Jun 1, 2014 | Constitution, Liberty Articles
Harold Pease, PH. D
In a picturesque open-air picnic area with a creek running through it, hundreds gathered in one of the most memorably political events in Georgia’s history. Following prayer, the singing of the national anthem, and the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag, Governor Nathan Deal signed into law, effective July 1, the most liberal gun carry legislation in the country. The popular Safe Carry Protection Act of 2014, known by anti-Second Amendment adversaries as the “Guns Everywhere Law,” passed with by-partisan support in the State House 112-58 and in the State Senate 37-18.
The legislation still requires a background check and good standing with the law for the license, and is extended to the permit holders of 28 states that issue CCW permits. The law exempts government buildings and airport terminals having security personnel, but other government buildings and airport facilities are not exempted. Churches, bars, and schools have the right to exclude guns in their facilities should they wish to. Police are no longer permitted to hold a person “for the sole purpose of investigating whether such a person has a weapons carry license,” which was a concern to some law enforcement personnel, but firefighters and emergency responders could be armed. This last measure was in response to a man recently having held firefighters hostage in his home. This would never have happened had they been armed.
Governor Deal in his address prior to signing the law cited passages of the Declaration of Independence as the authority behind the new law and quoted from its principle author, Thomas Jefferson. “The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms, as a last resort, is to protect themselves against the tyranny in government.” The governor then added, “While we still guard against tyranny, America today cherishes this right so that people who follow the rules can protect themselves and their families from those who don’t follow the rules.” The new law “will protect law abiding citizens by expanding the number of places that they can carry their guns without penalty,” he said.
Yes, most Georgians are ecstatic about the new law but other places with more lawlessness are gradually seeing similarly the benefits of an armed citizenry. A few months ago police Chief James Graig of Detroit astounded the anti-Second Amendment people with his advocacy that the citizens be armed to protect themselves in his city. Basically with burglary, rape, and murder as high as in New York City, with three times the population, and with his force of only 3,000 officers to protect 700,000, and to reign in the lawless, he freely admits that it cannot be done without citizen help. Prior to his becoming the city police chief, response time for Level One priority calls was 58 minutes. Under his leadership it is still unacceptably between 8 and 11 minutes. Basically the victim (perhaps you) has already been, robbed, rapped or murdered. “When seconds count, police are just minutes away.” The Chief says that, “It’s certainly not saying we can’t do our job; it’s saying we can’t be on every block, every corner, every minute of the day to be able to respond in seconds when someone is confronted with a dangerous situation.” To the anti-gun few he argues, “We’re not advocating violence. We’re advocates of not being victims” (1st Freedom, June 2014, pp. 32-35, 61-62).
Does law enforcement agree with further arming the citizenry? In a recent survey of 15,000 cops the question was asked. “What would help most in preventing large-scale shootings in public?” Out of eight choices provided, 29 percent chose “more permissive concealed carry policies for civilians.” The next highest category, nearly 20 percent, cited “more aggressive institutionalization for mentally ill persons,” all other categories were decidedly less. With respect to “What effect do you think a federal ban on the manufacture and sale of some semi-automatic firearms, termed by some as ‘assault weapons,’ would have on reducing violent crime? Seventy-one percent said none” (Ibid. p. 30).
Think about it. Perhaps “Guns Everywhere” laws are the answer to reduced crime. Those with CCW permits must have a virtually spotless record, must have some training and are among our most respected citizens. Why shouldn’t we trust them to protect themselves responsibly? We will have a chance to observe crime rates in Georgia and Detroit in time; my prediction is that in both places crime will go down.
May 25, 2014 | Constitution, Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease, Ph. D
Those who have long contrived to destroy the rural influence in electing the president of the United States in favor of a permanent urban influence, largely of the east and west coasts and Chicago, are one state closer to achieving their goal. New York State recently became the 10th state (all highly urban) to come on board with the signature of Governor Andrew Cuomo. They favor a popularly elected president through stealth and a largely secret plan called the National Popular Vote Interstate Alliance, concocted in the shadows by proponents that are unwilling to make changes in the Constitution through the only two ways permitted in Amendment V of the Constitution. So silent has been the movement that most Americans will learn about it only after it has been implemented and too late to resist.
