May 18, 2015 | Constitution, Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease, Ph. D
The California State Legislature is contemplating joining other states in proposing an Article V Constitutional Convention to change the U.S. Constitution like unto that used by the Founding Father in 1787. Under the authorship of Assemblywoman Shannon Grove, it patterns its proposal after sister states Alaska, Florida, Georgia, and New Hampshire each of whom falsely presume that they can limit a new constitutional convention to only the proposals submitted. This column is directed to state representatives in other states also under the same false assumption. Unfortunately well-meaning patriots throughout the land, in their desire to “take back their government,” are, in their ignorance of our history, risking the Constitution itself.
Article V reads, “The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution.” Outside the Bill of Rights we have had 17 such changes. But what if Congress itself becomes corrupt and will not initiate change, as is the case now with the federal governments failure to be fiscally responsible? The Founding Fathers gave the people a second avenue through their states to force Congress to enact change. “Or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof.” But Congress, not the states, calls the convention, “as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress.” Notice that, once called, the states have no power to limit change.
The California call for a constitutional convention limits its delegates to just two areas: “support for amendments that impose fiscal restraints on the federal government, and which limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government.” (This coming from a state legislature that shows the same fiscal irresponsibility and same tendency to grow its power at the expense of county and city jurisdiction, as does its federal counterpart.) Such a requirement has no force of law once the convention convenes, and if each state submits differing proposals dozens of changes are likely. The convention, already convened, will proceed as did its predecessor, the Constitutional Convention, despite their authorization to only revise the Articles of Confederation. They discarded the entire document and began anew. Fortunately the resulting Constitution is a much better document but unfortunately a precedent was established for starting anew, which WILL BE REPEATED with a new Constitutional Convention. There exists no way to prevent a run-a-way convention.
Yes, proponents of a new convention argue, that the new changes will be returned to the states for three-fourths ratification. This assumes that this requirement was not changed by the new convention. Remember, under the Article of Confederation a unanimous approval of all states was required. The Constitutional Convention changed this to just nine of the thirteen states. Since state delegations are likely to include members of Congress it might be concluded in the new convention that no good reason exists to send it back to the states for ratification. So much for California, or any other state, having any real ability to limit the outcome of a new convention. Moreover, in the last Constitutional Convention new changes were not sent back to the states individually, only the package as a whole. Support or rejection was the only two options allowed. This too will be repeated.
New Hampshire law is probably the most restrictive in making their delegates stay within parameters established by its state legislature, even criminalizing their action if they depart. A new convention, sensitive to the fate of those exceeding their instructions, could in the new document simply void any state punishment for delegates having done so.
There exists a much better way “to take back our government”—the way that already works—one amendment at a time beginning with the proposed Balanced Budget Amendment if desired. Returning to California’s two areas of needed constitutional change, actually we do not need an amendment to restore fiscal responsibility. Article I, Section 7 already does this if used. Nor do we need any new amendments “to limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government,” Article I, Section 8 and Amendment 10 already do this when followed.
Anyone familiar with the Constitution knows that it is a precious document that reflects the wisdom of the ages and can handle any problems now besetting this nation. In my Contemporary Events political science class students are required to solve problems of today by the Constitution, rather than by political party, and we are successful in every instance. What we lack is not the wordage and authority to bring a wayward government back in line but those who know the Constitution well enough to defend it and use it.
Obviously getting Congress to follow what already exists is the problem. Where is the evidence that they would read, understand, or use a new document, or if we are lucky to get only a few new amendments, any better than the Constitution that under oath Congress has already pledged to defend and obey? The traditional way to use Article V allows plenty of time for debate and there exist no danger of throwing out the baby (the U.S. Constitution) with the bath water.
Dr. Harold Pease is a syndicated columnist and an expert on the United States Constitution.
May 4, 2015 | Constitution, Globalism
By Harold Pease, Ph. D
Many are still ignorant of the coming to fruition after a decade of numerous secret meetings, a huge trade agreement known as the Trans Pacific Partnership or TPP, first initiated under George W. Bush in 2005 and now pushed by Barack Obama, “which when finished, will govern 40 percent of U.S. imports and exports” and “26 percent of the world’s trade” (“Everything you need to know about the Trans Pacific Partnership,” Washington Post, Dec. 11, 2013). It will be the law of the land for the United States and 11 other countries in the Asia-Pacific region without the input of a single U.S. member of Congress. This in violation of Article I, Section I of the U.S. Constitution that mandates that all legislative powers reside in the House and Senate and in no other body. It also violates Article II, Section II that gives only the Senate power of advice and consent on treaties. But reportedly Senators requesting the proposed treaty have been refused access to the secret agreement whereas privileged corporations have no problem obtaining copies.
