Sep 26, 2016 | Constitution, Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease, Ph. D
I did not celebrate Constitution Day, September 17, primarily because I did not know how to do so. The Federal Government requires colleges to do something on that day to qualify for Title IV grant monies, which, if people really read the Constitution, they would find no authority for the grant.
Some years back I was asked to give suggestions for a meaningful program. The assigned administer and I pondered several options none of which seemed fitting or particularly meaningful. Still, we should do something—ignorance on this document is appalling and patriotism from those under 25 is virtually dead. Now athletes, making millions, because the document made it possible for their talent to flourish under freedom established by this document, refuse to stand when our national anthem is played. Many do not deserve the much-reduced freedom that is still left from the document.
Where do we start? Virtually no one reads this document anymore and neither major political party feels particular 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. The Federal Register, wherein they are housed, adds a half-inch thick of new ones daily.
Also, I would have to mention that presidents make law by executive orders, most with no actual legislative authorization. Signing statements, popularized by the Bush Administration, distort laws passed by Congress by removing portions he disagreed with. The Obama Administration created a new level of administrators called “Czars” (purposely skirting Senate confirmation) to manage areas where no Constitutional authority exists—last count was 34. To all of this Congress remains 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 admitted, “just make it up.” This certainly would be an interesting presentation. Would enough 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 such and some quick student assemblage to fulfill the government mandated requirement would never do. Besides this notion of shared and equal was abandoned in the fifties and sixties and as a result 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 give.
States, 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 “me too” Hillary Clinton 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 undoubtedly did something to qualify for the Title IV grant on Sept. 17, but were what they did meaningful? I very much doubt that any of the afore mentioned objections were 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.
Sep 19, 2016 | Constitution, Liberty Articles
Harold Pease, Ph. D
If California is the pace setter state, what has just happened there could soon be at the doorstep of all state legislatures or imposed on all gun owners at the federal level. With one political party significantly dominating all branches of government in California, Democrats effectively control the state. With such power they have passed a litany of new laws on magazines, ammunition, gun registration, ownership and lending firearms. In essence they have shot (excuse the metaphor) so many bullets in the 2nd Amendment as to render it impotent.
All this legislation has resulted despite the clear language in the Constitution prohibiting government infringement on your right to bear arms. The anti-self defense people despise the following language therein found, “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
There exists no sentence in the Constitution that was more understood at the time. A militia then was the people and an armed populace was understood to be necessary for a free country in two ways: an armed populace could assist the military against foreign invasion and/or would be in place should the biggest enemy to liberty be ones own government as in the American Revolution against British tyranny.
Certainly, when enacted, there was no thought of restricting type of firearm, amount of ammunition, or where, or who could carry. So its placement as the second most valued freedom in the Bill of Rights had nothing to do with personal safety, or hunting, these were already assumed. Founding documents show it specifically placed right after freedom of religion, speech, press and assembly to make certain that these freedoms were never taken from us. It was aimed (no pun intended) squarely at the government should it become tyrannical as before under the British. But certainly we need have no fear of the government today? Given California’s new gun laws, which follow, perhaps we should.
Background checks on all ammunition purchases within the state will be required under Senate Bill 1235 effect in 2019. As patrons may make several purchases a year this is likely to overwhelm a background system already overwhelmed over gun purchases alone resulting in long delays. The new law also requires all ammunition vendors to submit sales reports to the California Department of Justice for the creation of an ammunition registration system. The anticipated effect for gun rights haters is that smaller outlets will cease selling ammunition because of all the paperwork. But this restriction gets worse, you may not give friends or family members ammunition without going first to a gun store for the gift to be processed. Hereafter it is a crime to “transfer more than 50 rounds of ammunition within a 30-day period.” Should you opt to purchase ammunition in another state you may not bring more than 50-rounds into California unless you are a licensed ammunition vendor.
