Select Page

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

Getting Back to the Constitution in Education

By Harold Pease, Ph. D

In an executive order (EO) issued April 26, President Donald Trump ordered a rollback of what he termed “a federal power grab” in education. Constitutionally this order is profound and long over due.

The order begins, “By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and in order to restore the proper division of power under the Constitution between the Federal Government and the States… it is hereby ordered as follows.” It instructs Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos to review and report on regulations and directives as far back as the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA). Highlighted for her review were the General Education Provisions Act (GEPA) April 30, 1970—Dec. 10, 2015, the Department of Education Organization Act (DEOA) Dec. 10, 2015, and the Every Student Succeeds Act also of Dec. 2015, which replaced George w. Bush’s No Child Left Behind with Obama’s Common Core.

The word education is not found in the Constitution, nor inferred, and no new amendment to the Constitution has been added moving it from a state to a federal prerogative. Instead, from its inception, the Constitution protected the philosophy of federalism, (shared government), the federal government to manage foreign, the states domestic policy. Some ill-informed might argue that certainly the words “general welfare” in the document included education but this phrase was restricted to seven areas (Article I, Sec. 8, Clauses 2-9) specifically identifying what was to be general welfare, with education excluded.

Otherwise, the federal government might conclude that they should manage everything in the name of general welfare. This interpretation could destroy the Constitution as a restrictive document on governmental power. And this is what was meant by the words in the Trump executive order “to restore the proper division of power under the Constitution between the Federal Government and the States.”

Until 64 years ago the federal government honored this division of power leaving education to the states as constitutionally designed. Their first major inroad into this area was the creation of The Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW) on April 11, 1953. Heretofore both health and education were understood to be state prerogatives only. President Jimmy Carter signed the bill creating the Department of Education on October 17, 1979; without constitutional authority. This action resulted from the immense pressure applied by the “all powerful” teacher union—the National Education Agency (NEA)—which sought to nationalize education removing it from local control. Carter rewarded their support in his election with the new cabinet post.

But an executive order is not enough and can be rescinded by the next president, as Trump is doing to his predecessor. The EO restricts itself to “under the law” and Congress (both parties) clearly passed these major education laws identified in the order. Trump must more fully hinge his argument on the Constitution and on the doctrine of federalism, which preceded the Constitution as a carry-over from the Articles of Confederation, our first national constitution. He should do so by arguing that he has no authority to enforce law that violates the separation of powers as created by the Constitution, which he has sworn to uphold. He must also encourage Congress to rescind those laws or, through the states, create a new amendment to the Constitution using Article 5 of the Constitution. Otherwise this immediate victory, his EO, will be short lived.

One of the first questions I ask students in an into to government class, since every textbook has a chapter on federalism is, “Who cares most whether Johnny can read, his mother or federal bureaucrats located hundreds often thousands of miles away.” It is generally agreed his mother does and is in a position to do most to remedy the problem by direct access to his teacher and school and can run for the school board if not satisfied.

A second question, “Who suffers most if the school fails Johnny?” Again, his mother as responsible bureaucrats have moved on and she is left long term with the consequences of their failure with Johnny. As a life-long student or instructor I have never seen evidence that the federal government can administrate the needs of Johnny better than most parents.

My best and most caring teacher did her “magic” in a remote country school of two rooms; one a library the other a classroom. She taught all grades 1-8 at once with two or more students from each grade. No electronic aid or devices—only a chalkboard and books. Government policies and money raining down from afar generally discourage individuality in teaching and creativity. Instead they often spawn collective thought, (the enemy of real education), by their distribution of money favoring some ideas and groups.

Federalism and the wisdom of the Founding Fathers to retain it and to specifically list the powers of the federal government in Article I Section 8 leaving all other powers, in this case education, at state and local levels, was brilliant. Hopefully the Trump E O will strike a new public debate eventually removing all federal influence and funding in education. Trump is not yet a constitutionalist but this move alone shows him closer than the vast majority of presidents in my lifetime.

