Apr 7, 2020 | Constitution, Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease Ph. D.
I taught the U.S. Constitution and Current Events simultaneous at the college level for forty years using the Constitution as written in solving controversies or problems—so well designed was it. Students quickly discovered that there were no issues that could not be resolved. So how should the Coronavirus crisis be resolved under the Constitution? States would be taking the lead.
The overall principle of free government and the Constitution as written is to never elevate to a higher level that which can be resolved at a lesser level. Problem solving should begin with the individual and proceed in sequence from him to the family, city, county, and state and elevated only if a lower level of government could not do it. Outside the family all are elected, can tax for its needs, and each is reasonably accessible to the individual. Who says government further away and less accessible performs better or freer?
Notice in the problem solving sequence the federal government was not included. In the Constitution this was purposeful. States were sovereign outside foreign policy. The states were required to be republics (Article IV, Section 4) and were independent of the federal government except for the powers given it listed in Article I, Section 8, Clauses 1-18; essentially the power to tax, pay the debts, and provide for the general welfare and common defense—the last two limited by eight clauses each. All other authority not specifically identified by amendment was left to the states as per 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.”
We live under two political systems: one (federal) centered on foreign affairs, the other (states) primarily domestic. It’s called federalism, the two share power, neither subservient or above the other and each with separate duties; like a good marriage, a team. This is why President Donald Trump has been encouraging more state involvement. Federal involvement in our lives is supposed to be minimal.
The advantages of federalism are enormous. States serve as laboratories of experimentation. States look to sister states for models and borrow from them in refining their own programs. These places of experimentation benefit everyone.
In the case of the Wahun China Virus (coronavirus), the federal government, led by Trump, controls the border under common defense—those coming in. Trump is not constitutionally empowered to mandate national behavior. Constitutionally states have borders and manage themselves. Taxing powers enable them to fund anything they wish and governors have broad powers to experiment, or not, on different solutions.
Nevada, Wisconsin and New York governors inhibited using hydroxy-chloroquine in the treatment of the virus, others encouraged its use. The virus apexes in different places at different times more especially in crowded areas and summer (getting outdoors) comes earlier in southern states. Each state would decide what measures were best suited for it regarding “shelter in place” or when to return to work. Trump, or Congress, would have little to do with these decisions.
As of March 25, 2020, New York had 10 times the number infected compared to the next in line state New Jersey, and 15 times the number of third in line California. New York Governor Andrew Cuomo quickly developed a plan of action to slow the virus and simultaneously ramp up the beds, staff, and equipment. He initiated “mandatory playground social density,” and no close contact sports. He also sought dormitories and former nursing homes to facilitate more hospital beds.
Moreover, he expressed some unique ideas as well, such as splitting ventilators (for two beds instead of one) and developed a “surge healthcare force” of retired nurses and doctors, hopefully 40,000 strong, as a backup for tired healthcare workers. He created a Mental Health Professionals Sign up Program together with a Hot-Line. He suggested a “rolling deployment” of equipment and practitioners serving New York first then “rolling” to different hot spots as each state enters its apex. Federalism was exercised as 49 other governors did similarly rather than dump all responsibility on Trump.
Under federalism states have the responsibility to be prepared for emergencies and have in place their own programs of assistance and funding. But Governor Cuomo, although commendably now doing something, should have planned for this predicted emergency his first term in office rather than his third. Ventilators, masks, and reserve funding for emergencies, plus a plan for reserve medical staff, should have already been in place. They weren’t! In emergencies when states do not perform their responsibilities they force power to the next level of government as was such in this case. Trump had to provide ventilators, a medical ship, and build three makeshift hospitals in Central Park at federal expense.
Although the Constitution is designed to deal with the coronavirus, states have allowed themselves to become subservient and wards of the federal government. They now hold “alms bowl in hand” begging the federal government to do things for them. They allow whomever is president to have power over them. Many states have larger populations than many countries and have their own tax base and authority. Fumbling this responsibility should never happen. Constitutionally, once the borders are secure, under federalism 50 governors should be on the front lines ahead of Donald Trump.
