Oct 17, 2013 | Constitution, Economy, Healthcare, Liberty Articles
By Dr. Harold Pease
The likelihood exists that before this column is read the republicans in both the House and Senate will have compromised themselves out of any real resistance to Obamacare. The House of Representatives first voted to fund the entire government minus Obamacare on September 20. It moved next to delaying it one year for everyone—not just Congress, the unions, and big business—to make it fair. The House then moved to delay the individual mandate for a year plus make Congress live under the same law rescinding the exemptions promised them earlier by President Barack Obama enticing them to go along. The House then abandoned its original cause, defunding Obamacare. To counter the blame given them for the shutdown by the openly hostile press they next funded 11 critical functions of the government. Harry Reid and Senate democrats rejected everything.
That republicans caved in so easily and that the democrats would not buy into the fairness argument (historically their strongest tenant—fairness) is very disturbing, but three other areas are even more so. First of these is the blatant media bias in favor of one party and the Senate and the universal villainization of the other party and the House in their non-neutral coverage. All pretense of neutrality is gone.
Second, the damage to the U.S. Constitution, which gives clear direction on this issue, that was ignored by the Senate and now also by the House who should be most protective of this power. “All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House.” By refusing to honor this clear constitutional prerogative of the House as the only body that can initiate taxes, which includes defunding originally funded items, such clarity is lost and the Constitution is damaged.
The third, and far more disturbing result of this battle, is that our spending addiction will never be solved and this inability heralds the likelihood of a future complete fiscal collapse of our economy and probably that of the world, as they are so dependent upon our dollar. A position once considered too extreme to voice I now hear everyday. If our leaders were intentionally making choices to collapse the economy how would they differ from those they now make?
What arguments support this view? Almost all evidence shows that Obamacare is going to be far more costly than promised with no real evidence that it will be any better for the vast majority. Our national debt rises between three and four billion dollars a day, which we without guilt pass on to the next generation. Even as I write this column the President is proposing a debt-ceiling raise of a million dollars per minute. He, and the Republican House of Representatives (they for not defunding things, like Obamacare and free cell phone for the poor, long ago) are responsible for seven trillion of our now 17 trillion-dollar debt. Before he leaves office he will have increased our national debt equal to the debt remaining unpaid by all previous presidents of the United States combined, and yet half of our folks remain mesmerized by his promises.
The debt ceiling has been raised 74 times since March 1962, including 18 times under Ronald Reagan, eight times under Bill Clinton, seven times under George W Bush, and five times under Barack Obama. This is our 12th debt raise in 12 years. We raise it every year to accommodate our need for a “fix.” Congress sadly never says no. Does anyone really believe that our debt-addicted government will ever stop the addiction on its own? Fully a third of our population do not earn their bread by the sweat of their brow but vote to get the government to take it from an-others labor and give to them. We are told that those receiving food stamps are now a third of our population having doubled under Obama’s watch.
Yes, we have a two-class society—the takers and the contributors. Takers will always vote for the party and politicians who will promise them more. When that number exceeds 51 percent we will never escape the takers and will have effectively made the contributing class the new slaves. Some believe takers to be very close.
So, go ahead and tell me that after the democrats win this debt crisis, their 7th time under Obama, that they will spend less hereafter and won’t need another income “fix” next year. Tell me that those who receive free cell phones or food stamps or other government handouts will wake up and see the damage that is being done to the productive base of this country. Tell me that after reading this column they will vote for a party or individual that advocates first reducing, then eliminating, these and so many other well meaning but bankrupting programs. Tell me!! The Tea Party provides the only resistance to this self-destructing philosophy and look at how the media and both parties vilify them.
When the real government shutdown comes, and it surely will unless we quickly change direction and get back to the Constitution, we may not have a President, Congress or Supreme Court. For a time we may have real anarchy, hunger and bloodshed. Notice what happened in Wall Mart this week by greedy food stamp recipients when they weren’t even hungry. And most likely The Constitution, now shredded by both parties, won’t be able to save us from ourselves as now. Let us not pretend any longer that what is now openly talked about on the street could never happen here. Would to God we wake up in time to “sober up” and make serious spending cuts so the the impending real government shutdown never happens.