The Constitution requires an open national debate on change. It outlines a two-step process, one to propose a second to ratify. The propose process can come from either two thirds of both houses or when two thirds of the states request it. Ratifying requires state action alone. They could do so through their state legislatures or the state legislature could expand the vote base to a convention, but either way, it requires three-fourths of the states to make the change.
Opponents of the Electoral College seek to alter a process that has worked for two hundred and twenty-five years for both urban and rural populations. The Electoral College incentivizes candidates visiting rural states by increasing their electoral vote—the smallest states get at least three. This attracts presidential candidates to rural areas that would otherwise be ignored by candidates thirsty for only a popular vote, if that were all that counted. The Founders brilliant plan to adjust both interests would be destroyed by the new urban-only benefiting plan. Unable to get two-thirds of the states to consider altering this part of the Constitution as required, and openly convince Americans of their “better” plan, proponents seek a largely secret end run around the Constitution. In it participating states would allocate their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote, rather than the winner of the popular vote in their state.
When enough states assign their electors to the popular vote winner, and that number exceeds 270, remaining states will be mandated to support as well. Wham!! Almost without any public debate outside state legislatures, and seemingly overnight, the popular vote will effectively replace the Electoral College as the means by which a president is elected. We would be back to a few highly populated states deciding for the rest of the country.
Proponents use a small portion of Article II, Section 1 to destroy the rest of the section. The part used reads, “Each State shall appoint, in such manner as the legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress.” This, they say, gives state legislatures the right to award their electors as they see fit. Actually, the phrase allows the state legislatures appointing powers only. To suggest that they should have influence over their voting once selected, nullifies the reason for their existence—the selection of a non-governmental entity to select the president.
Moreover, the National Popular Vote Interstate Alliance also violates Article I, Section 10. This prohibits states from entering into “alliances” with other states unless Congress gives its consent. Congress has not even been consulted. Certainly agreeing states have entered into an alliance with one another to nullify the effect of the Electoral College and to obliterate, once accomplished, the independent vote of states not in the alliance.
With New York the alliance has a combined electoral vote total of 165, more than half the 270 electoral votes needed to impose this upon the rest of the country and nullify a long-standing pillar of the Constitution. Other states voting to change the Constitution without amending it and to violate the Non-alliances Clause, as required by the document, are: New Jersey, Washington, Hawaii, Illinois, Vermont, Maryland, Massachusetts, District of Columbia, California and Rhode Island.
This scheme involves ignoring the House of Representatives and U.S. Senate who have essential roles in making changes in the Constitution as per Article V. It changes the Constitution without the three-fourths state consent requirement—potentially eleven states could make the remaining 39 bend to their choice for president. It essentially obliterates most of Article II, Section 1 and Amendment 12, and blatantly violates Article I, Section 10, Clause 3 of the Constitution. No person who values the Constitution, as understood for 225 years, could support this movement and plan.
May 20, 2014 | Constitution, Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease, Ph. D
In a typical workweek prayer is said every morning in the U. S. Senate and House of Representatives. Each House invites and pays a Christian minister to pray each morning they are in session. Ministers apply for this privilege to pray for a week and they come from every part of the country. This has been so since the 1st Congress in 1789 some 225 years ago and will continue as long as we are a Christian nation and liberal justices do not become the majority of the U. S Supreme Court. In a 5-4 decision this month prayer was still ruled to be constitutional. Such affirms our nation’s faith in God as Sovereign Lord of this nation. This honored the historic separation of “an organization of religion” and State, as outlined in the 1st Amendment, but not the separation of God from the government wanted by opponents.
Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote defending the decision: “Prayer in this case has a permissible ceremonial purpose. It is not an unconstitutional establishment of religion.” It serves “to solemnize the occasion, so long as the practice over time is not exploited to proselytize or advance any one, or to disparage any other faith or belief.” Such had been expected as oral arguments given last November lasted but an hour and the position was strongly supported by House and Senate members with 23 state attorney generals submitting written briefs in its support.
The tradition of prayer in government assemblages is long standing. The first recorded national prayer was given by Reverend Jacob Duche,’ Rector of Christ Church of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, in the First Continental Congress Sept. 7, 1774, even before the creation of the Articles of Confederation our first constitution and government. Notice the intensity of their appeal to God to help them obtain their freedom from British rule.
