Dec 10, 2018 | Constitution
By Harold Pease, Ph. D
In the Civil War the nation divided geographically to the point that Lincoln, a moderate on slavery, was not even on the ballot for president in much of the South. For two years the Democrats have not supported anything initiated by President Donald Trump, the divide is so complete. Bipartisanship was difficult before he was elected, now it is virtually non-existent.
If no one listens to the other side, which is now where we are once again in the United States, one enters extremely dangerous territory. Each side can believe themselves right, even supported by God, and thus justified in killing those of the other side.
This happened in Kansas in 1854 which resulted in two state governments and two state constitutions each questioning the validity of the other. And each, opposing sheriffs hunting the illegitimate one. The Trump presidency began with Democrats staging demonstrations in cities throughout the land his first week in office questioning the validity of the election and still, two years later, believing with no evidence, that the election had been stollen in a “Russian Collusion.”
In Kansas John Brown hacked five proslaveryites to death in 1856. In our civil war James Hodgkinson opened fire on a congressional GOP baseball practice, injuring five, almost killing House Majority Whip Steve Scalise. In either case the political party and media outlets of the killers appeared not to care. In the first Civil War Senator Charles Summer was beat up by Congressman Preston Brooks on the Senate floor for a speech Brooks did not like,. This time conservative Senator Rand Paul was attacked by a neighbor fracturing five bones with seemingly no outrage from Democratic media outlets.
In the U.S. today we have no middle or neutral national medias, only Republican and Democrat Party news outlets each giving opposing news. The same happened in the first Civil War. Senator Crittenden, seeing an impending war between the North and South, and having two sons each a general on each side positioned to kill the other, may have been the last U.S. Senator that did not want the conflict settled in blood. His Crittenden Compromise went nowhere.
How will the present civil war differ from that between 1861-1865? There will be no geographic lines like the Mason-Dixon line separating combatants as before, nor will there be blue or gray uniformed armies colliding enabling one to always know his enemy and those innocent to flee both. In this war neighbor will be against neighbor, city against city, county against county, and state against state and against the federal government. Isn’t that happening now with sanctuary cities, counties and states. And, isn’t the state of California refusing to adhere to federal law?
In this civil war mobs will drive people from place to place, like out of restaurants which happened to Senators Ted Cruz and Mitch McConnell, even White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders. This war will be daughter against mother and son against father and vice versa. Chicago has experience this for some time. But why on a national scale? Because each has his separate source of information consulting non other, amplified by social media, which radicalizes him enabling this civil war to be in ones own home. Vengeance will beget vengeance amplified.
Without geographical lines or uniforms, and where “the enemy” is within, rather than without, as in the first Civil War, one may never know who has targeted him. Mobs like Antifa or MS13 will operate openly, with little or no fear of law enforcement. In such an environment, unlike the North vs South, farmers will abandon their fields for safety precipitating food shortages and horrible famines. This happened in the South but only when opposing enemy forces were near by. Outside General William Sherman’s famous march, that Civil War’s battles were largely limited to the middle states.
In such chaos factories will close and spare parts will be almost non-existent as likely also will be commerce, communication, and travel. Without uninhibited use of freeways fuel will be scarce or non-existent. Electricity and gas providers also may be targeted and homes left freezing in the winter. Today, few have wood burning facilities. Where “the enemy” is within, rather than without, everything and everybody can be targeted without warning. If people are afraid to go to work who provides and purifies our drinking water? Who picks up our garbage, operates the hospitals, drug and grocery stores? If the families of law enforcement are in peril they will not go to work. Society could come apart at the seams.
In the first Civil War the threat of another nation coming in to “mop up” from our devastated condition did not exist. In a new civil war the hungry, jealous, and offended nations of the earth would be anxious to devour the spoils. China would come in from the west, Russia from the north and east and Latin American nations from the south.
Have I said enough? Have I made my point? Civil wars involve and affect everyone, nobody wins. Have I frightened you politicians, political partisans, race baiters, and media outlets to harness your tongues and to quit accentuating our demise. In the first Civil War 620,000 died, in this one it could be millions. You can stop 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.
Nov 27, 2018 | Constitution, Immigration, Liberty Articles
Harold Pease, Ph. D
Birth tourism, presently running rampart in the United States, is where foreigners intentionally coordinate their delivery dates with tourism ensuring that the birth happens while in this country. They remain the weeks necessary for the new birth certificate to be used to generate a passport for their newborn. Maternal centers, some sleazy others high end, created to accommodate the wait, run lucrative businesses (perhaps $50,000 per birth) encouraging “clients” from China, Russia, Turkey, Taiwan and Mexico primarily. Their “tour” ends with their child having citizenship and a passport with only a few weeks invested in this country. They return to their country with the child raised having dual citizenship.
