Sep 17, 2013 | Constitution, Liberty Articles
By Dr. Harold Pease
This week commemorates Constitution day and week and as such it is well to remind our governments and elected officials, all of who have sworn under oath to abide by it, to reread and follow it. It is also well for our citizenry to do the same so that we can identify those who would take away our liberty and without regard to political party remove these dangerous people from their places of power.
Look around!! Our president spies on us through the NSA in complete disregard of the 4th Amendment to the Constitution and uses the IRS to intimidate and harass his political opposition, most notably conservative, religious and Tea Party groups. Moreover, he upends existing law as in 2012 when by executive order he refused to continue enforcing the deportation of a class of illegal emigrants. Or, in healthcare, some get a year to implement while others do not and Congress gets exempted. Today he no longer attempts to justify his numerous executive orders to any constitutional base and taken together his branch, including his over thirty unconstitutionally appointed czars, make far more rules on us than does our elected Congress. But he does want to take this nation into a totally unconstitutional war with Syria.
Look around!! Congress seems inept at best, unable or unwilling to investigate and bring to justice those in the government who deliberately allowed some 2,000 guns to go to the Mexican drug cartels who used these in some of the murders of over 70,000 Mexicans including our own border patrol Agent Brian Terry. They have shown themselves to be unwilling or unable to thoroughly investigate the four deaths of Americans in Benghazi, a scandal now a year old. Unwilling or unable to investigate, stop, and punish IRS agents using their positions to silence political opposition. Unwilling or unable to investigate, stop and punish NSA spying and storing indefinitely all electronic information on all Americans. Why? Because most who sit in Congress are party lap dogs justifying or condemning whatever on party lines instead of the Constitution.
As the President absorbs more and more of Congress’ law making powers, making Congress more irrelevant each day, they pretend all is well. While not guarding their own powers from an encroaching executive branch, they trample the rights of the states where all power not listed in the Constitution belongs. They have mocked the 10th Amendment and have been complacent in the demise of the first, second, fourth, fifth, sixth and ninth amendments as well. Indeed our liberties would have been better protected by the Boy Scouts of America who, in fact, may understand freedom better than they. There are a few members of Congress who do put the Constitution in front of party and career such as Rand Paul, Mike Lee and Ted Cruz but they are far too few.
Look around!!!! The Supreme Court no longer uses the Constitution, as understood by the Founding Fathers when written, as important. Past practice has replaced original intent and natural law as first consideration. Even international law has come to have more value then original intent in their rendered decisions. Even Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, advised Egypt to not modal their new constitution after ours because ours was too dated. The Court makes new law, a constitutional function of Congress alone, by ruling on an issue in such a way as to give it new meaning, thus new law. It is called judicial legislation. The laws of the land have been changed by dozens of such rulings the last fifty years.
Healthcare comes to mind. Congress never passed it as a tax and the political party passing it, and their President, Barack Obama, emphatically resisted any description of it as such. Nevertheless Justice John Roberts ruled it to be a tax, then argued that Congress can tax, therefore it was constitutional. The Court omitted the fact that the word health (or anything remotely similar) is nowhere in the Constitution and is therefore entirely a state issue, as per Amendment 10, until an Amendment to the Constitution ratified by three-fourths of the state legislatures moved health to the limited list in the Constitution. Healthcare by any previous combination of justices would have been 100 percent unconstitutional with or without the tax issue.
When the Supreme Court no longer protects the Constitution it falls upon the states to do so defending the 10th Amendment and using the Doctrine of Nullification (understood and endorsed by the Founders) and previously used in 1798, 1832, and 1852. But it is so poorly understood today that few can defend it, nevertheless it was and is the final check on an over reaching federal government.
When reading the Constitution this happy Constitution Day or Week, 226 years since its origin, please pay special attention to the list provided to each of these branches of the federal government. The concept of a list is so vital to our interpretation of the Constitution. If they were to do as they pleased no list would be needed.
Sep 9, 2013 | Constitution
By Dr. Harold Pease
In early summer California’s Governor Jerry Brown and Jeffrey Beard, the state’s corrections chief, were in great danger of being held in contempt by three federal judges for willful defiance of a court order requiring the administration to meet a Dec. 31 deadline for reducing the prison population in California. Brown had previously asked the federal government to back off on federal mandated prison requirements, “We can handle our own prisons,” he said. Can he constitutionally say no to the federal government? Yes, and he should.
