Oct 27, 2014 | Constitution, Liberty Articles
By Dr. Harold Pease
Recent headlines indicate that President Barack Obama is sending the National Guard to Liberia to help fight the spread of the Ebola virus. Their assignment, according to Obama in a letter to House Speaker John Boehner, is to “augment the active forces in support of Operation United Assistance, providing humanitarian assistance and consequence management related to the Ebola virus disease outbreak in the West Africa region.” Specifically that means building 17 Ebola treatment centers housing 100 beds each. They would be joining the nearly 4,000 regular troops already slated to go. Why reservists, with so little training, were being sent rather than just regular soldiers, he did not say. Speculation runs high that some of our soldiers will be handling “infected blood samples,” a potentially dangerous assignment.
All this in an executive order signed by one man October 16, without congressional approval or even a measure of public sentiment as to whether we want our soldiers potentially bringing home the deadly virus, but these are questions for another time. My concern now is the constitutionality of the process.
Let us be reminded that Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution left all war-making powers: raising armies, providing for a navy, and declaring, funding, and maintaining war with Congress alone. Defending the country is their prime responsibility. The President functions as Commander in Chief of the armed forces after Congress authorizes engagement outside immediate response to an attack. Remember, George Washington was strongly criticized for not defending the settlers from Creek Indian attacks. He argued that Congress had not authorized war on the Creeks thus he could not perform a military function until this was done. Today the President sends troops wherever and whenever he pleases and only asks Congress when he cares to.
But one rightly argues, this is not a war and we are not under attack in the military sense so the president has no Commander and Chief authority. If so Congress alone should decide whether we support volunteers in Africa. The enemy is a virus, not another nation or people, and this is a humanitarian effort. This argument too must be saved for another time.
My concern is the President’s emasculation of a portion of the Constitution if he sends a single national guardsman to Liberia. The militia is not and never has been the army. It is the people, the citizens, and in the 2nd Continental Congress, even before the Constitution, the militia was defined as every able bodied male 17 years of age and older. In 1903 the Dick Act revisited the topic keeping the original definition as Part A, the unorganized militia, and organizing a portion thereof into the organized militia, the National Guard, as Part B. It was to remain a separate body from the army and navy and retained its distinct internal function. Notice the wording in the Constitution authorizing Congress, “to provide for calling for the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.” Only Congress can call it forth. Its three functions are to execute the laws in the United States, suppress insurrections within our country, and to repel invasions to it. How can the organized militia (The National Guard) do any of these functions, for which it is specifically charged, if in West Africa? Unlike the army it is allowed to execute the laws of the union and suppress insurrections. The Posse Comitatus Act forbids the military these internal functions.
The National Guard was never to be thought of as merely a pool of reserve troops for the army. Impeachment proceedings should have been threatened against President George W. Bush when he treated them as such deploying 100,000 of them in 2005 to Iraq and Afghanistan, when enlistments were not enough, rather than asking Congress to restore the draft. This alteration of the Constitution by blatant ignorance is serious, by intent is treasonous. The National Guard was simply an easy target and no one from either party objected. It cannot perform its constitutional duty outside the United States. President Barack Obama’s mimicking the practice, as he did so much of the Bush foreign policy that he loved to condemn, by one-year deployments of Reserve troops in Afghanistan through 2014, indicating that the Constitution continues to be violated by Democrats as well.
The rational for a militia separate from the army is very simple. The first line of defense from unwanted aggression is oneself, followed by local law enforcement agents, followed by the National Guard (guarding the nation from within), followed by the military. As in soccer the National Guard is the goalie. Should invasion occur while the militia and the army are overseas we would be defenseless; by doing so both recent presidents have unconscionable left, or are leaving, us vulnerable and without a goalie.
The Constitution belongs to everybody and to generations yet unborn. It should be restored to its proper place as the item of first reference when the federal government does anything—not political party. Hopefully Democrats will remind the President of his “Bush-like” damage to it. If Congress does give proper authorization for use of the armed services for a purely humanitarian mission in Liberia, it should purposely exclude the National Guard and openly deny its use outside the borders of the United States. Actually, placing them on the border “to repel invasions” would be a real constitutional function.