Why is this attractive to them? Mart Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, shared four reasons for its popularity. First, if things go bad in one’s country at least the child, with a passport, can get out. Second, when the child is an adult he can sponsor his folks for immigration. For them “It is a “kind of retirement program,”with benefits. Third, it is a way for the chid to get cheaper tuition in American colleges as“foreign students have to pay more than U.S. citizens.” Fourth, it is a way for the child to avoid the draft in his home country, he simply goes to America. All of this for a little tour in the U.S. while having a baby (“The Ingraham Angle,” October 30, 2018).
But this practice is specifically forbidden by the 14th Amendment of the Constitution which reads in part: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
Senator Jacob Merritt Howard, architect of the 14th Amendment, actually structured the Amendment, (one of two defining the legal status of freed slaves after the Civil War, the other being the 13th which gave them freedom), to prevent that very interpretation. He said: “This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and [already] subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign minister accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.” It was Howard who insisted that the qualifying phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” be inserted.
Notice also the exclusion of babies born of ambassadors while here. If diplomats of high honor are specifically exempted from birthright citizenship, mere tourists, without any specific distinction, certainly would not have it. They not only have jurisdiction or allegiance elsewhere but are specifically identified as ineligible, and thus cannot have birthright citizenship.
On birthright citizenship President Donald Trump is on solid constitutional ground as expressed by the Founders of the 14th Amendment. Because this is a Civil War amendment designed to keep previously rebelling southern states from prohibiting ex-slaves, or their children, from having citizenship and because of the inclusion of the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” there exists no other interpretation without serious distortion of the amendment. Senate deliberations on the 14th amendment show no other interpretation. Birthright citizenship cannot be taken from those already citizens or their children.
Indians did not get citizenship until 1924 because they were not yet clearly, “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States government. One “cannot owe allegiance to anybody else,” argued, Senator Lyman Trumbull, co-author of the 13th Amendment outlawing slavery. That would most certainly exclude those proudly carrying their native flags in the recent caravan invasion of our border.
So how should Trump proceed in getting America back to the Constitution as written? First he must immediately issue an executive order ending the practice of birth tourism based upon his oath of office to defend and preserve the Constitution and by the specific ambassadors exclusionary clause of the authors of the 14th Amendment itself. He can count on the enemies of the republic to sue to block the execution of the order. Such normally take many months to process. This allows immigration and the wall to remain lead issues in the election. America demands closure on this issue and it will reelect him.
A statute solution through Congress in favor of ending the perversion of the Constitution with respect to birthright citizenship for anyone illegally crossing the border is the much preferred solution. Should the courts rule against a Trump executive order on birth tourism he will know the timing is not yet right for the same on the bigger immigration issue. Should they follow the Constitution as intended, he will, with the birth tourism issue in his favor, immediately do the larger issue by executive order as well, more especially if the opposition party, which supports open borders, retains the House, or looks to retain the House in 2020. This also would result in a suit so if in late 2019 a Republican retake of the House is probable, without obstruction from his own party, it might be better to wait for a statute solution through Congress.
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 12, 2018 | Constitution, Immigration, Liberty Articles
Harold Pease, Ph. D
Most constitutional experts know that there exists no birthright citizenship in the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. LibertyUnderFire and others have made this case for many years. Unfortunately House Speaker Paul Ryan, represents the class of politicians least informed on this subject when he said “As a conservative, I’m a believer in following the plain text of the Constitution and I think in this case the 14th Amendment is pretty clear,” If he were a constitutionalist he would know better.
Currently the Democratic Party leadership do not care whether it is, or is not, constitutional as they view all illegal immigrants as future democrats. The ignorance of the establishment press too is overwhelming. So we make the case once again.
Most have sympathy for those who were infants or born here when their parents illegally crossed the border and have lived here all their lives and know no other country. The 14th Amendment seems to validate such sympathy IF WE IGNOR SIX WORDS: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” A more careful read, however, shows that such was specifically and purposely denied, not supported. Consider the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” The purpose of the clause was to guarantee citizenship to freed slaves, (already residents) and their descendants after the Civil War. It had nothing to do with immigration. Recipients were already subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
The concept of “anchor babies” refers to those whose parents are illegal immigrants into the United States and while here have a baby. That baby, (excluding the six words) then inherits full citizenship and even the right later, as an adult, to sponsor his/her own illegal parents in their quest for citizenship. The debate for or against the practice of allowing citizenship for babies of illegal’s born in the U.S. rages on with virtually no one going to the source of the alleged authority—the crafters of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution.