Self defense advocates are now more restricted in gun ownership and use than ever before. Starting January 2017, “all semi-automatic centerfire rifles that do not have fixed magazines will be illegal if they have a bad ‘feature,’ such as a thumbhole stock, a telescoping or folding stock, or a pistol grip.” Moreover, such weapons may not be transferred as part of an inheritance. California already had a gun law prohibiting the lending of a firearm for more than 30 days between friends or family members. That too is now forbidden. Instead, you and your brother or friend must both go to a gun shop and submit to a background check and 10-day waiting period for him to use it and when it is returned both have to return to the store with a new background check and 10-day waiting period on you the lender.
In California gun magazine sales have been limited to ten rounds for the last 17 years but persons already in possession of magazines exceeding this number could keep them. Now, State Senate Bill 1446 requires the confiscation of all by July 1, 2017. To get rid of them owners may turn them in to law enforcement for destruction, destroy them themselves, remove them from the state and/or sell them to licensed firearms dealers.
Imagine how these restrictions might emasculate citizens in their ability to assist the military against a foreign invasion (as in the case of citizens stopping the British invasion in the Battle of Saratoga) and/or to oppose our own government should it become tyrannical as also happened once before. Our Founders did not deny future generations the same means of resisting tyranny that they used themselves.
All these new laws violate the Second Amendment, which placed bearing arms off-limits to government and used the strongest language possible, “shall not be infringed,” in doing so. If the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution is felt to be inadequate for the needs of today the only constitutional option available is another amendment abolishing this one and state approval of another as outlined in Article V of the Constitution, as was the case ending prohibition. Any legislation, state or federal, cannot undermine or destroy an amendment to 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 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.
Sep 5, 2016 | Constitution, Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease Ph. D
Responding to a lawsuit filed by 13 states led by Texas, U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor issued a preliminary injunction that the Obama transgender bathroom executive order of May 12, 2016, “violated federal notice and comment requirements and contradicted existing law and regulations.” The states that did not wish to be included in the directive, he said, “can easily avoid doing so by state law.” The court objection came just before the new school year started. The Obama order mandated that transgender students in public schools be allowed to use bathrooms and locker rooms consistent with their chosen gender identity. Non-complying schools could be denied federal funds.
Liberty Under Fire had argued that the proper state constitutional response to the Obama directive should have been to ignore it and forward a letter to the president reminding him that transgender bathrooms, or anything like unto them, are nowhere listed in the enumerated powers of the Constitution Article I, Section, 8 and have not been added by way of amendment.
States should not sue the federal Government to obtain rights they already have under the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution because doing so undermines—potentially to oblivion—that Amendment. It reads: “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.”
But the states did sue and although transgender bathrooms are now temporarily blocked, the “win” is a far weaker argument than the Constitution provides and the issue continues to damage the concept of federalism; that we have two governments, one over domestic affairs the other foreign, neither subservient to the other.
Federalism, that state law can easily avoid the directive, may have been implied by Judge O’Connor, but it is like putting out a house fire with a garden hose instead of the available fire truck. But notice what he objected to first, “the directive violated federal notice and comment requirements and contradicted existing law and regulations.” These are the weakest arguments possible and most certainly not Constitutional arguments. Nothing in the document speaks to federal notice or comment requirements. So, if these requirements had been in place the directive would have been constitutional?
Contradicting existing law and regulations is a better argument but one should keep in mind that regulations largely originate from unelected bureaucrats and if not challenged can reverse the original intent of the law. This president is attempting to rewrite the laws enacted by elected representatives of the people some 44 years ago. The 1972 anti-discrimination law prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sex, race, color, religion and national origin, itself subject to constitutional concerns, which resulted in Title IX, is a classic case of the federal government’s evolving interpretation. No one in congress when the law was passed intended it then to apply to transgender bathrooms—not one!!
In fact, because the courts have not used the full strength of the Constitution in previous arguments protecting us from federal overreach, it continues and the Constitution is endangered. What should be the constitutional argument? Three, far more powerful than those used by the judge, exist. First, the 10th Amendment previously cited.
Second, Article I, Section 8, wherein all federal powers were listed under two categories general welfare and common defense. Powers not listed remain with the states until changed through Article V—the amending process.
Third, the executive branch has NO authority to make law—any law!!!! The Constitution reads: “All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives”(Article I, Sec. I). Executive Orders are constitutional only when they cite a single, recently passed law of Congress, where that law needs a statement of implementation by the executive branch. Originally they were but interdepartmental directives.
