Select Page

“I Fear Going to College”

By Harold Pease, Ph. D

Student unrest in many colleges last spring demonstrated what is becoming obvious; institutions of higher learning are becoming radicalized and project intolerance for anything but a liberal view. Too few permit conservative or libertarian speakers and far fewer a constitutional speaker.

I was not surprised, some years ago, to hear a mother share with me her son’s fear that he did not wish to attend college because he did not wish to be politically indoctrinated. Parents increasingly worry about the radicalization of their children as well. As the years go by I hear this more frequently. Often when asked my profession, a political science professor, I get that look, “Oh! You’re one of those.” So, the assumption is that professors, especially those in political science, are socialists or worse. But it is largely true.

College is supposed to be a big tent housing all types of thinking so that the student can gravitate to what he thinks best after all sides are presented. Although everyone gives lip service to this statement, there still exists a preferred philosophy. Most colleges insist that they adhere to the idea of intellectual diversity, but the literature suggest otherwise, that the vast majority of colleges and universities are weighted in favor of one ideology and professors to one political party. This is not hidden. Many political science textbooks acknowledge this.

There exists a consensus of what a “good education” consists. Students are immersed in race consciousness, feminism, multiculturalism, environmentalism, collectivism, globalism, political activism, class warfare, global warming, acceptance of sexual deviations as normal, and minimization of the importance of Christianity. The end product, the student, must come to accept the above script. It is also in virtually all textbooks. It’s not that any of these notions are bad, in and of themselves, but it is the nearly universal absence of the opposing view that is most troubling parents/students who do not want the indoctrination. All this reminds me of a 1960’s tune with lyrics. “Little boxes on the hillside. Little boxes made of ticky-tacky… And they all look just the same. And the people in the houses, all go to the university… And they all look just the same.”

It’s not fear of political science classes alone in most colleges and universities. Students can escape the indoctrination across the hall in a history or sociology class. Not so! Such bias permeates most academic areas. An English professor from a large Midwestern university, who did not wish to be identified because of possible retribution, spoke of English classes giving less emphasis on grammar, punctuation, or sentence structure and more on the political correctness. “Everything from Theater to Philosophy to History to English has, in effect, become sociology,” he wrote. “Teaching subject matter has become less important than teaching a very political perspective.” In the end, “They get taught the same thing over and over: a radical critique of the entire American social structure, an indictment of capitalism, anti-Christian propaganda, and collectivism over individuality.”

Of course, additional classes reinforce the “good education” and the result is that if students have not learned to think for themselves, or have some opposing information from home or church to think with, they graduate and carry the indoctrination into every segment of society as gospel. New teachers from kindergarten to the universities will pipe the same, or similar, message.

Age and experience may alter the indoctrination but the twig is already bent in a prescribed direction and the student, like the twig, will give first consideration to returning to the indoctrination when confronted with anything in opposition. Colleges have so much power over “right” thinking.

An extreme example of this years ago, was a French Language and Culture class at Penn State University that required students to view the Michael Moore film Sicko, which focused on the inadequacies of the U.S. healthcare system and promoted Obamacare. In a French language class!?!

The indoctrination begins immediately in some colleges, critics say, “with orientation where students begin by learning about the evils of ‘white privilege’ in a program called the ‘tunnel of oppression’ and sit through lectures informing them that they are part of a ‘rape culture’.” University of Delaware forced incoming freshmen to participate in a “treatment” program a part of which informed them that the word racism applies only to “all white people.”  It also “blamed whites for having created the term racism” in the first place “to deny responsibility for systemic racism.” At Hamilton College in New York, fall 2010, male students were required “to attend a ‘She Fears You’ presentation to make them aware of the ‘rape culture’ of which they were allegedly a part and of the need to change their ‘rape supportive’ beliefs and attitudes” (New American, Aug. 5, 2013, pp. 23-27).

No wonder the young man did not wish to be subjected to what he saw as indoctrination. Because he knows that there exist other views there is hope for him, more especially if he selects professors who attempt to give alternative views of which there are still many, he will be fine. This is especially true at the community college level. It is students who have no idea that there exist alternative views that are most in danger. Parents too, realizing the danger to their children, can better prepare them against the indoctrination.


