Apr 21, 2021 | Constitution, Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease, Ph. D
Many may not remember their basic U.S. History courses as to why the Second Amendment exists in the first place. Certainly, when enacted, there was no thought of restricting type of firearm, or where or who could carry. So its placement as the second most valued freedom in the Bill of Rights had nothing to do with personal safety or hunting, these were already assumed. It was specifically placed right after freedom of religion, speech, press and assembly to make certain that these freedoms were never taken from us. Our Constitution was founded with a healthy fear of government. Historically it was always a government that took away liberty.
One must remember that early patriots did not ask the existing British government if they could revolt. They argued in The Declaration of Independence, that they were “endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” coming from a much higher source than mere man and that “whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government.” God is referenced five times in this document and thus, they believed, He sanctioned their rebellion. They were expected to suffer evils while sufferable, “but when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariable the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.”
The right of revolution requires the means of revolution and this is the reason the Second Amendment exists. Normally the ballot box is the only self-correction needed but they had no intention of forfeiting the right to revolution they exercised giving us liberty in the first place. Nor did they assume that future generations would never need the more serious self-correction they used.
So passionate were they over this issue that they double protected it, first by making it a constitutional amendment. No presidential degree or congressional statute can alter an Amendment—only another amendment submitted through the states as per Amendment V. This requires a vote of three-fourths of the states in support. Second, this is the only amendment, that itself, specifically forbids change. “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” No piece of law is more secure. As far as we can ascertain, America’s Constitution is the only Constitution in world history that specifically prohibits its government from removing the right of the people to keep and bear arms and thus the means to resist its government tyranny—as was exercised against the British.
An armed populace twice proved its value to liberty in the Revolutionary War. First, many do not remember why Lexington and Concord were so important. The Americans learned that the British planned to go door to door to confiscate their firearms so they gathered and hid them in these two villages. Now the British night gun raid, and Paul Revere’s desperate midnight ride warning the Americans enroute, so they could retrieve their guns to use against the British, makes sense.
Second, the Battle of Saratoga preventing the conquest of the northeast by General Johnny Burgoyne was stopped, not by the military, but by angry farmers with their own military styled “assault” rifles. This American victory encouraged other countries, notably France, to enter the war on our side. We would not have won the war without an armed citizenry.
The Founders’ attitude regarding guns—even military issue—was clear. Thomas Jefferson wrote: “No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” And George Washington said: “A free people ought not only to be armed,” but also, “they should promote such manufacturies [sic] as tend to remind them independent of others for essential, particularly military, supplies” (Gun Control, Freemen Report, May 31,1975, p. 1).
But many fear our government today. We fear when tyrannical governors condemn to death thousands of senior citizens by sending COVID-19 infected patients into nursing homes, or when the Bill of Rights was openly defied and 1st Amendment protection rights denied their people. We fear: when statues of our Founding Fathers and great former leaders are torn down and those doing this are leaving our inner cities aflame, when a majority believe election integrity no longer exists, when a president rules almost entirely by executive decrees, when one party rule is largely established, when our borders previously secured are no more, and when one side of the political spectrum is largely censored or cancelled.
We fear Congress when it seeks to pass an Equality Act that insures inequality, or a Bill For the People Act cements permanent fraud in elections favoring one party in particular, or when they push to pack the Supreme Court or make DC a state—all to install one political party rule in America. This fear is demonstrated when people are fleeing for safety from tyrannical states to freer states like Idaho, Florida, Texas and Utah. How can anyone in their right mind agree to give up their right to resist the government should it become tyrannical? In some places it already has.
The Second Amendment is the Constitution’s final check on tyranny. We have the same right of revolution the Founder’s used, fully expressed in The Declaration of Independence. Widespread gun ownership has never been a threat to truly free societies. An armed citizenry keeps the government on short notice of the governs’ ability to resist should God given inalienable rights be taken from them.
A popular slogan runs. “I love my country but I fear my government.” Given the fear and unconstitutional antics noted above, perhaps we should hang on to the 2nd Amendment as designed as our final option against tyranny. An option we hope never to have to use again.
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 taught history and political science from this perspective for over 30 years at Taft College. Newspapers have permission to publish this column. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.
Apr 14, 2021 | Constitution
By Harold Pease, Ph.D.