A president can only suggest a need for new law in his State of the Union Address, and either sign or veto a law passed by Congress, which then, if vetoed, must be overridden by a vote of 2/3rds of both houses to become law. That is it. This is the law of the land and the constitutional procedure, this violated by President Barack Obama May 12, 2016, with his transgender bathroom decree.
Because Judge O’Connor used none of these arguments in defeating the Obama Transgender Bathroom Decree, neither likely will the 5th U. S. Court of Appeals in the coming months so a reversal is possible. Because both houses of Congress have not publically rebuked the president assuming unto himself unconstitutional law-making powers, he will continue law-making executive orders changing previous law to his interpretation. Because the states decided to sue, giving the federal government more authority to take from them their already existing authority, the feds will continue to do so and federalism, designed to protect the Constitution from such usurpation, will not be able to do so. But for the moment Judge O’Connor gave us a little constitutional win.
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.
Jul 11, 2016 | Constitution, Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease, Ph. D
Although the Preamble to the Constitution is a statement of intent, not a codification of law, the Founders hoped to work toward cited objectives, one of which was to “establish Justice.” Perhaps at no time in U.S. History have more people felt the effects of corruption of government and lack of established justice more than now. Some in high place act as though rules/laws are for others and that they can lie and potentially damage our national security without consequence, such appears demonstrated now.
On July 5, FBI Director James Comey announced the conclusion of a yearlong investigation of presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton. He made it clear that she was guilty of potentially handing classified top-secret information to our enemies but strangely refused to recommend indictment, as would happen to any other citizen having done the same thing. He said as much. “This is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences.”
Instead of merely citing the evidence and turning it over to the Justice Department, he exceeded his authority by recommending that Clinton not be indicted. This made it easy for the Democratic Party to ignore the long list of evidence he had just cited, essentially undoing a year of intense FBI work. It freed Attorney General Loretta Lynch from having to do anything other than support the FBI recommendation and saved President Barack Obama from having to retract his former endorsement of Hillary based upon her willful defiance of existing law. He campaigned with her just hours after Comey’s announcement. Many openly believed that “the fix was in.” With all that evidence how could they not indict her?”
Lynch was further relieved from the embarrassing appearance of impropriety having met in Phoenix the week before with Bill Clinton, the husband of the accused, in what was supposed to be a secret meeting, although Lynch denies that they addressed her role in Hillary’s possible indictment. Attorney generals purposely avoid being anywhere near the accused to avoid even the appearance of conspiracy.
With this recommendation nobody now expects legal action against Hillary. Certainly the Democrats in charge are not going to render it, proving for most that justice for all is no longer established or even necessarily a constitutional goal.
Comey said, with respect to the 30,000 emails they reviewed, that “110 e-mails sent or received on Clinton’s server contained classified information.” Classified documents are marked as such. These contained information that was classified at the time the messages were sent. Eight contained “top-secret” information, the highest level of government classification for material that could harm national security. These, you may recall, the FBI themselves did not initially have clearance to view because they were so sensitive.
Thousands of emails wiped clean, several classified, were never turned over to the State Department as Hillary claimed. Comely did not address her attempt to suppress evidence by wiping her server clean. No one else could escape this charge.
Comey continued, “She also used her personal e-mail extensively while outside the United States, including sending and receiving work-related e-mails in the territory of sophisticated adversaries.” It is possible “hostile actors” gained access to her email account. Moreover he admitted that, “there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information” and that they were “extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.” Again the classified material was clearly marked and Hillary Clinton is an astute lawyer by profession. Such neglect is inexcusable and intentional. US Code 18 defines “criminal gross negligence” as “careless to the extreme” which Comey admitted that she was, but he still refused to recommend indictment.
General David Petraeus, who pled guilty to the mishandling of classified information, was sentenced to two years probation and fined $100,000 for leaking classified information to his biographer and mistress. Certainly justice for Hillary having potentially leaked to every enemy nation 110 classified documents, many far more sensitive than that of Petraeus, should be at least 110 times greater than his— but instead a violation charge of “gross criminal neglect” could make her president.