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 23, 2020 | Constitution, Economy, Globalism, Immigration, Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease, Ph. D
This is my 551st column on liberty and the Constitution, I know no-one more published on this topic. I lived under 13 presidents of the United States, all gave lip service to the Constitution but none followed it closely. Of these I voted for only two Republicans. Those who least followed it were Lyndon Johnson and Barack Obama. I spent a lifetime lecturing on these and the presidents before them. I dislike political factions (parties) as did George Washington. Readers know I call things as they are and defend the Constitution as written.
So with this background I am qualified to say, “Trump haters,” (Bushites, Clintonites, Romneyites, Holywood misfits, secret combinations in both majors political parties, coup conspirators in the FBI and CIA and finally fake news outlets notably MSNBC, NBC, New York Times and the Washington Post) who have conspired to take out Donald Trump. “Isn’t is time to lay down your arms?”
Four Congressional investigations, the Mueller and Horowitz Reports, and the US Senate Impeachment trial exonerated and indeed acquitted this man. Trump has endured more unjustified opposition/persecution than all presidents combined.
In the upcoming 2020 presidential election you offer only hate Trump rhetoric and freedom and prosperity destroying socialism. You are destroying the Democratic Party, perhaps America. You make Democratic President John F. Kennedy look far right. You offer nothing to build, strengthen or edify this country. Republicans before Trump were awful but you are much worse.
Please cease inspiring the crazies in our society to intimidate MAGA haters, innocent Catholic high school kids visiting DC, or worse, driving vehicles into tents housing Republican campaigners or shooting Congressman Steve Scalise while playing baseball with fellow congressmen and staffers. Cease supporting Antifa and MS-13 gang violence by not condemning them.
So what has Trump done for you that should command your respect? The list is extensive but let me identify in order my favorite six.
He defends the Constitution as written. Unfortunately Trump is a conservative, not a constitutionalist, but he follows the Constitution more closely than any president since Calvin Coolidge. He adamantly defends the 1st (religious and free speech freedoms), 2nd (freedom to protect oneself and neighbors—even from the government), and 10th amendments (states’ rights). No president has defended the rights of the unborn more than he. He nominated two supreme court justices, Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch, that appear to follow it and has placed, with Senate confirmation, 187 judicial nominees on the Federal bench who attest that they too will follow the Constitution as written. This is monumental as the Constitution is the reason we are free.
He opposes the globalist plan to first create regional governments of all nations, through trade deals that transfer economic, then political sovereignty, such as the European Union, then merge them into world government. He has made speeches to that end, on the campaign trail and even in the United Nations, which are never covered by the establishment (globalist) medias. His opposition to world government is, and always has been, why he is so hated by them. We have published on this before. Finally, the U.S. is first consideration in his “America First” pledge.. We are no longer nation builders or the world’s policemen. He wants to cut foreign aid (foreign welfare) spending it in the U.S. instead.
He stimulated the economy as no president has in decades. Manufacturing companies have and are returning to America. Almost 4 million new jobs have been created since his election. Reportedly, unemployment claims have now hit a 49-year low. African, Hispanic, and Asian American unemployment are at the lowest rates for decades or ever recorded, as are women and youth unemployment. He promised to dump two regulations for every new regulation but instead dumped eight. This returned companies to America, freed and stimulated the economy as never before resulting in an energy boom placing the U.S. as number one oil and natural gas producer in the world. Fifty-seven percent of Americans say they are better off financially since Trump took office.
He is securing our southern border. New agreements with Mexico, El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras required them to stop the flood of illegal immigration through their countries, or face higher tariffs. Now deadly drugs and violent criminals are not flowing as easily across our borders and into our communities. According to Customs and Border Protection (CBP) statistics 976 alien gang members were apprehended at the border in FY 2019, including 464 aliens affiliated with MS-13. ICE arrested 143,099 aliens in FY 2019, 86 percent of whom had criminal records.
He has done more than all presidents combined to expose and stop child sex trafficking. By executive order Trump declared it a national emergency Dec. 21, 2017. Just last year ICE arrested 2,197 criminals associated with human trafficking and freed 428 victims. To encourage other countries to meet more strident standards eliminating trafficking, he signed the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act.
He destroyed 100% of ISIS caliphate.
So Trump haters, you have been wrong on most everything the last three years. I too criticize Trump in print occasionally but isn’t it time to notice that he has been one of our best presidents and lay down your hate and arms? Others think so, his rallies now comprise 20% Democrats.
