The Constitution is exceptionally clear on the origin of all taxes. “All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives,” not the Senate (Article I, Sec. 7). When is the House going to protect its powers from the Senate’s intrusive attempts to steal its power? Recently the Senate passed the “Marketplace Fairness Act” by a vote of 69-27, an Internet sales tax, giving states the authority to require on-line retailers, with no physical presence in those states, to collect sales taxes. Americans will pay more taxes with this bill than without. It is a bill for raising revenue and it did not originate in the House as mandated by the Constitution.
To put the Senate in its constitutional place the House should never take this bill up. Instead, if they feel such legislation is needful, they should originate their own bill after which invite the Senate to take a new bill through the committee process and to the floor once again. I might also suggest not doing so for a year or two just to make the message stronger. “You are infringing on our constitutional jurisdiction.” If the Senate will not do so, the House should consider the bill non-existent. Under no circumstances should they accept this bill as appropriate action on the part of their sister law-making body. Retailers, on the other hand, should refuse to pay this tax and challenge it in the courts on the constitutional grounds cited above.
Unfortunately, this is becoming a practice on the part of the U.S. Senate. Yet another infringing piece of legislation has also just passed the Senate Judiciary Committee in a 13-5 vote, the so-called “Gang of Eight” immigration bill, S.744, obviously originating therein. The Heritage Foundation estimates that this bill will cost taxpayers a net $6.3 trillion above what illegals contribute through taxes over the next 50 years providing benefits for millions now living in the United States. There may be debate over the numbers but what is clear is that the bill did not originate in the House of Representatives as constitutionally required and that Americans will pay more taxes with this bill than without it. Therefore it constitutes an unconstitutional tax.
The worst of all such recent intrusive taxes was “The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act,” known as Obamacare, also originated in the Senate, not in the House as constitutionally required. Weeks ago I wrote of the extensive efforts on the part of the Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid, to cover this up following the judicial decree of Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. proclaiming it a tax when the administration had argued otherwise. The establishment media should have been all over this story and was not. Obamacare may be the only revenue-raising bill in American history originated and processed by the Senate alone. Nothing could be more unconstitutional!!
So why does this matter, a tax is a tax? For thousands of years governments taxed their citizens with no limits. Rulers lived lavishly off the wealth extracted from their poor subjects with little or no mercy toward them—lavish physical structures and frivolous wars of conquest were too often the norm. The Founders wisely took this power from the rich and gave it to the poor by requiring that the poor, then the majority, had to consent to any taxation over them. The power to tax is the only constitutional power exclusively given to the masses. The House of Representatives was the only branch of government designed to actually represent them as it is based upon population. The Senate was to represent the states, the people only indirectly.
As far as I know the United States is the first, possibly the only, country in world history that puts its tax base with the masses who pay the taxes. It is a priceless freedom. If we are over-taxed in the United States we have chosen to be so and one body alone is responsible—The House of Representatives. No tax can constitutionally originate with the President or the Supreme Court, (even if Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. says that it is okay), not even the Senate, although it can modify as on other bills once originated by the House. The House is also in charge of spending. We must not let this freedom dwindle or allow the line between the two legislative branches to be blurred into oblivion.
By letting “origin” slide in these three matters, the House looses its clear distinction on the origin of taxes and the people their right of first approval of taxation for generations yet unborn and probably forever. If left unchallenged these three offending bills, one already implemented, severely damage Article I, Section 7 of the Constitution. All involved are under oath to preserve the Constitution. There is nothing in the Constitution more clear than this. Liberty is lost one piece at a time. It is also restored one piece at a time. Pass this around.
On May 31,1913, one hundred years ago this month, the U.S. Constitution was changed by the Seventeenth Amendment nullifying the most essential safeguard and ingredient in our remaining a republic. Although our “Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag” still uses the word republic we, on this date, took a giant step into a democracy from a republic and in doing so initiated the era of purchased U.S. Senators, something the Constitution had protected us from heretofore by having senators chosen by the state legislature rather than by the masses.
