Feb 10, 2015 | Constitution, Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease, Ph. D
In state after state the Defense of Marriage Act defining marriage as between a man and a woman was passed. Likewise, in state after state, since passage, non-elected federal appellate judges have ruled same-sex marriage to be constitutional, reversing the will of the majority—until now. Finally a justice is actually using the whole Constitution in his arguments. Chief Justice Roy Moore of the Alabama Supreme Court recently wrote that the U.S. Constitution gives no jurisdiction whatsoever to any branch of the federal government to dictate marriage policy to the states and is advising Alabama Governor Robert Bentley to disallow county clerks from issuing marriage licenses to do so.
In a hand delivered letter to Governor Robert Bentley January 27, 2015, Justice Moore argued that “nothing in the United States Constitution grants the federal government the authority to redefine the institution of marriage” and that it decidedly trumps Alabama state law, more specifically the Sanctity of Marriage Amendment passed in 2006 by 81% of her voters. Moreover, “44 federal justices have imposed by judicial fiat same-sex marriages in 21 states of the Union, overturning the express will of the people in those states.” This he called judicial tyranny, which he defined as “unlawful opinions issued without constitutional authority.” He referred to the misuse of more recent interpretations of equal protection, due process, and full faith and credit concepts, as “specious pretexts” not part of the original document.
The press seldom consults the Constitution. Everything to them is simply liberal or conservative and Republican or Democrat. End of analysis!!! But is Moore constitutionally sound? What does the Constitution say about marriage and can Governor Bentley constitutionally refuse compliance with a judicial mandate?
When the Founding Fathers created the Constitution they recognized two co-existing governments known as Federalism: one, the federal government, to function primarily externally, the other, the states, to manage internal functions. Like a marriage they functioned—neither being master nor slave. Of the two only the federal government was restricted in its functions by a list of 17 specific powers found in Article I, Section 8. The Founders knew that all national governments like to grow. The states were left unrestricted and all power not identified was assumed left to them and lesser governments. To make doubly certain that this limitation on the federal government was permanent, the States insisted on having a Bill of Rights included in the Constitution as a condition of their acceptance of it. Amendment 10 of it reads, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution…are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.”
Unfortunately for advocates of federalizing loving relationships the word marriage, or anything like unto it, is not in Section 8, nor has it been added to the Constitution by way of amendment through Article V, which is the process for change and thus this issue is devoid of federal constitutional authority. If we are to follow the Constitution as intended, and not make a mockery of it, marriage related questions are state functions at best and cannot be moved to a federal jurisdiction without a 3/4th affirmative vote of the states as per Article V of the U.S. Constitution. Alabama has every constitutional right not to issue marriage certificates to same-sex couples.
Still, what about Amendment 14, passed after the Civil War to make the southern states apply the Bill of Rights to their freed black population—the amendment now almost exclusively used to justify same sex marriages? This amendment was about slavery, not marriage; homosexuality at the time was illegal in every state. Two nebulous phrases in the wordy amendment, “due process” and “equal protection,” were extracted later by judges, sometimes with tortured logic, and used to rule that a state may not deprive their same-sex couples of due process and equal protection of the law. Each nebulous phrase took on a life of its own with no regard to original intent.
If a judge uses only the distortions of Amendment 14, not introduced into the Constitution until after 1865, seventy-eight years later and never understood by the amendment writers to justify radical change, he will use it to make same-sex marriage constitutional. To do so, however, he must intentionally ignore Article I, Section 8, and Amendment 10 and utterly discard the philosophy of federalism. Such judges endorse the movement to grow the federal government, righting all wrongs and solving all problems through an ever-enlarging central government—just the opposite of what the Constitution is supposed to do. Constitutionalist judges like Moore, on the other hand, value these essential components of the Constitution and will rule otherwise.
Judge Moore uses the complete Constitution as understood by its Founders. His opponents take one sentence out of the whole disregarding everything prior to 1865 and give it a meaning not understood at the time. So again, we finally have a judge who uses the whole Constitution in his interpretations.
Dr. Harold Pease is a syndicated columnist and an expert on the United States Constitution.
Feb 1, 2015 | Constitution, Liberty Articles
By Dr. Harold Pease
In listening to the President’s State of the Union Address one might think that he actually has the power to do what he requests. On domestic issues two old requests from last years State of the Union Address were renewed: a request for raising the minimum wage and, instead of just making the college opportunity available to all middle class Americans, he went further proposing free community college for all. Other requests included advocacy for “a free and open Internet,” which, given a recent executive order means control of it, expanded child care tax credits, improved job training, expanded paid leave, and a new tax benefit for two-income families. All this to be funded by increased taxes on the rich. He threatened a veto to any legislation that altered Obamacare or undermined his recently decreed executive amnesty. He was decidedly unclear on his request for criminal justice reform, certainly a reference to the riots in Ferguson, Mo. More federal involvement always means more federal control.