Oct 9, 2013 | Constitution, Economy, Healthcare, Taxes
By Dr. Harold Pease
As of day 9 of our federal government services slowdown (only 17 percent of which has been shutdown) it becomes very obvious that there are two warring sides and no middle. Democrats blame republicans and republicans blame democrats and confidence in our Congress is now at an all-time low of eleven percent. There appear to be no neutral news sources. So what are the indisputable facts that I can certify?
Every September the U.S. House of Representatives passes what is now referred to as a Continuing Resolution funding the government for another year. It is normal to have bickering over specific programs and amounts. It is also true that all bills for raising revenue must originate in the House and that constitutional power was exclusively left with this branch in as much as it alone, of the two, was to represent the people, in this case protect them from excessive taxation. Not funding items is also a common practice and has not been particularly controversial or questioned until now. Funding is the constitutional prerogative of the House and the Senate should back away because by not doing so they do probable irreparable damage to Article 1, Section 7 of the Constitution.
This aside, conservatives believe that it also will enhance federal power to the tune of one-seventh of the economy and will place the IRS in charge of mandatory collections, an organization presently accused of targeting conservatives, especially religious and Tea Party types, for extra scrutiny. Louis Learner, a prominent IRS administrator, having pled the Fifth to the above noted charges before Congress, reportedly referring to them as “terrorists.” Obviously Tea Party folks, whose core value is to get back to the Constitution, fear abuse of power should the federal government have both the power to enforce taxation and have access to medical records as well.
So why won’t the Democrats simply back off and honor what is traditional to honor? The House has agreed to fund the government—ALL OF THE GOVERNMENT—even the parts that they traditionally oppose, minus Obamacare, and they did so September 20, 2013—ten days before the shutdown. The Republican controlled House of Representatives DID NOT shut down the government but did just the opposite. It fully funded it giving the democrats every thing that they wanted without opposition except this one thing. Again, why won’t the democrats accept this? Because it is their signature legislation and they rightly see this as a threat to the legislation. Socialize healthcare they have coveted for fifty years.
On September 27, the democratically controlled U.S. Senate under Harry Reid stripped the defunding language out of the bill and sent it back to the House refusing to compromise. The next day the House Republicans still voted to fund the government entirely plus fund Obamacare, if Senate Democrats would delay Obamacare for one year for everyone and would repeal the medical device tax. To this point President Barack Obama had given exemptions to big business groups and Congress. In support of the public outcry, “I Want My One-Year Delay Of ObamaCare!” the House voted to give a one-year exemption to everyone, not just the privileged few.
Two days later, Sept. 30, Harry Reid and Senate Democrats refuse to compromise and stripped the two amendments from the Continuing Resolution returning it to the House. The House again agreed to full funding of the government, to delay the individual mandate for a year, and to take away the health care subsidies given members of Congress and their staffs earlier this year. Many wondered why Congress would pass a bill that they themselves would not abide by. Requiring Congress to live under Obmacare, just like the rest of the American people, was sure to move Senate Democrats. It didn’t.
As with the other compromises offered by the House in addition to fully funding the federal government, including every pet democratic expense, it was refused and stripped from the resolution. The House was the only body doing any compromising and it was doing so with itself from a position of strength to an ever weaker position. Some suggested that there was no need for the President or the Senate to compromise; the House did it for them. Still, the media wrongly blamed the republicans for the government shutdown.
Next the House appointed conferees and sent a message to the Senate requesting a conference meeting to resolve their differences. This too was rejected and on midnight Tuesday, October 1, the government shut down. On that same day the House began passing single authorization appropriation bills in an effort to keep payments flowing for veterans and for NIH kids with cancer. Other bills funded the National Guard, Head Start and the National Park Services—eleven spending bills to date. Harry Reid rejected them all.