“O Lord our Heavenly Father, high and mighty King of kings, and Lord of lords, who dost from thy throne behold all the dwellers on earth and reignest with power supreme and uncontrolled over all the Kingdoms, Empires and Governments; look down in mercy, we beseech Thee, on these our American States, who have fled to Thee from the rod of the oppressor and thrown themselves on Thy gracious protection, desiring to be henceforth dependent only on Thee. To Thee have they appealed for the righteousness of their cause; to Thee do they now look up for that countenance and support, which Thou alone canst give. Take them, therefore, Heavenly Father, under Thy nurturing care; give them wisdom in Council and valor in the field; defeat the malicious designs of our cruel adversaries; convince them of the unrighteousness of their Cause and if they persist in their sanguinary purposes, of own unerring justice, sounding in their hearts, constrain them to drop the weapons of war from their unnerved hands in the day of battle!
“Be Thou present, O God of wisdom, and direct the councils of this honorable assembly; enable them to settle things on the best and surest foundation. That the scene of blood may be speedily closed; that order, harmony and peace may be effectually restored, and truth and justice, religion and piety, prevail and flourish amongst the people. Preserve the health of their bodies and vigor of their minds; shower down on them and the millions they here represent, such temporal blessings as Thou seest expedient for them in this world and crown them with everlasting glory in the world to come. All this we ask in the name and through the merits of Jesus Christ, Thy Son and our Savior. Amen.”
Even during the Constitutional Convention, prayer was referenced as a solution to the tension in the room on June 28, 1787, when the patriarch of that assemblage, Benjamin Franklin, stood and said, addressing the Chair: “I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth: that God Governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid?” He continued: “I therefore beg leave to move—that henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven, and its blessings on our deliberations, be held in this Assembly every morning before we proceed to business, and that one or more of the Clergy of this City be requested to officiate in that Service.” And so it has been, and is, in the new government to this day.
What is difficult to understand is why our justices today were not 9-0 in support of what has always been constitutional? Four were clearly out of harmony with the Founding Fathers. If they do not wish to follow the Constitution on this issue of exceptional clarity, what other areas might they distort as well? In this case one additional Supreme Court Justice can change 240 years of practice. So far the people can pray in government meetings that God will assist in their deliberations. May we never forget to do so. Reaching above mere man “to illuminate our understanding,” as articulated by Benjamin Franklin in the Constitutional Convention, is the essence of our strength.
May 5, 2014 | Constitution, Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease Ph. D
Perhaps the most offensive display at the Bundy Ranch Standoff was the posting April 1, by the BLM representatives of a sign FIRST AMENDMENT AREA for protestors. This coming days before the standoff certainly demonstrated their foreknowledge of impending opposition. 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.
Such was offensive to participants who promptly added to the sign “1st AMENDMENT IS NOT AN AREA” and thereafter refused to do their protesting where allowed by the government. Besides the area was too far away from the action causing the protesting. A sympathizer posted on the Internet a map of the United States with the words FREE SPEECH ZONE written over the length of the nation from California to South Carolina; this was the Founders interpretation and reverenced as so until more recent times.
Dave Bundy was the first to be arrested for taking video footage from a state highway of BLM agents rounding up his family’s cattle refusing to remain in the restricted area. Video footage now available showed that armed snipers had their guns trained on the family during the incident. Family members were told that they, “had no first amendment rights except for up by the bridge where they had established an area for that.” One does not have to wonder why the Bundy ordeal attracted freedom buffs from as far away as Connecticut.
I first heard of free speech zones during the George W. Bush Administration when there were so many demonstrations against invading Iraq. College campuses initiated the zones in what appeared to be designed to intentionally limit opposition. They were always too small and if more than one zone were allowed they were separated, seemingly to minimize the size of the opposition. A nephew, in San Francisco demonstrating against the war, was arrested because he could not fit within one of the small circles. He and hundreds more, also unable to fit within the approved dissent areas, were taken to warehouses somewhere in the city and housed until all were processed. He was confined for three days. The slow processing he considered intentional punishment for his dissent. I have spoken out against these 1st Amendment areas since. They do not exist in a free country.
The First Amendment clearly states that, “Congress shall make no law… abridging… the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” Since Congress is the only entity that can make law as per Article I, Section 1 of the Constitution and since they have never passed such a law; the Executive Branch has no authority to “pen” dissent.