Some unfamiliar with our history may not know that the Senate was specifically designed to protect state authority from federal government intrusion and to cool the emotional whims of the peoples’ branch—the House of Representatives. To accomplish this, and to keep this body committed to, and aware of state needs, U.S. Senators were to be elected, not by the people at large, as was the House, but by the state legislatures themselves. All prospective law was to be evaluated from two perspectives, the needs of the populace and the needs of the states. Why else would we need two branches of government essentially doing the same thing—making law? The 17th Amendment reduced law making to but one perspective virtually eliminating the perspective of the states.
We live under two political systems: one primarily national in function, the other primarily domestic. It’s called federalism—the two share power and are equal. Neither was to be subservient to the other and each was to have separate duties. Thomas Jefferson explained it best when he said, “The states are not subordinate to the national government but rather the two are coordinate departments of one single and integral whole…. The one is domestic the other the foreign branch of the same government.” Think of this relationship as an ideal marriage, where neither partner is subservient to the other. Neither feels beneath the other, rather they are a team.
The Senate was specifically charged with ensuring federalism but could only do so if they were not subjected to the popular vote. Again, that essentially ended on May 31, 1913, when the 17th Amendment made the senate popularly elected and responsible solely to the emotion of the masses that tend to vote with their stomachs. Prior to this date each state sent the two, usually from their own members, most qualified and able to defend the interests of their state—not who was best funded, best looking, most charismatic, or worse, promised the most handouts to those less productive. These elections cost nothing and no one argued for term limits. It was not needed.
Today, because of this amendment, U.S. Senators must raise between 5 and 10 million for a successful senate campaign thus they are always campaigning and attention to local constituency is the key to their survival—not attention to their state legislature issues. Moreover, the candidate that spends the most money normally wins. The change allowed the moneyed interests to purchase U.S. senators, not the masses. The masses hardly care. “Indeed only about 60 percent of the general public can name one U. S. senator from their state, and only about 40 percent can name both of their U.S. senators” (Politics in America, Thomas R. Dye, Edition 13, p. 379). Some senators receive large sums from contributors outside their states enabling outsiders to help purchase their senator.
But the biggest obstacle to retaining our republic, and thus our liberty, is that there now exists no body whose principle duty is to keep the federal government harnessed to the powers listed in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution and to protect Amendment 10 of the Bill of Rights that makes it clear that all power not listed remains with the people and the states. Without this body a republic deteriorates into a democracy, which deteriorates further into socialism, which goes into extreme debt because it can’t say no to the expensive whims of the masses. Sound familiar? We must rescind the 17 Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
The New American said it best when it noted, “Today the federal government is involved in everything from our farms to our health and education, along with our sex lives (Viagra is covered by the prescription drug benefit for seniors, and contraception coverage is mandated under ObamaCare) and preschool programs for toddlers” (The April 1, 2013, p.39). Constitutionally all of this falls within state prerogative without a constitutional amendment authorizing the federal government to have these specific powers. If senators represented their states, as designed, they would have prevented this federal intrusion and the high taxes that come with it and we would be a much freer people. Moreover, the era of purchased U.S. senators would never have become the practice.
I have noticed a major difference in the level of performance of our incoming college freshman in the social science area the past ten years. Contributing factors are varied and probably include: the breakdown of the family, parents do not read as much to their children as once they did, illegal immigrants without adequate English skills fill our classrooms and teachers are forced to teach to the lowest common denominator, and etc. Apathy and indifference have replaced drive and incentive. Some students remind me that a letter grade of D in a course still stands for “degree.”
One major influence has been the George W. Bush, “No Child Left Behind” (NCLB) educational program that essentially left all children behind—by two to three years. I am told that about 85% of our students enter college under-prepared. As a college professor I cannot assume that the vast majority of my students know the basics of U.S. History or government and quite frankly the gap to bridge for many may be too much. I asked John Kopp, a high school history instructor, to describe how this government program worked in the trenches.
“When NCLB was released in 2001 it radically changed how we educated our students,” he responded, “but it didn’t happen overnight.” Before NCLB, he added, “high school teachers were expected to follow a general guideline called ‘The Framework.’ This listed the basic topics that should be covered at each grade level in each subject. Teachers were encouraged to use a variety of methods to evaluate learning and achievement—none were required. Each school district was given the freedom to teach their children in a way that worked best for them—with materials and assessments of their own choosing.”