Senator Jacob Merritt Howard, architect of the 14th Amendment, actually structured the Amendment, (one of two defining the legal status of freed slaves after the Civil War, the other being the 13th which gave them freedom), to prevent that very interpretation. He said: “This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and [already] subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign minister accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.”
It was he who insisted that the qualifying phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” be inserted. Those crossing our borders illegally are clearly foreigners not residents, and not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, and thus are specifically exempt from citizenship. Notice also the exclusion of babies born of ambassadors while here. The record of the Senate deliberations on the 14th amendment shows no other interpretation.
There is no such thing as automatic citizenship from this amendment without serious distortion of it. In fact, Lyman Trumbull, co-author of the 13th Amendment outlawing slavery, addressing the definition of the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” asked, “What do we mean by complete jurisdiction thereof? Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.”
Those crossing our borders illegally have jurisdiction or allegiance elsewhere and thus cannot have birthright citizenship. How can a child of such a parentage have what his parents clearly do not have?
How many are born illegally in the United States per year? Statistics are difficult to validate but the Pew Hispanic Center study estimated 340,000 in 2008 alone and recent research has doubled illegal entry from 11 to 22 million, so births from illegals are also presumed double. The Center for Immigration Studies estimated the annual cost providing healthcare, education, and food stamps for many, and all other incidental costs at $2.4 billion—and that was based upon the presumed 11 million.
Citizenship was denied Native Americans until 1924 as they owed allegiance to their Sioux or Apache or Blackfoot, or whatever, Indian nations and thus were not yet “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” of the nation they lived within. Certainly one must cease to be at war or conflict with the conquering country. So just being on U.S. soil did not make them citizens automatically until the “jurisdiction thereof” part of the Amendment was satisfied..
Many of our Mexican friends send portions of their pay checks home to Mexico and plan to return to their native land upon retirement with pensions and/or social security sent to their “first” country from the country they extracted their wealth—the United States. Some vote in Mexican elections from here. It is indeed hard to argue that they are not instead subject to the jurisdiction of another land other than the United States–and most admit it. The 14th Amendment specifically denies birthright citizenship.
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 1, 2018 | Constitution, Liberty Articles
Harold Pease, Ph. D
Every other year we are subjected to a national election, it is the price we must pay for our liberty and our Republic. Freedom is not a normal human experience. Most of humanity never had it. There are always those who would rule us tyrannically. Once empowered they normally rule for life and it takes bloodshed to get rid of them.
Unlike people of most countries, we have the opportunity to turn away those who would undermine our personal liberty or limit our free speech. Those who want to “force change” our government from a republic to a democracy and finally to socialism. Those who do not value or understand the Constitution but still wish to rule over us. Those who encourage politics of confrontation and intimidation. Those who do not honor our border, even encouraging illegals to break it down. Unfortunately, we have empowered enough of these types already.
Theoretically just one ignorant generation or one collective “bad vote” could lose it for generations to come. For most, filling out a ballot and the weeks involved in studying the issues and voting intelligently is not fun, but is a small price to pay for liberty.
With time we forget the price our forefathers paid for us to have more personal liberty than any other civilization in world history and the prosperity that emanates from a people free from excessive government. As a political science professor I often advocated a field trip living for a time under The National Socialist German Workers Party (NAZI), yes socialism, under Adolph Hitler, or under socialism as practiced in the USSR by Joseph Stalin, or socialism under Fidel Castro in Cuba. Or, today, the results of it as practiced in Venezuela.
People fled these countries to have what we have. One could not publicly condemn their leaders, distribute Bibles, or attend church without being arrested, tortured, and given long prison sentences. Our veterans died in foreign lands protecting us from socialism. Now politicians bring it to our doorsteps and we vote for it. My point, freedom is not free, never has been and, worse, can be lost by votes.
So should I vote when I am unfamiliar with the issues. Yes, but only on the issues that you have paid the price to know.
Having said this, it is also true that in some voting categories, such as judges, it is unlikely to be totally informed. These are appointed and uncontested seats. No political ideology preferences are cited. The only way an intelligent voter could discern would be to have been in the candidates courtroom as an observer, victim or one accused of a crime. These instances are unlikely for 90% of the voting population. Thus there is no shame in leaving voting to those that have had “real” experience.
The county sheriff may be the most important official on the ballot because he is the only elected law enforcement agent standing between you and the federal government. Does he know this and will he choose to protect you should such a clash happen? Few will, but in 2013 most sheriff’s in the Western States did stand against the Obama Administration’s attempt to redefine the 2nd Amendment of the Bill of Rights. Support a sheriff who will protect your constitutional rights!
