Jan 20, 2020 | Constitution, Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease, Ph. D
We live under two political systems: one centered on foreign affairs, the other 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.
Thomas Jefferson explained, “The states are not subordinate to the national government but rather the two are coordinate departments of one single and integral whole…. The one is domestic the other the foreign branch of the same government.”
The Founders were aware of the nature of all governments to grow. George Washington warned, “Government is like fire, a dangerous servant and a fearful master.” In order to ensure the fire does not spread and burn down the home, one builds a fireplace to keep the fire contained. That fireplace is the Constitution, particularly Section 8, which lists all powers that are given to Congress. Everything Congress did was to be clearly linked to at least one of these enumerated grants of power. The states who created the federal government, retained unto themselves all other powers as per Amendments 9 and 10 of the Constitution.
The advantages of federalism are enormous. States become laboratories of experimentation. Californians remember numerous “brownouts” at the turn of the century because of California’s failed energy policies. Other states viewing this were careful to avoid the same policies. States look to sister states for models and borrow from them in refining their own programs. These places of experimentation work to everyone’s advantage. What if we had federalized California’s failed energy policy? We would have had “brownouts“ on a national scale.
Had our power crazed federal government refrained from its natural inclination to take more power, healthcare reform could have gone through this experimental process designed by our Founding Fathers. We would then have been able to identify the weaknesses or strengths while they were still geographically isolated. Only three states had tried it: Oregon, Massachusetts, and Hawaii. That was clearly not enough to identify and avoid the “brownouts “ in the area of healthcare. Instead, they took a half-baked idea and made it mandatory for all and called it Obamacare.
Since healthcare was, and is not yet, a listed authority of the federal government it necessitates an enlargement of the enumerated list through Article V, requiring ratification by “3/4th of the Several States.” Since more than 60% of the people did not want this, the Constitution would have protected us from what we know now was unsustainable.
To protect Federalism the Founders did two things. First, Senators were to be selected by state legislatures so the U. S. Senate would be protective of state concerns. All law required the approval of the House of Representatives—the peoples’ representatives—and the Senate—the states’ representatives. That is why we have two branches of government to make law—two perspectives. The Seventeenth Amendment, mandating that the people, rather than the state legislators, elect U. S. Senators, destroyed this protection. Senators are today simply glorified House members. State issues thereafter were left mostly unrepresented—thus unprotected—on the federal level.
Second, the structure of the U. S. Constitution listed and defined federal power Article I, Section 8, leaving all power not specifically listed with the states as per the 10th Amendment. “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.”
The Progressive (socialist) Movement of the early 20th Century wrecked havoc on Federalism. The 16th Amendment, removing the previous constitutional taxing requirements based upon “apportionment among the several States “ and “census or enumeration,” to simply incomes, which could be raised arbitrarily at will. This left the federal government with unlimited resources to spend and expand—feeding its natural tendency to grow.
It used this excess to bribe states, counties, and cities to perform functions not listed in the Constitution, like the 55-mile-per-hour speed limit of the Ford and Carter Administrations, which funding later could be denied if states refused to comply. Consequently states became addicted to federal money making it near impossible for them to “just say no” to federal takeover in their domestic dominion. A third of their resources come from the federal government.
Federal courts have amplified federal law by a twisted interpretation of the poorly constructed Amendment 14, also to the detriment of Federalism. Amendment 18, repealed by Amendment 21, openly invited the federal government to decide approved beverages for us and then from there to approved drugs; all matters constitutionally left entirely to state jurisdiction.
Failure to preserve Federalism has cost us much liberty, most notably limited government. Lawmakers totally ignore both the listed areas of government (Article I, Sec. 8) and Amendment 10. State legislators have no influence in the U.S. Senate, once designed to protect them. States are bribed into compliance and now are addicted to federal handouts. They have become mostly administrative agents of the federal government without immunity to federal intrusion nor will to use nullification to block unconstitutional law. And we are excessively taxed.
We do not need an Article V constitutional convention to restore Federalism, just more lawmakers who understand the Constitution as written and will adhere to it, especially in the areas specified above. Now is the time to find and elevate them.
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.
Dec 31, 2019 | Constitution, Liberty Articles
Harold Pease, Ph. D
As a college professor teaching the Constitution for forty years I am disturbed when those in power demonstrate constitutional illiteracy. Such is the time in which we live.