Oct 20, 2014 | Constitution, Liberty Articles
Harold Pease, Ph. D
A frequently asked question is how can a non-elected judge undo the elected will of the majority of the people on same-sex marriage? “What value is my vote?” they protest. In state after state the Defense of Marriage Act defining marriage as between a man and a woman was passed—even in liberal bastions like California. 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. Probably less than fifty judges have effectively reversed the vote of several million voters and that group feels cheated.
The October Supreme Court decision to allow the rulings of the Appellate Courts to stand, by its not ruling on the issue at this time, allows same-sex marriage in 11 more states resulting in a sweep of 30, plus the District of Columbia. For the West the issue seems settled among the judges but three U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals still have to weigh in, 5 (Texas and Mississippi), 6 (Ohio, Kentucky, Tennessee and Michigan) and 11 (the deep South), and if one of these rule for the voters, and opposite their fellow judges, the U.S. Supreme Court will have to take up the issue. If none of the circuit courts oppose, then the issue is resolved against the vote of the people unless they initiate a new constitutional amendment supported by three fourths of the states saying otherwise.
Still, many ask, “On what constitutional grounds was the Defense of Marriage Act ruled by the judges to be unconstitutional?” Under the Constitution originating with the Founding Fathers it could never have been. It is the perversions of the document that came much later that have resulted in the judges ruling as they have.
Let us begin with some basics. The first and most pronounced division of power recognized by the Fathers was between the states and the federal government called federalism. Basically state powers included everything except what was listed as federal power primarily in Article I, Section 8, because all agreed that the nature of all national governments was to grow and the Constitution was designed to specifically limit it doing so. That truth is most profoundly stated in Amendment 10 of the Bill of Rights. “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Simplistically federalism meant that the Federal Government would handle mostly foreign affairs and the states domestic affairs.
After the Civil War reentry of southern states into the union required their agreeing to extend all constitutional rights to their black population as well. Amendment 14, Section 1, disallowed states from depriving “any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law: nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law.” To the law makers of the day this was essentially the Bill of Rights and little more, but the phases “due process” and “equal protection,” not defined, became fertile soil for federal government’s natural tendency to grow; and grow it did like a cancer, many times beyond original intent—each expansion becoming the rational for even more expansion. Each phrase took on a life of it’s own. The judges, sometimes with tortured logic, were able to rule that a state may not deprive their same-sex couples from due process and equal protection of the law. Heterosexuals sometimes get advantageous by their marriage: taxes, adoptions and etc. also wanted by the homosexual community. These two nebulous phrases “due process” and equal protection” are the hinges of the door of the whole gay agenda.
So it comes to this. If a judge gives weight to these terms, not introduced into the Constitution until after 1865, seventy-eight years later and thereafter altered and expanded as needed and never understood by the writers of the amendment in the light of radical change, he will use it to make marriage denial for same-sex couples unconstitutional. To do so, however, he must minimize 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 the central government—just the opposite of what the Constitution is supposed to do.
Constitutionalist judges, on the other hand, value these essential components of the Constitution and will rule otherwise. Since marriage, or anything remotely similar to it, is no where mentioned in the Constitution the proper place for it, as for everything else not specifically given to the federal government, is at the state level. Would that mean that some states would allow gay marriage? Perhaps this in time would come about but only by the vote of the people, not by unelected and unaccountable federal judges. Then people would not feel disenfranchised.
Oct 20, 2014 | Constitution, Globalism, Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease, Ph. D
Three weeks ago President Barack Obama made it clear to the United Nations General Assembly that he no longer intended to be guided, at least in foreign policy, by the U.S. Constitution, “We cannot rely on a rule-book written for a different century,” he told them, then he advocated global government through the UN. “If we lift our eyes beyond our borders – if we think globally and act cooperatively,” he said, “We can shape the course of this century as our predecessors shaped the post-World War II age” (Obama UN Address Sept.24, 2014).
So with this clear directive to follow UN law, as established by those who “shaped the post-World War II age,” he spoke of the bombing of Syria to get rid of ISIS. This without either the permission of Congress, as required by Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution or that of the United Nations though the UN Charter. Nor did he seek permission from the sovereign country of Syria to invade, with warplanes their soil.