“This all changed after NCLB was released,” he said. If billions of federal dollars were going to be used for education the government wanted to affect that expenditure; this, despite the fact that the Founders left no role for the federal government in education because of its too chummy proximity to propaganda. When does education become propaganda? Constitutionally, education was left entirely to the states and lesser governments as per Amendment 10. Nevertheless, the government’s “pied piper” promise of better schools and more funding was powerful. This would help us catch up to Asian and European students; teachers were told, with the side benefit that “no child would be left behind.”
Very soon the administration, Kopp continued, “recognized the political fallout from low test scores and so pressure was applied to change how we teach. Experts were brought in to transform how we teach so that students could improve their learning and we were told that this would result in higher test scores. We were not being taught—yet—to teach to the test.”
“We were trained to use the STAR test as the starting point for how to prepare lessons for a class. We were to ‘backward-map’ our classes beginning with the test. We were given a list of ‘standards’ that became the Bible in our classes. Students were to be evaluated on how they were progressing on the state standards and we were strongly encouraged to use questions from the state of CA that were on previous STAR tests — these were called released questions. They became the cornerstone of our preparation tool. We drilled students using these questions believing that it would improve their test scores. Textbooks were all written based on these new standards. We only purchased textbooks in the core areas (math, science, English and social science) that were ‘standards-aligned’.” Still, the scores did not rise as promised.
“After a few years of average test scores we were required to create new lesson plans that would culminate in a ‘benchmark test.’ This test—given every few weeks—would be “standards-aligned” and would directly prepare students for the STAR Test. Teachers were then required to ‘scan’ their student responses into a computer program so that the administration could compile data about how students were doing on these benchmark exams so that they could see whether adequate progress was being made in anticipation of the STAR being given.” Those not achieving “a certain level of success on the test would have to go through mandated remediation.” Scores still did not improve. Unfortunately creativity, love of learning, and motivation were early fatalities.
Mr. Kopp continued, “All student field trips were required to be justified using the state standards—we were asked which standards this trip met. Trips that took students out of the classroom were discouraged—kids needed to be in their classes to meet their benchmark scores to prepare for the STAR. Field trips were to be taken after school or weekends if at all possible.”
What was initially not mandated became so. “Teacher evaluations were changed to include a teacher’s compliance with the benchmark process and the data collection requirement. Every teacher would give the district-approved benchmark and agree to meet together to assess the data. Teachers were not assigned to classes by what they taught best or enjoyed teaching, but how they could help the school reach its API (adequate performance index)—this is the score that would be used by the state and federal government to determine whether growth had occurred.”
Despite the government’s much expanded role in the classroom, we still have fantastic and gifted grade and high school teachers, Mr. John Kopp is one of them, but when they are robbed of their incentive and unique creativity in presenting what they know, their motivation wanes and their love of learning is less likely to be passed on to the student. When excitement for learning or teaching is a victim both students and teachers may tend to just put in their time. No wonder incoming college freshmen are so far behind with little motivation to catch up. Administrators and districts that “bought” into this program for the “free” money and false promises get a failing grade for this one.
By now most have heard of MSNBC host Melissa Harris-Perry’s recorded commercial in which she stated that children do not belong to their parents, but are instead the responsibility of the members of their community. She said, “We have never invested as much in public education as we should have because we’ve always had kind of a private notion of children. Your kid is yours and totally your responsibility. We haven’t had a very collective notion of these as our children.” Her solution, “we have to break through our kind of private idea that kids belong to their parents, or kids belong to their families, and recognize that kids belong to whole communities.”
She is expressing what is a common underlying belief in the socialist world; government should raise and educate the children. Most who espouse this philosophy seek an expanded role for the central government. When this notion is openly expressed, as she did, a nation is in the advanced stages of socialism.
In 1975 the book, From Under The Rubble, authored by a variety of Soviet dissidents, all but one of whom were still living in the USSR, was published in the West. The participants were fully aware that their commentary on the socialist system, smuggled to the “Free World,” would undoubtedly unleash the wrath of the Soviet Bear and result in imprisonment, torture, and possibly death for them. Nonetheless, they felt that the West could avoid the loss of freedom that they experienced if only it were warned.