Since gun control legislation has stymied in Congress, Democrats for it and the Republicans against, the Biden Harris Administration has opted once again to legislate by executive order. Biden has governed, bypassing Congress, with 39 executive orders in almost three months. In a April 7, 2021 news conference he revealed his plans to do the same on gun control.
This is not new. The Obama-Biden Administration did the same thing over immigration by creating the DACA program by executive order because Congress would not give them authority to extend citizenship to past illegal entry foreigners. They justified defying Congress and the Constitution then with, “We can’t wait for Congress.”
This was a serious, even impeachable, breach of the separation of powers doctrine deeply imbedded in the Constitution as is Biden’s executive action that the Justice Department, an unelected body, propose new rules on gun control. Because one president defies the Constitution, and is unpunished, does not give authority for others to do the same. Constitutionally only the legislative branch can make law (rules). Why is this so dangerous? Past practice, once done, is the “go to” position, to maximize authority not actually in the Constitution or, in the 2nd Amendment case is opposite to it, and is the favored option for those wishing to destroy it. Constitutional perversion invites more constitutional perversion.
But at issue is a far greater violation of the Constitution than separation of powers. The 2nd Amendment specifically forbids either the executive, by presidential decree, or legislative, by congressional statute, branches from ANY alterations of the Amendment. It reads in part, “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Period!! It is the most definitive sentence in the Constitution. Although not yet exercised, this also is an impeachable offense. Neither Congress nor the President can remove or alter the peoples’ right to defend themselves without an Article V new amendment to the Constitution.
The first half of the Second Amendment tells us why no branch of the federal government can alter or remove the right of the people to keep and bear arms: “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state.” The militia was the people and it was understood that the government was always the lead threat to a free state. “I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them” (George Mason co-author of the Second Amendment. See also Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788). The militia was defined in the Second Continental Congress as every able bodied male 17 years of age and older—the citizens.
The Bill of Rights was numbered in order of preference with the exception of Amendments 9 and 10 as they dealt with the powers retained by the people and those reserved to the states, not specific freedoms as are Amendments 1-8. Amendment 2 is important because it protects these amendments. It is well to remember that the 2nd Amendment exists because the states would not support the new Constitution without a guarantee that the government could never deprive its citizens of their right to bear arms—to resist as they had the British. The language was as strong as they could make it and aimed (pun intended) specifically at government. It preserved their right of revolution should their other freedoms be taken. What is it Mr. Biden that you do not understand about “shall not be infringed?”
Congress may not legislate the 2nd Amendment away by authorizing some types of weapons over others, or approving some types of ammunition and denying others. Nor may the President go into the Oval Office and unilaterally make an executive order limiting or denying these things. We must never forget the federal government’s 11-day siege of Randy Weaver’s mountain home near Ruby Ridge, Idaho (view photo above) over Weaver’s sale of two sawed off shotguns. It ended August 31, 1992 with multiple deaths including his boy and dog and a sniper bullet took out his wife Vicki holding their baby in her arms in the doorway. A “friendly” reminder of then federal enforcement of unconstitutional alterations to the 2nd Amendment.
One might argue we now want federal involvement. If so, why not do it as required by the Constitution? Don’t just twist the Constitution to mean something never meant. George Washington warned: “Let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed” (Farewell Address).
Instructions for change in the Constitution are provided in Article V and can be proposed by either Congress or “on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of several states.” Notice that the president was not allowed to propose. Once proposed the federal government is removed from the picture altogether—it cannot empower itself. The states are given two ways in which they can pass their power to the federal government (remember, all power not listed in the Constitution belongs to the states and the people as per Amendment 10) but. either way, it requires 3/4th of the states to do so. Let Congress or the states initiate a proposed amendment to empower the federal government as we have 17 times before when the nation wanted a change.
The federal government, especially the president, does not like Article V because it requires permission from the states to enlarge federal jurisdiction. That is precisely why this Article exists; still, it remains the proper and only constitutional way to change the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution and anyone trying to do it in any other way should be removed from power as quickly as the Constitution allows The biggest fatality in this gun debate is irreparable damage to the Constitution, and thus to freedom.
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 taught history and political science from this perspective for over 30 years at Taft College. Newspapers have permission to publish this column. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.
Apr 7, 2021 | Constitution, Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease, Ph.D.