The most recent House Republican compromise offer, October 9, was to create a super committee consisting of both parties to work out their differences on this issue plus the upcoming debt ceiling resolution due October 17. I predict that the republicans will eventually go for a higher debt ceiling and democrats the new Super Committee. This accomplished the Super Committee will talk itself into oblivion as have earlier Senate Super Committees and accomplish nothing leaving Obamacare funded after all. On debt ceiling raises the republicans are normally outfoxed and on defunding they have repeatedly compromised the strength of their position without any democratic help.
Oct 3, 2013 | Constitution, Economy, Healthcare
Dr. Harold Pease
The fear with respect to our latest “government shutdown” is amazing. The hysteria peddlers using this terminology, and the media that purposely play to it, must know these two words emit such an extreme emotional response. It appears designed to frighten the least informed either for or against the other political party, thus the terminology and subsequent blame game.
So what does a government shut down look like? Do the president and vice president resign now that the government ends? No, they stay on the job and receive full pay as before. Does Congress fly out of Washington D. C. the following day and cease to draw their pay, and the Supreme Court cease to deliberate on constitutional questions? Does the army come home and cease to protect us? NO! No, No! Do states, counties, and cities no longer function? No again, they have their own tax base and cops, prisons, and teachers remain in place. Will I still get my mail? Yes. The U.S. Postal Service functions as an independent business unit. Will I still get Social Security benefits? Yes! And food stamps? Yes. And unemployment compensation? Yes. And veterans’ benefits? Yes, at least until late October. And will there still be a functioning federal school lunch program? Yes, at least through October (66 questions and answers about the government shutdown, by Gregory Korte, USA Today Oct. 1, 2013).
Then why the hysteria? My point exactly!! Because these two words, “government shutdown,” and the possibility of missed food stamps send the largely uninformed into frenzy, they finally awake from their stupor. They largely know nothing, although they should, of the wrangling of government to protect them from themselves and oppose any proposed government diet that might reduce their daily feed. They worshipfully listen to the party and political leaders that are least likely to disturb this base, like defunding Obamacare.
There will never be a government shut down because none of these things will ever happen short of an overthrow of the government from within, the collapse of our financial structure (which is becoming ever more likely do to our obsession to live beyond our means), or a successful invasion from without. So cease the media frenzy and subsequent over-reaction.
How do we know this? Because we have had 17 government shutdowns since 1977 according to the Congressional Research Service, the Reagan Administration having 8 of them alone. Because in 1979 the government was shut down for 10 days while Congress argued over a proposed salary increase for the legislative branch. Because we had a five-day shutdown between November 14 and November 19, 1995, and a second one of 21 days, between December 16, and January 6, 1996, and none of the bad things mentioned above happened. No! Not even one. In fact, the public as a whole didn’t even notice.
Then what did happen? “The Federal government of the United States put non-essential government workers on furlough and suspended non-essential services…(Wikipedia).” Essentially all went on as before except some paychecks were a few days late. Apparently the federal government does (when forced to do so) know what non-essential services are after all, and is capable of closing them if it has the will.
So at worst a government shutdown is really only a partial shutdown of non-essential services and a delay of payment for some few federal workers. So the federal government goes on a long overdue diet and gets back to the basics. This is precisely the Tea Party position (“cut it or shut it”) and the reason they do not fear such. If you have a budget of $3.7 trillion for a given year and you have taxes covering only $2 trillion during the same time simple math tells you that either you double taxes or cut half of your expenses. You simply can’t keep increasing the national debt, now almost $17 trillion, which has been laid on the backs of our new slaves—our children.
When you have cancer you must surgically remove the infected tissue. Of course it is painful, but the longer you wait the more painful, drastic, and life threatening it becomes. Most of the programs cut in both the last two government shutdowns were not areas of clear constitutional authority as defined in Article I, Section 8, so in time such cuts should become permanent or those areas need to be authorized in the amending process in Article V of the U.S. Constitution.
Usually diets have some benefits in and of themselves. In the case of the shutdowns of 1995 and 1996, both parties benefited: Democrats, under President Bill Clinton, because thereafter he was credited with “the first four consecutive balanced budgets since the 1920’s” and Republicans because they retained control of both houses of Congress largely because of the popularity of their hard line on the budget (Wikipedia).
