Jan 31, 2014 | Constitution, Liberty Articles
By Dr. Harold Pease
In listening to the President’s State of the Union Address one would think that he actually has the power to do what he says should be done. He eloquently suggested a federal role in: curbing obesity, making the college opportunity available to all middle class Americans, partnering with local government “from homes to marriage equality,” and improving transportation. Added to the list was streamlining bureaucracy, building two “hubs” for economic opportunity (he wanted Congress to add five more) presumably in places like Detroit, unleashing funding for inventions, and preserving more “pristine federal lands”(code for confiscation). He wants new emission standards for trucks and enlarged federal standards for air quality, new jobs training programs, and a restoration of unemployment insurance. In education he wants his “Race to the Top” program accelerated and high school curriculum redesigned. He wants to impact the work place more (whatever that means), raise the minimum wage to $10.10, create “My RA’s a new savings bond for everyone” and IRA’s on the job.
The list went on and on just as it does for every president Republican or Democrat, but what was different this time was the threat of his bypassing Congress with the use of the “pen” (an obvious threat of the use of executive orders) where he felt he could. He promised to unilaterally raise the minimum wage for federal employees and his threat to do it, alone, must be taken seriously because he did just that on immigration and Obamacare law. We have never had a president who boldly promised to make law if the Congress failed to do so.
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. 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.
Obama threatens a role by way of executive order, the use of the pen to accomplish the items in his address, as kings or dictators do. The term executive order is not found in the Constitution. Executive orders were initially nothing more than inter-departmental communications between the President and his executive branch with him requesting some action on their part. Constitutionally they have no law making function. Congress must reign-in any executive that uses them to make or alter law. Article I, Section I clearly gives only Congress law making power. Impeachment is a proper response for any president who subverts or threatens the separation of powers doctrine, as his oath requires that he “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution.”
Jan 20, 2014 | Constitution, Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease, PH. D
The U.S. Senate did not consider itself in recess on January 4, 2012, when President Barack Obama filled four Senate vacancies. So argued Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell before the United States Supreme Court, who has been adjudicating the possible constitutional violation of the President’s actions the past week. Article II, Section 2, Clause 3 clearly reads: “The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate….”
The four vacancies were three seats on the National Labor Relations Board and one to head the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. The one that was most offensive was the latter coming right after the Senate blocked action on that nomination but the President in what appeared to be “in your face” appointed him, Richard Cordray, anyway.
The rational for the constitutional clause was simple and housed in Article I, Section 4, Clause 2. Congress was initially required to “assemble at least once in every Year, and such Meetings shall be on the first Monday in December, unless they shall by Law appoint a different Day.” The likely reason for December was that for most, the winter month was a relaxed time especially for planters and merchants who might be able to serve. It also tended to limit Congress’s actual meeting time to about three weeks because everyone wanted to be home for Christmas. Then too, those who served for a few weeks could return home the rest of the year to earn their own living. As such, an important appointment might not be filled for months until Congress could reassemble, hence, the wordage allowing the President to fill the vacancy temporarily, which was to expire “at the End of their next Session.”
The national government was never to be the big government. All power not listed in the Constitution was to be left to the states or to the people as noted in Amendment 10. Having Congress meet year-round would have been a foreign idea to the Founders. How could they “really” represent the people if they lived removed from the people in a capital, hundreds, often thousands, of miles away most of the year? Amendment 20 changed this part of the Constitution when the Democratic Party assumed control in 1933 of both the executive and legislative branches of government and wanted a full-time legislature to implement Franklin D. Roosevelt’s many changes; all of which aimed at making all or most power flow to Washington D.C. and away from the city, county and state where it was constitutionally placed. The era of big government mushroomed.
Alexander Hamilton saw the disputed clause in the Constitution for what it was, to provide an alternative method of appointment that would allow “without delay” the filling of vacancies during periods of Senate absence—nothing more—so that the Senate need not be in session continually (The Federalist Papers, ed. Clinton Rossiter, New York: New American Library, 1961, pp. 409-410). Certainly, the rational for a shared power with the President diminished when Congress started meeting year round and is today in recess only a few days.