Is an attack warranted under international law and, if not, could we be viewed by the world as an aggressor nation? Consider the following United Nations Charter violations we incurred when we crossed the Syrian border without Syrian permission to illuminate ISIS: Article 2, Sec. 4, “All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state….” Even our threat of the use of force is a violation. The only exception to the use of force is self-defense as stipulated in Art. 51. “Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.”
Obama has yet to make a case to the United Nations for attacking the sovereign country of Syria. He has not, and will not, because he would have to justify such action on the basis that Syria had first shown actual aggression toward us necessitating our responding in self-defense. This he cannot do. Yes, ISIS has a history of aggressive behavior, even beheading two U.S. citizens on Iraqi soil, but Assad had nothing to do with this and has not even been consulted in resolving the problem either approving or denying our war planes entering his country. Were U. S. citizens attacked by Syria we could respond in self-defense but we were not. According to the UN Charter such acts of aggression justifying self defense must immediately be provided to the UN Security Council who then decide “such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.”
Do not get me wrong, I oppose world government and think it incompatible with a country’s sovereignty and liberty and want us to operate totally independent of it, but Obama made a strong case for global government declining to follow the Constitution that he swore to “uphold, defend, and preserve” in favor of it, yet he refused to follow its charter also. He must follow one or the other or he risks being accused of following no legal path.
Other United Nation Charter rules also need satisfied. Article 39 stipulates that “the Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security.” Even before this takes place Article 40 must be satisfied which reads: “In order to prevent an aggravation of the situation, the Security Council may, before making the recommendations or deciding upon the measures provided for in Article 39, call upon the parties concerned to comply with such provisional measures as it deems necessary or desirable. Such provisional measures shall be without prejudice to the rights, claims, or position of the parties concerned. The Security Council shall duly take account of failure to comply with such provisional measures.” Obama went to the UN, not to comply with any of these instructions, but to tell them what he is already doing.
Theoretically Russia, China and Syria could ask the United Nations to define the United States as the aggressor nation and Obama as a war criminal and call for economic sanctions on us as has been used on other nations. That would be unlikely as they too are showing their own aggressive natures, Russia invading the Ukraine and China coming down oppressively on Hong Kong. Ironically Obama refuses to be guided by constitutional law or established international law—the very authority that he patronizes in his speech. And since we are the most powerful military power on earth the UN is not likely to press the matter, even more so as other countries, without UN or Syrian permission, are also bombing in Syria. Still, our signature on the Charter document obligates our submission to international law now mocked by Obama’s not following it. Did we think when we signed the Charter, creating the “world government,” that the rules did not apply to us, that we could just bomb whomever, whenever, and wherever we wished? Obama must think so.
Oct 6, 2014 | Constitution, Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease, Ph. D
“On issue after issue, we cannot rely on a rule-book written for a different century,” so said President Barack Obama to the United Nations General Assembly on Sept. 24, 2014, presumably referencing the U.S. Constitution. You may recall that the current biggest issue is his having initiated war in Syria by bombing ISIS without the constitutional approval of Congress. This is the third country that he has bombed without congressional approval preceded by Libya and Iraq, which gives him a legacy as a war president. Many recall that he was critical of President George W. Bush for having done the same thing.
All war powers are clearly described in Article I, Section 8 and the President is left with none. Once approved, he can execute the war as commander and chief, but still under the funding limitations imposed by the House of Representatives.
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). Some in Congress considered his having done so in Libya an impeachable offense stating thus in Concurrent resolution H. Con. Res. 107, but Democrats did not wish to confine their president. Still, the Presidents phrase is a mockery to the Constitution and should be unacceptable and embarrassing to every American, whether said by a Republican or a Democrat. 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.
It also shows a lack of understanding of the Constitution (whether ignorantly or intentionally), which is based upon human nature and natural law, which does 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 division of power and presidents will always, as James Madison said, “have a propensity for war” and wish to use any military power without consent. 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 restricts him from doing anything that he wishes and thus his belittling and embarrassing comment before the world.
One of my favorite classes to instruct is Contemporary Political Topics. Students are encouraged to first use the Constitution, then natural law in problem solving, rather than political party or philosophical persuasion. This base is justified because every politician has sworn to “protect, preserve and defend” this document. It is the instrument by which everything should be judged. They love it. Amazingly we have yet to find an issue where the Constitution does not address current problems.