Some propositions or proposed constitutional amendments too are so complex and full of legalese that many voters are not qualified to vote intelligently. Most voters get their views on these issues from 20 second pro or con political ads—hardly reliable sources. In a republic we hire those we feel to be qualified to understand these deep concerns through elections. For 40 years I asked my students how many months, weeks, days or hours they studied a proposition. If less than a day, unless you have expertise in the area, why should you feel qualified to have the same power as one who spent months. Leave it blank. Let those who have invested this kind of time make this decision.
Bond issues are complex only in that many people do not associate bonds as debt. If they did far fewer would be approved. Whatever the bond, largely education, you are agreeing to be taxed for some lengthly period of time. Often these are somewhat dishonest. Those pushing bond issues almost always show the most impoverished circumstances as normal for their districts thus portraying the children as victims and those who oppose as “against education.” Our culture lavishly funds high class educational facilities. As an educator,I have not seen a situation where a little “belt tightening” was not possible. Prepare to be called a heretic, however, if you oppose this “sacred cow.” Finally, there are never any bonds proposed to assist charter or home schooling which is increasing the choice of many parents. These folks are forced to pay for the government schools and home schools.
I hope these suggestions help in this or other elections. Realize, however, that you may be a better citizen by leaving blank the things that you have not personally studied, —otherwise your vote could make you dangerous to the concepts of a republic, the Constitution, and liberty. You do not want to be the one ignorant generation or one collective “bad vote” that lost it for generations to come.
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 29, 2018 | Constitution, Globalism, Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease, Ph. D
Presently money for elections can come from other countries, states, counties, or districts other than from where the candidate will serve allowing outside sources, those of wealth—even billionaires—to buy influence.This often diminishes the power of the citizens themselves to choose their own representatives.
Moreover, those holding “safe seats,” as for example Democrat Nancy Pelosi and Republican Kevin McCarthy, can either buildup gigantic arsenals to “nuke” a popular 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.
More funding allows more signs and literature to be distributed, and more newspaper, radio and television ads to destroy your opponent or get your message out resulting in a higher probability of winning. The candidate with the most money and publicity usually wins 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 or influence from outside their district, it would stop much influence peddling.
LibertyUnderFire is the lead advocate for ending outside influences in our nation’s elections and thus offers the following new amendment to the Constitution. “All election funding, outside candidate’s personal wealth, (individuals or organizations), in all federal elections shall originate from eligible voters in the district served by the election and donated since the last election for the same office.”
Billionaires or organizations could still fund causes but not candidates. Propositions are a part of most elections and can be considered without attachment to a candidate. This would not stop, nor is it intended to stop, the funding or creation of ads for or against a candidate, or ballot issues, funded by perspective voters within the district.
Under this amendment the 1996 Bill Clinton campaign could not have received money from China to influence the election; nor from any individual not eligible to vote for president, nor could Clinton Foundation monies be used to influence elections as much of that money comes from international contributors. Some of us still remember the Bill Clinton Chinese Fundraising Scandal involving DNC finance chairman John Huang and Chinese nationalist Johnny Chung. The DNC was forced to return more than $2.8 million in illegal or improper donations from foreign nationals, largely from China to gain favor in the Clinton Administration.
Neither could the Koch brothers, Charles and David, who fund many Republican Party candidates on the right side of the political spectrum, and George Soros, or Tom Steyer, who fund Democratic Party candidates on the left, influence any federal contest to which they cannot personally vote. This amendment would limit the billionaire class to the “purchase” of only THEIR congressman or senator —not a large group of them.
Both Soros and Steyer bankrolled far left 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 [Steyers home town], 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 Steyer with the new amendment, as with most of the $30 million he promised to spend on the midterms.
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. Laws presently limit the amount of individual contributions but the “rich” find loopholes in donating as in the case of Gillum.
The “rich” have been involved in influencing elections at least since the 1896 “giants of the Industrial Revolution” buyout of William McKinley for president when they used their money to bury opponent William Jennings Bryan. This amendment would not have stopped that as all citizens elect the president—only a rigorous enforcement of present law governing individual contributions could do that.
Nor would it have stopped J.P. Morgan’s1915 purchase of the 25 leading newspapers in the United States establishing “Morgan editors” over each, presumably to influence public opinion favorable to his interests ( Oscar Callaway, Congressional Record, February 9, 1917, Vol. 54, pp. 2947-48.). Nor would it have prevented Morgan and David Rockefeller’s 1921creation of The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) organization to steer the country into “Wall Street” dominance and global government, which now is self propelling although its founders are deceased. The CFR has provided much of the leadership of both major political parties and major news outlets.
