May 9, 2016 | Constitution, Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease, Ph. D
In listening to the three remaining presidential candidates Trump, Sanders and Clinton, one would think that each actually has the power to do what he/she says will be done. Trump will nullify and replace Obamacare, build a wall along our southern border stopping illegal immigration that Mexico will pay for, send back the 11 million that already illegally crossed, end Common Core and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), ban most foreign Muslims from entering the US, open to surveil mosques in the US, create a database of Syrian refugees, bomb ISIS, target and kill the relatives of terrorists, shut down parts of the Internet to prevent ISIS recruitment, reintroduce torture (waterboarding) to extract intelligence, to name a few.
Bernie Sanders also has his “pie in the sky” promises notably free tuition at public universities, universal health care coverage, legislation to change the climate, and he opposes trade deals that take advantage of the poor labor of other counties. He would end income inequality, establishing a $15 minimum wage, and close the gender pay gap. He advocates investing a trillion dollars over five years to rebuild our infrastructure, and will drastically reform the campaign finance system. He calls the free market a “rigged economy.” At least he is honest in labeling his proposals a “political revolution.” “Today … we begin a political revolution to transform our country economically, politically, socially and environmentally,” said Sanders.
Hillary Clinton has vowed to continue the Barack Obama agenda. She speaks of a more inclusive society; early childhood education and child-care accessibility, and higher education reform, student debt relief, universal automatic voter registration. She also will focus on substance abuse, and mental health issues, campaign finance reform, breaking down barriers of race, gender, and sexual orientation in America. She promises to break-up banks “if they deserve it,” work to end racism, sexism and discrimination against the LGBT community and welcome immigrants overnight.
The list for each is long and candidates add to it on a whim. Unfortunately most, if not all, of these things the president has no constitutional power to implement. His powers are listed in Article II of the Constitution and have not been expanded by way of amendment as required in Article V of that document, thus they are totally unconstitutional for the president to do without congressional, and some times state, approval. Some few may be constitutionally forbidden even with permission of the legislative branch.
Presidents, in their thirst for power and /or proclaimed expediency, have empowered themselves to the point of “kingship” with their worshipful, unchallenging, party followers (whether democrat or republican) quite willing to look the other way as government grows beyond its ability to be constitutional or efficient. At any time a president could remind the people of his real constitutional powers but he will not as that would drastically reduce his perceived power that is beginning to look limitless.
Under Article II of the Constitution the president has but eleven powers. Let us identify them: 1) “Commander in chief of the army and navy of the United States” including the militia when called into actual service of the United States; 2) supervise departments (cabinet), each presumably established by the Congress (George Washington had but four); 3) grant reprieves and pardons; 4) make treaties with the help of the Senate; 5) with Senate help appoint positions established by law such as ambassadors, ministers and judges; 6) fill vacancies “during recess of the Senate;” 7) make recommendations to Congress on the state of the union; 8) convene both houses on special occasions and handle disputes with respect to convening; 9) receive ambassadors and other public ministers; 10) make certain that “laws be faithfully executed;” and, 11) “commission all the officers of the United States.”
Simply stated the president has two supervisory powers over existing organizations and two shared powers with the Senate, otherwise he pardons, recommends, appoints and entertains. That is it! Notice the absence of power to make any rules and regulations on us. This is the job of Congress alone.
Thus a prospective president sets his constituency up with unrealistic expectations and eventual disillusionment. When unable to implement promised changes he quickly becomes unpopular as has happened to his predecessors. Since he has NO law making powers he must persuade Congress to agree to his proposed changes. When they do not, as in the case of Barack Obama, he is tempted to make law himself to keep face with his promises and constituency. The practice is a most serious violation of the Constitution and is impeachable. In the case of Obama, Congress is afraid to pursue the blatant offense to the Constitution. Unchallenged it opens the door for future power grabbing presidents to do the same and the president replaces Congress as the major law making branch of government. All three of the remaining presidential candidates will resort to executive orders rather than disillusion their expecting followers.