He defended his positions on Cuba and Iran and threatened presidential vetoes if Congress legislated differently. Constitutionalist had to have cheered when he seemed to lecture, the mostly Republican Congress, on what he called “rash decisions, reacting to the headlines instead of using our heads; when the first response to a challenge is to send in our military—then we risk getting drawn into unnecessary conflicts, and neglect the broader strategy we need for a safer, more prosperous world.” He called it “a smarter kind of American leadership” and seemed aimed at the so-called military industrial complex of which President Dwight D. Eisenhower warned. He saw rewriting the Authorization of Use of Military Force, which authorized the air campaigns in Iraq and Syria, as a priority but left few specifics on what that meant. He still refuses to use the term Radical Islamist Terrorists in describing the Islamists involved in the mass killing in Nigeria, Iraq, Syria and France even though while he spoke they were threatening to topple Yemen who has stood with us in opposition to al-Qaida.
The list went on and on as it does for every president Republican or Democrat, but what was different from last year is that he threatened the use of the veto rather than the threat of his bypassing Congress with the use of the “pen” through executive orders. The term executive order is not found in the Constitution and initially was 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.
Unfortunately most, if not all, of these things are not in Article II of the Constitution nor have they been added by way of amendment as outlined in Article V of that document, thus they are unconstitutional. It is very probable that, even with the approval of Congress, they would be outside the Constitution but that is a topic for another time. 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 he could remind the people of his real constitutional powers but he will not as that would drastically reduce his power that is beginning to look limitless.
We must return to the Constitutional powers of the President as identified in Article II. As we list these powers attempt to match the State of the Union requests wherein he suggests that he might have a role. Under 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.
All measures listed in the 2015 State of the Union Address are but suggestions to Congress, which alone, as per Article I, Section I, has all law-making functions—the president has none. That said, he is within his constitutional bounds with his threat of the veto, which is likely to be used liberally.
Dr. Harold Pease is a syndicated columnist and an expert on the United States Constitution.
Jan 12, 2015 | Constitution, Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease, Ph. D
In his State of the Union Address beginning the year 2014 President Barack Obama boldly threatened to “in effect” replace the legislative branch of government by doing it alone, through executive orders, if they did not do as he wished and in a timely fashion. On another occasion he said, “We are not just going to be waiting for legislation…. I’ve got a pen, and I’ve got a phone. And I can use that pen to sign executive orders and take executive actions and administrative actions….” Some dubbed this his nullification of Congress speech. This was no idle threat. He had already effected 23 executive changes to Obamacare, which greatly altered the 2700-page law from its original meaning.
In April, we saw a range war between the federal government and the Bundy Ranch over the use of land used by Bundy ancestors for a hundred years. It brought into question why the federal government claims 87% of Nevada and sizable sections of all western states—even a third of the landmass of the United States. The Constitution gives it but 10 square miles for a capital and other land meeting three acquisition requirements. It 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 the acquired western lands followed these requirements.
Perhaps the most offensive display at the Bundy Ranch Standoff was the posting, April 1, by the BLM representatives of a sign, presumably for protesters, “FIRST AMENDMENT AREA.” An expandable red plastic three-foot-high wall encircled the area. In other words, those verbalizing disagreement with the BLM’s heavy-handed confiscation of Bundy cattle could only express themselves within this restricted area or risk being arrested. Opponents promptly posted a sign of their own, “1st AMENDMENT IS NOT AN AREA.” They rightfully contended that Free Speech covered the whole country.
In June of 2014, the President released five Gitmo prisoners—three top intelligence officers and two top military commanders—the five most wanted by the Taliban; one a former Taliban interior minister reportedly having had close ties with Osama bin Laden. These in exchange for Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl, said to be a traitor by his companions in Afghanistan when he walked off base seeking an Al Qaida representative. Article III, Section III clearly defines treason as “giving aid and comfort to the enemy.” No one seemed to question that these military commanders would return to the theater of war against us. Although key members of both parties, notably Senator Lindsey Graham and Senate Intelligence Committee Chair, Dianne Feinstein, were opposed to this action, few wanted to connect the President with an act of treason.