Critics, mostly Democrats and Tea Party proponents, resent the secretive nature of the agreement’s origin. Those feeling especially threatened include: global health advocates, environmentalists, Internet activists and trade unions. “The treaty has 29 chapters, dealing with everything from financial services to telecommunications to sanitary standards for food,” demonstrating the wide variety of areas believed to be affected by it, but again, it is the secretive nature of it that is most offensive. Apparently TPP participants signed “a confidentiality agreement requiring them to share proposals only with ‘government officials and individuals who are part of the government’s domestic trade advisory process’.” That excludes you, me, the media, and Congress.
Tea Party supporters oppose the treaty primarily because it violates two of its core values: constitutional limited government and the free market. They are also bothered by its likelihood of increasing illegal immigration and view it as a giant leap in the direction of world government because it replaces national sovereignty with international sovereignty. Neocon Republicans, like the Bush’s past and present, favor such agreements. Democrats oppose it primarily because it is likely to send jobs overseas, cost consumers more, and undermine environmental protections. The Democratic Party is split on the deal with Obama decidedly for it and Senator Elizabeth Warren and Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton expressing concerns over potential loss of American jobs. Republican presidential candidate Scott Walker shares the same concern over loss of American jobs. Again, both political parties abhor the secrecy and deception surrounding it.
Amplifying the concern over secrecy and deception is the president’s push for fast track status, meaning an up or down vote of both houses of congress with no debate or amendments. This is blatantly unconstitutional as it, in essence, voids them as the sole architects of law. They have a function far more worthy than merely approving or disapproving law made by benefiting corporations.
The Washington Post acknowledges that the agreement “encompass a broad range of regulatory and legal issues, making them a much more central part of foreign policy and even domestic lawmaking.” Such is curious. The Constitution requires the approval of your two U. S. Senators and your House member for every regulation upon you. There exists no language that any other individual or body—especially an international body—can perform this function. And, international law should not trump “domestic lawmaking.” You have the right to know that these three have read every rule emanating from the federal government upon you. Moreover, the admission that the TPP will influence foreign policy is interesting as only the U.S. Senate may influence foreign policy as per Article II, Section II. Giving a “more central part of foreign policy” to an international agency virtually voids the Constitution in this area and would have been thought treasonous by our Founders.
Were it not for Wikileaks who published the chapter on intellectual property in early November 2013, this and so much more would still be off limits to the media and everyone else. This chapter alone raised many questions about copyright protections and obviously this treaty, while billed as just a trade agreement, included music, film, books, the Internet and appeared to be potentially, as one critic called it, the treaty to “restrict access to knowledge.” And this is but one of 29 chapters.
International law imposed by an army of unelected bureaucrats is not freedom. The Trans Pacific Partnership siphons decision-making power from the elected to the non-elected in a foreign land and will affect every American. Any Congressman, or president, who supports such violates his oath of office “to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
Dr. Harold Pease is a syndicated columnist and an expert on the United States Constitution.
Mar 17, 2015 | Constitution, Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease, Ph. D
The New York Daily News, March 10, unleashed a firestorm with its front-page depiction of the 47 Republican U.S. Senators who signed a letter to Iran reminding it that Iran’s agreement with President Barack Obama still had to be reviewed, and approved by them. In giant letters crossing the bottom of the page was the word TRAITORS. Senator Tom Cotton, Arkansas Republican, called “Tehran” Tom by one democratic senator, was credited as the author of the letter. All but seven of the Senates 54 Republican majority signed. No Democrat signed and they are furious with this action inferring that the Republicans are siding with America’s enemies even, as Minority Leader Harry Reid said, “empowering the ayatollahs.”
The Senate letter, which I closely read, advised the leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran of the separation of powers in the Constitution between the executive branch, which makes international agreements, and the legislative branch that must approve such; that a treaty must be ratified by two-thirds of the Senate; and that without this majority vote of Congress it is merely an executive agreement and potentially meaningless after, in this case, Obama leaves office. It ends: “We hope this letter enriches your knowledge of our constitutional system and promotes mutual understanding and clarity as nuclear negotiations progress.” Signatures followed.