Besides the obvious, that Californians do not want their convicts returned to society too easily, voiding the acts of juries and judges after their having spent thousands of hours deciding what is just with respect to their crimes and their danger to society, federal enforcement of such is unconstitutional. The Constitution gives the federal government only 17 grants of power, listed in Article I, Section 8 and managing federal prisons is not one of them, nor has it been added to the Constitution by way of amendment. In fact, the Constitution names only four crimes that Congress has the power to penalize and they are: counterfeiting (Article I, Section 8, Clause 6), piracy on the high seas, offenses against the law of nations (Art. I, Sec. 8, Cla. 10), and treason (Art. III, Sec. 3, Cla. 2). Outside these four crime areas there can be no federal law or crime without a new amendment. All other areas are entirely under state jurisdiction as per Amendment 10.
If the governor wished to follow the Constitution as designed, he could designate one or more facilities as being federal, move all prisoners that had committed crimes in the above four areas to that facility and with them be fully compliant with federal law. With respect to the other prisoners he might notify the federal government again that “We can handle our own prisons” and that the federal government has exceeded its Constitution jurisdiction. This is a state function per the Tenth Amendment. He should publicize his constitutional arguments with his sister states and, if possible, enlist similar action on their parts. Some of us would love to assist a democratic governor in leading the charge back to the Constitution.
Why is it important that he, and other governors, do this? It is the pattern of the never-ending enlargement of the powers of the federal government, at the expense of state prerogatives and the 10th amendment, that is transforming the federal government from a republic, as understood by the Founders, into something else. It is constitutional defilement. The use of Amendment 10 is central to the restoration of freedom from government and the return of checks and balances, of which state jurisdiction is essential, before all power is housed at the federal level and we are more clearly no longer free.
Unconstitutional overreach is epidemic and there is now finally measurable push-back. The “check and balance” part of the Constitution is the 10th Amendment of the Constitution and the Doctrine of Nullification. States do have the authority to “Just Say No!” but to be effective they need to do so collectively, the larger the group the more effective. Such was used in 1798 in the Kentucky and Virginia Resolves, in 1832 in the Nullification Crisis in South Carolina, and more successfully with the northern states, especially Wisconsin, in 1854 over the highly unconstitutional Fugitive Slave Act. In previous columns I have treated the highly favorable views of the Founding Fathers on the subject most notably Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and Alexander Hamilton.
Finally, the 10th Amendment is beginning to be used by some states to prevent the federal government’s overreach of constitutional powers. It reads, “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.” Federal medical marijuana laws are openly defied by many states. States’ refusal to implement the Real ID Act, passed years ago, is a form of resistance. When enough states say no, the feds will back away. Examples of federal overreach are everywhere. Even the federal ban on incandescent light bulbs, is an example of intrusion into state power. Dozens more could be listed. This has to stop!
In 2013, twenty-six states showed their resistance to Obamacare by opting out of the Obamacare health care exchanges. Nine State Sheriffs’ Associations put the Executive and Legislative Branches on notice that they will support the traditional interpretation of the 2nd Amendment of the Bill of Rights and 336 elected county sheriffs inferred that they will protect their people on this issue—even against federal agents coming into their counties. So, California Governor Jerry Brown has good company in his, “We can handle our own prisons,” nullification efforts.
Sep 6, 2013 | Constitution
Is President Obama Practicing “Constitutional Theater” with Congress over Syria?”
By Dr. Harold Pease
President Barack Obama insists that he has the authority to attack Syria without the benefit of Congressional approval. Secretary of State, John Kerry, virtually said the same thing in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee when he said, that the President has the right to act “no matter what Congress does.” But does he?
In the same meeting, Senator Rand Paul accused the President of “reducing Congress” role in the authorization process for potential airstrikes on Syria to “constitutional theater.” Does the ultimate vote of Congress have any real meaning, he inquired, more especially if Congress rejects authorization? “If we do not say that the Constitution applies, if we do not say explicitly that we will abide by this vote, you’re making a joke of us. You’re making us into theater, and so we play constitutional theater for the president.” Kerry admitted that he didn’t know what the President would do should he lose the congressional vote, leaving that question unresolved. So far the leadership of both parties are lined up to give the authority to the President even when the latest poll shows 60% of Americans against it.
Should authorization not be granted, the president must be restrained from doing so unilaterally. There exists no constitutional authority for a single person to approve military action against another country which action has historically been considered an act of war? Nor does there exist constitutional authority for partial war as proposed in Syria.