Neither the words equality or discrimination are found in the U. S. Constitution, nor inferred. Also, no new amendment to the Constitution has been added moving either from a state to a federal jurisdiction, which is the required path detailed in Article V for enlarging the powers of the federal government. State delegates formed the U.S. Constitution and they gave the federal government no power over human association. We naturally discriminate between philosophies, organizations, and people we wish to embrace, date or avoid; even whom or what we like. We call this freedom.
Now the Democratic Party wishes to impose upon the people restrictions over human associations without a new amendment to the Constitution. Under the misnamed Equality Act it wishes to enshrine “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” to the 1964 Civil Rights Act outlawing discrimination respecting race or sex in employment, housing, and public accommodations. What it does in practice is to “allow the government to impose a belief system about sexual decisions and sexual behaviors on the nation.” The Act is “basically government-sanctioned discrimination against religious people” (CBN News, October 2018). If government is empowered to manage human associations it manages everything.
More fully how would the misnamed Equality Act violate the Constitution? Remember the Founding Fathers created a system called federalism which recognized the principle of dual sovereignty between the states and the federal government, neither the master nor slave of the other—the states to have domestic dominance, the federal government foreign policy dominance. All power was divided in 1787 between these two governments. There exists no new powers to distribute.
The Constitution restricts the federal government, (the executive, legislative and judicial branches) to the enumerated clauses housed in Article I, Section 8. In this it was restricted to four areas of federal law, these were: to tax, to pay the debts, to provide for the general welfare and national defense. To restrict the federal government from enlarging its power, which is its natural tendency to do, the last two of the four grants of power, general welfare and national defense, each required an additional eight clauses giving greater restrictive clarity.
Neither equality or discrimination were named, or inferred, as a function of the federal government. The eight clauses of general welfare benefited citizens equally and at the same time. None made distinctions between types of people or human associations.
All powers not specifically listed, or added later to the Constitution by way of the Amendment process outlined in Article V, were left to the states. The states retain all power that they did not specifically give to the federal government. The federal government can only expand its power at the expense of the states by distorting or ignoring the existing list which is what it is attempting to do. This can only succeed when the people are ignorant of the Constitution or do not care. Proponents of the Equality Act include both.
Even with this clarification, states, fearing that the federal government might still attempt to grow at their expense, refused to ratify the Constitution without additional restrictions on it, hence the Bill of Rights. But none of these housed either equality or discrimination. The Bill of Rights ends with the clarity of Amendment 10: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
So neither equality nor discrimination are in the Constitution or Bill of Rights but the word equal (not the same as equality) is in the 14th Amendment. This was a Civil War amendment (1868) designed to ensure that the rights of ex-slaves were protected as the South was attempting to re-enslave them through legislation. It reads in part, “No state shall . . . deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” One cannot pluck out this phrase and give it new meaning outside the context of its origin, — to protect freed men from slavery—which is precisely what the Democrat Party is doing with their Equality Act.
But there is another problem with the broad use of the phrase “equal protection of the laws” used out of context, This phrase applies only to that law already constitutional, and that, has to have a solid base in the listed powers of Article I, Section 8 or in a new amendment to the Constitution ratified by three-fourths of the states as required by Article V. Any other interpretation destroys the Constitution as designed.
A great irony of our time is that the misnamed Equality Act “creates grave inequalities between those who simply want to live according to their religious beliefs and the reigning culture of political correctness. In short, it threatens our most fundamental freedoms of speech, religious exercise, and privacy. The Equality Act upends two centuries of First Amendment law that restrains government from forcing Americans to speak messages or participate in events that violate their deeply held religious beliefs” (https://firstliberty.org/what-is-the-equality-act/).
The Equality Act has no origin in the Constitution, and thus is unconstitutional. If passed it would violate a large part of the First Amendment more especially the free exercise of religion, speech and press. A mere act or statute cannot nullify a constitutional amendment. It opens up a myriad of new laws on human association, also without constitutional base. Neither equality or discrimination can be defined and certainly not guaranteed without Orwellian governmental control. Perhaps that is their intention.
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 taught history and political science from this perspective for over 30 years at Taft College. Newspapers have permission to publish this column. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.
Mar 31, 2021 | Constitution, Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease, Ph.D.
First they censored Alex Jones from his millions of followers for saying that socialism was coming to America and that censorship, coming with it, is opposite free speech and freedom, and I did not speak out—because I was not an Alex Jones fan.