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

CIA Spy Penetration Worse than Presumed

Harold Pease, Ph. D

Over the years LibertyUnderFire has provided multiple columns on the National Security Agencies’ (NSA) massive intelligence gathering and storage of all electronic information from all electric devices and how such activity violated the 4th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution of all U.S. citizens. Such is now well known and after the Edward Snowden document dump four years ago, no longer disputed.

Now new document dumps by Wikileaks, one over 9,000, beginning March 23 through April 22, reveal a second U.S. intelligence gathering organization potentially far worse than the NSA. The CIA, supposedly restricted to foreign intelligence gathering, has developed technology capable of turning our electronic devices, televisions, computers, iPhones—even automotive technology—against the user anywhere in the world, even U.S. citizens. That is why the unidentified whistleblower leaked to Wikileaks.

We do not disapprove of spying in other lands, it is always wise to know your opponents, plus they do it to us. Our concern rests with, are the practices moral and constitutional? Government spying on U.S. citizens necessitates the full protection of the Bill of Rights for the accused, thus we have the same constitutional concerns as we do with NSA spying on Americans. We also have concern whether the CIA has exceeded its constitutional authority when it “commits actions to overthrow governments and influence elections,” as the documents purportedly show our having done on a consistent basis.

The document trove named “Vault 7” identifies cyber weapons “malware, viruses, trojans, weaponized ‘zero day’ exploits, malware remote control systems and associated documentation.” The Wikileaks dump revealed a “globe-spanning force—its own substantial fleet of hackers” of “over 5000 registered users and had produced more than a thousand hacking systems, trojans, viruses, and other ‘weaponized’ malware” to be used at their discretion. And the document dumps keep coming code-named: “Dark Matter” March 23, “Marble Framework” March 31, “Grasshopper” April 7, “Hive” April 14 and “Weeping Angel” April 21.

Perhaps the most interesting, code-named “Dark Matter,” describes tools enabling it to remote into someone’s personal computer without his knowledge or consent, add, alter or delete files; such is unethical and unconstitutional. Most unethical of all is CIA ability, without the victims knowledge, to plant false evidence, as for example, child pornography or classified documents “that could be discovered at a later date by investigators serving a warrant.” The planted evidence, imbedded deep in the hardware would be difficult to notice by the computer owner, also has enormous blackmail potential. Tools under this generic name include “DarkSeaSkies”, “SeaPea,” “NightSkies” and “DarkMallet.” And this according to Wikileaks founder Julian Assange referring to the dumps to follow, as just a small example of material to come.”

This already happened to Sharyl Attkisson, a CBS News correspondent working in 2012 on an expose’ on the Benghazi Scandal. Her fan on both her lap top and office computers seemed to run excessively so she had both looked at by a computer savvy government friend who found spyware on both and three classified government documents (presumably to frame her later), complete with a government ISP address. Planted evidence that she had violated the Espionage Act (Mitchell Shaw, New American, April 17, 2017, pp. 21-22).

Probably “Hive” is the second most interesting of the “Vault 7” dumps. According to WikiLeaks it “is a back-end infrastructure malware” used to “transfer exfiltrated information from target machines to the CIA and to receive commands from its operators to execute specific tasks on the targets.” Targeting firmware enabled CIA hackers to “remain in control of an infected device even if the target wipes the data and re-installs the operating system.”

“Night Skies,” another part of “Vault 7,” deals with implanting IPhones, a practice nearly ten years old. Wiping the data and re-installs do not affect their lodgment. Other CIA weapon programs have different names and purposes such as “UMBRAGE”, “Fine Dining”, and “Improvise.” Weeping Angel enables the CIA to turn on video or audio functions of ones television set, whether on or off, allowing filming or audio recordation of the activities in the room.

Assange claims not to have published “all details of the hacking techniques revealed in the leaks as they would result in both the “good guys” and the “bad guys” getting them at the same time. This could hurt the former.

Even more disturbing in the WikiLeaks dump was documentation of the existence of a CIA Embedded Development Branch (EDB) interested in future “mission areas” as, for example, the ability to control the operating system of an automobile to “engage in nearly undetectable assassination.” CIA involvement in assassinations goes back to the ruling Diem brothers in South Vietnam in 1963, described in virtually every U.S. History textbook and continued into the CIA drone strikes under Obama.