Today the minority party fears going into recess because the opposing dominant party will make “objectionable” appointments while they are away. Senator Harry Reid devised gimmicks to keep the Senate in session continually to squelch George W. Bush’s recess appointments. The Washington Post reported on January 5, 2012, how this was done. “Starting in Nov. 2007 through the end of Bush’s presidency, he ordered the Senate to meet in pro-forma sessions, or short meetings, over the holidays and traditional summer and spring recesses. No official business was conducted during the brief sessions and the move prevented Bush from making any recess appointments through the end of his presidency.” Now the Republicans do the same thing to the Democrats and they do not like it either. In an attempt to break Republican opposition to his appointments, Obama appointed the four mentioned above anyway and earned the retribution of even the left-leaning Washington Post who said: “President Obama pulled a fast one.”
Still, the Senate maintains that it was not in recess when Obama made his appointments. That is true in the same measure as when Reid said that the Senate was never in recess during Bush II. Such a time, January 4, 2012, was selected by Barack Obama to make the controversial appointments and argue that the Senate was not “really” in session. Technically he was correct and the case may be made that they only pretended to be. Still, this is not the call of the Executive Branch. When the Senate says that it is in session it is—even if it has decided previously not to conduct any business, as it had between December 27, 2011 and January 23, 2012.
Whether ethical or not the fact remains that the Senate, in implementing pro forma gatherings, is showing that it intends to be considered as being in session. The Constitution allows the legislative body to define when it begins and ends and it has done so. To allow the President to do so instead would, in effect, give it a measure of supervision or authority over the legislative body and thus damage the concept of separation of powers so carefully crafted by the Founders.
So, if the Supreme Court supports the Constitution as created, it will announce next June that the President has over extended his authority. If not, it will further weaken the separation of powers philosophy so critical to freedom and the Constitution.
Jan 10, 2014 | Constitution, Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease, PH. D
Anyone with but a rudimentary knowledge of the Constitution understands that it is designed to limit the growth of the federal government and it begins with the most essential ingredient—separation of powers. Congress makes all the law on the federal level, the President executes the law, as Congress made it—not as he arbitrarily wants it to be, and the Supreme Court adjudicates the law that is contested. Quite simple!! Uncontested by both political parties until now!! This has been the constitutional way since George Washington and should remain so until a new amendment to the Constitution alters the Constitution. Until than it is “sacredly obligatory upon all,” as George Washington once said.
Enter Barack Obama’s numerous (Fox News says 23, National Review says 14) executive changes to ObamaCare, which have greatly altered the 2700-page law, and if left unchallenged, will give future presidents an open door to change whatever they wish in any law they wish. Actually the only constitutional authority of a president is to veto a law sending it back to Congress to override his veto if they have the votes. Altered laws, “on the fly” so to speak, are new laws and as such effectively undermine, even obliterate, the function of the legislative branch. The Constitution prevents the president from serving as all three branches as this president is doing. Such is the recipe for an imperial president, the end of limited government, and the end of a republic.
Seeking to stop this executive tyranny and to discourage the President from violating his own law, 11 state attorney generals wrote Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius that the President, by assuming law-making powers, was not following the Constitution. The letter was initiated by West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey, and was signed by state attorney generals of the following sister states: Alabama, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Texas and Virginia. Because Congress had faltered in protecting her soul legislative jurisdiction, they felt compelled to step forward to protect the Constitution.
The seven-page letter read in part: “We support allowing citizens to keep their health insurance coverage, but the only way to fix this problem-ridden law is to enact changes lawfully: through Congressional action.” Moreover, “We are deeply concerned that this Administration is consistently rewriting new rules and effectively inventing statutory provisions to operationalize a flawed law.” The Attorney Generals’ letter continued, “The illegal actions by this administration must stop.”
Of the 14-23 Obama executive rule changes made since ObamaCare inception the four most notable were: the delay of the individual mandate, OPM waiver for congressional staffers (this exempts members of Congress and their staffs from the law that they created for you and I, the Small Business Exchange Delay, and the Pre-Existing Conditions Insurance Plan Waiver. The most recent change came after more than five million received cancellation notices from their insurers because ObamaCare made it too difficult for them to continue coverage, this despite the known falsehood used to promote the forced healthcare plan made by Obama, “If you like your doctor you can keep him” and, “If you like your healthcare plan, you can keep it.” In this change Obama, unilaterally announced that those who had lost their insurance could have it back for a year.