Then they tore down statues of America’s earliest explorers: Father Junípero Serra and Christopher Columbus, and I did not speak out—because they were said to have treated the Indians badly, therefore they were racists. Then statues of President Andrew Jackson, an Indian hater, followed by Confederate Civil War generals: Robert E. Lee, Stonewall Jackson etc. and I did not speak out—because statues had no real meaning and they were said to be racist.
Then statues of the Founding Fathers: Thomas Jefferson, George Washington etc. and I did not speak out—because some had slaves and therefore were racists. Then statues of Abraham Lincoln were torn down, the greatest abolitionist in U.S. History and still I did not speak out—because, well because I was not bright enough to know that he was not a racist but the opposite.
Then they set on fire St John’s Episcopal Church across from the White House. An Antifa leader next threatened to take down statues of Jesus Christ and burn the Bible and I did not speak out because—well they were just non-violent activities and these socialist anarchists were just expressing themselves.
Then they turned on all law enforcement beginning with ICE protecting our borders. Then on the police in our big cities, even promising to destroy them through no funding movements, and I did not speak out—because they were racists—even when the police units and city councils were themselves predominantly black.
Then for months they looted and set fire to downtown businesses of many large American cities: Seattle, Minneapolis, Portland etc. and I did not speak out—because my Democrat Party and my Democrat news outlets said that it was just right-wing propaganda and I believed them.
Then church attendance was banned or limited because of COVID and I did not speak out—-because I was not a Christian, actually I did not speak out either when it was the beaches that were closed or limited. I just believed my Democrat Party leadership and my Democrat Party controlled news outlets when they told me to wear two masks and that it was good for me to lock myself up in my home for more than a year, and I was so naive.
Then the 2020 presidential elections happened with hundreds of whistle blowers willing to perjure themselves testifying under oath that they witnessed massive cheating by the Democrat Party. Moreover, military intelligence documented that China had electronically switched millions of Trump votes to Biden giving him the presidency and I did not speak out—because it was only the Republicans that said this and my media always told me the Republicans, especially the nearly 75 million who voted for Trump, were all liars, racists and white supremacists and I believed them.
Then they censored a president of the United States, Donald J. Trump and I did not speak out—because my media and party told me that he was a racist, sexist, xenophobic and a white supremacist and I still believed them.
Then they censored everything negative against Joe Biden and I said nothing—because I believed my party and their media that we needed to stop disinformation. If only one side can express itself then there is only disinformation.
Then they attacked the Constitution that would have prevented all the above from happening had we just followed it as written and I still said nothing—because my party and news sources said that it was a racist document founded by racist white men to protect racism, and I believed them. Now it is nearly destroyed and so is freedom and I am a slave to the state. All who did not submit are now in reeducation camps or have been removed for spreading disinformation.
I should have defended these attacks on liberty but didn’t. Where there is no other side, there is no one left to speak for me because I did not speak for them. Now oppression and tyranny rule because people like me were the most gullible in American History. I could have spoken out but chose to be complacent instead and now liberty and the Constitution suffer for my ignorance. EXCEPT___
THEN THEY CAME FOR ME because I was white. They said all whites were systemically racist and whites needed to be reeducated and self condemning for what they had done to America. NOW I SPEAK UP—because it is a lie!!! I never offended anyone of a different race. Then my eyes were opened and I noticed that those saying and doing these horrifying things to America were also largely white and used mostly fabricated racism as a tool to make the least racist country on earth a socialist country. NOW I WILL FIGHT TO THE DEATH ALONG SIDE MY BLACK, BROWN, RED, AND YELLOW BROTHERS AND SISTERS TO DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION THAT GIVES ALL UNIVERSAL FREEDOM. I will no longer be a useful idiot for the socialist left.
(An American version of Paster Martin Niemoller’s “First They Came for the Socialists.” Niemoller believed his German neighbors, had been complicit through their silence in the Nazi imprisonment, persecution, and murder of millions of fellow countrymen. Dr. Pease believes the same is happening in America.)
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 taught history and political science from this perspective for over 30 years at Taft College. Newspapers have permission to publish this column. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.
Mar 17, 2021 | Constitution, Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease Ph.D.