Nor will it today stop all of George Soros’ 11 major influence groups, some of which sponsor activities that border on treason. Funding Antifa, Kavanaugh “Hearing disruptors,” and those accosting Senate committee members may have to wait for other solutions. But the amendment will prevent most billionaire election buyouts. Expect enormous billionaire opposition.
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.
Sep 17, 2018 | Constitution, Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease, Ph. D
The federal government requires colleges to commemorate Constitution Day, September 17, with some student activity to qualify for Title IV grant monies, which, if people really read the Constitution, they would find no authority for the grant. The requirement is largely ignored.
Some years back I was asked to give suggestions for a meaningful constitutional program. The assigned administer and I pondered several options none of which seemed fitting or particularly meaningful. Still, we should do something—constitutional ignorance is appalling and patriotism from those under 25 has not really been taught. Now athletes making millions, because the document made it possible for their talent to flourish under freedom, refuse to stand when our national anthem is played. These may not deserve the freedom that is still left from the document.
Where do we start? Virtually no one reads the Constitution anymore and neither major political party feels particularly harnessed by it as the Founders intended. Few college courses require it being read in full and few universities have a class specifically dedicated to it—not even law schools. I know no one in my profession that actually had to read the entire document for a Ph. D.
Should I talk about the total disregard of the list in Article I, Section 8 from which the government is limited in making laws? The Founders created the list so that government could not rule wherever it pleased, as in other countries. Or perhaps the 10th Amendment which strengthens the argument that all powers not specifically mentioned remain with the states and with the people which is flagrantly violated almost daily by a renegade, constitutionally inept, or ignorant congress.
Should I talk about the separation of powers created by the Founders where one branch made the law, another enforced the law, and yet a third adjudicated the law—a separation that we used to honor. If I did I would also have to talk about the present corruptness of the separation. For the last sixty years an unelected bureaucracy made most federal laws because Congress got lazy and allowed other organizations to fill in the details for them. Now called rules and regulations instead of laws, but they still exact a punishment if a business or individual is out of harmony. Until the Trump Administration the Federal Register, wherein they are housed, daily added a half-inch thick of pages of new ones.
Also, I would have to mention that presidents make law by executive orders, most with no actual legislative authorization. Signing statements, popularized by the George W. Bush Administration, distorted laws passed by Congress by effectively removing portions he disagreed with. The Obama Administration created 34 “Czars,” a new level of administrators (purposely skirting Senate confirmation), to manage areas where no Constitutional authority existed. To all of this Congress remained silent to the abduction of her power.
The Supreme Court also makes law by ruling in such a way as to give existing law new meaning never envisioned in its origin; or by giving its approval to law having no constitutional base—as for example national health care. Justice Clarence Thomas admitted that some Justices attempt to ascertain what the Founders had in mind before ruling; others he said, “just make it up.” This could be a college presentation. Would enough students listen, or even care?
The notion of federalism that the states handle domestic issues and the federal government primarily foreign issues and that they are coequal (like a marriage) neither being master or slave to the other is gone; as is the Constitutional mandate that federal empowerment requires the consent of 3/4ths of the states as stipulated in Article V. This might be a good topic but it would take at least an hour to explain and some quick student assemblage to fulfill the government mandated requirement would never do. Besides this notion of shared and equal power was abandoned in the fifties and sixties and today the federal government clearly rules the states who now bow in near total obedience, their palms extended and tongues hanging out, for federal government grants in areas where the federal government has no constitutional authority to grant.
States and colleges, like individuals, are addicted to the “free” money. Try telling a student body that the “free” college tuition advocated by beloved socialist guru Bernie Sanders, and others like him, is totally unconstitutional without an amendment to the Constitution and see if you are allowed to finish your required presentation.
There are so many other topics one might cover. The distortion of the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution from an intended individual right to have a weapon, whether government approved or not, to only a collective right through a militia, now interpreted as the National Guard, which organization did not then exist. Or, the mutilation of the 4th, 5th, 6th and 8th Amendments under the National Defense Authorization Act legislation passed by Congress Dec. 2012.
My point!!! The Constitution is a foreign language to most and this ignorance has resulted in our being out of harmony so long. Where do I start? The perversions are almost numberless. Colleges supposedly do something to qualify for the Title IV grants, on or before, Sept. 17, but is what they do meaningful? I very much doubt that any of the afore mentioned objections are mentioned.
Dr. Harold Pease is a syndicated columnist and an expert on the United States Constitution. He has dedicated his career to studying the writings of the Founding Fathers and applying that knowledge to current events. He has taught history and political science from this perspective for over 30 years at Taft College. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.
