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.
Jul 9, 2013 | Constitution
You received two articles last week so as to have the one on the Declaration of Independence in a timely manner. There is no new article for today.
Today’s posting is to alert you to the soon to be video series on the Constitution free on LibertyUnderFire.org. We believe it to be the easiest and fastest way to get up to speed on the U.S. Constitution that presently is under the greatest attack in its history. It is the only way back to universal prosperity and liberty. Readers know that we have lost so much the last two decades. It is imperative that all who love liberty become devout constitutionalists first before loyalty to any party. It is that serious. In fact, readers know that I do not use the words conservative or liberal as they are so divisive. Why create your own opposition. Everyone should be a constitutionalist. Those opposed to the Constitution are thus forced to be seen for what they are and opposition to the Constitution is not an equal alternative view. They thus are force to defend themselves not against you but against the one document that everyone serving in any position of leadership is required by oath to pledge loyalty to. You will be notified when they are posted. Dr. Harold Pease
Jul 1, 2013 | Constitution, Liberty Articles, Take Action, Taxes
By Dr. Harold Pease
Should the patriots once again have ability to rewrite the Declaration of Independence what would they say? How might it be different? Many have asked, “Is it time to restate the obvious? We have lost much of our liberty, as they had, from their elected government.”
There is no reason to believe that the committee, headed by Thomas Jefferson, would retract the base for the right of revolution from “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God”—definitely a higher level than mere man. Nor is there any reason to believe that they would retract “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” Nor the right of revolution when all other means are exhausted, as they had, which is so eloquently stated in the remainder of the second paragraph. So we would expect them to retain the means of making revolution—the right to bear arms. The general theme of the last three paragraphs, that “in every stage of these Oppressions we have Petitioned for Redress” and “with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor,” would be retained as well.
What is, however, perplexing is how many of the listed oppressions—the causes of the American Revolution—have returned in our day. Jefferson targeted the King for the oppressions but Parliament, an elected body, was actually responsible for most of them as is Congress in our day. These include: “He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.” This would be our unelected federal bureaucracy today, 2.8 million strong. The $50 million for IRS parties and $70 million for IRS bonuses in 2013 come to mind. We have yet to hire the 16,000 new folks to administer our socialized medicine (Obamacare) programs, yet another enormous swarm “to eat out our substance.” These officers live off the wealth produced by others.
“He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.” Bradley tanks were used against the Branch Davidian Church during the Clinton Administration, and FEMA and the federalized National Guard were used in New Orleans during the hurricane Katrina under George W. Bush. The recently passed National Defense Authorization Act legalizes military kidnapping of American citizens thought by the President and military to be “terrorist” and shipped to Guantanamo Bay and detained without trial indefinitely. Civil power was/is told to be secondary or non-existent in these examples.
“He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Act of pretended Legislation:” The United Nations was created by treaty. It’s law, often “foreign to our constitution” is becoming recognized universal law with authority to supersede national law. The Supreme Court often references UN law to establish constitutionality of U.S. law. A pending case is the UN Small Arms Treaty which opponents of gun control fear will be used to nullify our Second Amendment.
“For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent.” Anytime a president offers money to a foreign country by way of treaty, as did President Jimmy Carter in the Panama Canal Treaty, he is taxing us without our consent. Only the House of Representatives, which is excluded from treaty making, can raise a bill of revenue. When the Senate, which is supposed to approve all treaties, and the President offer money in a treaty it “imposes taxes on us without our consent.” Today presidents offer reams of money to foreign countries without a thought to asking the people first, as required by the Constitution.
“For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury.” The National Defense Authorization Act, signed into law on New Years Eve 2011 by President Barack Obama, potentially removes trial by jury altogether for citizens thought by the president to be terrorists. A term never defined. If a trial is held at all it will be out of the country and in a military court—without the benefit of the Bill of Rights.
“For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences.” Once again the NDAA transports us secretly, unbeknown to our friends and family and potentially without notice to civil authorities, to Cuba for indefinite detention. Nothing that the British did to us in 1776 was more drastic than this.
“For…altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments.” Our government has been moving from a republic to a democracy and now into socialism for many decades led by both major political parties. At least Barack Obama was honest with us when he promised to “fundamentally change” our government if elected.
“For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.” Our legislatures have been suspended when five things, now very common, happen: 1) when Congress usurps the powers of state governments to themselves, 2) when Congress allows an unelected bureaucracy to add sometimes thousands, of new regulations to a new law, 3) when the President makes law by executive order, 4) when the President appoints so-called Czars to administer programs and write new law for areas where the Constitution never gave the federal government any jurisdiction, 5) and when the Supreme Court rules in such a way as to create new law as in Obamacare.
I suppose the “Tories” in our day would argue, as they did then, “But our elected government gave us all these laws” (oppressions), thus it is okay because “we did it to ourselves.” That argument was made then as well but fortunately it did not keep the rest of us, the Patriots, from revolting nonetheless. Let us revolt by our vote to once again remove the returning offending tyranny and oppressions. Please share.