Children next invaded the United States–up from 6,000 in 2011 to 54,000 by late summer, these having crossed killer deserts, cartel infested drug territories, and in most instances more than one country, presumably on their own. The cause, Central Americans believed that if they could just get into the United States President Obama would let them stay. His Presidential Directive of June 16, 2012, to not enforce existing congressional law to extract illegals, fed this perception. Clearly our borders are not protected when children can cross, reportedly unaided: if children, then anyone. The Preamble, charges the federal government with the responsibility of providing for the common defense and it has failed to do so.
In yet another scary scandal the CIA recently acknowledged that it “had secretly searched Senate computer files related to an investigation of the agency’s Bush-era harsh interrogation program.” This wasn’t just any group of U.S. Senators that the CIA decided to spy on, it was the Senate Intelligence Committee, charged with overseeing all spying sponsored by our government. In effect, the CIA was spying on its congressional boss. Feinstein insisted that the CIA removed from committee computers information that cast the agency’s post-9/11 interrogation tactics in a harsh and negative light, this presumably to avoid embarrassment and legal entanglements. The President was never held to answer why his branch of government was spying on yet another.
Not content with Congress’s unwillingness to legislate on climate change to his expectations, the president issued a November 1, 2014, executive order that creates a de facto legislative branch to do so. He titled it, “Preparing the United States for the impacts of Climate Change.” Neither Congress nor the scientific community is in agreement that climate change, when it is documentable, is man-made. As a result Congress is unwilling to legislate, tax and spend on this supposed problem until more confirming data is available. The President, in disagreement, seeks to make rules unilaterally as he has in other areas, despite the fact that he constitutionally is not empowered to make any law as per Article I, Section I.
President Barack Obama acted as though he was unaware of the overwhelming rejection of his policies in one of the largest mid-term election defeats in the last 100 years. He came out of the gate with a renewal of his long-time threat of legalizing illegal immigration through executive order before the end of the year. He referred to it as taking “care of business.” “I can’t wait another two years,” he defiantly threatened Congress. After the American people soundly rejected his policies on November 4th, he addressed them in prime time fashion defiantly rejecting existing law and placing himself above Congress on immigration law. This, after he argued more than two dozen times on different dates in multiple places that he had no constitutional authority to do so, even arguing at one time that he would have to be an emperor to do so.
This decidedly has not been a good year for Constitutional integrity.
Dr. Harold Pease is a syndicated columnist and an expert on the United States Constitution.
Dec 17, 2014 | Constitution, Liberty Articles, Taxes
Harold Pease, Ph. D
A new Obama executive order effectively legislates climate change. Not content with Congress’s unwillingness to legislate on climate change to his expectations, the president issued a November 1, 2014, executive order that creates a de facto legislative branch to do so. He titled it, “Preparing the United States for the impacts of Climate Change.” Neither Congress nor the scientific community is in agreement that climate change, when it is documentable, is man-made. As a result Congress is unwilling to legislate, tax and spend on this supposed problem until more confirming data is available. The President, in disagreement, seeks to make rules unilaterally as he has in other areas, despite the fact that he constitutionally is not empowered to make any law as per Article I, Section I.
This executive order begins, as do of all his executive orders, without identifying a single piece of legislation authorizing the order. It begins, “By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution (the Constitution denies the President law-making power) and the laws of the United States of America, (none are cited) and in order to prepare the Nation for the impacts of climate change by undertaking actions to enhance climate preparedness and resilience, it is hereby ordered as follows.”
In the absence of a recently passed piece of legislation authorizing the order it is little more than a presidential decree. Amazingly the multi-page decree cites eight previous executive orders, two previous Obama Memoranda’s, and his Presidential Policy Directives-21, these scattered throughout the text, as authority, in sharp contrast to executive orders of previous presidents that cited pieces of actual existing laws passed by Congress. This president makes up his own authority “on the fly” and justifies it by previously made up authority and so far Congress says nothing.
It is obvious that this de facto legislative group will make the rules and regulations with respect to everything that they interpret to have anything to do with the environment. Those areas specifically mentioned were: infrastructure, fresh water, ocean water, fish, wildlife and plants. That is a broad sweep of authority none of which can be found in Article I, Section 8, or in any amendments to the Constitution enlarging federal power or jurisdiction thereafter.
Also obvious is that the decree is aimed at maximizing federal power over local governments as well. It identifies its mission as to “identify opportunities to support and encourage smarter, more climate-resilient investments by States, local communities, and tribes, including by providing incentives through agency guidance, grants, technical assistance, performance measures, safety considerations and other programs.” Incentives and grants are mentioned and, historically, have been used as bribes to draw local governments in.