Impeachment means accused. Three presidents Andrew Johnson, Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton were impeached (accused), none were removed from office in a subsequent Senate trial. Nixon removed himself by resigning, the other two continued in office filling their terms.
The House alone formulates the charges (Art. I, Sec. 2, Cla. 5) which must be treason, bribery or high crimes and misdemeanors (Art. II, Sec. 4). Constitutionally no other charges are impeachable. The House cannot make up any offense that is not clearly one of these as in “obstruction of justice” or “obstruction of Congress.” “The Senate has the sole power to try all Impeachments” and the Chief Justice presides (Art. I Sec. 3, Cla. 6). The Senate cannot add to the list of charges. Constitutionally simple and practiced the last 231 years until now.
If House leadership chooses to discontinue the impeachment process by not passing its listed charges to the Senate—even after a positive vote on the charges was taken—it has not finished its process. Trump is, in effect, not charged because it is the only body constitutionally allowed to bring charges.. The accused cannot be said to have been impeached. The charges are effectively dropped. The moment that House leadership passes the baton to the Senate, Trump will join the others afore mentioned as having been accused (impeached) and will finish his term in office unless the Senate votes to remove him which has never happened to any president. It would be unconstitutional for the Senate to go into House chambers and, in effect, take the impeachment baton from them.
Nancy Pelosi, had no authority to turn the accusation process, normally done by the whole House, into the appearance of a trial in two House committees—which she did. It confused voters, “If tried and convicted, why is Trump still president?”
The founders wanted one body to accuse, a separate body to try. Any crime by a president is a crime against the people, thus the larger numbered House and more frequently elected, should be the one listing the accusations. This is why the House of Representative has “sole Power of Impeachment (Art. 1, Sec.2, Cla. 5), meaning initiating the accusing process.
Why was the House purposely forbidden doing more than accuse? Alexander Hamilton, the frequently cited founder of the Democratic Party, understood the greater emotion and passions of this body which made it the perfect body to originate the complaints but not to deliberate them. He wrote in The Federalist Papers #65, they would be “too often the leaders or the tools of the most cunning or the most numerous faction, and on this account, can hardly be expected to possess the requisite neutrality towards those whose conduct may be the subject of scrutiny”—think Chairmen Adam Schiff and Jerry Nadler. Remember Democratic leaders were calling for the impeachment of Trump before he was inaugurated and thereafter have unsuccessfully searched for a crime.
Hamilton prophetically continued, “in such cases there will always be the greatest danger that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties, than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt.” Remember in the House “trial” the president, his lawyers, and Republican colleagues were excluded due process, even calling witnesses.
Why was the Senate, with six-year terms rather than two and then elected by their state legislature, thought by the Constitutional Convention to be “the most fit depositary of this important trust?” Because, Hamilton explained, it was “least hasty in condemning” and “will be most inclined to allow due weight to the arguments which may be supposed to have produced it.”
Hamilton asked: “Where else than in the Senate could have been found a tribunal sufficiently dignified, or sufficiently independent? What other body would be likely to feel CONFIDENCE ENOUGH IN ITS OWN SITUATION, to preserve, unawed and uninfluenced, the necessary impartiality between an INDIVIDUAL accused, and the REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PEOPLE, HIS ACCUSERS?” The Senate is not so emotionally charged as is the more frequently elected House, reason can prevail. Notice the Democrats cannot wait 10 months for the people to vote again so emotionally charged are they as exemplified by Democratic Majority Whip James Clyburn reportedly saying, “Give the President a fair trial, then hang him.”
Still, Hamilton warned, “it ought not to be forgotten that the demon of faction [political party] will, at certain seasons, extend his sceptre over all numerous bodies of men.” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, not satisfied with the two House charges—neither a crime or listed in the Constitution as impeachable offenses—remains in search of a crime, forever demanding more witnesses. Even if found the Senate cannot constitutionally add to the list of accusations given it by the House.
Again, if House leadership chooses to discontinue the impeachment process by not passing its charges to the Senate—even after a positive vote on the charges was taken—it has not finished its process. The charges in effect are dropped by the only body constitutionally empowered to bring charges. It has stopped the process and the accused, President Trump, cannot be said to have been impeached because the charges were dropped.
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.