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.
Noticeably absent this time in protecting the Constitution with respect to the 200-plus year process of making law is the Democratic Party. 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 him? 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.
Jan 5, 2014 | Constitution, Economy, Healthcare, Immigration, Liberty Articles, Take Action, Tea Party
By Harold Pease PH. D
The year has shown monumental efforts by some to get back to the Constitution. An ever-growing portion of the largely distracted public is finally awakening to the fact that they are losing freedom and that both parties are responsible. Let us review those monumental moments of 2013 each of which have been covered extensively by us in previous columns.
We began the year with what was called “successionitis”—a desire of some of the people to leave the Union—not seen in the United States since the Civil War. Fifteen states posted over 25,000 signatures with Texas posting 116,000 by itself. The President closed down his site to further counting. With his refusal to allow further counting and the establishment media’s refusal to continue coverage, the issue was squelched. Discontent with the federal government not following the Constitution and the resultant loss of freedom (especially cited were NDAA and TSA) were said to be the reasons for the backlash by those participating.
This was followed by the 2013 Sheriffs’ Rebellion wherein by mid-February, 336 elected county sheriffs had signed pledges that they will not enforce any unconstitutional gun control laws or executive orders—seventeen of them in California. Nine states refused to comply. The Utah Sheriff’s Association made the strongest statement aimed directly at the President. “We, like you, swore a solemn oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, and we are prepared to trade our lives for the preservation of its traditional interpretation.” Wyoming’s new “Firearm Protection Act,” threatened federal officials with up to five years in prison and $5,000 in fines if convicted of attempting to enforce unconstitutional statutes or decrees infringing on the gun rights of Wyoming citizens. Kentucky has enacted something similar and reportedly, Missouri and Texas have similar legislation pending.
Also in February thousands gathered from California to New York and from Florida to Alaska, on February 23, to remind the federal government that the “right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” They were saying, in effect, “Back off Mr. President with your executive orders and Congress with your proposed new laws, you are on sacred Constitutional soil.” The establishment press was weak, almost non-existent, in its coverage. The 124 cities participating largely had to enter their own pictures of their event on the Internet to get coverage—so weak was press response. Seventeen such rallies were held in California alone, a state already sensitive to the loss of gun right freedoms and threatened with more of the same by a largely hostile democratically controlled State Legislature.
On March 6, 2013, one man stood on the Senate floor arguing for 13 hours, even against his own party, to prevent the President’s use of drone strikes to kill Americans on U.S. soil. Without Tea Party support Rand Paul would have been alone. The phrase, Stand With Rand” became popular overnight. Senator Paul wanted assurance from the President that he would never do this to us as he had Americans in other lands. The assurance finally came the next day from Eric Holder but it was far from convincing.
Summer brought the “Gang of Eight” and immigration reform that had every appearance of just another amnesty. S. 744 did nothing to improve border security or immigration enforcement and the House, resisting the pressure to be railroaded, has chosen not to act upon the Senate’s favorable vote until 2014. The Tea Party Patriot movement played an important role in revealing it’s numerous defects.
The year brought an outbreak of media coverage of the National Security Administration’s, NSA, spying on over 100 million Americans, recording their telephone conversations, emails, and other electronic messages for the last seven years. Attention turned to, “Whatever happened to congressional or judicial oversight?” Included in the revelations was the 35 years of FISA court’s special surveillance requests on 34,000 citizens, with virtually no denials. This has caused many to look to the Constitution for protection from their own government. They asked, “Is government spying on its own citizens constitutional?” Edward Snowden said no and intentionally shared with the world that which our government was doing to us and everybody else. He helped give us focus on our government’s serious violations of Amendments I, IV, V and even VI. To millions he was a hero.
In the Fall of the year, Barack Obama, by himself, in total defiance of the Constitution Art. I, Sec. 8, Clause 11, almost took us into war by his intention to, send a “missile across the bow of a Syrian ship.” He was supported in his doing so by Secretary of State, John Kerry and Republican power Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham. At least 60% of Americans did not support another no-win war and the President backed down.