On the heels of the Equality Act which opens the door for religious persecution and damages the right of assembly and speech, the Democrats with H.R.1, also misnamed, Bill For the People Act of 2021, seeks to cement corrupt election practices indefinitely. Also, like the Equality Act, it had already passed the House with a solid 220 Democrats over unanimous Republican opposition of 210, before most Americans were aware of it because of the party’s overwhelming control of the press and full-court press censorship practices of anything negative to Joe Biden.
Contrary to its title the nearly 800-page, “Bill For the People,” would remove authority over elections from the people. It constitutes a federal takeover of all elections. It incorporates and legalizes every objectionable practice in the election of 2020. It installs controlled elections.
Under the Constitution all elections, including federal, are governed at the state level under the philosophy never elevate to a higher level that which can be resolved at a lesser level. The Founding Fathers placed the responsibility for all elections with the body closest to the people, “The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senator and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the Legislature thereof” (Article 1, Section 4,). Corruption is isolated and the people themselves, most affected by it, are most likely to correct it.
It undermines the Elections Clause cited above which bestows principle authority to the states and the Electors Clause of Article II exclusive authority in presidential elections. “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” (Article II, Section 2, Clause 3) Indeed, it could destroy the Electoral College.
The state legislature constitutionally creates all law governing elections and holds all jurisdiction concerning the same. Removing them would require an amendment to the Constitution mandating a 3/4th vote of the states rather than a mere bill of Congress passed by the majority of a single party. Thus they hold authority over all voting issues. The Democrats want that power.
Again, all election law is the prerogative of the state legislatures alone excepting what presently exists in the Constitution or that which has gone through the amending process, as outlined in Article V, and thus reassigned to the federal government. These include Amendments: 12—election of the president, 15—universal suffrage not race based, 17—direct election of senators, 19—women’s suffrage, 24—poll tax for voting prohibited, and 26—voting at age eighteen.
The “For the People Act of 2021” dumps state authority over elections, thus moving it further FROM THE PEOPLE, handing it over to the federal government instead. It would mandate the following: mail-in ballots, a 10 day delay in election results, eliminate voter ID election security, register millions of criminally present foreign citizen voters, explode opportunities for election fraud, prevent cleaning up voter rolls, unleash mobs on political donors, gerrymander districts in favor of Democrats, make vote hacking easier, allow former felons voting before they complete their sentences, help those aged 16 and 17 vote illegally, ban keeping the records necessary for an election audit or recount, mandate ballot drop boxes, and work to extend to U.S. territories extra Democrat seats in congress (“15 Insane Things in Democrats’ H.R. 1 Bill to Corrupt Elections Forever,” by Joy Pullmann, March 8, 2021).
Such also violates Amendment 14, Section 2, which gives states exclusive constitutional authority to decide when felons may vote again. Again, a mere statute cannot override an Amendment to the Constitution.
It unconstitutionally replaces state authority with unelected commissions. The present independence of state judges assessing election controversies now would be under the authority of a new unelected “Commission to Protect Democratic Institutions” from Washington D.C.
If passed this is the largest overhaul of U.S. election law in at least a generation, perhaps since women’s suffrage, totally unconstitutional without an amendment. With virtually no bipartisanship in Congress, Democrats are quite happy with how they “elected” Joe Biden in 2020. The vote in the Senate is predictably 50-50 with Vice President Kamala Harris casting the tiebreaker.
Still, Senate rules require a 60 vote margin of victory and that will not happen honestly. This they admit, “If Mitch McConnell is not willing to provide 10 Republicans to support this landmark reform, I think Democrats are going to step back and reevaluate the situation,” Rep. John Sarbanes (D-MD), the author of HR 1, told Vox in a recent interview. “There’s all manner of ways you could redesign the filibuster so [the bill] would have a path forward” (“The bill still faces a steep climb in the US Senate,” Vox by Ella Nilsenella, March 3, 2021).
With the passage of H.R.1 everything previously illegal in an election is now made legal. Simply put, “The bill interferes with the ability of states and their citizens to determine qualifications for voters, to ensure the accuracy of voter registration rolls [and] to secure the integrity of elections” (The Facts About H.R. 1—the For the People Act of 2019, The Heritage Foundation February 1, 2019). Look to permanent one party rule and the end of free elections and the Constitution as we know it, if this bill, removing governance of elections further from the people, goes through.