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 16, 2020 | Constitution, Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease, Ph. D
Michael Bloomberg credited himself as having, through his donations, changed the majority of the House of Representatives to Democrat returning Nancy Pelosi to power. He said: “They talk[ed] about 40 Democrats” needed to return the House to power in 2018, “Twenty-one of those were people they [Bloomberg’s group] spent $100 million to help elect. All of the new Democrats that came in, put Nancy Pelosi in charge, and gave the Congress the ability to control this President, I boug[ht]… I got them” (Dan Merica, “Bloomberg catches himself from saying he ‘bought’ House races in 2018,” CNN, February 25, 2020). Despite the rhetoric Democrats love the money provided by the rich.
No one should be able to purchase a seat in any election, state or federal. This must never be allowed to happen again. But it will happen again if not blocked by an amendment to the U. S. Constitution.
LibertyUnderFire is the lead advocate for ending outside influences in our nation’s elections and thus offers the following new amendment to the U.S. Constitution. “All election funding, outside a candidate’s personal wealth, in all elections shall originate from eligible voters in the district served by the election and donated since the last election for the same office.”
But Bloomberg is not alone in purchasing elections, for some time we have been reporting the influence of the moneyed elite, the billionaire club, notably George Soros and Tom Steyers, in choosing our elected officers from the White House down to local races. This happens when money flows in from outside where the candidate will serve allowing those of wealth, to replace constituent influence thus effectively purchasing the representatives from outside the voting districts. If constituents have lost their power to decide their leaders, how can we pretend any longer that we have a democratic republic?
In 2018 Both George Soros and Tom Steyer bankrolled far left candidate Andrew Gillum’s Florida campaign for governor hoping to flip the state from red to blue anticipating that the resulting electoral count increase could sway the nation for decades. Gillum “courted Soros’ organizations and spoke at a number of their gatherings.” When they met at San Francisco, “he promised to back Gillum’s gubernatorial run.” Steyer “funneled about $800,000 into the Get Out the Vote initiative prior to the Gillum run” (Ingraham Angle, August 29, 2018). An activity that was targeted to get Gillum elected; hence would be denied Soros and Steyer with the new amendment, as with most of the $30 million he spent on the midterms. Both Soros and Steyer are California, not Florida, residents.
But what about billionaires buying their own political office, even the presidency, to the tune of half a billion as Bloomberg did? Such buyout is openly known. People do not like anyone purchasing elected office if known. But when Bloomberg purchased 21 House of Representatives seats in 2018 it was hidden until he bragged about it in the February 25, 2020 Democratic Party Presidential debate. If it did happened again we would suggest another constitutional amendment to limit such self funding.
Propositions are a part of most elections and can be considered without attachment to a candidate. This would not stop the funding or creation of ads for or against a candidate, or ballot issues, so long as all monies used in such originates from voters within the district served by the candidate. The word originates is designed to stop donation transfer from outside district sources to inside donors to circumvent the amendment.
Why have we not stopped this? Because both political parties benefit from it. On the congressional level, those holding “safe seats,” as for example Democrat Nancy Pelosi and Republican Kevin McCarthy, can either buildup gigantic arsenals to “nuke” a threatening contender, or worse, handoff their unneeded donations to a like-minded candidate in another state to favorably impact elections often adverse to the will of its citizens. These outside influences have to stop.
As we have seen from Bloomberg, more funding allows more signs and literature to be distributed, and more newspaper, radio and television ads to destroy an opponent or get a message out resulting in a higher probability of winning. Bloomberg flooded the airwaves. Candidates with the most money and publicity usually win and the rich, by their funding, select contenders long before the people vote, therefore they dominate the result. In many cases more money originates from outside a voting district than within. If no candidate could receive money from outside his district, it would stop much influence peddling.
Under this amendment the Clinton Foundation monies could not be used to influence elections as much of that money comes from international contributors. Under this amendment no contribution could be made to influence any contest to which the contributor could not personally vote. This amendment would limit the billionaire class to the “purchase” of only THEIR congressman or senators —not a large group of them.
Congressmen from “safe” districts could not “handoff” their unneeded donations to a like minded candidate in another district. Nor could they holdover funding from previous victories to “nuke” a future opponent. Contributions are a form of voting normally intended for this candidate only, and for this election only, and they could only be accumulated since the last election for that office.