The term executive order, used by presidents to make law, is not found in the Constitution. Executive orders were initially nothing more than inter-departmental communications between the President and his executive branch with him requesting some action on their part. Constitutionally they have no law making function. Congress must reign-in any executive that uses them to make or alter law. Article I, Section I gives only Congress law making power. Impeachment is a proper response for any president who subverts or threatens the separation of powers doctrine, as his oath requires that he “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution.” I advocated such for the last two presidents and will do so again whichever party, or whomever candidate, does so.
May 2, 2016 | Constitution, Liberty Articles
By Dr. Harold Pease
Presidential candidate Donald Trump has made no secret of his intention to use enhanced interrogation techniques in order to collect intelligence the government considers critical to protecting the United States. “The enemy is cutting off the heads of Christians and drowning them in cages, and yet we are too politically correct to respond in kind,” he has repeated numerous times. Polls show that perhaps two-thirds of America agrees. Perhaps they should rethink this view.
Techniques to extract information from an enemy are not new. An acquaintance shared with me what was required of him to extract information from the enemy in the Vietnam War. If the enemy did not disclose the information requested he was thrown from a helicopter in flight. His friends, riding with him, watched with horror until it was their turn to be thrown. My acquaintance, whose job it was to throw them, said that they usually had the information needed before the last prisoner. But the Vietnam War ended 41 years ago.
What is enhanced interrogation today? According to ABC News, the CIA has used the following techniques: waterboarding, hypothermia, stress positions, abdomen strikes, slapping, and shaking. In waterboarding the prisoner is “bound to an inclined board, feet raised and head slightly below the feet. Material is wrapped over the prisoner’s face and water is poured over it, asphyxiating the prisoner,” who believes that he is drowning.
In hypothermia the prisoner is “left to stand naked in a cell kept near 50 degrees Fahrenheit (10 degrees Celsius), while being regularly doused with cold water in order to increase the rate at which heat is lost from the body. (A water temperature of 10 °C (50 °F) often leads to death in one hour).” In stress positions the prisoner is forced to stand, handcuffed and with his feet shackled to an eyebolt in the floor, for more than 40 hours, causing his “weight to be placed on just one or two muscles. This creates an intense amount of pressure on the legs, leading first to pain and then muscle failure”(ABC News, CIA’s Harsh Interrogation Techniques Described, Brian Ross, Nov. 18, 2005). Violent abdominal strikes, slapping, and shaking are self-explanatory. A bipartisan Congressional Report issued December 2008 added forced nudity and sleep deprivation up to 40 hours to the list that we have used.
The George W. Bush administration, which engaged in enhanced interrogation, did not define these techniques as torture. The rest of the world did, however. In two separate pronouncements the United Nations “denounced the U. S. abuse of prisoners as tantamount to torture” on Feb. 16, 2006, and on May 19, of the same year it viewed “the U.S.-termed enhanced interrogation techniques … as a form of torture” (UN Calls for Guantanamo Closure, BBC, Read the Full UN Report into Guantanamo Bay, February 16, 2005).
Only one man in Congress actually knows what torture is and that is Senator John McCain and he opposes the practice as the information extracted is unreliable (the victim will say anything to ease the pain) and it is just plain wrong. He says that we should be on a higher plain. He was shot down over Hanoi, Vietnam sustaining two fractured arms and a broken leg sustained in the fall, then was bayoneted and beaten by villagers who first found him. Although these wounds were not torture inflicted they were not treated for some time thus they became torture related. His beatings and interrogations lasted periodically for five years and included two years in solitary confinement. At the height of their attempt to break him he was bound by tight ropes in very painful positions and beaten every two hours for four days, breaking teeth and bones (Politics in America, by Thomas R. Dye, 2009, p 280). He finally broke.