Dec 3, 2019 | Constitution, Economy, Globalism, Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease, Ph. D
No one has been more outspoken against globalism than President Donald Trump. His “America First” platform is the antithesis of their plans for world government. This is the reason all globalists, Democrat and Republican, and all globalist mediums, especially The New York Times and Washington Post, oppose him at all costs. Hence the shock when globalists now praise Trump’s USMCA (United States/Mexico/Canada) sovereignty destroying replacement of NAFTA—seemingly a merged agreement of the worst parts of NAFTA and TPP.
Most Americans viewed the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade agreements for what they were, sovereignty sucking packs to undermine and destroy the independence of nation states, as previous agreements had done in Europe resulting in the European Union. Globalists, funded by the financial global elites (from the Rockefeller’s to George Soros) had failed previous tries at world government, notably the League of Nations and the United Nations, and concluded that loyalty to nation states is the enemy to world government, hence their decades-old strategy of consolidating regions of the globe, first economically, then politically into regional government. These then consolidated later into world government.
Trump had billed the TPP as “the worst agreement ever negotiated” and three days after his inauguration withdrew the United States as a signatory and refused further TPP negotiations. He promised to renegotiate NAFTA as well. In the Rose Garden, October 1, 2018 USMCA rollout, Trump said, “Throughout the campaign I promised to renegotiate NAFTA, and today we have kept that promise,”
So why are the globalists so happy with USMCA? It looks to be a blend of the worst parts of NAFTA and TPP. According to the online Huffington Post, “At least half of the men and women standing behind Trump during his Rose Garden ceremony praising the new deal were the same career service staff who negotiated nearly identical provisions in TPP, which Trump had railed against.” One of these, Trevor Kincaid, the lead negotiator for TPP, said, “It’s really the same with a new name. It’s basically the ‘22 Jump Street’ of trade deals.”
Richard N. Haass, president of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), the lead organization for world government and the most influential organization on foreign policy, in both major political parties the last hundred years, tweeted his praise for the agreement, “The USMCA looks to be the trade pact formerly known as NAFTA plus 10-20%. Hope it becomes a precedent for TPP.” Adding later, “What matters is that the US joins it.…” Haass, so enthused by the agreement, added the next day, “USMCA is NAFTA plus TPP plus a few tweaks. Whatever … TPP by another name.” No wonder. The lead negotiator of the agreement was CFR member Robert Lighthizer, who candidly admitted that the USMCA is “built on” many aspects of the TPP.
Christian Gomez, who spent considerable time with the 1,809 paged document wrote, “A side-by-side comparison of the USMCA and the TPP shows extensive overlap. Virtually all of the problems inherent in the TPP are likewise contained in the USMCA, such as the erosion of national sovereignty, submission to a new global governance authority, the unrestricted movement of foreign nationals, workers’ rights to collective bargaining, and regional measures to combat climate change” (What’s Wrong with the USMCA? New American, Nov. 2018).
So the globalist are happy. They thought under Trump their decades old efforts to unite the United States, Mexico and Canada into a regional government, economically first then politically, as they had the European Union, would be unraveled. Instead, globalists regained all their lost ground plus leapt forward into the areas of labor, immigration, and environment regulation, which agreement would handcuff the legislatures of these countries to regional law passed by unelected bureaucrats.
Gomez added, “The pact is even worse than NAFTA regarding undermining American sovereignty and self-determination, in favor of North American integration extending beyond trade to include labor and environmental policies. It is, in fact, so bad that the globalists who had lambasted Trump for renegotiating NAFTA praised him afterward” (Ibid).
So much for the Constitution or national sovereignty holding them back. And Trump fell for it.
The massive size of the agreement screams control. Liberty is defined by the limits of the government on the individual. The management of an entire country is housed in a Constitution of only four or five pages and a Bill of Rights of a single page—not 1,809.
A real free trade agreement could probably fit a single page and be noted for its absence of rules on trade—as it was in the early days of this republic. Let us instead disallow the rich from funding organizations designed to end our Republic, destroy the Constitution, or create a world government, all of which they presently do. Such used to be called treason.
Now there exists no evidence Trump really supports globalism except his USMC Agreement—everything else he has done demonstrates otherwise. He has clearly been duped. Getting him to disavow what he called “incredible” will not be easy but he must if he sincerely decries world government and supports America First. If not, he will be credited with instigating “the worst agreement ever negotiated”—a government over our own. And in time will be linked with the Rockefeller’s and George Soros as having helped bring about world government.
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.