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.
Feb 25, 2020 | Constitution, Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease, Ph. D
Most hold that since Richard M. Nixon resigned from office as President before the full House of Representatives could vote on the articles of impeachment, he therefore was not impeached. But they omit the House vote 12 days after he resigned.
There were two votes on impeachment by the full House of Representatives. The first on February 6, 1974, was a vote 410 for and 4 against, authorizing impeachment proceedings against Nixon which allowed the House Judiciary Committee to begin the formal inquiry. Talk of such had preceded this vote for several months. Thereafter, following six months of House inquiry that did not go well for Nixon, he resigned August 8, 1974 before the full House voted to actually impeach him based on the findings of their Judiciary Committee. So technically Nixon was not impeached. Although accused, which is what impeachment is, in the public mind there was no reason to proceed as removal from office was accomplished by Nixon’s resignation
But wait, that was not the view of the House of Representatives as a second vote was cast TO GIVE FINALITY TO THE LONG INQUIRY PROCESS. It followed twelve days later complete with a 528-paged report. Wikipedia reports: “On August 20, the House voted to accept the final Judiciary Committee report by a vote of 412 to 3, with Republican Earl Landgrebe, plus Democrats Otto Passman and Sonny Montgomery casting the only no votes. The 528‐page report, published on August 22, laid out in detail what it called the “clear and convincing evidence” against Nixon. It also contained a statement from the committee’s Republican members who had originally opposed impeachment, stating for the record that Nixon had not been ‘hounded from office’ but rather had destroyed his own presidency through his patterns of deceit.”
The second vote occurred after the months-long House inquiry and was the final vote of the House of Representatives—no different than any other House vote on impeachment except that Nixon had already resigned. So Richard Nixon was impeached, meaning charged, just as Andrew Johnson before him and those after.
Donald Trump, was not impeached by the House for a month after their vote as they refused to give finality to their work by passing their demand for a trial to the Senate. They had, in effect, dropped the charges. This, of course, subsequently changed when House Managers took their charges to the Senate and Trump, now impeached by the House, was acquitted by the Senate.
With Nixon they had not finished their work because the full House had not voted, that happened August 20, 1974 after his resignation. In this case, there was no need to try Nixon on the accusations in the Senate as he had already accomplished what a Senate conviction would, his removal from office.
So why are so many still ignorant of the Nixon impeachment vote—even college professors? Primarily because with Nixon removing himself the issue went away and the nation, so hurt by the Watergate Scandal, wanted to forget. Consequently The New York Times covered (buried) this previously headlined story on page 22.
It read: “Without a trace of fanfare or drama and without a word of debate, the impeachment inquiry by the House of Representatives formally ended today. It ended as it had begun 10 months ago. First, there was a private agreement among leaders of both parties about how to proceed. Then, the action was taken in the tried and true parliamentary language that the House uses day after day to conduct routine business.
“At 1:50 P.M., Representative Peter W. Rodino Jr., chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, rose on the House floor and announced, ‘Mr. Speaker, I submit a privileged report pursuant to House Resolution 803.’ That resolution had given the committee the right to act as an agent of the House, with all of the House’s constitutional authority, in investigating whether. former, President Richard M. Nixon should be impeached. The Speaker of the House, Representative Carl Albert, responded in the same words and the same barely audible voice that he has used hundreds of other times when committee chairmen filed routine reports….
“But this report is not routine,” The NY Times continued, “Running about 200,000 words, it sets out the evidence that the Judiciary Committee found warranted Mr. Nixon’s impeachment, and removal from office. Had Mr. Nixon not resigned, this document would have formed the basis for the first House impeachment debate in more than a century….
“It is Important,” Representative Robert W. Kastenmeier of Wisconsin, a ranking Democrat on the committee, said afterward, and this is a major point, that “the impeachment matter not seem unresolved. Representative Thomas P. O’Neill Jr. of Massachusetts, the Democratic leader, offered a resolution commending the judiciary committee for its work and accepting its report.
“Representative John J. Rhodes of Arizona, the, Republican leader, took the necessary parliamentary step of demanding a second, and, without debate, the resolution was approved by a vote of 412 to 3” (House Formally Concludes Inquiry Into Impeachment,” by David E. Rosenbaum, New York Times,Aug. 21, 1974, p. 22).