But does this letter constitute treason as the newspaper claimed and leading Democrats inferred?
As with every issue first consideration should be, “What does the Constitution say?” The word treason appears in Article III, Section 3, and follows: “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their enemies giving them Aid and Comfort.” Did this letter, reminding a dictatorial government, where the voice of one dominates, of our constitutional procedures requiring the voice of many, consist of levying war against the United States? No! Did it adhere to the interests of our enemies, which Iran is or we would not have sanctions imposed against it? No again. The Constitution continues: “No Persons shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.” Clearly the Senate Republican letter cannot be attached to any of the properties of treason in the Constitution. Certainly The New York Daily News, and Democrats making the charge, has convicted nearly half of the U.S. Senate as traitors without constitutional basis.
But to the charge that they are interfering with negotiations by reminding the Iranians of our constitutional procedures, the Constitution clearly prescribes such in Article II, Section 2, Clause 2. The President “shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur.” The advice function is performed during the creation of a treaty and the consent function is thereafter, once an agreement is presented to them. Many presidents have not sought the advise of the Senate when they created treaties and certainly Obama has shown no tendency to do so either, preferring to prepare a treaty without any advice from Congress.
Obviously a letter to a foreign government reminding it that no branch of government operates independently of another in the United States, does not constitute giving advice to the President. But in a distorted way it does. It reminds the President of constitutional procedure as well and places him on notice that he can expect resistance should he circumvent the constitutional treaty-making process.
So why did the Senate not wait for the finished treaty? Because they were afraid. This Congress has experienced the most encroaching president on legislating and treaty-making powers since Franklin D. Roosevelt and they were not certain that he would even present the finished treaty to them for ratification. Remember, this is the same president who by executive order by-passed Congress on executive amnesty thereby making his own law and independently changed parts of the National Health Care Bill at least 14 times with a stroke of the pen with no constitutional authority.
My question to the seven Republicans who did not sign and to all the Democrats in the U.S. Senate is this. Why did you not sign as well? Why is there not bipartisan support of the Constitution? Can’t you see your authority being eroded? If a Republican did the same thing increasingly, by executive order or fiat, undermining the constitutional separation of powers leaving your body weaker than before, you would be all over him. Ironically Republicans would be supporting their president. Neither party sees its own as dangerous.
Dr. Harold Pease is a syndicated columnist and an expert on the United States Constitution.
Mar 9, 2015 | Constitution, Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease, Ph. D
No Child left Behind (NCLB), the signature legislation of the George W. Bush Administration is now up for re-authorization. Senator Lamar Alexander of Tennessee and chairman of the Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions overseeing this review, said recently that he wanted to “put the responsibility back with states and local school districts” to oversee public schools with as few mandates as possible from Washington. His draft bill proposal offers states the right to test annually, as the present law requires, or instead every three years. NCLB failed revision attempts in 2007 but is ripe for change now as it is so unpopular.
The federal government forced a roll in public education with The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), signed into law in 1965 by President Lyndon Baines Johnson, as a part of the Great Society. It enticed state and school districts to go after the “free” money thereafter offered by the Federal Government. The original purpose of the 1965 law was to distribute federal aid to schools and districts that enrolled large numbers of poor children. To get the “free” money, however, schools had to conform to federal government standards and allow federal review of their programs. Very quickly districts and schools accepting the “free” money became very dependent upon it and thus became strong advocates for it.
In 2002 ESEA was modified and renamed by President George W. Bush: No Child Left Behind (NCLB). Though renamed it has not improved students’ preparation for higher learning. Schools were required to test every child in grades three through eight annually and had to prove their scores were going up. When that did not happen they were closed, privatized, or taken over by the state. The law set a goal that every child would be “proficient” by 2014. This did not happen either. Some say the law left all children at least two years, if not three, behind. It certainly has not worked as intended as indicated by the Barack Obama Administration’s having to extend flexibility from it to 42 states and the District of Columbia. In other words, only eight states met the mark and the Great Society measure to improve educational standards for all has failed.
What is missing in Senator Alexander’s argument is that his solution still leaves the federal government as having a legitimate roll in education and in a place of dominance over the states, when the Constitution gave it none. The word education is conspicuously absent from the document—not found in the list of federal powers Article I, Section 8 and never added by way of amendment to the Constitution since. For the federal government to increase its sovereignty over the states by offering money would have been unconscionable in yesteryear. The thought of having a centralized government having any say in what was fact or fiction in the lives of their children would have been inconceivable. Standard education could become standard thought. What is the difference between propaganda and education?