Unfortunately such has been altered by recent court decisions “stipulating that the government may regulate the time, place, and manner—but not content—of expression,” hence the origin of free speech zones—decidedly a court perversion. “Though free speech zones existed in limited forms prior to the Presidency of George W. Bush; it was during Bush’s presidency that their scope was greatly expanded” (Wikipedia). After September 11, they were common. President Bush used the Secret Service to make certain such were not near where he might speak or pass by, a procedure closely emulated by President Barack Obama. Dissent is therefore noticeably reduced and less likely to be filmed. If such had been used against Martin Luther King, Jr. the Civil Rights Movement may never have gotten off the ground. Those refusing to dissent only in the government’s “proper” areas are charged with disorderly conduct, resisting arrest, or trespassing. If the approved dissent areas are far from the president (some a half mile away) he may never know that the people are unhappy with him.
For the Bundy friends and neighbors, the governments “First Amendment Area” had the same shape and similarity as a cattle pen where the people would be cordoned off and neutralized. How can this be seen as petitioning the “Government for a redress of grievances?” No government! This is nothing more than a ploy to reduce dissent and the more regimental that you are, as in the case of the Bundy Standoff, the more you will use it. Court approval or not it is clearly unconstitutional. The Founders would have called it tyranny.
May 5, 2014 | Constitution, Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease, Ph. D
Anyone the least bit familiar with the Constitution and its early history knows that, despite lip-service to it, neither political party follows it, nor do any of the three branches of government actually limit themselves to their specific articles in it. All three operate outside the carefully crafted cages to which they were assigned. So how do we get the federal government back to servant rather than master? Well-meaning conservatives, and Mark Levin in particular, are wrong in their push for a new constitutional convention for the following reasons.
To begin with, why argue to get what you already have? It is a far weaker argument because it implies uncertainty on your part that you already have it. The federal government is already limited by the existing Constitution: Congress to a precise list in Article I, Section 8. The President is limited to a list housed in Article II, Sections II and III. The Supreme Court is limited to eleven types of cases most with but appellate (limited by Congress) jurisdiction and only two totally free of the restrictions of Congress called original jurisdiction. All other power was reserved to the states as per Amendment 10 of the Bill of Rights. Again, to argue that we need additional amendments to get the federal government to abide by what was already understood as their limits of power is to argue to get what we already have.
An argument within the Constitution is much easier to make than asking that three fourths of the states accept something new and somewhat foreign to them. Three-fourths of the states is a big number and takes many years to acquire, and in a nation somewhat constitutionally illiterate is likely to fall short of the states needed. Meanwhile, the case for living within the Constitution can be made today because a majority of the people was taught some level of reverence for it. Showing them how the federal government has strayed from clearly cited restrictions in the document is a much easier case to make.
The argument that we have already unsuccessfully tried to keep the federal government within constitutional bounds is legitimate. But to suppose that a George W. Bush or a Barack Obama will stay within the bounds of new amendments when, with impunity, each has violated those amendments in existence is as naive as believing that more gun control laws will cause the criminals to turn in their guns.
A new Constitutional Convention potentially exposes everything that we already have placing everything at risk. Where is the basis for faith that the new “Founders” will not tamper with established basics? Three Twentieth Century amendments seriously damaged previously sacred foundation points of a republic: the 16th gave the federal government unlimited resources to spend in areas not listed as their function in Article I, Section 8 and the states lined up with alms bowls in hand for the grants. The 17th removed State influence and consent in lawmaking thus irreparably damaging the concept of federalism so critical to limiting the power of the federal government. The 18th outlawed the consumption of alcohol in the nation for ten years giving the government the right to tell its people what they can drink.
Some argue that we can limit the extent of change in a new convention. It is well to remember that the original delegates to the Constitutional Convention were not authorized to dump the Articles of Confederation, but did, exposing everything that then existed. Can Levin and others guarantee that that could not happen again? No!
Why would we suppose that new founders will have an equal to, or superior, understanding of natural law upon which the Constitution was based? We assume that the states will be anxious to get their powers restored to them but where is the basis that they see such a need? Do not almost all elected federal government personnel first serve in state legislatures then abandon the state perspective when they reach Washington DC?
Finally, the enemies to limited federal government yearn for a constitutional convention as well. They want everything dictated from Washington DC—an all-powerful government. Such groups as Wolf-Pac, AFL-CIO, Code Pink, Progressive Democrats of America, and the forty-five political action organizations funded by George Soros (New American, April 7, 2014, p. 18) are just waiting for the opportunity to empower themselves and government more fully. Who can promise that they will sit idly by while we further limit their ability to manage us?