This wordage is political speak for “we plan to control you.” The normal way to control local governments, as suggested, is to offer them federal money to accomplish federal objectives which will remain federally dominated and the locals are too often more than willing to sell their jurisdiction “soul” for a few dollars. Yes, some governors and a few selected county or tribe representatives will get invitations to serve on the task force, but the numbers will never be enough to overcome the federal majority serving.
Also always present, when the federal government is involved, is the cavalier attitude that they can make “smarter” decisions than local or state governments. This, though they often live hundreds of miles away and thus do not have to live with the decisions they impose on others and this, normally by unelected, thus unaccountable, bureaucrats.
Some defending the Presidents executive order practice of making rules may suggest, naively, that such are not laws and thus okay. The Founders made no distinction between rules and laws. The fact remains that regulations and laws have in common three things, they impose a process, administer a penalty, or prohibit an activity. Congress alone can make them and has no authority to give away her exclusive power to do so, whether called a regulation or a law, nor to allow the executive branch to do it for them. The people have the right to know that every restriction imposed upon their behavior was read and voted on by three elected, thus accountable, persons—their Congressman and their two U.S. Senators.
The constitutional response of Congress to the theft of their sole power to legislate, should be threefold: 1) renounce the President’s decree; 2) the House should refuse all funding to implement the decree as per Article I, Section 7; and, 3) both houses should create a joint committee to study the executive order evolutionary process, recommending additional measures to forbid the executive branch of government Congress’s sole law-making function. If Congress does not renounce this decree, rule making in the area of climate change will be left to the President’s cronies in the de facto “Congress,” created by this executive order.
Dr. Harold Pease is a syndicated columnist and an expert on the United States Constitution.
Dec 8, 2014 | Constitution, Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease
Sadly the only two political parties covered by the establishment news are lining up along party lines with respect to President Barack Obama’s extending amnesty to about 5 million illegal aliens instead of with the U.S. Constitution which clearly leaves all law-making to Congress alone. Republicans do correctly use the word unconstitutional when describing this action but somehow never came to the same conclusion when Republican presidents also used executive orders to make law. As such their arguments appear somewhat hollow. Only those who hold both parties to the Constitution can make this case.
Democrats avoid the word unconstitutional, which Republicans openly use, because they know that they would lose because the wordage executive order, or anything like unto it, is not found in the Constitution. They prefer using the word legal. Legal and constitutional can be opposite. Adolph Hitler legally exterminated over 6 million Jews because he first made it legal to persecute them. By the time persecution included extermination no one dared resist him. Replacing Congress as the sole law-making body on the federal level was, for 150 years, not legal because it was not constitutional and everyone adhered to that measurement instrument.
Initially executive orders were largely inter-departmental directives. They were never to have the force and effect of law as only Congress was allowed to make federal law (Art. I, Sec. I, Clause I). The President was to execute the law of the legislative branch, not make or alter it himself.
On a rare occasion a newly passed law needs a statement of implementation by the president. For example, President Washington was directed by Congress to create Thanksgiving Day as a national holiday. His executive order doing so stated their request and his selection of the last Thursday of November as that day. An executive order implementing a single, recently passed (within weeks), law of Congress is constitutional. Very few of the executive orders of today fit the George Washington and constitutional model.
During the 20th Century the temptation for presidents to restrain themselves to this model was too great. Beginning with Theodore Roosevelt, the Progressive Era decidedly tried to go around the Constitution. Presidents, fearing rejection of Congress on something that they wanted, and not having a specific single act of Congress authorizing their action, began gluing pieces of ancient laws together—some decades old—and initiating an executive order from these. Congress should have proceeded with impeachment as presidents were usurping their clear constitutional jurisdiction but didn’t, largely because members of Congress, based upon party loyalty, protected their own constitutional abuser.
It was Richard Nixon, during the 1970’s, that found the burden of gluing pieces of ancient laws together to make an executive order too much work and simply issued them without it. Impeachment should have followed on this issue alone but didn’t. Presidents from his time to ours have continued the practice of making executive orders simply presidential decrees as dictators do, effectively creating new laws without any pretense of actual constitutional authority. Each expansion of executive power, often with tortured logic as in Obama’s Executive Amnesty, becomes the rational for even greater expansion by a future president under the guise of past practice.
So it comes to this. Democrats defending the President cannot use the word constitutional because his action is decidedly not. They confuse the public by using the word legal because previous perversions of previous presidents have made it “legal” because Congress did not protect its sole right to make all federal law by voiding all EO’s, at the time, not consistent with their law-making jurisdiction.