The making and funding of war were clearly denied the President in the Constitution because he “had the most propensity for war,” as James Madison argued in the Federalist Papers. All war making power is housed in Article I, Section 8 and belongs to the legislative branch alone. Only Congress has the right “to declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water.” War requires the blood of our young warriors and this requires the permission of the people who are required to be the fodder in such. Only the peoples’ representatives can “provide and maintain a navy or make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces” and for “calling forth the militia…to repel invasions “ or “provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States….” Congress is directly responsible for any acquisition of property for military use.
Funding for war is yet another constitutional concern and is clearly left with the House of Representatives. The Constitution says: “no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years.” Two years is the designated time that a member of the House is elected and authorized to represent his people. So, President Obama cannot expend monies to attack Syria, or anywhere else, without congressional approval. Article I, Section 7 requires that “all bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives…”
That the President violated the Constitution before when he attacked Libya, costing us 1.7 billion dollars over the six months of our involvement, does not make the action constitutional. In that situation, as you recall, he did not even consult with his own party! Nor was Congress consulted when President Obama, alone, authorized Special Forces to inter Central Africa in 2011, or his authorizing drone strikes in several middle-eastern countries killing designated individuals—all such have traditionally been considered acts of war. Certainly these would be treated as such were they perpetrated on U.S. soil by another country.
The only power the president is allowed to have in the Constitution is as “Commander in Chief of the army and navy of the United States, … when called into the actual service of the United States,” which is done only by Congress not by himself. Neither democrats nor republicans have any constitutional authority to engage in war without a declaration of war—even if done by other presidents before them. To commit our young to potential death unilaterally is not within a president’s power and should be an impeachable offense.
To protect the Constitution and to keep the Congress from having but a ceremonial jurisdiction with respect to war, the House of Representatives is attempting to place the president on short notice that the next disregard of Congress would be grounds for impeachment. Concurrent resolution H. Con. Res. 107 reads, “Whereas the cornerstone of the Republic is honoring Congress’s exclusive power to declare war under article I, section 8, clause 11 of the Constitution: Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That it is the sense of Congress that, except in response to an actual or imminent attack against the territory of the United States, the use of offensive military force by a President without prior and clear authorization of an Act of Congress violates Congress’s exclusive power to declare war under article 1, section 8, clause 11 of the Constitution and therefore constitutes an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor under article II, section 4 of the Constitution.”
This may be the reason the President, after amazingly disclosing many of the details of his proposed attack on Syria, backed off and decided to at least play “constitutional theater” to appear to be getting some prior authorization from this body.
Aug 27, 2013 | Constitution, Liberty Articles
By Dr. Harold Pease
Reuters reported last Saturday, August 17, 2013, “Nine men killed in Mexican drug war hotspot.” This is not new news. The day before, “eight people were found killed” and placed in a mass grave. Such happens frequently in a country where drug wars have resulted in the death of more than 70,000 people “between 2006 and 2012, and more than 6,000 have been killed since President Enrique Pena Nieto took office in December.
What is especially disturbing is that our government may have been involved with some of these murders. CBS News reported, August 14, of this month, “That three more weapons from Fast and Furious have turned up at violent crime scenes in Mexico.” Fast and Furious suspect Uriel Patino purchased two in “May and July of 2010. Sean Steward purchased a third,” all traced to “the Lone Wolf gun shop in Glendale, Arizona.” Just a few weeks ago, Luis Lucio Rosales Astorga, “a Mexican police chief and his bodyguard were killed by cartel members using Fast and Furious guns.”
Some may have forgotten the “Fast and Furious” scandal of 2010 in the flurry of new Barack Obama Administration scandals of late Spring, so a review might be necessary. Imagine being willing to do anything to destroy the Second Amendment to the U. S. Constitution. Since Americans will not willingly do so, imagine someone in power plotting to create the rationale that would turn most reasonable people against these rights. Evidence of such surfaced two years ago in the form of an email from a Justice Department agent that strongly indicated that the government’s “Operation Fast and Furious” was designed to do just that. 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.
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, especially Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, 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 rationale and support to close down the gun shows making it more difficult for citizens to obtain a firearm. The story appears to be 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 was actually the instrument of his death.
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.
The e-mail in question was a part of the 6,000 documents received from the 80,000 requested of the Justice Department by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform headed by Darrell Issa. The Justice Department yet refuses to honor a three-year request for the other 74,000 documents requested.