Nov 25, 2019 | Constitution, Economy, Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease, Ph. D
Both major political parties had the power to control or end enslaving national debt the last fifty years. Both failed. Neither even try anymore. Neither party had the intestinal fortitude to say no to government gifting and now offer only more debt on our defenseless children and grandchildren. The hard truth is, there will be no Social Security for the children of today. The present path offers only loss of liberty and bankruptcy.
Our national debt exceeds 23 trillion dollars. To pay this debt today each taxpayer owes $186,578, immediately. Our largest creditors in order are: Medicare/Medicaid $1,253,523,000,000, Social Security $1,044,752,000,000, Defense/War 673,433,000,000, Income Security (welfare) $301,114,000,000, Net Interest on Debt $374,060,000,000, Federal Pensions $287,602,000,000, and Food / Agricultural Subsidies $151,840,000,000 (USDebtClock.org).
Even with the present robust Trump economy (the best in several decades) it has continued to escalate by four trillion dollars the last three years. We face economic Armageddon which, at this late date, may not be avoidable.
We have indebtedness, because both political parties failed to keep their oath of allegiance to the Constitution to follow it. If we do not get back to the Constitution with a strictness that we are not accustomed to, the new slaves (those encumbered by the debt of those before) will not even have freedom. If the Republic falls because of this national debt threat the new tyranny will not restore the government gifting programs responsible for the fall—the above programs disappear either way.
Yes the expensive programs will go, at least on the federal level, regardless, but we can yet save the Constitution and liberty, if we have the will. All power not listed in Article I, Section 8, or elsewhere in the document, or added by way of amendment to the Constitution thereafter, is a state power. Amendment 10 of the Bill of Rights. “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution … are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
Of the seven highest creditors listed above only Common Defense was specifically authorized in the Constitution. Constitutionally the others should have necessitated Article V authorization, an affirmative vote of three-fourths of the states. This did not happen. Most of the programs of the 20th Century, most policies presently advocated by the Democratic Party, and the infrastructure program advocated by President Trump, are outside Article I, Section 8 and are state prerogatives as per Amendment 10, thus cannot be implemented constitutionally without state permission. The hard truth, they lack specific constitutional authority. All six others, although now seen as “sacred cows,” are entwined with government gifting which has accelerated beyond our ability to control.
The Legislative branch was limited to only four areas of law-making power: to tax, to pay the debts, to provide for the general welfare and to provide for the common defense. These are laid out in Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 prior to the first semi-colon, so essential to the proper interpretation of Section 8. To tax needed one qualifier that such must be “uniform throughout the United States” but in the same article, Section 7, Clause 1 the power to tax was given to the House of Representative to originate. To pay the debts needed no qualifiers. But no one in the Constitutional Convention trusted Congress with a free hand in deciding the two other powers, general welfare and common defense. Either could mean anything to a power grabbing federal congress. Each of these needed eight additional qualifiers for clarity so Clauses 2-9 were the law-making powers of Congress with respect to general welfare and Clauses 10-17 respecting common defense.
The long 18-paragraph sentence (yes, sentence) ended with Congress having the power “to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers…,” those listed. Congress was never given power to make any law they thought desirable but only within four perimeters and 17 qualifiers. Section 8 is the most ignored, most abused, part of the Constitution. The hard truth, Congress was not empowered to make any law outside the 17 qualifiers without Article V permission of the states—even if every member of both houses approved.
A careful read of Section 8 reveals that the Founding Fathers gifted no individual or group. It only provided a level playing field enabling citizens to gift themselves by their work ethic and talent.
So what is the constitutional solution ending enslaving national debt? End government gifting!! Begin by initiating a bill or amendment that requires all future requests for gifting to accompany the constitutional wording that authorizes such. If such wordage does not exist the new bill cannot proceed.
Next begin to remove all existing gifting measures of the past that are not specifically identified in Article I, Section 8, Clause 1-18, or added by a constitutional amendment thereafter—even those longstanding and sacred. These should be transferred to, and entirely funded by the states as soon as possible. States that wish to retain portions of the gifting are not prevented from doing so under the Constitution as written, nor are states that wish not to do so prevented. But each state must fund their own programs.
There is hope. The Constitution can save us but only if we have the resolve to use it as written.
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.
Nov 11, 2019 | Constitution, Economy, Liberty Articles, Taxes
By Harold Pease, Ph. D
In listening to the 2020 Democratic Presidential debates or President Donald Trump’s many addresses to the American people, you would not know that we have exceeded 23 trillion dollars in debt and that to liquidate this debt $186,577 per taxpayer is due immediately (see, https://www.usdebtclock.org/). America cannot pay its existing bills.