So why should the president have the same restrictions on war as those presidents of a different century? It is because he does not fight on the front lines and is not at real personal risk. It is the sons and daughters of the nation who bleed and die for the cause and it is the taxpayer who funds the war. They, through their representatives in the House of Representatives, elected every two years by those most likely to suffer from the decision, are the ones constitutionally empowered to make the offering. War would than never be taken lightly. Suffering and cost to the nation would always have its proper place in the equation. When the war goes on too long the President must justify to the House the reasons why, and if the peoples’ representatives do not accept his reasons, funding can be limited incrementally to bring an end to it or cutting it off entirely. In short, the people, rather than just one man, make the decision to go to war. As it was under George W. Bush, and now is under Barack Obama, one man and his military machine, both benefiting from war, decide entry and exit, not the people.
The “rule book written in a different century” is still as reliable as before on protecting us on entry and exit of war. What we need today are presidents and legislators that love and use it. In this quest we are embarrassingly in short supply.
Aug 30, 2014 | Constitution, Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease, Ph. D
There is finally a break in the Justice Departments infamous Fast and Furious gunrunning scandal to Mexican drug cartels of hundreds of assault weapons. Under a July 18 court order emanating from the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, the Department of Justice is now required to produce an index of hundreds of documents sought by Judicial Watch under the Freedom of Information Act. It is required to produce the index, unfortunately not the actual documents, by October 1.
You may recall the refusal of Eric Holder to surrender to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, U.S. House of Representatives, thousands of documents in his possession that would bring to light everything known about the supposed scandal which ended in the chief law enforcement officer in the land getting a contempt of Congress citation. The House was left powerless when Holder obtained from President Barack Obama executive privilege freezing the documents from congressional or public view—thus the charge of a cover up.
Executive privilege, or anything like unto it, especially withholding potentially criminal activity, is not in the Constitution. When Richard Nixon argued similarly in Watergate the media rightfully was all over him but the media is amazingly quiet on this story as potentially it could bring down a President long supported by the establishment press. Ironically Holder used a Nixon argument in his request that Obama assert executive privilege (Attorney General Eric Holder Letter to Obama, June 20,2012).
Until the release of the suppressed documents this is what is known or believed to be true. This administration’s contempt for the Second Amendment to the Constitution is well documented. Previous attempts to get Americans to give up their right to possess firearms have not been successful nor are likely to be. Since Americans will not willingly do so, imagine someone in power plotting to create the rational that would turn most reasonable people against these rights and gun sales at gun shows.
Seemingly the intent was for the government, through the Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms Administration (ATF), to secretly sell illegal guns to the Mexican drug cartels, and then blame those sales on U.S. gun shows to discredit them. The administration had argued that 90% of the guns used by Mexican drug cartels had come from gun shows in the United States. The ATF gun sales, if undetected, would provide the government rational and support to close down the gun shows making it more difficult for citizens to obtain a firearm. The story is full of government intrigue, lies, conspiracy, and the murder of hundreds of Mexican citizens and an American Border Patrol Agent, Brian Terry.
The transfer of the illegal weapons was done without consulting U.S. law officers outside ATF or the Mexican authorities. The government would have succeeded with the scheme were not some of the illegal firearms found at the scene of murdered Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry, one of which actually the instrument of his death.
What is known about this nearly five-year-old scheme is an e-mail wherein Arizona U.S. Attorney Dennis Burke, charged with executing the “Operation Fast and Furious,” boasted to a colleague of the operation’s propaganda value, presumably to vilify gun shows. It read: “Some of these weapons bought by these clowns in Arizona have been directly traced to murders of elected officials in Mexico by the cartels, so Katie-bar-the-door when we unveil this baby” (“Will Holder’s Watergate Become Obama’s Waterloo?” Americas 1st Freedom, April 2012). They knew precisely what they could do with the propaganda value of their sales—destroy the gun shows.