In regards to our locating the secret courier leading us to Osama bin Laden by enhanced interrogation—it never happened. McCain asked CIA Director Leon Panetta if that were true and he said: “The trail to bin Laden did not begin with a disclosure from Khalid Sheik Mohammed, who was waterboarded 183 times. The first mention of Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti — the nickname of the al-Qaeda courier who ultimately led us to bin Laden — as well as a description of him as an important member of al-Qaeda, came from a detainee held in another country, who we believe was not tortured. None of the three detainees who were waterboarded provided Abu Ahmed’s real name, his whereabouts or an accurate description of his role in al-Qaeda” (CIA Director Leon Panetta to Sen. John McCain: “Torture Not Key to Finding Bin Laden” by Joan McCarter, May 16, 2011, Covey Views).
With such controversial results enhanced interrogation should not be considered. Even if enhanced interrogations were the reason that we found and removed Osama bin Laden, I cannot imagine any of the Founding Fathers endorsing such practices. This argument is countered with theirs was a different time and culture.
But there exists natural law that proclaims, “Vengeance begets vengeance.” Yes, each can do terrible things to the other and follow this with even more horrible, unspeakable things such as punishing the relatives of terrorists, which has already been suggested by Mr. Trump. But why degenerate to their level and further accelerate the degeneration? Some of us still want God on our side. How can that be if we are no different than they? Fortunately the Constitution prohibits the “Corruption of Blood” practice (punishing relatives for the behavior of one of their own) in Article III, Section 3, Clause 2, but perhaps “the Donald” does not know this.
Apr 25, 2016 | Constitution, Liberty Articles
Harold Pease, Ph. D
With the media so locked on “Donald Trump productions” for the last several months they missed a serious precedent setting double jeopardy violation of the Constitution last winter. Two men, father and son ranchers, are presently again sitting in jail for the same crime after having completed their sentences and been free for more than a year. Not for a new crime but because the Justice Department, thinking the sentences of a the previous District Court not harsh enough, appealed to the U. S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals which resentenced both to longer terms.
Both then were rearrested, reconvicted and re-incarcerated because the federal government did not like the ruling of their own federal judge—and, again, this after the previous sentences had been served. How is this not double jeopardy? The 5th Amendment to the Bill of Rights reads in part, “nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb.” This cannot be allowed to stand or we all lose this part of the Constitution, left uncontested, past practice tends to set the new parameters making it so much more difficult to get back to the Constitution as designed.
This case has another strange twist. It allows someone adjacent to federal land that burns unwanted debris, the fire from which accidentally burns a portion of federal land, to be convicted as a terrorist with a mandatory five-year sentence. Dwight and Steven Hammond, law abiding, patriotic and model citizens in their community, are serving second sentences as terrorist for precisely this reason. Their 2001 control burn got out of control consuming, in addition to Hammond property, 150 acres of federal land. The burn, mostly grass, did not destroy actual property.
Judge Michael Hogan, understood and factored in the above conditions and offered leniency giving Dwight (74) three months and his son Steven (46) one year and one day. They also settled on paying $400,000 on firefighting expenses. But he felt that The Anti-terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, of which they were charged, which required a minimal sentence of 5 years in prison, defining the Hammons as terrorists, was grossly excessive thus violating Amendment 8 of the Bill of Rights, prohibiting “cruel or unusual punishment” because of the excessive length of time mandated and the “terrorist” label thereafter attached to the defendants. Thus the sentence of arson, rather than terrorist, as mandated by the faulty law, was rendered.
Undermining the authority of Judge Hogan a Ninth Circuit judge, despite the double jeopardy clause in the Fifth Amendment, reinstated the 5-year sentence and the two were rearrested. It was Bureau of Land Management Field Manager and Refuge Manager for the Malheur Refuge, property adjacent to the Hammon’s, that filed the appeal. The Malheur Refuge would benefit because BLM had benefited from other ranches they had had a hand in forcing to sell, thus enlarging the Refuge, and they expected to do the same to the Hammond property.