So Nixon was impeached by a vote of 412 to 3. The populous can be excused for their ignorance but college professors, facts checking services, news reporters, journalists and historians cannot.
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.
Feb 10, 2020 | Constitution, Liberty Articles
Harold Pease, Ph. D
Senator Rand Paul’s question to the House Managers in the impeachment question and answer phase of the proceedings against Donald Trump follows. “Are you aware that House intelligence committee staffer Shawn Misko had a close relationship with Eric Ciaramella while at the National Security Council together and are you aware, and how do you respond to, reports that Ciaramella and Misko may have worked together to plot impeaching the President before there were formal House impeachment proceedings.”
Why is this the most important question of the about 100 asked? The campaign to impeach Donald Trump began “at the moment he was sworn in” (Washington Post, Jan. 20, 2017). Hoax followed hoax until the present Ukrainian debacle resulting in the Senate impeachment trial and acquittal of President Trump. But the hoax perpetuators always walk away without consequence despite two notable victims—the Constitution and Donald Trump.
Nancy Pelosi knew what she was doing when she said, “He will be impeached forever.” Trump’s name will be listed forever in the history books with Johnson, Nixon and Clinton as having been impeached—all associated with wrong doing. When a very large segment of the population was so ignorant of the Constitution that they wondered why Trump was still president the day after being impeached by the House, the same will be so in the future. Ignorance rules. Impeachment means accused, not tried. Pelosi could not have done anything more harmful to Trump’s reputation with generations yet unborn and she knew it. Her name will be forgotten in the dust heap of history but Trump’s never will, primarily because of her.
Trump’s name has been defamed although no crime can actually be identified and certainly not one listed in the Constitution as impeachable. Trump can’t sue to recover it. He can never remove this defamation— acquittal only partially helps. This may be the best case in American history when the accused was not allowed to face his accuser in direct violation of the 5th Amendment requiring it.
Yet the individual most responsible for having placed this stain on Donald Trump walks the streets having irreparably hurt another but himself protected from disclosure because he called himself a whistleblower, although in no way does he fit the definition of the 1989 Whistleblower Protection Act, and thus is not entitled to special protection. Without his complaint, based entirely upon hearsay as were 16 of the 18 House witnesses, the impeachment would have never resulted. He was billed by Adam Schiff as their strongest case but was disarmed when Trump declassified and published his conversation with the Ukrainian President.
Notice Senator Paul’s question did not use the term whistleblower. Said differently, “Congressman Schiff, how do you respond to reports that your employee and his friend Ciaramella, from a shared previous post in the NSC, worked together to plot the whistleblower leak to push the House into this impeachment charade before there were formal House impeachment proceedings?” And, “In refusing to identify the person you first brought to the public’s attention as key to the need of impeachment are you not hiding your connection as a fact witness in this plot to unseat an elected president?”
Chief Justice John Roberts without explanation, announced: “The presiding officer declines to read the question as submitted.” He did the same with a second and similar Paul question the next day. A presumption is that it contained the name of the so-called whistleblower. But how could he assume this—not from the question—unless this name was already DC common knowledge. In a town known for leaking like a sieve, it was. Only the public is denied knowing.
So John Roberts, by refusing only this question of a hundred, indirectly gave credence that one of the two names Senator Paul was asking Schiff about was the whistle-leaker. Since everyone already knew Shawn Misdo as a Schiff employee, then Eric Ciaramella is the man most responsible for the impeachment of Trump and the name forbidden by the Democratic Party media machine to name.
No other name is mentioned as being the infamous whistle leaker. The Internet is full of references to him some more credible than others. Real Clear Investigations observes that Ciaramella’s name has been an open secret in Washington D.C. His lawyers Mark S. Zaid and Andrew P. Bakaj refuse to confirm or deny that he is. According to The Washington Post, the whistleblower is still working at the CIA, but has been provided security. Q followers identified him last September. He has been named by Rush Limbaugh, Eric Trump, and Rand Paul.
The Washington Examiner established that he is a career CIA analyst who was detailed to the NSC at the White House during the Obama administration working as point man on Ukraine issues with Vice President Joe Biden traveling with him to Ukraine on Air Force Two at least one of the six visits Biden made to Ukraine. Ciaramella also worked under leaker James Clapper.