Wayne La Pierre, Executive Vice President of the NRA, best expressed the seriousness of this illegal operation, apart from defrauding Americans of their constitutional gun rights, when he wrote. “In that ‘gun-walking’ operation, Obama administration operatives encouraged, bankrolled, and oversaw repeated felonies at gun stores and at border crossings with criminals smuggling at least 1,700 firearms into Mexican drug-fueled criminal commerce.” Regular citizens, doing the same thing would be serving time.
What has been disclosed reportedly proves that U.S. gun shows were not the source of cartel firepower, as this administration has repeatedly contended, they through their ATF were, and that Holder intentionally lied when he told Congress he had heard about “Fast and Furious” from the media, as did other Americans. “One Justice Department official has claimed his Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination and refused to testify,” elevating anticipation that, so far, we may see only the tip of the iceberg.
The Court order requiring Holder’s Justice Department to provide a detailed listing of all documents withheld (Congress believes that number to be 74,000) together with information as to why the material is not being released, is a big step toward bringing to light potentially one of the biggest scandals in American history. This scandal could include evidence planting—the placement of 1,700 guns in cartel hands. Sadly the transparency promised by President Obama had to be delivered in a court order.
Aug 25, 2014 | Constitution, Liberty Articles
Harold Pease, Ph. D
In yet another emerging scary scandal, not well publicized, 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.” Searched Senate computer files!!! Good grief, that is our own government that they spied on!! Is there nobody safe from spying??? Their admission that they had lied for several months when accused of having done so and their apology to the senators to whom they had spied, does not make such acceptable. They readily placed the blame on three lower level technology staff members who, they said, “demonstrated a lack of candor” when doing so. Is there no punishment?
Left out of their “limp” apology is who directed them to spy on the Senate in the first place? Also minimized by existing coverage is the fact that 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.
The loudest complainant, and the one to take to the Senate floor to blast the unruly organization of lifting material from committee computers, was the Senate Intelligence Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein. Six months ago, 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. Meddling with the Oversight Committee’s findings effectively tramples on the constitutional separation of powers between the executive and legislative branches of government and, if not checked, destroys that balance.
What caused the CIA to spy on its own government was that the Senate was investigating them and about to release its incriminating findings. Despite CIA interference the Committee voted 11-3 to release a 431-page summary of its four-year 6,200 page, $40 million scathing indictment. Just why the complete document will remain classified, and thus secret, has not been disclosed but it can be assumed that the released version is the sanitized version. As a result the extent of the Bush-era CIA torture practice continues into the Obama-era and CIA misdeeds will not come to light fully until those responsible are safely out of danger of prosecution. With respect to the part that remains classified Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein threatened, “If someone distributed any part of this classified report, they broke the law and should be prosecuted.” Perhaps she should be reminded that secrecy and free government are incompatible.
The part released concluded “that the CIA’s use of brutal interrogation measures did not produce valuable intelligence and that the agency repeatedly misled government officials about the severity and success of the program.” Feinstein called the torture practice shocking, “The report exposes brutality that stands in stark contrast to our values as a nation. It chronicles a stain on our history that must never again be allowed to happen,” she said. She was referring to the CIA’s use of waterboarding and other harsh tactics against dozens of terrorism suspects.
Maine Senator Angus King, an independent on the Committee, called the practice torture. “I don’t have any doubts on that fact. It’s a pretty hard read. It’s very disappointing.” But he was especially bothered by the amount of inaccurate statements emanating from the CIA that influenced the president and congress for years. He might have included the mainstream media and the falsehoods that will continue for decades in our history textbooks until everything is declassified and scrutinized by historians.
What appears clear is that the CIA used interrogation methods reportedly not approved by the Justice Department, that the agency evaded congressional oversight, and that the agency self-empowered itself as though independent and accountable to only itself. Also, clear is that the extent of its wrongdoing will remain hidden and classified so that no one is punished. This is the sanitized version.
But back to our original concern, apparently the CIA is so brazen that it spies on, and removes evidence from, the Senate Intelligence Committee charged with its oversight. Amazingly this to the point that they too, knowing more than any other organization the power and danger of the way-ward child, participated in keeping a part of the organizations wrong doings secret. One wonders if the U.S. Senate is that independent of the CIA, especially when this organization receives little more than a verbal retribution for spying and lifting evidence on it, an activity that should be criminal.