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

Constitution Absent for Woman Raped in Sanctuary City

By Harold Pease, Ph. D

The recent brutal rape of a 19-year–old woman in Burien, Washington, a Seattle suburb, declared a sanctuary city, has refocused attention on the constitutionality of a city protecting an illegal alien. The Constitution should have protected her.

But the issue is complicated by the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program created in 2012 by executive order by then President Barack Obama.

Constitutionally only Congress can make law (Article I, Section 1). Executive orders that have the force and effect of law are entirely unconstitutional; otherwise our separation of powers philosophy is seriously damaged.

In response, former Secretary of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano, merely issued memos to border agents to not enforce immigration law on under-aged illegals crossing the border and those who were under 31 when the memos were sent. DACA allowed deportation to be deferred for two-year intervals, which could be renewed endlessly as long as illegals obeyed the laws of the land. If school aged they were expected to remain in school, if adults they were provided a work permit. Congress passed none of this and thus it encouraged evading existing law. Sanctuary cities help illegal immigrants evade the law by not enforcing it within their jurisdiction.

Those supporting the Constitution must oppose made-up law by a single person regardless of political party or personal agreement with the action. That is how law and order breaks down and chaos, even revolution, results.

The brutal rape leaving a young woman bloodied with missing teeth, a dangling ear and a broken jaw was reportedly committed by a 23-year-old illegal immigrant with DACA status. The aggressor and victim lived in the same complex but did not know one another. It was a clear act of unprovoked aggression. As a result the city of Burien is moving to revoke its sanctuary status.

Separation of powers with one body making the law, another enforcing it, and a third adjudicating it, is the most basic principle of the Constitution. In it “all” federal law originates with and is processed through Congress with the President having only the authority to sign or veto law made by Congress and thereafter obligated to enforce all law processed in the same manner, whether he agrees with it or not. In every presidential inauguration we listen to him pledging by oath to be obedient to it: “I do solemnly swear…that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States” (Article II, Section 1, Clause 8). Making his own law, or refusing to enforce existing law coming through the same process, are grounds for impeachment.

Moreover every public servant, state or federal, judicial or legislative, including city council persons, swear an oath “to support this Constitution” (Article VI, Clause 3) thus they, by refusing to support, are defiant to the document and should be removed by their constituents (even share some responsibility for the rape and beating). If they refuse to remove those not supporting the Constitution they too stand defiant of it. This issue is that clear.

But these are not the only parts of the Constitution that are damaged by the sanctuary city philosophy. Article VI, Clause 2 states: “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof…, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound therein…”   And, as mentioned, city officials are pledged to support the Constitution. Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 states Congress shall have the power “to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization…” Only the federal government can make immigration law. Sanctuary cities have no constitutional base. Clause 18, of the same section, states Congress shall have the power “to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.”

The supreme law of the land for immigration is called the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). Section 274 of this titled—Bringing in and Harboring Certain Aliens—requires fines and/or imprisonment of anyone who aids and abets illegal aliens.

Any person who “knowingly” attempts to bring in an alien, has knowledge of, attempts to transport an alien within the U.S., “conceals, harbors, or shields from detection, or attempts to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection, such alien in any place, including any building or any means of transportation; …shall be punished.” Punishment is “for each alien in respect to whom such a violation occurs.” All offenses bring a fine “under title 18, United States Code” and/or imprisonment ranging from 5 to 20 years depending upon the seriousness of the offense. If the alien’s presence “resulted in the death of any person” those assisting his presence in the U.S. can be fined, and/or, “punished by death or imprisoned for any term of years or for life.”

In the case of the rape and beating of the young woman in Burien, Washington, wherein the alien causes serious bodily injury … or places in jeopardy the life of, any person,” city officials assisting his presence could be fined, and/or, “imprisoned not more than 20 years.”