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 taught history and political science from this perspective for over 30 years at Taft College. Newspapers have permission to publish this column. To read more of his weekly articles, ple ase visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.
Mar 10, 2021 | Constitution, Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease, Ph.D.
Vice President Mike Pence, the second most important Republican, was noticeably absent from the conservative confab CPAC a couple of weeks ago. Why? He has no place to go. Right now Pence is unlikely to ever serve elected office again. Normally the Vice President of a popular president follows the exiting president to the highest office in the land. Not now!
Pence served honorably as Trump’s Vice President and played a major role in the development of, what should be called, the Trump Vaccine. Unlike Senators Mitt Romney, Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski, each more Democrat than Republican, he was totally conservative, loyal, and religious. But sadly he missed his moment in time and self destructed in minutes because of his ignorance of the Constitution he swore to uphold.
But he was not alone. The Constitution was betrayed by both political parties due to ignorance, defiance of the document, or fear. On January 6 two Constitutional processes remained, either would have easily solved the election question between Donald Trump and Joe Biden, one involving the President of the Senate, Mike Pence, the other involving the House of Representatives.
In the first the Constitution reads, “The President of the Senate [Vice President Pence] shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted” (Amendment 12). All Pence had to do when a state submitted two slates was to say. “Arizona (et al.) has submitted two slates one from its state legislature, the other forwarded by the state secretary of state signed by the governor. Since only the state legislature is recognized by the Constitution as the proper submitter, and I can not count both, I will count only it.” Since five of the six contested state legislatures were Republican the issue evaporates.
Or, he might have said instead. “Since I can only count one slate and two have been submitted, I will give Arizona (et al.) 48 hours to resubmit directly to me a new slate of the state legislature only signatures; the candidate with a majority of these signatures will be counted. If this is not received in the time allotted, I will not be able to count any electoral college votes for Arizona in the 2020 presidential election.”
Instead, Pence chose to follow a procedure not at all in the Constitution termed the objection process. This required a member of the Senate and a member of the House each objecting, then dismissing the two houses to their separate quarters for two hours of discussion rendering a decision before reuniting. A process fraught with potential problems.
The objection process was contrived in the Equity Act of 1887, ten years after the fraudulent presidential election between Samual Tilden and Arthur B. Hayes in 1877, but the law had never been tested in a serious election as a procedure to replace the Constitution nor added to it as an amendment to the Constitution requiring 3/4th of the approval of the states as had been required in adjusting election procedure in Amendment 12.
Sadly the second and last Constitutional procedure in resolving a presidential election was defied by both political parties and the media, so ignorant or contemptuous of the Constitution were they. If Pence was unable to follow his constitutional procedure as President of the Senate as outlined above, he should have simply stated his inability to count two vote slates from the same state and turn it over to the House of Representatives as constitutionally required.
The Constitution reads. “if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers …the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; … and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice” (Amendment 12, U.S. Constitution).
In the House each state has only one vote for president, regardless of its size, California and Wyoming each have but one vote. Republicans controlled 28 state delegations, two more than the majority needed to win. Republicans blew this advantage entirely, Pence in particular.
Worse yet, Pence and the constitutionally ignorant Republican leader Mitch McConnell and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi essentially deleted this section of the Constitution by choosing instead a procedure not in the Constitution nor therein implied, termed the objection process. Why is this so dangerous? Past practice, once done, is the “go to” position, to maximize authority not actually in the Constitution and is the favored option for those wishing to destroy it.
Either of the two constitutional procedures remaining January 6, president of the senate or the House delegation, would have resulted in a Trump victory, hence Democrats had no interest in following the Constitution. Unfortunately Pence was too ignorant of the document or afraid to stand with it, instead he damaged the Constitution by legitimizing a procedure not in the Constitution over one, the House process, that was. One can understand why Democrats do not follow the Constitution, all gave Trump victory, but there is no excuse for the Republicans. All the Democrat’s had for a win was ballot manipulation and electronic vote switching from China.
So Pence has no place to go and could not feel good having failed the Constitution but his accomplice Mitch McConnell should not hold future elected office either. Biden holds office because of their constitutional ineptitude.
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 taught history and political science from this perspective for over 30 years at Taft College. Newspapers have permission to publish this column. To read more of his weekly articles, ple ase visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.