Holding to the Constitution with exactness is our only real secure way to take back our country. Our weapons are the limiting clauses of the Constitution and Amendment 10 of the Bill of Rights. Political parties have failed us. Encouraging our people to become Constitutionalists first is a better approach. As tyranny grows so will support for our cause. Mr. Levin and other conservatives, please don’t risk losing everything by an ill-conceived constitutional convention. The answer is to make the government abide by what they have by oath promised and, when needed, carefully craft new amendments one at a time, as for example a balanced budget amendment.
Apr 20, 2014 | Constitution, Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease, Ph. D
The most important question with respect to the Bundy Ranch Standoff remains unanswered. Why does the federal government own Nevada? It does not own New York or Virginia or Massachusetts. Cliven Bundy says that the state of Nevada owns the contested land. The Bureau of Land Management clearly considers the property the federal governments; hence the 200 snipers posted on the property and the tasing of the Bundys for resisting when the feds confiscated their cattle. Who is right?
But the problem isn’t Nevada’s alone where government owns 87.7 % of the land leaving private ownership of the state at but 12.3 %. The percentage of land owned by government exceeds fifty percent in Alaska (98.5), Idaho (63.8), Oregon (52.6), and Utah (63.6). Indeed, the federal government claims to own a third of all the landmass in the United States (Inventory Report on Real Property Owned by the United States Throughout the World, published by the General Services Administration, page 10). Government owns almost half of California (47.5). Basically the federal government did not give western states all their land when they qualified for statehood. States were so excited to get coveted statehood that they went along with the conditions despite the confiscation of, for most in the West, at least a third of their land.
States wanting their confiscated land returned, so as to be on equal footing as with 19 sister states who actually own their land, call their long-term bid to do so the Sage Brush Rebellion. Equality between states was established by giving them equal representation in the U.S. Senate, thus the assumption of the Founders was that property would follow. Without it they are not on equal footing and instead may be more servile to the federal government than states that own themselves. This could negatively affect our system of government known as federalism as states collectively serve as a check on federal overreach. This check is impaired when the federal government owns part or most of their land.
But this is not the most serious violation of the Constitution. The Founders understood that the size of land holding was proportionally related to the perceived size of the federal government and they intentionally wanted that perception small. The Federal government was permitted to have but 10 square miles for a federal capital. The only other land that they could acquire had to be for military purposes as specified in the common defense clause of the Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 which reads: “and to exercise like Authority over all places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the same shall be for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock Yards, and other needful Buildings.”
Any new acquisition, outside the capital, had (1) to be purchased, (2) have the consent of the State Legislature where the land exists, (3) and be for military purposes. None of these constitutional requirements were met with respect to any of the states cited above although some military bases do exist in most of them. Nor have there been any additional amendments to the Constitution authorizing additional federal ownership of land as required for any additional federal power. Constitutionally there exists no federal land or Bureau of Land Management or even public land.
Again, in the case of the Bundys, the land in dispute was not purchased by the federal government, did not receive the consent of the Nevada State Legislature for sale to the feds and is not for military purposes. The fact that the federal government acquired it fraudulently in the first place, or that both political parties have ignored this part of the Constitution for over a hundred years, does not make federal confiscation now constitutional. Constitutionally Bundy has more right to be there than does the Bureau of Land Management. Still, his stand is not practical given our long-term departure from the document and to get back to the Constitution some may do jail time, as have others like Martin Luther King, Jr. Freedom has never been cheap.
Having someone willing to stand, Sage Brush Rebellion states now should seize this moment to remind the federal government that they too want their land back. If they stand together now it is more probable than ever that it will happen. One suggestion for Governor Brian Sandoval of Nevada is to declare the contested property Nevada’s and have Bundy begin paying Nevada for grazing rights. Taking back this infinitesimal amount of the whole that is claimed by the federal government will set the stage for more acquisitions later. The governor would become an instant hero in the western states. That would diffuse the standoff between citizen and federal government moving it to the state instead where it belongs. Why is a citizen (in this case Cliven Bundy) having to make the case for a state? The governor would give strength to two objectives—returning fraudulently acquired land to the states and getting back to the Constitution.