Such may have happened to journalist Michael Hastings in Los Angeles in 2013, who told friends, “I’m onto a big story,” the story was on CIA and NSA abuses. A guy who reportedly “drove like a grandma” went through a red light at more than 100 miles an hour crashing into a tree (Michael Newman, New American, April 17, 2017, pp. 30-31). An eyewitness to the crash indicated that the automobile was on fire before it hit the tree and exploded. The “big story” was never published. Failing breaking and acceleration technology, controlled externally through computer malware, could remove a lot of resistance.

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


A “Government Shutdown” May Be a Good Thing

Harold Pease, Ph. D

Democrats won’t fund a border wall and threaten a “government shutdown” if included in the budget under consideration. Without President Donald Trump removing for now the wall from consideration, a shutdown would be likely. President Trump largely won on the popularity of the wall but promised to make Mexico pay for it with a better trade balance, so he cannot back down long term without the loss of credibility with core supporters. But a government shutdown is never as bad as portrayed and, in fact, may be a good thing.

The fear generated by media when Republicans threaten a “government shutdown” is many times worse than when Democrats do so; compare three years ago with today. The hysteria peddlers using this terminology, and the media that purposely play to it, must know these two words emit an extreme emotional response. Moreover, the phrase essentially becomes a weapon to be used on other potential government “shutdowners.” It appears designed to frighten the least informed against the other political party, thus the terminology. This enables the media to have undue influence in spending and undermines the sole power of the House on this issue.

A budget always involves the House of Representatives, as it alone constitutionally must initiate all government spending. “All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives” (Article I, Sec. 7, Clause 1). This places the people in charge of taxation. The Senate cannot initiate a tax bill but can adjust any initiated by the House.

So what does a “government shutdown” look like? Do the president and vice president resign now that the government ends? No, they stay on the job and receive full pay as before. Does Congress fly out of Washington D. C. the following day and cease to draw their pay, and the Supreme Court cease to deliberate on constitutional questions? Does the army come home and cease to protect us? No! No, NO! Do states, counties, and cities no longer function? No again, they have their own tax base and policemen, prisons, and teachers remain in place. Will we still get mail? Yes. The U.S. Postal Service functions as an independent business unit. Will we still get Social Security benefits, food stamps, unemployment compensation and veterans’ benefits? Yes!

Why then the hysteria? Because these two words, “government shutdown,” and the possibility of missed food stamps send the largely uninformed into a frenzy—they finally awake from their stupor. They largely know nothing of the wrangling of government to protect them from themselves and oppose any proposed government diet that might reduce their daily feed. They worshipfully listen to the party and political leaders that are least likely to disturb this base.

There will never be a government shut down because none of these things will ever happen, short of an overthrow of the government from within, the collapse of our financial structure (which is becoming ever more likely due to our obsession to live beyond our means), or a successful invasion from without. So cease the media frenzy and subsequent over-reaction.

How do we know this? Because we have had 18 “government shutdowns” since 1977 according to the Congressional Research Service, the Reagan Administration having 8 of them alone. Because in 1979 the government was shut down for 10 days while Congress argued over a proposed salary increase for the legislative branch. Because we had a five-day shutdown between November 14 and November 19, 1995, and a second one of 21 days, between December 16, and January 6, 1996, and none of the bad things mentioned above happened. No! Not even one. In fact, the public as a whole didn’t even notice it.

Then what did happen? “The Federal government of the United States put non-essential government workers on furlough and suspended non-essential services…(Wikipedia).” Essentially all went on as before except some paychecks were a few days late. Apparently the federal government does (when forced to do so) know what non-essential services are after all, and is capable of closing them if it has the will.

Our spending addiction has given our children and grandchildren a 20 trillion dollar debt. Of course it is painful to curb our appetite, but the longer we wait the more painful, drastic, and life threatening it becomes. Most of the programs cut in both shutdowns, were not areas of clear constitutional authority as defined in Article I, Section 8, so in time such cuts should become permanent or be subjected to the amending process for appropriate authority.

