting what in any other setting would be called a bribe. They defined their employees as “official” or “not official,” to determine whether or not staff members had to enter the exchanges. Because the exception was not part of the original law and came about thereafter by executive change, Trump can nullify by the same power.

The hypocrisy of forcing the people to live under what they themselves will not is beyond description and at the height of political corruption. If the president is going to lead us into socialized medicine then he must accept it for himself. If the Supreme Court is going to rule it constitutional, they too must live under it. This should be the litmus test for the reelection of every U.S. Senator and member of the House of Representatives for the next several years to flush out of office those who exempt themselves from the laws that they make for others. All members of Congress made this decision on November 8, 2013. Did they choose to live above the law? If so, corruption has never been so clear and stark.

Most House Republicans opted to submit themselves and their staffs to the exemption of the law because they despised the law and played virtually no role in its inception. But Senate Democrats, who all voted for it, appeared hypocritical when they too supported the exemption. We believe that no exemptions should be made for anyone who works in government. How will they govern correctly if they have immunized themselves from the pain they cause others?

We support Senator Rand Paul’s Constitutional Amendment designed to require our government to live under the same laws that they make for us. They are not our masters but our servants.

Insurance companies have been given huge subsidies, taken primarily from the middle class, to entice them to keep prices lower for those with lower incomes. If these are cut this week, as Trump threatens, ObamaCare may collapse even more quickly and Trump and Republicans may be blamed, so cut them gradually beginning now. But there is no sympathy for members of Congress and their staffs—cut them immediately and insurance subsidies 5 or 10% per month until ended. More insurance companies, thus more options and lower prices, will develop quickly as has always been the case under the free market, when truly free.

 

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.

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.

Repeal, Don’t Replace, ObamaCare

By Harold Pease, Ph. D

Republicans are criticized for not having a plan ready to replace the failed ObamaCare as most of the 2016 Republican Party presidential contenders had promised its demise if elected. The House of Representatives made over 60 attempts to repeal The Affordable Care Act since its passage in 2010. So why has this not happened with Republicans now in control of the Legislative and Executive branch’s of government?

Many Republicans like their new found power over a seventh of the economy and are reluctant to give it up. They propose allowing insurers to sell across state lines, forming high-risk pools for people with pre-existing conditions, creating a tax credit to help people afford coverage, and “beefing up” health saving accounts. The basic difference between Republicans and Democrats is simply, “We can do it better.” Notice their use of controlling adjectives: allowing, forming, creating, and “beefing up.” Healthcare would remain nationalized.

Missed entirely is that the Constitution allows only the option of repeal. Anything more would require a new amendment to the Constitution transferring a new power, healthcare, from the states where it resided, to the federal government as per Article V. All power was distributed in 1787. Any rearrangement of that distribution requires a new amendment to the Constitution.

Many do not know that we live under two political systems: one primarily national in function, the other primarily domestic. Thomas Jefferson expressed it best when he said: The states are not subordinate to the national government but rather the two are coordinate departments of one single and integral whole…. The one is domestic the other the foreign branch of the same government.” Its called federalism—the two share power and are equal. Neither was to be subservient to the other and each was to have separate duties.

So it is with federal and state governments as Jefferson suggested. The Founders, however, were aware of the nature of all governments to grow. George Washington said it best: “Government is like fire, a dangerous servant and a fearful master.” So one builds a fireplace before one brings fire into his home for warmth so that it does not burn down his home. That fireplace is the Constitution, in particular Article I, Section VIII.

Simply, government grows. To harness this tendency both partners in government were given lists of duties: the federal government Article I, Section VIII. Everything it did was to be clearly linked to an enumerated grant of power. Healthcare cannot be linked to an existing enumerated grant of power. The States, who created the Federal Government, retained unto themselves all other powers as per Amendments 9 and 10 of the Constitution. “James Madison wrote: “The powers delegated…to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the state governments are numerous and indefinite.” That the federal government took this power unto themselves in 2010 is not constitutional authority to continue the confiscation.

The advantages of federalism are enormous. States become laboratories of experimentation. States have the tendency to look at sister states for models and to borrow this from New Jersey and that from Oregon and yet something else from Alabama in refining their own programs. These places of experimentation work to everyone’s advantage. This process refines legislation and when enough states think it better handled at the federal level they, in a new constitutional amendment, can pass it to the federal partner. Citizens of a state not happy with experimental regulation can move to one of the 49 other states less controlling.

Had our “power crazed” federal partner refrained from their natural inclination to take over healthcare we could have gone through this experimental process designed by our Founding Fathers and been able to identify the weaknesses or strengths while they were still geographically isolated. Only three states had tried state healthcare: Oregon, Massachusetts, and Hawaii. That was clearly not enough to identify the “pitfalls” in the area. The federal partner took a half-baked idea and made it mandatory on the whole nation, thus it failed.