Comey seems sincere when he said, “What I can assure the American people is that this investigation was done competently, honestly, and independently.” This may be so but his refusal to recommend indictment smells bad and reeks of injustice. Democrats will say, “There was not enough evidence to indict.” Republicans will say, “The fix was in, someone got to Comey.” Both will switch their positions should a Republican next do precisely the same thing. But Constitutionalists see long-term damage to the Constitution and wonder if anyone in the future can be prosecuted for “gross criminal negligence” if Hillary couldn’t.
This is a dark day for the Constitution and for established justice. It will be a much darker day if Americans choose to elect to office, and place in charge of national security, someone who, at the very least, has proven unworthy to hold a security pass.
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.
Jul 3, 2016 | Constitution, Liberty Articles
By Dr Harold Pease
The Declaration of Independence ends with one of the most passionate appeals ever put to words and memorized by yesterday’s grade school child. “And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.”
This document would bring on war against the then greatest power on earth, and no European strategist gave the Patriots a ghost of a chance of winning—yet they stood. Signers would be seen as traitors to the mother country and could expect the harshest treatment when caught. They could count on no one but God and themselves.
And, of course, a goodly number did suffer loss of life and property as a result. Most paid a remarkably high price for taking their stand. In a wrathful spirit of revenge, the enemy singled them out for harsh vengeance. Five were captured and imprisoned and two others barely escaped captivity. Richard Stockton, one of those captured after his whereabouts was betrayed by a loyalist informer, was “dragged from bed in the middle of the night, severely beaten and thrown into prison” where he underwent continual abuse and also suffered malnourishment. By the time the Congress arranged for his exchange, he was broken physically and never recovered. He had also lost almost all his property.
Unable to capture Abraham Clark, another signatory, the British took their wrath out on his two sons, who were imprisoned on the notorious prison ship Jersey. “Word was sent to Clark that his boys would be freed if he would disown the revolutionary cause and praise the British Crown. At his refusal, his sons were singled out for cruel treatment. One was placed in a tiny cell and given no food. Fellow prisoners kept him alive by laboriously pushing tiny bits of food through a keyhole. Both sons somehow survived their ordeal.”
The British had a particular zeal for destroying the homes and property of the signers. Those suffering this fate included Benjamin Harrison, George Clymer, Dr. John Witherspoon, Philip Livingston, William Hooper, and William Floyd. The sacrifices of John Hart and Francis Lewis are particularly noteworthy. “While his wife lay gravely ill, Redcoats destroyed Hart’s growing crops and ripped his many grist mills to pieces. Bent on taking him, they chased him for several days. They almost nabbed him in a wooded area, but he hid in a cave. When he returned home with his health broken, he found his wife dead and their 13 children scattered.”
The story of Francis Lewis was equally tragic. “When the British plundered and burned his home at Whitestone on Long Island, they took his wife prisoner. She was thrown into a foul barracks and treated cruelly. For several months she had to sleep on the floor and was given no change of clothing. George Washington was able eventually to arrange for her exchange for two wives of British officers the Continental Arm was holding prisoner. Her health was so undermined that she died two years later.”
Thomas Nelson Jr., another signatory, made one of the most unusual sacrifices of the war. At Yorktown the British had selected his residence as headquarters. Washington, reluctant to destroy his compatriots beautiful home, was directed to do so by Nelson himself.
Probably John Quincy Adams, a son of one of the 55 patriots making the above pledge and later a president of the United States, said it best. “Posterity—You will never know how much it has cost my generation to preserve your freedom. I hope you will make good use of it.” Let us never forget that liberty is not free. It was purchased and maintained by the blood of those before us.
Today many believe that the biggest enemy to our liberty is from within. Certainly we have let the Constitution dwindle in its ability to protect us from federal overreach. If the cause of the American Revolution was excessive government, as historians say, and school children once memorized all the offending new rules and regulations documenting such, what can we say today when the rules are multiplied by perhaps a thousand? For most of us it is hard to argue that we are more free than they under British tyranny when our government tells us with whom we must share a bathroom or shower.