The Hammon’s went back to prison peacefully and today are in a minimum-security facility in Los Angeles. If the government really thought that they were real terrorists they would never have given but minimum security. In their case the Obama Department of Justice denied justice and violated the Constitution in both the 5th and 8th Amendments. A law, in this case The Anti-terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, is never to trump the Constitution but has.
The event refueled the range war with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) as hundreds, incensed by similar heavy handedness by federal agencies on properties all over the West, hoped for injustice exposed. Some few of these descended on Oregon taking over the Malheur Refuge and illegally occupied it for the next several months, which unfortunately provided the media with a story with far more drama than the “rancher squeeze” story. The Hammond’s were largely forgotten. The U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear their appeal, probably because of the Refuge Standoff, thus allowing the appellate court’s unconstitutional ruling to stand. This compounded the injustice.
The Hammon family experience with BLM tyranny is similar to that of Cliven Bundy whose Nevada Standoff, two years ago, got great publicity. Both families had been ranchers for generations long before the BLM (1946) existed. They were both survivalists from decades of federal government “rancher squeeze” since the 1970’s. Part of the squeeze was to drastically reduce gracing permits for ranchers dependent upon them for their livelihood and significantly raise grazing fees for those still remaining. In both instances, and in hundreds more, ranchers were force to sell at fire sale prices and in these two instances the Hammon’s and the Bundy’s were essentially the last to stand. The Hammon’s differed only in that the BLM and the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) coveted their property since the 1970’s expecting to enlarge the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge with it, as they had the property of other ranchers that bordered them.
In the case of the Bundy’s only Article I, Section 8 Clause 17 of the Constitution dealing with federal land has been violated. For the Hammon’s the same violations exist plus Amendment 8, “cruel and unusual punishment” and Amendment 5 being “subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb,” known commonly as double jeopardy. How can one serve a sentence and then be retried and given a larger sentence, but it happened.
Apr 18, 2016 | Constitution
By Harold Pease Ph. D
In a recent bid said to “support climate resiliency in the region” (code for removing human influence), President Barack Obama by executive decree has removed from general use another 1.8 million acres, this time in California. On February 12, with mostly no establishment media coverage and virtually no anger from Congress for his using their power, he created the following three new national monuments: Castle Mountains (21,000 acres), Mojave Trails (1.6 million acres), and Sand to Snow (154,000 acres). These three expand his total to 22 national monuments.
In seven years as president he has “set aside” (code for human removal) more than 265 million acres of land and water—more than any other president. This area is larger than most states in the Union.
What does “set aside” actually mean in implementation? It is the strictest classification of land use. “These areas will be off-limits to mining and mineral exploration, oil and gas drilling, grazing, timber harvest, and even many of the current recreational uses of camping, hiking, hunting, fishing, horseback riding, and off-road vehicle usage that the public previously enjoyed” (William F. Jasper, The Last Word, The New American, p. 44). All this new regulation and governance with but a stroke of the pen by one man with no constitutional authority to make law as it is the prerogative of Congress alone.
Any new acquisition, outside the capital, had (1) to be purchased, (2) have the consent of the State Legislature where the land exists, (3) and be for military purposes. As all land acquisition powers are in Article I of the Constitution, with the legislative branch, the president was left out of the process. None of these constitutional requirements were met with respect to any of the national monuments acquired by President Barack Obama. None were purchased, none received the consent of the State Legislature, and none are used exclusively for military purposes. Nor have there been any additional amendments to the Constitution authorizing additional federal ownership of land as required for any additional federal power. Constitutionally there exists no federal land outside territory awaiting statehood as per Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2.