The Founders did not dare leave the vague phrase “general welfare” to future federal power grabbers. To prevent the interpretation that it meant “everything” they added clauses 2-9. Listed are 14 powers, five dealing with borrowing money, regulating its value, and 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.” healthcare, or anything remotely like unto it, is not listed.

Who decided the division of powers—the states? And they kept that right to decide in Article V of the Constitution. They forfeited only specific named powers that they could not reasonably do as states, as for example, a common currency. Why would they give any more power? 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. There intent was to handcuff the federal government so that such could never happen again, not give it free reign.

Constitutionalists must insist that Republicans and Democrats restrict themselves to the Constitution. Repeal, don’t replace, ObamaCare or get a new amendment to it. Don’t damage the Constitution further by ignorance of it.

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.

Plymouth and Jamestown Rejected Socialism as Did We

By Dr. Harold Pease

It is said that the casualties of this presidential election in order were the toppling of the Bush dynasty, the Clinton dynasty, and the nullification of the Obama legacy. At the top, however, is a rejection of socialism. No two presidential candidates have been more socialistic than Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton, and half of America voted for socialism. Keeping Obamacare and instituting “free college” would have made it very difficult to argue that we had not become a socialist country. This is despite the harsh lessons of our socialist beginnings.

This Thanksgiving Day we think of the Pilgrims enjoying abundant food, but this was not their real reality. Few will mention the starving times the first year in 1620 when half died of starvation. Harvests were not bountiful in that year and the next two. Plymouth was beset by laziness and thievery. William Bradford, the governor of the colony, in his History of Plymouth Plantation reported that “much was stolen both by night and day” to alleviate the prevailing condition of hunger. The mythical “feast” of the first Thanksgiving did fill their bellies briefly, he reported, and they were grateful, but abundance was anything but common. Why did this happen? Because they had fallen victim to the socialistic philosophy of “share the wealth.” This dis-incentivized the productive base of society.

Then suddenly, as though night changed to day, the crop of 1623 was bounteous, and those thereafter as well, and it had nothing to do with the weather. Bradford wrote, “Instead of famine now God gave them plenty and the face of things was changed, to the rejoicing of the hearts of many, for which they blessed God.” He concluded later, “any general want or famine hath not been amongst them since to this day.”

One variable alone made the difference and ended the three-year famine. They abandoned the notion of government (or corporation) owning the means of production and distribution in favor of the individual having property and being responsible to take care of himself. Before, no one benefited by working because he received the same compensation as those who did not. After the change everyone kept the benefits of his labor. Those who chose not to work basically chose also to be poor and the government (corporation) no longer confiscated from those who produced to give to those who did not. No government food stamps here.

Ironically all this could have been avoided had Plymouth consulted history and communicated with their neighboring colony, some distance south of them, who had previously been down the same trail. Jamestown too was first a socialist society where each produced according to his ability and received according to his need, which, of course, affected supply. One cannot divide what does not exist. Our textbooks tell us that only one of twelve survived the first two years for precisely the same reason, starvation. The problem, as noted by Tom Bethel in his work The Noblest Triumph: Property and Prosperity through the Ages, was identified by an unnamed participant as “want of providence, industrie and government, and not the barenness and defect of the Countrie.”

Captain John Smith is credited with having saved the floundering colony by his “no workie, no eatie” government program (once again, the Virginia Company was the government) and was hated for it. Addicted to the promise of getting something for nothing, even if it is always less than promised, the receiving part of the population will always oppose their not getting their “fair share.” Sound familiar?  Captain Smith was eventually carted off to England in chains as fast as the parasitic population could do so. Once again, why? Philip A. Bruce in his Economic History of Virginia in the Seventeenth Century, p. 121 called it agricultural socialism. “The settlers did not have even a modified interest in the soil…. Everything produced by them went into the store, in which they had no proprietorship.” When settlers finally were allowed to own their own property, and keep what they produced, things changed over night.

Colony Secretary Ralph Hamor wrote of incoming prosperity, beginning in 1614, after ownership of land was allowed. “When our people were fed out of the common store, and labored jointly together, glad was he [who] could slip from his labor, or slumber over his tasks he cared not how, nay, the most honest among them would hardly take so much true pains in a week, as now for themselves they will do in a day, neither cared they for the increase, presuming that however the harvest prospered, the general store must maintain them, so that we reaped not so much corn from the labors of thirty as now three or four do provide for themselves.”