Usually diets have some benefits in and of themselves. In the case of the federal government shutdowns of 1995 and 1996, both parties benefited: Democrats, under President Bill Clinton, because thereafter he was credited with “the first four consecutive balanced budgets since the 1920’s” and Republicans because they retained control of both houses of Congress largely because of the popularity of their hard line on the budget (Wikipedia).

So at worst a “government shutdown” is really only a partial shutdown of non-essential services and a delay of payment for some few federal workers. So the federal government goes on a long overdue diet and gets back to the basics. Let’s abandon this terminology in the future so that we don’t frighten the less informed and they overreact?

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


Trump Defies the Constitutional Separation of Powers with Syrian Attack

Harold Pease, Ph. D

Even though President Donald Trump believes it proper to bomb Syria, a country that has done us no harm, he has no constitutional authority to do so. Because weak Congress’s have not punished previous presidents, both Democrat and Republican, when they did the same, it does not make it constitutional. Despite compelling humanitarian reasons justifying the action, the gassing of children with sarin gas, presumed by President Bashar al-Assad of Syria, we lack the treasure and ability to be the policeman of the world. Where would it end? Most of the world has dictators and tyrants as leaders. We would never be able to stop bombing someone.

The making and funding of war were clearly denied the president in the U.S. Constitution because he, as Founder James Madison argued, “had the most propensity for war.” The Constitution reads: only Congress has the right “to declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water.” War requires the blood of our young warriors, and this requires the permission of the people who are required to be the fodder for such. Only the people’s representatives can “provide and maintain a navy or make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces” and for “calling forth the militia…to repel invasions.” Only the people’s representatives can “provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States….” Congress is directly responsible for any acquisition of property for military use. All of this is in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution and belongs to the legislative branch alone.

The Constitution does not use the words “national security” but “common defense,” defined by eight parameters, clauses 10-17, just noted, with the word defense primary. Not a single Founder would have approved of our turning “common defense” into “common offense.”

Funding for war is yet another constitutional check and is entirely left with the House of Representatives. The Constitution says: “no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years.” Two years is the designated time that a member of the House is elected and authorized to represent his people. So, neither Presidents Barack Obama nor Trump can expend monies for military activity without congressional approval. Article I, Section 7 requires that “all bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives….” This clause is how the people, through their elected representatives, control a war happy president.

The only war power a president is allowed to have in the Constitution is as “Commander in Chief of the army and navy of the United States, … when called into the actual service of the United States,” which is done only by Congress, not by himself. No president has constitutional authority to engage in war without a declaration of war—even if done by other presidents before him. To commit our young to potential death unilaterally is not a presidential power, and doing so should be an impeachable offense. If the Executive Branch can effectively remove this power from Congress, giving it to itself, we are close to losing the rest of the Constitution as well.

In the Obama Administration, Congress was not consulted when American planes bombed Libya (2011, 2015), or his authorizing drone strikes in several middle-eastern countries (2013-2016) killing designated individuals—all such have traditionally been considered acts of war. Certainly these would be treated as such were they perpetrated on U.S. soil by another country. The Syrian chemical use in their civil war had already occurred, so the Trump bombing strike was to punish the perpetrator, clearly not self-defense.

The last four presidents, two of each major political party, have bombed the following 10 sovereign nations (some multiple years): Somalia 1993, 2007-2008 & 2011, Bosnia 1994-1995, Sudan 1998, Afghanistan 1998 & 2001-2015, Yugoslavia 1999, Yemen 2002 & 2009-2011, Iraq 1991-2015, Pakistan 2007-2015, Libya 2011 & 2015, and Syria 2014-2016 & 2017. None of these were preceded by a declaration of war. Most of these American attacks had no specific congressional authorization. They were all justified under national security. Probably only Afghanistan can be viewed as self-defense. Where do we get authority to bomb other countries at executive will, certainly not from the Constitution?

To protect the Constitution, the House of Representatives in March of 2012, attempted to place President Obama on short notice that the next disregard of their power would be grounds for impeachment. We might wish to give Trump the same warning. Concurrent resolution H. Con. Res. 107 read, “Whereas the cornerstone of the Republic is honoring Congress’s exclusive power to declare war under article I, section 8, clause 11 of the Constitution: Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That it is the sense of Congress that, except in response to an actual or imminent attack against the territory of the United States, the use of offensive military force by a President without prior and clear authorization of an Act of Congress violates Congress’s exclusive power to declare war under article 1, section 8, clause 11 of the Constitution and therefore constitutes an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor under article II, section 4 of the Constitution.”