Who cares most whether Johnny can read, the federal government 2,000 miles away, or his mother? Who cares more whether Johnny’s friend can read, some bureaucrat in Washington D.C., or his community? School board members very likely have their own kids in the same schools and kids have their parents or grandparents overseeing their learning. Moreover, the community has access to board members at school games, on the street, or at the super market to complain to or praise. It does not get any better than this.
Constitutionally everything with respect to education, even it’s funding, was to come from the state and local governments. The “free” money offered by the federal government to steal state sovereignty duped politicians in the sixties, and today as well, into looking away from the Constitution as they, held out their hands to receive; and the benefiting group, the educational establishment, also with tin cups in hand, cheered them on. The argument that the federal government could manage learning better than state and local government is/has, and always will be, faulty.
After Lyndon B. Johnson effectively put the camels’ head (government power and authority), into the tent (education) there was no stopping its body following. President Jimmy Carter then established the Department of Education and progressively school boards have become largely “rubber stamps” as they are told by benefiting administrators that this and that regulation is federally mandated. Hopefully Congress will end authorization of their No Child Left Behind law returning education to the states and local government where it constitutionally belongs or at the very least propose an amendment to the Constitution authorizing federal take-over of education. It certainly could do so on the basis of the Constitution or on the damage it has done to our children and our schools.
Dr. Harold Pease is a syndicated columnist and an expert on the United States Constitution.
Feb 24, 2015 | Constitution, Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease, Ph. D
It is difficult to say what mans’ greatest crowning technological achievement has been but it is likely the Internet, which emerged and operates without a central governing body—just like most everything in a free society. It has no centralized governance for either technology or policies but is guided by the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) for the allocation and assignment of various technical identifiers needed for its operation. UCLA and Stanford University are the educational institutions most associated with its development as is the name Jon Postel who helped guide it through three decades, but contributors are too numerous to name. My point: it moved and shaped itself as needs developed without big government resulting in a technological tsunami wave unparalleled in human history for the benefit of everyone on earth and it will continue to do so best without government interference.
Enter Barack Obama who has made no pretense of his desire to regulate the Internet. The take-over begins slowly, without review from Congress or any body except the President’s Federal Communications Commission, and is to remain largely silent. They, the FCC, will meet February 26, 2015, in a quiet room and vote whether or not the government should control the Internet. Government always chooses to enlarge itself so there exists little hope that the vote, making them more powerful, will be in the negative. Ironically warnings of the take-over, are thus far, posted only on the Internet.
It is easy to see why governments want control of this medium. Its existence promotes freedom from excessive government. Totalitarian states such as North Korea, China, Russia and even Iran have long ago restricted information adverse to them getting to their people.
Deceptively the take-over is called Net Neutrality, named by the government to infer that they will insure that no other entity, other than them, will have any undo influence over the Internet—a threat that is totally unfounded as demonstrated by its superb three-decade management of itself. There exists nothing neutral about Net Neutrality, which gives the FCC the power to decide what Internet service providers can charge and how they operate. Freedom is often lost in the name of freedom. This will not end well for freedom buffs or the free market.
Reportedly the FCC has planned on applying Title II (common carrier) of the Communications Act of 1934 to the Internet since April 23 of last year. The President encouraged the process November 10, 2014. The Republican House discussion draft bill of January 16, 2015, opposes the take-over which would reclassify internet service from one of information to one of telecommunications, such as radio or television, enabling the decades old rules over the other mediums to apply to the Internet at the discretion of the FCC alone. Thus bloggers and others who use the Internet to influence policy and campaigns could be limited or taxed.
So far Republican opposition is weak and Democratic opposition is non-existent. Conservatives view the take-over as a means of silencing them, much the same way that Obama has used the IRS to silence the Tea Party Movement. Liberals are mixed: strong advocates of individual liberty such as the “right to die” or use marijuana without government say so, but wanting to support their President. They need to be reminded that conservative Richard Nixon used government agencies to silence them as well.
If one wants to see where government regulation of the Internet can lead it can be found in a “free” country such as the Netherlands. For them providing Net Neutrality in practice recently meant a stiff fine for a company offering an app enabling folks to stream HBO channels without charging for data usage. In an Internet free world the app would be a welcomed invention. The company was also accused of influencing its customers’ online behavior by doing so, which is not allowed either.