One might argue that most, if not all, of the monuments were already on federal land having been acquired when the federal government refused to give to new states all the land that went with statehood when they transitioned from territorial status. That is true. The federal government through this process came to own about a third of the United States. That late 19th Century leaders fraudulently acquired the property in the first place, it does not follow that present leaders should expand the fraudulency. Constitutionally all land within state boundaries, unless acquired through the three stipulations noted in the Constitution, belong to the states—no exceptions.
White House memos announcing the creation of new monuments normally cite the Antiquities Act of 1906 as the authority to do so and President Theodore Roosevelt as the first to use it in his creation of the Devils Tower National Monument in Wyoming the same year. Although this Act violated the above-cited constitutional land limitations, it, at least was an act of Congress representing the will of Congress in 1906 to which the then president responded. As unconstitutional as this was, Congress, reflecting the voice of many, still made the law and was in charge.
This was not authority for succeeding presidents the next hundred years to hang every federal land confiscation on an antiquated law not authorized in the Constitution without a new constitutional amendment. Thus, in 1906, only one part of the Constitution was violated, Article I, Section 8, Clause 17, with its three limitations on federal land ownership, and that by the 1906 Congress. Presidents using this authority, thereafter by executive orders, are not now doing it as the will of Congress or by their direction. They are essentially making law by themselves—a serious violation of the separation of powers doctrine.
There is nothing more clear nor basic in the Constitution than the separation of federal power into three branches, one to legislate, another to execute that law, and a third to adjudicate possible violations, when contested, of that law—a division of power held “sacred” until the last few decades. 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).
The executive branch has NO authority to make law—any law!!!! 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.
Unfortunately all presidents since Roosevelt used the 1906 law that trumps the Constitution except Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, and George Bush. Sadly they were the only ones who followed the clarity of the Constitution with respect to federal ownership of property. That the federal government has created national monuments unconstitutionally on what are state lands, or that both political parties have ignored this part of the Constitution for over a hundred years, does not make federal confiscation now constitutional. If this process continues, which has been accelerated under Obama, it is likely that the federal government may come to own far more than the third of the landmass that it now owns—perhaps all?
Apr 17, 2016 | Constitution
By Harold Pease, Ph. D
April 12, 2016, marks the anniversary of the Bundy Standoff two years ago when the federal government intentionally slaughtered Bundy cattle and proceeded to roundup and remove another 300 to 400 free ranging on public land managed by the Bundy’s for generations—even before the Bureau of Land Management (1946) existed. This was all over the news for days with American flags brandished by hundreds of sympathetic Bundy supporters.
Last month, beginning with the arrest of Cliven Bundy in Portland, Oregon, the Feds, in a sting operation, arrested 19 men from five states, Arizona, Idaho, Oklahoma, Utah and as far away as New Hampshire. Charges include conspiracy to commit an offense against the United States; threatening a federal law enforcement officer; obstruction of justice; attempting to impede or injure a federal law enforcement officer; and several firearms charges. All this, unlike two years ago, is now without a word from the establishment media on the federal sting. The federal government waited two years and then, when the Nevada standoff was consigned largely to history, swept in with the arrests.
Bundy had good reason to be encouraged and to believe that “the people” had defeated a government that no longer represented them. Almost a year after the Standoff, he wrote, “We have not been bothered by nor have we even seen a US government licensed vehicle of any kind on the Bundy Ranch or the northeast portion of Clark County. Cattle prices are good and green grass is growing!” (“An Update on Nevada Scofflaw Cliven Bundy, High County News, March 7, 2015).
Bundy refused to enter a plea before a federal judge. Attorney Joel Hansen argued for him that he was not a flight risk. “He is going to go back to the ranch and take care of his chores there.” Bail was denied. To make matters worse the Associated Press reported April 2, that U.S. District Judge Gloria Navarro has refused to let nationally known conservative lawyer Larry Klayman, Founder of Judicial Watch and Freedom Watch, join the Cliven Bundy defense team at the request of Hansen.