It is time to reveal the name outside the DC beltway, of the one person that started the most recent of several impeachment parades, Eric Ciaramella. We insist that he be investigated thoroughly as an accomplice in the Biden Quid Pro Quo and as an accomplice with Adam Schiff in the Ukranian Hoax Coup to replace a president of the United States.
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.
Feb 3, 2020 | Constitution, Liberty Articles
Harold Pease, Ph. D
Although no president has been removed from office through impeachment conviction what would happen were Donald J. Trump the first? The Constitution is clear. He would be removed from office immediately and forbidden “to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States” again. As a private citizen, without privilege due to executive office, he would be “liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to law.” If the crime were serious enough he could go to prison like anyone else.
Vice President Mike Pence would be sworn into office as the 46th president. He would finish the Trump term and run for president in 2020. He would need to move fast. The 25th Amendment to the Constitution requires him to nominate a new vice president “who shall take the office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both houses of Congress.”
Should Pence die, through natural causes or otherwise, prior to this confirmation vote, the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, would be sworn into office as the 47th president of the United States and she would finish the Trump/Pence term and run for president in 2020. She would also immediately nominate a new vice president who would take office when confirmed by the majority in both Houses. The Democrats would have retrieved the White House without a popular or Electoral College vote.
Why is Adam Schiff, and others, allowed to lie without consequence? Yes, Schiff has a real problem with the truth. The Constitution is designed to protect him with good reason. If he is removed his congressional district is denied their choice of voice in the House of Representatives. Excepting “Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace” (Article I, Section 6, Clause 1), he and all Congressmen and Senators, are “privileged from Arrest during Attendance in the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same,” and, this is important, “for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.”
Be grateful for this. It works both ways. Our lawmakers are free to express themselves without fear of any government retaliation, all information is free to get out.
That said, it is also true that most tire quickly of the lies or offensive behavior of those who cannot restrain themselves and cease empowering them with their support—notice the lack of interest in the impeachment proceedings. In an informed and vibrant elective such is challenged in the next election and a better option forwarded to take his place. The Constitutional process cleans out such. Granted in some districts constituents are not informed or vibrant and such remain in office forever. Maxine Waters and Nancy Pelosi districts come to mind in addition to Adam Schiff.
But the Constitution deals with that too when extreme. “Each House may …. punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.” The Constitution did not anticipate political parties and far too many vote by party, regardless of what their candidates do or say. As a result this check on lying or inappropriate behavior is largely tolerated because of political party.
So why shouldn’t the Senate have ANY additional witnesses beyond the 18 that already testified? (Yes 18! Schiff refuses to release the transcript of Michael Adkinson # 18, presumably it defends Trump.) Because it severely muddies the Constitution which is very clear that the House investigates and the Senate evaluates. The House, is supposed to fully investigate and cite the impeachable offenses BEFORE they vote. The Senate is not to do the work of the House as both bodies would do the same thing. It cannot call new witnesses but it could recall a witness previously called by the House if some point in their previous testimony needed clarification or having Adkinson testify again. Their call for new witnesses strongly suggests that they are still looking for a crime. Nor can the Senate add a new impeachable offense should a new witness, such as John Bolton, give them such.
The Mitt Romney’s in the Senate and the Democrats insisting upon additional witnesses would create a precedent for doing the work of the other body and forever searching for a crime that does not exist. The present clarity of the Constitution would be undermined. Both groups demonstrate constitutional illiteracy.
Why aren’t Obstruction of Justice and Obstruction of Congress impeachable offenses? Four reasons: 1) both are too vague therefore subject to varied interpretation and varied application, 2) most previous presidents did both, 3) neither is a crime, and 4) neither is in the class of High Crimes such as Treason or bribery. Even Quid-Pro-Quo, if proved, is not a crime or an impeachable offense. Actually obstruction of Congress is a legitimate separation of powers function of the Executive Branch.
The Constitution is non-partisan. The bar for impeachable offenses was made high and uncommon so that presidents had some immunity from mere disagreements. If Trump is removed from office for anything presently cited by the House, it would weaken future presidents to the point that they would not dare oppose or offend the majority in the House lest they have to spend most of their time warding off frivolous and multiple impeachment inquiries.
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.