As far as I can tell, at press time, the 332 page FCC plan, that will be voted on February 26, has not been made available to the public or to Congress. The take-over will happen without cameras or media comment and government agents will too soon fan out over the land looking for people to tax or criminalize and a serious blow to freedom will have occurred almost without notice. This is a time to phone your congressperson and two senators. You must demand that the FCC make their plans public, and that the Congress, who is constitutionally required to make ALL the laws as per Article I, Section I, perform their responsibilities, rather than sit by and let unelected bureaucrats do so.
Dr. Harold Pease is a syndicated columnist and an expert on the United States Constitution.
Feb 16, 2015 | Constitution, Economy, Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease, Ph. D
Presidents’ Day, combining birthdays of George Washington and Abraham Lincoln for a national holiday, was designed to honor the contributions of both but, though we heap praise upon each, we ignore their messages. Washington’s primary message for posterity can be found in his famous Farewell Address just prior to his leaving office.
In strong terms he asked that we avoid debt. He said: “As a very important source of strength and security cherish public credit… use it as sparingly as possible, avoiding occasion of expense… [Use the] time of peace, to discharge the debts which unavoidable wars may have occasioned, not ungenerously throwing upon posterity the burden which we ourselves ought to bear.” Today our national debt sits at over $18 trillion—the highest in our history—eight trillion of which coming under President Barack Obama alone. We are spending our way into slavery for our children and/or financial collapse (See USDebtClock.org).
Washington pleaded with the nation to keep religion and morality strong. He said: “Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports…. Let it simply be asked, where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice? Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.” The founding Fathers never supported the notion of separation of religion and government—only the separation of an organization of religion from government. What would Washington say of the immorality that prevails today?
But the warning about foreign aid was especially good. He basically told us gift giving in foreign affairs is a good way to be universally hated. He said it placed us “in the condition of having given equivalents for nominal favors, and yet of being reproached with ingratitude for not giving more.” Today there is hardly a nation in the world that does not have its hand out and when, after once giving, the amount is reduce or terminated we are hated all the more for it.
Washington worried about posterity not holding their elected officials strictly to the limits imposed by the Constitution. He knew many would seek to undermine that document by twisting it to give power they could not acquire without the distortion. Sound familiar? He said: “But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed.” Today much of what the federal government does is not even mentioned in the Constitution.
But freedom fighters are not likely to be popular, he said: “Real patriots, who may resist the intrigues of the favorite, are liable to become suspected and odious; while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interests.” One need not look far for the tools and dupes; they seem to be everywhere in high office and in both parties.
Lincoln was for the free market and decidedly against socialism—just opposite of President Obama. On the ownership of property Abraham Lincoln’s feelings were especially strong, he said, “Property is the fruit of labor; property is desirable; is a positive good in the world. That some should be rich shows that others may become rich, and hence is just encouragement to industry and enterprises” (The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume VII, pp. 259-260). To him there was no need to take by force the wealth of those who produce and give it to those less productive. The “share the wealth” philosophy and “envy politics” so articulated by Obama would have been foreign ideology to the Civil War president.
Lincoln’s answer to the poor, from which he sprang himself, “Let not him who is houseless pull down the house of another, but let him labor diligently to build one for himself, thus by example assuring that his own shall be safe from violence….” Unfortunately, many in our society have forgotten the “labor diligently” part of his phrase and have come to expect the government to provide, from the industry of others, their every need. On that score Lincoln also had words. “You toil and work and earn bread, and I will eat it.” He viewed this principle as a form of tyranny to those who work. Today 47.5 % of the adult population pays no federal income tax; many actually receive benefits for which they have paid nothing.
Watching others acquire wealth was, in fact, a sign of a healthy economy for Lincoln. “I take it that it is best for all to leave each man free to acquire property as fast as he can. Some will get wealthy. I don’t believe in a law to prevent a man from getting rich; it would do more harm than good.” Nor would he have supported the hundreds of laws that we have today that disincentivise a man trying to acquire wealth.
Perhaps teachers and parents would be wise to remind those under their charge of the wisdom of the ages as expressed by these two favorite presidents. There is a reason that we have the day off and that these birthdays were made a holiday. But with all the fun that follows we must not forget their messages.
Dr. Harold Pease is a syndicated columnist and an expert on the United States Constitution.