Four trillion of this debt is from eight years of George W. Bush and nine from eight years of Barack Obama—the two biggest spending presidents in U.S. History. Obama alone doubled the national debt and accumulated more debt than all previous presidents put together. The major reason is government gifting to buy elections. Each election year more freebies are offered.
In the second democratic presidential debate held in Miami, June 28, 2019, Free healthcare . In other words, anyone in the world who comes to this continent and crosses our border, although it is against the law to do so, will be given free healthcare thereafter paid for by the American taxpayer. This one freebie, by itself, would bankrupt America, let alone free college and all the rest they have promised.
In late October, 2019, presidential front-runner Elizabeth Warren, released her Medicare For All plan. Its cost, 52 trillion dollars over ten years No such assets exist.
Democrats want everything free or subsidized— healthcare, housing, food, even free college. They can’t give away enough. Where will all that money come from?
So what is a trillion dollars? To begin with a trillion is the number one followed by twelve zeros. A trillion dollars is a thousand billion and a billion is a thousand million. This still means very little to students who count their money in fives, tens and twenties.
One mathematician gave us a more practical way to evaluate our outstanding debt. One trillion one-dollar bills stacked atop each other (not end to end but flat) would reach nearly 68,000 miles into space—a third of the way to the moon . If so, the debt incurred under President Obama alone, $9 trillion, would reach the moon and back and to the moon again. Moreover, if you like traveling atop this stack of ones, our total $23 trillion in debt today would take you to the moon and back almost four times (See CNN News Cast, Feb. 4, 2009).
Senator Mitch McConnell gave another illustration just as awe striking. He calculated that if we spent a million dollars every day since Jesus was born we still would not have spent a trillion dollars—only three-fourths of a trillion dollars (Ibid).
I ask students, “Who gets to go without so that this debt can be paid?” “Go without!!!?” That is a concept foreign to this generation!! They do not know, and neither do their parents and grandparents who laid it on their backs. When they are told that their share to liquidate this debt is $186,577 per taxpayer —due immediately. (see USDebtClock.org), they get angry. Someone should have told them that government handouts are not free.
The 13th Amendment ending slavery has been rescinded, they are America’s new slaves. Bondage was given them before their birth, or while they were in the womb, or before they were old enough to know what it meant to be sold into slavery. The past generation wanted nice costly programs for free and were willing to sell their children to have them. Worse, the older generation is still anxious to incur even more debt on our defenseless children and grandchildren. Are we not the most debt addicted, insensitive generation in U.S. History?
The favored method to deal with this problem is print more fiat money. But expanding the money supply just reduces the value of the money that you have in your pocket. Prices go up. My Camaro bought new in 1968 cost $ 2,700. Had I instead put the money under a mattress and tried to purchase a Camaro today it would cost more than ten times that much. In this instance money has lost 90% of its value since 1968 Those on fixed incomes are robbed as surely as if a thief had lifted their wallet or purse. Those on pensions cannot receive a raise to compensate for the value loss caused by their own government.
The last president to fully pay for his government was Warren G. Harding in 1922. Thereafter all presidents added to the debt by spending more than they received. Deficits from Ronald Reagan on exceeded a trillion or more (US Debt by President by Dollar and Percentage Who Increased the U.S. Debt the Most? Depends on How You Measure It. By Kimberly Amadeo Updated November 04, 2019).
We print whatever money we want to purchase whatever we wish. Neither party is serious about stopping the debt and removing the bondage that we have imposed upon our children and grandchildren. Who cares if our debt of dollar bills stacked atop one another can go to the moon and back almost four times, or that pensions loose their value, or that we haven’t fully paid our debts in 98 years, so long as the government fills our stomachs and the new slaves pay for it.
Dr. Harold Pease is a syndicated columnist and an expert on the United States Constitution. He has dedicated his career to studying the writings of the Founding Fathers and applying that knowledge to current events. He 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.
Oct 21, 2019 | Constitution, Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease Ph. D
The Constitution is presently used by both major political parties defending or opposing the House Intelligence Committee impeachment inquiry against President Donald J. Trump. Both argue their loyalty to it.