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

Until 1913 No One Paid Income Tax. Why Now?

Harold Pease. Ph. D

As a nation under the U.S. Constitution we are 228 years old. It may surprise readers to learn that for the first 124 of these years we had no federal income tax and handled our expenses quite well. Today those paying may be assessed a fifth to a fourth of their income. Prior to 1913 one kept what is now taken from them.

What would you spend it on were it not taken? Not on the basics such as food, housing, and utilities for they are covered in what you are allowed to retain. You would spend the extra fourth of your salary on thousands of items that are made by others as well as services you might like. This not only would enrich your life but it would provide jobs for others making those items or providing those services. Many middle class folks could purchase a new car every year with what they are forced to give to the federal government.

Would you spend it more wisely than the federal government? Certainly! Most of the money taken from you by the federal government is spent on perpetual war, foreign aid, grants to privileged portions of our society, and endless unconstitutional subsidized programs; the last two of which basically take the money of those who produce and redistribute it to those who do not. Even some non-tax payers get income tax refunds—so corrupt is the system.

Of course, those receiving and benefiting from these programs will defend them. But the fact remains that tax monies provide largely government jobs, which are almost entirely consumption jobs (jobs that consume the production of society but produce little consumable). Such jobs cannot produce for public consumption a potato, a carton of milk, or even a can of hair spray. They bring another guy to the table to eat, but not another to produce something to eat.

What largely brought about the give-away programs of the Twentieth Century was the now 104-year-old 16th Amendment—the federal income tax. All three 1912 presidential candidates Teddy Roosevelt, William Howard Taft and Woodrow Wilson, and their respective parties, wanted this financial water faucet that they could turn on at will. They could purchase anything—even people.

Prior to 1913 the federal government remained mostly faithful to her grants of power in Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, which left them with only four powers: to tax, pay the debts, provide for the general welfare and provide for the common defense. Because the federal government has the inclination to maximize their authority the last two power grants, general welfare and common defense, each had eight qualifiers to harness them more fully. Outside these qualifiers the federal government had no power to tax or spend.

General welfare then meant everyone equally (general) as opposed to “specific welfare” or “privileged welfare” as it is today, targeting those to forfeit and those to receive monies. The Constitution did not deny states, counties, or cities from having such programs, only the federal government. But politicians soon learned that the more they promised to the people, from the money of others, the easier it was to get elected and stay elected.

The problem with the federal government going off the list and funding things clearly not on it was that each time they did so the stronger the inclination to do so again. One minor departure begets another until one notices that what the federal government does has little or no relationship to the list. I ask my students what would happen if they took one lollypop to kindergarten and gave it to one child? What would the others say? Where is mine? Try taking away long provided benefits from a privileged group, as for example food stamps, and see how popular you are with that voting group in the next election.

So why does the government now need a fourth of everything you make and it is still not enough? Answer, because we went off the listed powers of the Constitution and every departure required more taxpayer funding. The solution to less tax is less government. A side benefit is more freedom. The productive classes would not be hurt as might be supposed. Seldom do they qualify for the federally subsidized programs anyway. The fourth taken from the productive classes would be spent by them creating a haven of jobs for those who wished to work and give them no excuse not to. The cycle of dependency would be drastically reduced. The federal government would no longer be an enabler to those not working. States would decide for themselves what assistance programs they could afford with some states offering more and others less as the Tenth Amendment mandates.

So, how did we cover the expenses of the federal government—even wars—our first 124 years? Products coming into the country were assessed a fee to market in the U.S. called a tariff. We got product producers in other countries to cover our national expenses and thus we were able to spend on ourselves every cent of what the federal government now takes, which inadvertently stimulated the economy. No one should be able to argue that our approaching $20 trillion national debt is fair, has really worked for any of us, and is a better plan. I personally like the idea of being able to purchase a new car every year.


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