Let this be a warning to those who would take freedom from us now. We too are standing “with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence,” mutually pledging “to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.”
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.
Jun 28, 2016 | Constitution, Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease, Ph. D
“No one on the government’s no-fly list should be able to purchase a firearm,” was the immediate response from both Hillary Clinton and President Barack Obama to the massacre in an LGBT nightclub in Orlando, Florida by radical Muslim extremist Omar Mateen. Perhaps even Donald Trump, the presumptive Republic nominee for president, who plans to meet with the NRA to talk about the no-fly list, could be vacillating on this issue. Moreover, nine senators, led by Republican Susan Collins, want the no-fly list to apply to purchasing firearms as well. They all need to be reminded that there exist serious Bill of Rights concerns in doing so.
The President refers to those on the list he creates as “terrorist suspects” but terrorist is only loosely defined. Both Vice President Joe Biden and former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi have used the word in reference to the Tea Party Movement. How many are listed varies with respect to who one cites but it is many thousands. Everything is so clouded in government secrecy that virtually no one knows how they got on or get off the list. Should you inquire as to your status with respect to the list the typical answer is, “as a national security issue the government can neither confirm nor deny your listing.”
George W. Bush created the no-fly list after 9/11 which today forbids perhaps as many as 80,000 from flying in or out of the country. Whether maintained by Bush or Obama a secret no-fly list for U.S. citizens is a restriction on someone because of a perceived belief, practice or action (a punishment if you will) applied without any evidence of unlawful behavior—he may not fly. If there had been unlawful behavior the person would be incarcerated and the issue of a no-fly list would be irrelevant. A second punishment is applied if he is also denied the right of a firearm. This turns upside down the judicial standard, “innocent until proven guilty.”
Remember U.S. Senator Ted Kennedy was once on the government’s no-fly list as was a six-year-old boy, a number of persons over 80 years of age, and an 18-month old toddler Reianna (last name not given in the CNN report to protect family identity). The accused rarely is informed of the government’s intention to punish him until he attempts to fly and is forbidden doing so.
No-fly restrictions violate Amendment 5 as the accused is denied “liberty” (he cannot fly as do others) “without due process of law”—a way to challenge the punishment. The Amendment guarantees the person the right to be accused before punishment, but no accusation was made nor was evidence presented to anyone outside the government to evaluate, such as to a jury. States too, in Amendment 14, are forbidden the same in similar wordage, “…nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law….”
It also violates Amendment 6, which guarantees the accused of his right “to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.” None of this happens for the no-fly list people as the government has already effectively convicted and rendered punishment, sometimes indefinitely.
Should Congress adhere to the Obama/Clinton, and perhaps Trump, request to “make sure no one on a no-fly list is able to buy a gun” they will amplify the already existing constitutional infractions of Amendments 5, 6 and 14 and keep thousands of lawful Americans from protecting themselves with arms. Amendment 2 guarantees “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,” and certifies that this right “shall not be infringed.” This too would be violated for 80,000 persons without any real evidence of wrongdoing.
Moreover, even if such a law were passed it is well to remember that—a mere law—cannot trump a constitutional amendment—most especially four amendments, as using a no-fly list to prohibit purchase of a firearm would do. The only constitutional way that Obama, Clinton, or possibly Trump can change these amendments is with a new constitutional amendment, which a president cannot constitutionally initiate (see Article V).
Remember too, a government secret list of “bad guys,” has already been used by the Obama administration to punish his political enemies. The IRS used such a list to punish perhaps 200 Tea Party Organizations. Louis Lerner, one of those most responsible for doing so, pled the Fifth Amendment to avoid perjuring herself.
Hillary Clinton, the least trusted presidential candidate in U.S. History, used every government organization at her disposal to punish or vilify the women who had affairs with her husband while he served as governor of Arkansas and president of the U.S. With her personal integrity ratings so low it would be expected that she would use a no-fly law against her political enemies.
Hopefully, presidential candidate Trump will not take too long to see the damage to the Bill of Rights by the proposed no-fly legislation and use his influence to defeat it.