It reads: “The House of Representatives … shall have the sole Power of Impeachment,” (Art. I, Sec. 2, Cla. 5). The people place a president in power and their representatives—the House—alone initiates and formulates the charges for his possible removal. The “Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.” So one indicts, the other tries. Simple enough.
But formulating the charges does require a favorable vote of the FULL House,-not just a committee. Therein lies the rub. The House Intelligence Committee charged with finding a crime hasn’t yet found bribery, treason or any high crime, —the only impeachable offenses— but it “knows” one exists somewhere. During three years of a dozen or more attempts to impeach Trump charges crumbled from lack of documentation.
Probably the most profound statement made regarding impeachment was made by Democrat Jerrold Nadler, Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, presently engaged in impeaching Trump: “The effect of impeachment is to overturn the popular will of the voters. We must not overturn an election and remove a President from office except to defend our system of government or our constitutional liberties against a dire threat, and we must not do so without an overwhelming consensus of the American people. There must never be a narrowly voted impeachment or an impeachment supported by one of our major political parties and opposed by another. Such an impeachment will produce divisiveness and bitterness in our politics for years to come, and will call into question the very legitimacy of our political institutions” (144 Cong. Rec. HI 1786 daily ed. Dec. 18, 1998). This Nadler argued during the impeachment proceedings of Bill Clinton.
Using Nadler’s criteria Donald Trump does not pose a “dire threat” to our system of government or constitutional liberties, there is no “overwhelming consensus,” and only the Democratic Party is working for his removal. Most Americans oppose impeachment.
The Constitution give the House sole power to create the charges against a president. Additional authority is housed under past practice which in time effectively adds to the Constitution unless found to conflict with an original part of the document.
Only Andrew Johnson, Richard Nixon, and Bill Clinton have been indicted. House past practice in each has been based upon fairness. In each a vote of the full House was required to initiate an impeachment inquiry, for Nixon the vote was 410-4 and for Clinton 258-176 (See H. Res. 803, 93rd Cong. 1974 and H. Res. 581, 105th Cong. 1998). The full House participated in defining the scope of impeachment and established its rules and procedure. After the vote was taken to form an impeachment inquiry both the chair of the inquiring committee and the ranking member of the opposing party had co-equal subpoena powers to call witnesses subject to a vote of the full committee upon the request of either.
The indicted president’s council participated. It exercised the right to attend all hearings and depositions, to present evidence, to object to the admittance of evidence, to cross-examine witnesses and to recommend a witness list.
Thus far Nancy Pelosi has opposed a full House vote to authorize an impeachment inquiry as was established in previous impeachments nor has the full House been given input in “defining the scope, rules and procedures” as before. The Committee Report accompanying H. Res. 581 developed in the Clinton impeachment stated: “The full House of representatives should be involved in critical decision making regarding various stages of impeachment.”
One serious constitutional provision yet remains in our consideration of the attempt to impeach Trump—due process. This is housed in several places in the Constitution especially Amendments 5, 6, and 14. Democrat Jerrold Nadler referenced them when Bill Clinton was impeached, “the power of impeachment demands a rigorous level of due process … the right to be informed of the law, of the charges against you, the right to confront the witnesses against you, to call your own witnesses and to have the assistance of counsel” (Hearing before the Subcom on the Constitution of the H. Comm. on the Judiciary 105th Cong. 17, 1998). These have not been extended to Trump.
As Trump’s council recently wrote. “These due process rights are not a matter of discretion for the Committees to dispense with at will. To the contrary, they are constitutional requirements. The Supreme Court has recognized that due process protections apply to all congressional investigations…[even] impeachment proceedings” (Pat A. Cipollone, Counsel to the President White House, October 8, 2019).
Thus far none of the above established practices have been followed in the case of the proposed impeachment of President Trump, especially due process. No House vote and no formation of an impeachment inquiry committee after the vote. Pelosi simply asked the House Intelligence Committee, led by Adam Schiff, to assume the responsibilities and he is behaving as though his committee will do it alone including the trial constitutionally reserved to the U.S. Senate. Moreover, Schiff has been holding secret hearings of witnesses denying House Republican observers of other committees. He forcibly removed colleague Matt Gaetez .
Clearly, respecting impeachment, Democrats are sloppy with the Constitution.
Dr. Harold Pease is a syndicated columnist and an expert on the United States Constitution. He has dedicated his career to studying the writings of the Founding Fathers and applying that knowledge to current events. He 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 columns, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org