In November Senator Ted Cruz stood for 21 hours and 19 minutes, once again mostly by himself with but Tea Party support. Our national debt at 17 trillion dollars, the highest in our history, with Obama responsible for seven trillion of that number in the last five years, was central to his stand. The Republicans had not shut down the government as the media said. Instead they fully funded the government with the exception of Obamacare. More and more people are realizing that the U.S. is going to experience a fiscal collapse unless we return to fiscal responsibility—a core principle of the Tea Party movement. Senator Cruz opposed the debt-ceiling rise as another always follows.
More than half of the states showed their resistance to Obamacare by opting out of exchanges. Resistance to it mounted exponentially when the government website did not work as promised and when the people realized that the President knowingly sold his forced care plan under the false premise that they could keep their doctor and their existing healthcare plan. Most Americans now oppose it.
Seemingly those who damage the Constitution always win. But this year, 2013, had many victories. Let us remember with gratitude those who did stand for freedom and remove from power those who did not. Happy New Year my liberty loving friends!!
Dec 30, 2013 | Constitution, Liberty Articles, Take Action
By Harold Pease, PH D.
Congress just passed the gigantic $625 billion dollar sweeping National Defense Authorization Act of 2014 with a vote in the House 350 to 69 and in the Senate 84 to 15. Establishment media coverage seemed to center on what did not make it into the act such as, a crackdown on sexual assault in the military and provisions making it easier to close Guantanamo, rather than upon what did. Most maintained the image that the annual act merely funded the military for another year, as has been the case formerly. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Left in place was the extremely controversial 2012 provision authorizing the military, under presidential authority, to arrest, kidnap, and detain without trial, and held indefinitely, American citizens thought to “represent an enduring security threat to the United States.” Simply stated it defied Habeas Corpus (your constitutional right not to disappear at the hand of government), the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 (preventing the military from having a law enforcement function in the United States), and essentially gutted large portions of the Bill of Rights especially amendments 4, 5, and 6 with secondary damage to 1, 2 and possibly 8. It is the single most dangerous law passed by Congress in U.S. History.
Only socialists and Tea Party advocates seemed to understand that a non-specific definition of terrorism, such as that noted above, can easily be turned into a revolving definition of terrorism and used to wipe out either an opposing party or philosophy. Imagine being arrested, kidnapped, and secretly shipped to Guantanamo Bay for defending the Constitution. Such is possible under the 2012 version left unchanged. Republican President Richard Nixon used the IRS to persecute his political enemies in the 1970’s, as has Democratic President Barack Obama in the last five years. Neither political party is exempt from fault on this version. Republican Senators Lindsey Graham and John McCain pushed it through the Senate and Democrat President Barack Obama, promised to veto it, then signed it. Sadly only 2012 presidential candidates Ron Paul and Rick Santorum opposed it.
Unfortunately the National Defense Authorization Act of 2014 is still unconstitutional, still unacceptable, and even more dangerous than its predecessor. Newly added is Section 1071(a) which authorizes the Secretary of Defense to “establish a center to be known as the ‘Conflict Records Research Center’” authorized to compile a “digital research database including translations and to facilitate research and analysis of records captured from countries, organizations, and individuals, now or once hostile to the United States.” Section 1071 (g) is more explicit defining a captured record as “a document, audio file, video file, or other material.” This effectively expands the surveillance of the Bush 43 Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) defining, as never ending, the War on Terrorism and his resultant Patriot Act, requiring citizens to report certain activities of other citizens. Factor in the government’s several expensive NSA facilities especially those of Oak Ridge, Tennessee and Bluffdale, Utah, the latter of which is designed to accommodate a yottabyte of information. Factor in also the known collection by NSA of every email, telephone conversation, social media post, and text, of every U.S. citizen for the last eight years and it is easy to see why the federal government now wants a Conflict Records Research Center.
Only the following U.S. Senators understood the danger to the Constitution and freedom by voting against: Barrasso (WY), Coburn (OK), Corker (TN), Crapo (ID), Cruz (TX), Enzi (WY), Flake (AZ), Lee (UT), Merkley (OR), Paul (KY), Risch (ID), Sanders (VT), Sessions (AL), Shelby (AL), Wyden (OR). Senators not listed do not understand the Constitution and its checks and balances enough to merit your vote regardless of which political party they represent.