What has been released reportedly proves that U.S. gun shows were not the source of cartel firepower, as this administration had repeatedly contended, the ATF was, 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 have seen only the tip of the iceberg.
The Justice Department has acknowledged encouraging gun stores in the U.S. to sell weapons to purchasers who trafficked them to Mexican drug cartels but still refuses to release some 74,000 documents with respect to the scandal. Such refusal led to “a bipartisan vote in June 2012 to hold Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt of Congress. The House Oversight Committee is suing for release of the material” so there will be more to come on this story. Meanwhile there will be more killing in Mexico from the 1,400 to 1,700 guns given the drug cartels by our government.
Aug 12, 2013 | Constitution, Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease
Fifty-five of 64 Colorado county elected sheriffs, together with a sizable coalition of grassroots groups, are plaintiffs in a lawsuit against the state of Colorado and until resolved by the courts will not participate in the enforcement of what they consider a violation of the Bill of Rights, notably the Second Amendment, which they have sworn under oath to preserve. The elected sheriffs, consisting of both democrats and republicans, not only believe the laws to be unconstitutional but also unenforceable.
Wordage in the suit cited public safety and the 2nd and 14th Amendments of the Constitution of the United States as major concerns. Sheriffs were especially angered by a tweet from the Colorado Senate Democrats referring to them as criminals, which read: “2day co sheriffs stood in opposition of co’s new gun laws, but not w/law-abiding citizens, but with criminals.” A sheriff of each county is the only elected law enforcement agent in the nation and as such has more constitutional authority than the FBI or ATF. Their election to stand by their oath to protect and defend the Constitution is serious and a big deal. Unfortunately the national media is largely silent on this story.
The same situation exists in the state of New York where 52 of 58 elected county sheriffs signed a letter asking for changes to the New York gun control laws, known as the SAFE Act, shoved through the legislature “just hours after the text became public.” The sheriffs were invited to a meeting where they expected to be able to share their reasons for opposition but instead were threatened by Governor Andrew Cuomo with removal from office. Who would he use to enforce removal, the six sheriffs of the 58 who had not signed? Numerous New York counties have passed non-binding resolutions to these laws in open support for the Second Amendment and those defending it. Schoharie County even going so far as to deny funding for enforcement.
Opponents claim that the SAFE Act is also unenforceable and criminalizes law-abiding citizens. This law is headed for the courts as well. New York sheriffs argue in their friend of the court brief. “Law enforcement’s work is made more difficult attempting to enforce unclear laws that harm, rather than promote, public safety. The laws appear willfully blind to legitimate safety interests, and instead are tailored to impact, and negatively impact, law-abiding firearm owners…. The Supreme Court has confirmed that the Second Amendment protects arms typically possessed by law-abiding citizens, and identified that the right of self-defense is ‘core’ protected conduct that is at its zenith in the home.”
Similar opposition by elected county sheriffs is rising in Maryland to a new law scheduled to go into effect this October 1st. Ten such have already voiced opposition to enforcing it. Other sheriffs “won’t use county resources to enforce the laws’ restrictions” (“Battleground Colorado: Sheriffs Resist,” by Frank Miniter, America’s 1st Freedom, Aug. 2013).
Fortunately such strong support of the Constitution by the law enforcement community is nothing new although the establishment press has been slow to cover these stories. In January and February 2013, angry sheriffs rose up putting the federal government on notice vowing to defend their citizens from the federal government if federal agents began enforcing gun laws outside the limits of the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution. Those states refusing to comply were, as they came on board: Utah, Florida, Georgia, Colorado, New Mexico, Nebraska, Wyoming, Indiana, and Illinois.
With respect to the Second Amendment, Utah’s Sheriffs’ Association went as far as to say, “We are prepared to trade our lives for the preservation of its traditional interpretation.” Wyoming’s new “Firearm Protection Act,” threatens 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. Reportedly, Missouri and Texas have similar legislation pending.
Even the California State Sheriffs’ Association’s letter to Vice President Joe Biden, signed by seventeen elected county sheriffs, was stronger than had been expected, putting him, and the federal government, on notice. “It is the position of CSSA, in accordance with the Constitution of the United States and the statutes of the State of California, that law-abiding persons who meet the established requirements have the right to acquire, own, possess, use, keep and bear firearms. This right shall not be infringed.”