Democrats remind us that Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, and Bill Clinton have all done the same thing. This is only partially correct. That each have made law by executive order is true but none have done so openly and defiantly in the face of opposition of the leadership of both houses of Congress and in defiance of existing law. None did his executive order after the American people soundly rejected his policies in an election no more than three weeks before. And none did an executive order after having told the American people more than two dozen times on different dates in multiple places that he had no constitutional authority to do so, even arguing at one time that he would have to be an emperor to do so. Obama’s perversion of executive orders is one of the worst and must not be allowed to stand as the new model for future presidents or Congress will have effectively voided itself as the sole law-making authority.
Dr. Harold Pease is a syndicated columnist and an expert on the United States Constitution.
Dec 1, 2014 | Constitution, Immigration, Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease, Ph. D
November 16, President Obama announced his executive amnesty in a live address to the nation. After the American people soundly rejected his policies on November 4th, he had the audacity to address us in prime time fashion defiantly rejecting existing law and placing himself above Congress on immigration law. This, after he argued more than two dozen times on different dates in multiple places that he had no constitutional authority to do so, even arguing at one time that he would have to be an emperor to do so. He knows precisely what he is doing to the Constitution. Such action makes him a threat to the document and to liberty.
This is the biggest affront to the Constitution and the separation of powers doctrine since FDR attempted to pack the Supreme Court February 5, 1937, so as to control it, because it rightfully declared so much of what he did unconstitutional. President Obama’s rule changes violated two parts of the Constitution, the separation of powers between the three branches of government housed in Articles I, II, and III, and his responsibility to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed,” as noted in Article II, Section 3. These are serious, even impeachable, violations and should be challenged.
Americans now must depend on Congress to defend itself for posterity against executive tyranny. Senate Majority Leader-Elect Mitch McConnell must publicly denounce this executive takeover of their sole right to make all law (Article I, Section I) by rejecting, until the President rescinds his unconstitutional decree, every single nomination or appointment that the President puts forward for the next two years— except for critical national security positions. To do otherwise would be too weak a response to the President’s extreme power grab.
The House of Representatives, presently led by John Boehner, must follow with a public condemnation of executive tyranny with the announcement that they cannot, and will not, fund the President’s attempt to confiscate their sole power to make all law.
This power grab is not without his having warned us. In his recent State of the Union Address he boldly threatened to replace the legislative branch of government by doing it alone, through executive orders, if they did not do as he wished and in a timely fashion. Such is unprecedented and totally unconstitutional. Today, through the perversion of the executive order process, presidents makes half as many laws (decrees if you prefer) as does the Legislative Branch—about three a week. The practice is killing liberty and making Congress irrelevant.
President Obama told the United Nations General Assembly on September 24 2014, “On issue after issue, we cannot rely on a rule-book written for a different century,” presumably referencing the U.S. Constitution. The obvious dig on being restricted to a document “written for a different century,” shows a definite lack of respect for the Constitution that he swore by oath to “preserve, protect and defend” (Article 11, Section 1). Ironically the Constitution is designed to harness presidents just like him, and his predecessor George W. Bush, but it will never work if the party in power runs interference for their own constitutional abuser.
Taking over Congress’s law making function in Obama’s case is intentional. He must know that it is based upon human nature and natural law, which do not change from century to century. Man and governments are still beset by the same sins as expressed in all ages. There will always be those that wish to rule over others. Government will always attempt to grow its power. There will always need to be a list of the things governments can do and they will always need to be harnessed to that list. There will always need to be a division of power. And there will always be those who wish to use the force of government to redistribute the wealth so that they can, in effect, purchase elections by “gifting” voters. The magic of the Constitution is that it, outside defense, does not distribute benefits to anyone.
These are the reasons that it is said to be outdated by those who wish to take from us our liberties. President Obama’s problem with the Constitution is that it designedly restricts him from doing whatever he pleases and thus his belittling and embarrassing comment about it before the world. The “rule book written in a different century” is still as relevant as before. What we need today are presidents and legislators that love and use it as first consideration instead of party. In this quest we are embarrassingly in short supply in both political parties.
Noticeably absent this time in protecting the Constitution, with respect to the 200-plus year process of making law, is the Democratic Party. Some even defend him. To my many friends therein, don’t you realize that by letting your party distort this process to get a gain that you face a Republican president unilaterally doing the same thing to you down the road using the same arguments that you now use to protect Obama? Can’t you see that the rule of law was to protect all of us and that the Constitution must remain pure or one day neither party will have it? The Constitution must be above party. This is why all elected officials swear an oath to protect and preserve it.
Dr. Harold Pease is a syndicated columnist and an expert on the United States Constitution.