Still, Bundy (69) may have a good case. His legal brief read in part, “He never brandished a weapon at any federal officer. He never stood in the way of any federal officer. He has never assaulted anyone in his life nor has he ever committed a battery on anyone,” (“Nevada Rancher Cliven Bundy Denied Bail for 2014 Standoff,” March 18, 2016, High Desert Hustle).
If the Constitution is allowed as evidence the case is even stronger. Presently the federal government owns 87.7 of Nevada. Basically the federal government did not give western states all their land when they qualified for statehood. States were so excited to get coveted statehood that they went along with the conditions despite the confiscation of, for most in the West, at least a third of their land.
The Founders understood that the size of land holding was proportionally related to the perceived size of the federal government and they intentionally wanted that perception small. The Federal government was permitted to have but 10 square miles for a federal capital. The only other land that they could acquire had to be for military purposes as specified in the common defense clause of the Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 which reads: “and to exercise like Authority over all places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the same shall be for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock Yards, and other needful Buildings.”
Any new acquisition, outside the capital, had (1) to be purchased, (2) have the consent of the State Legislature where the land exists, (3) and be for military purposes. None of these constitutional requirements were met with respect to Nevada or any of the western states, although some military bases do exist in most of them. Nor have there been any additional amendments to the Constitution authorizing additional federal ownership of land as required for any additional federal power. Constitutionally there exists no federal land or Bureau of Land Management or even public land.
Again, in the case of the Bundy’s, the land in dispute was not purchased by the federal government, did not receive the consent of the Nevada State Legislature for sale to the feds, and is not for military purposes. The fact that the federal government acquired it fraudulently in the first place, or that both political parties have ignored this part of the Constitution for over a hundred years, does not make federal confiscation now constitutional. Constitutionally Bundy has more preemptive right through a long line of ancestors to be there than does the BLM.
Neighbors considered the slaughter and theft of Bundy cattle as government tyranny equal to anything the British had done to early Americans and rushed to the Bundy defense. Approximately 400 citizens came to his aid guarding the impoundment site from further confiscation of Bundy cattle. They came from as far away as New Hampshire and Florida—many with their guns. Yes the standoff got ugly but not violent. Video footage, now available, show that four armed snipers had their guns trained on the family during the incident and there were a few armed citizens with their guns aimed at the government snipers should they have shot any of the family. The federal government has now rounded up prominent Bundy defenders with nary a word from the establishment news.
Mar 7, 2016 | Constitution
Seventeen video presentations on the U.S. Constitution.
NOW POSTED
- Declaration of Independence: Your Right of Revolution 22:58
Today’s posting is to alert you to the video series on the Constitution free on LibertyUnderFire.org. We believe it to be the easiest and fastest way to get up to speed on the U.S. Constitution that presently is under the greatest attack in its history. It is the only way back to universal prosperity and liberty. Readers know that we have lost so much the last two decades. It is imperative that all who love liberty become devout constitutionalists first before loyalty to any party. It is that serious. No longer use the words conservative or liberal, as they are divisive. Why create your own opposition? Everyone should be a constitutionalist. Those opposed to the Constitution are thus forced to be seen for what they are and opposition to the Constitution is not an equal alternative view. They thus are force to defend themselves not against you but against the one document that everyone serving in any position of leadership is required by oath to pledge loyalty to.
Dr. Harold Pease
About Us
We are a non-partisan, independent group who believes that both parties are responsible for undermining valued and sacred principles. Today’s ideological revolution is as important as that which was fought by the Founding Fathers, and we urge all to set aside party and tradition and return to liberty while we still can.
Liberty Under Fire founder, Dr. Harold Pease, is a political science professor who has spent a lifetime teaching the writings of the Founding Fathers and applying them to current events. None of the major networks emphasize this perspective. Liberty Under Fire is the only news source that is dedicated to filling this void. We bring to your attention those current events that you need to know in order to continue the fight to restore liberty.