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

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

The North American Union is on the Table, Again

By Harold Pease, Ph. D

Those of us who have taught international issues for decades have something to offer those who have not. Internationalism, new world order, world order, and globalism are synonyms for world government. Other terms such as inter-nationalization, multilateral, politicization, integration, free trade, commonality, convergence, unification, harmonization, open borders, are often used in conjunction with these synonyms to make them more fashionable and acceptable.

When these terms become known for what they are they become unpopular because few want the United States to become reduced to a mere state in a world government. The Declaration of Independence, Constitution, and Bill of Rights would be relegated to historical documents without any real basis in a government above our own, or even in our own, if not supported by the higher government.

Once understood as such, proponents simply change to a new synonym and continue their program to elevate all significant decision making from local to national to international with, of course, themselves at the helm. Individualism and nationalism must be destroyed. Free enterprise and limited government are not likely to exist. Those who wish to retain these treasured beliefs are the enemy.

Globalists operate on the theory that man is easily manipulated and can be managed to believe whatever he is fed, even to the point of calling slavery freedom and freedom slavery—even good is bad and bad good. Few really think for themselves and they can be removed in other ways beginning with peer pressure and progressing to more violent ways if need be. Man will even choose to give up his liberty for the mere promise of a better future. Communist forces were called liberation armies.

Lenin, Hitler, and Moa Tse Tung and each preferred force to accomplish their form of world government. Globalists today, notably David Rockefeller (just deceased) and Henry Kissinger, know that these ends can be accomplished more slowly without force through the control of media and education. The rule is to always provide the appearance of controversy and free thought but control what people think about by access to it. Observe that the establishment news sources say nothing about regionalism as it conquers nations without restraint or notice.

As words are used to deceive the masses in the transition to world government so are they also valuable weapons in the transition to regional government. They begin with economic commonality and progress to political unity as was done in Europe. From the European Coal and Steel Community 1951, to the European Economic Community (Common Market) 1958, to the European Community 1993, to the European Union shortly thereafter until the original purpose, regional government, was fait accompli complete with a European Parliament 1979 and common currency, the euro, in 1992.

The unification of Europe as a single government, with each of 27 nations (Great Britain has voted to exit) losing their sovereignty as a separate independent nation, once so highly prized by each, something unobtainable by sword or bombs whether by Napoléon, Hitler or Stalin, has been accomplished without a single shot being fired while the vast majority of citizens were lulled to sleep by mere words. Formerly millions lost their lives to defend their nation’s sovereignty. The globalist conquered Europe establishing regional government (the European Union) in less than 50 years and unless thwarted will conquer all nations in half that time again.

Other regional governments followed the EU. The USSR, after the fall of communism in 1989, transformed itself into the Commonwealth of Independent States Free Trade Area (CISFTA)—a regional government of nations still under the control of Russia. The world has since been divided into 22 other regional governments each following the European Union model and each at a different stage in the “politicization” of the countries in their regions and most still saddled by the necessity of using the deceptive “free trade” terminology.   In time the plan is to reduce 206 countries to less than 20 regional governments turning these countries into mere states of regional countries—a much more manageable world for globalists.

Some of these perspective regional governments have progressed beyond the need to keep the “free trade” terminology, as for example, the African Economic Community and the Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA), both uniting large sections of Africa. The Council of Arab Economic Unity (CAEU) uniting northern Islamic Africa and the Middle East is another. South America is to be united by the Southern Cone Common Market, frequently referred to as Mercosur. It has progressed to the point that it now has a Joint Parliamentary Committee, which is a final step toward political unification.

But the “word war” for regional governments first, then the eventual merging of these governments into world government under the United Nations, following the European model, continues. The North American Union essentially began with the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) negotiated by George H. W. Bush and signed into law in 1993 by Bill Clinton. Notice neither party opposed globalization.

President Donald Trump campaigned against NAFTA and poses the first threat to its continued existence. Globalists want it renegotiated in the hopes of enlarging its political functions and combining its geographical area to Central America as well. Trump unfortunately has agreed to renegotiate NAFTA placing it back on the table for possible expansion into the North American Union.

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

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

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