This Thanksgiving let us be grateful for the prosperity that we have—even the poorest among us. Jamestown and Plymouth set us upon a course that recognized that prosperity requires incentive to flourish and that the profit motive stimulates industry. We are so grateful that, having recognized the poison of “the share the wealth” philosophy, they purged it from their midst and proceeded to make America the most prosperous country on earth.

We remain mostly a socialist country but the plunge deeper has been avoided for now and we have a chance to set a new course distancing ourselves more fully from it, as did they. Will we be so smart? Let us share this message at the table as we feast upon turkey and pumpkin pie this Thanksgiving Day so that our children will know how prosperity is really produced.

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.

How Relevant is the Constitution in State, County, and City Elections?

By Dr. Harold Pease

With elections signs all around it might be well to be reminded that it is unrealistic to expect national candidates to follow the Constitution when we did not insist that they did so in state, county and city offices. After all, many simply move up to higher office. Some may even view the Constitution as irrelevant at these levels.

Several years ago in California at a public debate for county supervisor the public was invited to offer questions in writing. I did so and watched the monitor of the debate, with a puzzled look on his face sideline my question in preference to others. I presumed it was because it had something to do with the Constitution, which, unfortunately, is considered by many an irrelevant topic at the city, county, or even state level. You are supposed to ask what “goodies” from taxpayer funding are you going to give me and is it more than your opponent?

So what does the Constitution have to do with local or state issues? Everything!! First, it is the only document that every single elected public servant swears to uphold. So the Founders must have thought it relevant at every level.

Second, candidates at lower levels successfully rise to higher levels because of the name recognition obtained at lower levels and eventually become members of the House of Representatives and U.S. Senate, often without ever having read the Constitution they are specifically under oath to protect. When I worked as a legislative assistant in the U.S. Senate some years ago, I was certain at least 50% had never read it at any level of government. Today I would be surprised if those who had read it exceeded 10%. But no one asks candidates, even while campaigning at the highest levels, when they last read it.

So again, why does this matter? Historically, the two enemies of freedom are: 1) it is the nature of all governments to pull decision making power upward to the seat of government and, 2) the more apathetic and indifferent the population becomes the greater the tendency of the people to push decision making power upwards to the seat of government. When these two forces work together it always leads to the central government eventually having most of the power. The Constitution is full of “handcuffs” to keep decision-making power from getting to the top thus maximizing it with the individual. The Founders overriding philosophy of government, if it could be penned into one sentence, was, “never elevate to a higher level that which can be resolved at a lesser level.”

Even a casual look at the Constitution reveals the separation of powers on the federal level into three distinct branches the legislative, executive, and judicial—each with a specific list. For Congress it was a list of the four types of law they could make (Art. I, Sec. 8), for the president it was the types of executive functions he could execute (Art. II, Sec. 2-3), and for the Supreme Court the types of cases it could adjudicate (Art. III, Sec. 2). The lists exist to both restrict them and to prohibit the concentration of power into one branch. The only type of federal government authorized by the Founders was decidedly a limited one. States, counties, and cities have all the powers not listed, as per Amendment 10.

When these limitations are not understood and protected at lower levels of government, the federal government is constantly tempted to steal authority from the states or counties as per its confiscating environmental, health, and education issues, which are constitutionally 100% non federal government issues. States, counties, and cities should use the Tenth Amendment to tell the federal government to “butt out.” “You have no constitutional authority.” When Congress passed, and the President signed into law, the National Defense Authorization Act, December 31, 2012, both states and counties should have written Congress and the President. “You do not have the right to void Amendments 4, 5, 6, and 8, of The Bill of Rights and the Writ of Habeas Corpus for our citizens. The military shall not arrest any of our citizens.”

It comes to this. Sixty years ago it may not have made much difference if a county supervisor/commissioner, or city councilman, swore allegiance to a Constitution that he had not fully studied, or worse, even read. The federal government had not yet absorbed his area of jurisdiction. Now it has! There is hardly an area where the federal government does not have its tentacles embedded, from school lunches to cross gender bathrooms. Over thirty years ago a city councilman complained to me that a third of what he voted on was already mandated because sometime in the past the council had accepted the “free money” which now obligated him. School districts are notorious for having done the same thing.

City, county, and state leaders, you are our buffer from the federal government taking from you your areas of jurisdiction. They have done so for many years because you were complacent in it, or ignorant of the Constitution. Consequently you have lost a large portion of our liberty. Today your understanding of the document must be known BEFORE we place you in power.

This election let us find leaders with Constitutional fire in their bellies to undo the precedents that their predecessors created. All issues on the city and county level are directly or indirectly constitutional issues. We now expect leaders to know, and abide by, the document that they swear to uphold.