What makes the efforts of Colorado, New York, and Maryland different this time from earlier this year is that previous resistance was aimed at the federal government taking their 2nd Amendment rights from them. This time it is their own state governments attempting to do the same thing in clear violation of the 2nd and 14th Amendments. The sheriff’s, and the populace that keeps them in power, says no when it violates their Constitution that they have sworn to uphold. Those who understand history and freedom know that an armed populace is critical to liberty. Thank goodness our sheriffs understand this and honor their sacred oath. If only our legislators and governors would as well.
Jul 28, 2013 | Constitution
By Harold Pease
Three years ago I published a column that had absolutely nothing to do with the gay issue. Shortly thereafter a reader emailed that she could not attend my upcoming Tea Party address on the U.S. Constitution because of that column which she perceived was negative to her gay interests. I was shocked. Such is the hysteria and emotion that surrounds the issue of gay marriage.
Amidst this hysteria comes a view from one who is gay but opposed to gay marriage. I would not now write about his objections had the media done justice to the gay view that opposes gay marriage. It is totally ignored. Doug Mainwaring sees his gay associates as “selfish adults” who “have systematically dismantled that which is most precious to children as they grow and develop,” the right to a father and a mother.
He is disappointed that the media misses the full and complete discussion of the issue, primarily the part that deals with unintended consequences. Advocates of gay marriage are selfish, he believes, because they exclude this part of the debate. What does this do to the children from these relationships, the definition of a family, even the meaning of marriage? “Natural law, tradition, religion, intellectual curiosity, and free inquiry no longer play a role in deliberations. Same-sex marriage legislation is defended solely on grounds of moral relativism and emotions,” he argues. These exclusions have consequences even if we deny that possibility.
In the past, he maintains, “defenders of marriage found it easy to win the battle” by “appeals to religion and tradition.” But today the institutions that most readily influence public opinion favor the move, as for example, the establishment media, politicians and large corporations. “One only needs to consider media headlines from the last few weeks,” he writes. “We are bombarded with approvals of same-sex marriage. To the casual onlooker, not steeped in this issue, it would seem that conservatism has embraced same-sex marriage. Each day brings fresh news of Republican political elites, Fortune 500 companies, NFL members, and even Dirty Harry himself, Clint Eastwood, throwing their support behind genderless marriage.”
Politicians likewise appear to support it because “they’re concerned about votes. Supporting same-sex marriage now looks like a winner for them.” Giant corporations too have come on board ever “eager to polish their images and create goodwill.”
Without thought to unintended consequences as part of the dialogue, he writes, “genderless marriage now enjoys an aura of equality and fairness,” but it “will not expand rights and freedoms in our nation. It will not redefine marriage. It will undefine it.”
Unintended consequences have already damaged the institution of marriage, he argues, even before the gay marriage issue. “No-fault divorce, instituted all across our country, sounded like a good idea at the time” but “it changed forever the definition of marriage from a permanent relationship between spouses to a temporary one. Sadly, children became collateral damage in the selfish pursuits of adults.”
Mainwaring’s most powerful argument is that “same-sex marriage will do the same, depriving children of their right to either a mom or a dad. This is not a small deal. Children are being reduced to chattel-like sources of fulfillment. On one side, their family tree consists not of ancestors, but of a small army of anonymous surrogates, donors, and attorneys who pinch-hit for the absent gender in genderless marriages. Gays and lesbians demand that they have a ‘right’ to have children to complete their sense of personal fulfillment, and in so doing, are trumping the right that children have to both a mother and a father—a right that same-sex marriage tramples over. Same-sex marriage will undefine marriage and unravel it, and in so doing, it will undefine children. It will ultimately lead to undefining humanity. This is neither ‘progressive’ nor ‘conservative’ legislation. It is ‘regressive’ legislation.”
He ends with a plea to seriously consider the unintended consequences before they become consequences. “But for the sake of all children and those yet to be born, we need to slow down and seriously consider the unintended consequences of undefining marriage. Otherwise, we risk treating our progeny as expendable pawns, sacrificed in the name of self-fulfillment. We can do better than that” (I’m gay, and I oppose gay marriage, by Doug Mainwaring, thePublicDiscourse.com, March 27, 2013).
Out of the hysteria and emotion that surrounds the issue of gay marriage and away from the institutions that so influence and manage our thinking comes the voice of reason and it comes from one who is gay. Perhaps it is time to listen, or at the very least, consider the time tested unintended consequences especially for the children who have no voice in the debate. It is rather pious of us to just ignore the possible consequences of this issue.