So, a government shutdown is really only a partial slowdown that may actually be healthy. Let’s call it such in the future so that we don’t frighten the less informed and they overreact?
Sep 25, 2013 | Constitution
By Dr. Harold Pease
In a 230/189 vote the U.S. House of Representative recently voted to fund the government but defund Obamacare. Can it do so constitutionally? Historically throughout the ages, the people have had little freedom from excessive government which became the cause of the American Revolution. Ramses, an Egyptian Pharaoh, made the Israelite slaves gather their own straw in addition to making the bricks. The greatest concerns of the masses have always been excessive taxation and unpopular wars because the first took their hard earned money and the second potentially their lives. Under the Constitution, and for the first time in history, they could prevent either.
Everything hinged upon funding which was given exclusively to the House of Representatives—the only power that they alone had. “All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.” To fund anything, in this case Obamacare, first approval is required by the House of Representatives. If that does not happen taxpayer money cannot be spent. The people, through their representatives to Congress, have determined, after a three-year closer scrutiny of The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare), that it does not protect the patient, is not affordable and is not even workable; hence in the interests of the vast majority of the people needs to be defunded.
Spending can only occur after raising revenue and since only one body is authorized to initiate this, it follows that if they refuse to initiate it the issue ends, regardless of what the Senate chooses to do. Refusal is understood. Neither Senate or Presidential acceptance is necessary as on other bills—the people have spoken. If the House won’t do the necessary first part, second and third parts cannot follow. It might be well to remember that this grant to the House, in Article 7, is a grant of power separate from and preceding Section 8 which itemizes the law making, thus spending, powers of Congress. In this particular instance, raising revenue, the House has clear distinction and is set apart from the Senate. Any other interpretation would undermine, even destroy, the peoples right of approval of taxation—the right not to be excessively taxed. A right no other people in world history has had, as far as I am able to determine—a most precious freedom.
House opposition to funding Obamacare would have been far more powerful if made a “stand alone” bill not attached to general funding, but it is not. “Stand alone,” having no other parts, would have left the Senate no wiggle or compromise room once it went to them, nor would there be for the Joint Conference Committee thereafter that reconciles any differences between the two houses. There would be nothing to reconcile—Obamacare is merely defunded. No expenditures for Obamacare would follow. This course is recommended should the Senate strip defunding language from the bill when they get it. Such action on their part would be a slap in the face of The House of Representatives and they should accept it as such.
One benefit of keeping a defunding bill separate is that the President then could not as easily accuse the republicans of attempting to shut down the government. It would have nothing to do with funding the government. It would be a separate argument, which goes as follows. Not expending money is less likely to shut the government down than over expending which is what the House says the bill contributes to. Presently we are unable to pay our bills to the tune of between 3 to 4 billion dollars a day.
Choosing to defund in the normal budget bill, instead of as a separate bill, is a decidedly weaker approach. They subject themselves to a no vote from the Senate and a promised veto from the President, were it to make it through the Senate. Overriding the veto is not likely. The people lose again and the clarity of the Constitution, that the House alone has origin authority, is lost.
The long-term practice of not specifically raising revenue but instead listing expenditures, then asking for that amount of money, does cloud the issue and does allow the Senate to, in effect, raise revenue otherwise prohibited by clear constitutional language. We should have a separate bill disconnected from the budget, specifically intended to raise revenue. Since the budget bill is seen today as raising revenue we are probably stuck with the practice until some real constitutionalist get into office. If Obamacare expenses are omitted can the Senate, or Joint Conference Committee add them by amendment? Yes, and it will, and that is the problem!! For now it appears that the only hope of the House is to stand firm on the defunding issue in the Joint Conference Committee.
Still, the intent of the Founding Fathers was to give the people, through their House of Representatives, the power collectively to say no to any proposed federal tax, which she is decidedly doing. Members of the Senate should drop their resistance accepting the authority of their sister law making branch lest they play a dominate role in the loss of it by their ignorance of the Constitution. If this check on excessive government is destroyed, we may one day return to forcibly making bricks with straw that we are also forced to gather.
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.