Perhaps Tea Party Senator Ted Cruz said it best when he told his constituents: “Today I voted against the National Defense Authorization Act. I am deeply concerned that Congress still has not prohibited President Obama’s ability to indefinitely detain U.S. citizens arrested on American soil without trial or due process. The Constitution does not allow President Obama, or any President, to apprehend an American citizen, arrested on U.S. soil, and detain these citizens indefinitely without a trial.” We agree and that is why the National Defense Authorization Act of 2014 is still dangerous, still unconstitutional and still unacceptable in a free country!!
Dec 23, 2013 | Constitution, Economy, Globalism, Tea Party
By Harold Pease, Ph. D
The Washington Post recently disclosed the coming to fruition, after nearly a decade and 19 secret meetings, of a huge trade agreement known as the Trans Pacific Partnership or TPP, “which when finished, will govern 40 percent of U.S. imports and exports” and “26 percent of the world’s trade.” It will be the law of the land for the United States and 11 other countries in the Asia-Pacific region without the input of a single U.S. member of Congress. This in violation of Article I, Section I of the U.S. Constitution that mandates that all legislative powers reside in the House and Senate and in no other body. In fact, members of Congress have not been allowed to even see the treaty whereas privileged corporations have no problem with access.
Critics, mostly Democrats and Tea Party proponents, resent the secretive nature of the agreement’s origin. Those feeling especially threatened include: global health advocates, environmentalists, Internet activists and trade unions. “The treaty has 29 chapters, dealing with everything from financial services to telecommunications to sanitary standards for food” demonstrating the wide variety of areas believed to be affected by it, but again, it is the secretive nature of it that is most offensive. Apparently TPP participants signed “a confidentiality agreement requiring them to share proposals only with ‘government officials and individuals who are part of the government’s domestic trade advisory process’.” That excludes you, me, the media, and Congress.
The Post acknowledges that the agreement “encompass a broad range of regulatory and legal issues, making them a much more central part of foreign policy and even domestic lawmaking.” Such is curious. The Constitution requires the approval of your two U. S. Senators and your House member for every regulation upon you. There exists no language that any other individual or body—especially an international body—can perform this function. And, international law should not affect “domestic lawmaking.” You have the right to know that these three have read every rule emanating from the federal government upon you. The admission that the TPP will influence foreign policy is interesting as only the U.S. Senate may influence foreign policy as per Article II, Section II. Giving a “more central part of foreign policy” to an international agency virtually voids the Constitution in this area and would have been thought treasonous by our Founders.
The Post identified “60 senators (who) have asked for the final agreement to address currency manipulation.” Senators Elizabeth Warren and Ron Wyden, both Democrats, have been especially vocal about the Obama “Administration’s refusal to make draft text available.” Were it not for unintended leaks, notably that of Wikileaks in early November, who published the chapter on intellectual property, this and so much more would still be off limits to the media and everyone else. This chapter alone raised many questions about copyright protections and obviously this treaty, while billed as just a trade agreement, included music, film, books, the Internet and appeared to be potentially, as one critic called it, the treaty to “restrict access to knowledge.” And this is but one of 29 chapters.
The implementation procedure of the internationalists was to gain consensus among the countries signing it, then present it to both branches of Congress for a simple, without debate, up or down vote. Again, this procedure flies in the face of the Constitution. Treaty making, an agreement between two or more countries, is a shared power with the Executive Branch. The President “shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate to make treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur.” President Barack Obama has not sought advice, indeed he has not even allowed the Senate to read his treaty until finished, even then he will accept no changes in it. Then he will present it to both houses for a simple majority instead of only to the Senate for a two-thirds vote as constitutionally mandated. All this blatant deception was to wrap up in Singapore in early December to be presented “fast tract” to Congress before Christmas as a done deal.
Law by a single man excluding Congress nullifies the latter and should be an impeachable offense. International law imposed by an army of unelected bureaucrats is not freedom. The Trans Pacific Partnership siphons decision-making power from the elected to the non-elected in a foreign land and will affect every American. Any Congressman who supports such violates his oath of office “to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States” as has the President.