Igor Shafarevich, a corresponding member of the Soviet Academy of Sciences and former Laureate of the Lenin Prize, attempted, in his chapter of the book, “Socialism in Our Past and Future,” to tell the West what socialism eventually worked out to be in practice. This is, of course, after any significant means of resistance had been removed by gun control. A tyrannical government cannot tolerate a population that can resist it. They must have a monopoly on force.
Socialism, wrote Shafarevich, resulted in complete control of private property, which was defined as anything that existed including one’s own family and person. This included subordination of the individual to the power of the bureaucracy and state control of everyday life. For the USSR socialism meant the destruction of the family as the basic institution of society and the rearing of children away from their parents in state schools or daycare centers.
The word education, or anything like unto it, is not in the U.S. Constitution and therefore, as per Amendment 10, is a state, county, city, or parental responsibility. The word education is too close to the word propaganda to allow the central government to have any role in it. Even Plato questioned the attributes of a “proper” education. A “proper education” for Richard Nixon would have excluded Watergate; for Bill Clinton that the Branch Davidians set themselves on fire, for George W. Bush, that we invaded Iraq because they were involved in 9 11, and for Barack Obama the exclusion of Benghazi and Fast and Furious fiascos. This is why the Founding Fathers gave the federal government no influence over education. Today Joseph Stalin is the second most famous person in Russia because a “proper” education there excludes any reference to his millions of mass murders. The hand that rocks the cradle, or decides what a “proper” education is, rules the world and in a free society that hand can never be the government.
No, Ms. Harris-Perry, the federal government should have no public investment in education. Johnny’s mother cares more whether he or his friends can read than any bureaucrat in Washington D. C. That is why we place her on the local school board. Families and parents best foster creativity, incentive and love of learning. Certainly many parents fail to provide the model that they should and that is why grandparents and relatives, sometimes friends, step in.
Your endless bureaucratic programs and central planning pale in comparison to what can be achieved at the local level under freedom. George W. Bush’s “No Child Left Behind” left all children behind as will Barack Obama’s “Race to the Top” program. Socialism has never produced the scientists and great minds that freedom has and never will. Our children are not government property.
View video of Melissa Harris-Perry remarks: http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2013/04/09/critics-slam-msnbc-hosts-claim-that-kids-belong-to-community-not-parents/#ixzz2RtvSf0SZ
It is hard to believe that twenty years ago this month, April 19, 1993, virtually everyone in America, and perhaps the world as well, watched a group of religious “nuts” cremated in a fiery furnace. “They deserved it because they were a cult,” the media inferred, had held off the ATF and later the FBI for 51 days, and were guilty of child abuse, polygamy, and gun running. It was also suggested that they set themselves on fire.
Most of the charges proved baseless. Those actually convicted of a crime, although first exonerated by Texas courts, were found guilty under federal law for manslaughter (ten years) and for using a firearm during a crime (30 years). The crime, the Branch Davidians attest, was self-defense and 40 year sentences seemed excessive. There still exists no evidence that an actual warrant was ever delivered and today each insists that the other fired first. In either case, four ATF officers and six Davidians were killed in the initial shootout on February 28, 1993.
I thought it fitting to review the numerous news broadcasts of the event that I collected and used in the production of The Waco Massacre: We did it for the Children, which can be viewed on YouTube, for those who have forgotten and for those born since—lest we forget. The most impartial coverage at the time came from Dianne Sawyer from which a number of the quotes in this piece came. The vast majority of the news people simply regurgitated what the FBI said was so. Reporters were kept five miles away. The FBI briefed newsmen once a day in a special building set aside for that purpose and they “clone like” repeated the government message.
The most thorough investigation is that of the 1997 Academy-award nominee, Waco: The Rules of Engagement, a Congressional investigation, now available on video. It disclosed two key parts to the story: the presence of government incendiary devises on the site casting doubt that the Branch Davidians set themselves on fire as reported, and the effects of CS gas on those inside, especially one little girl whose charred body revealed her heels touching the back of her head. CS gas causes the muscles to constrict. This is not as serious when the individual is bent forward as the body is made to bend this direction but when the body is ever so slightly bent backward, as with the girl, it breaks bones in the constriction. Presumably CS gas had been banned for military use.
Other videos initially show tanks running over bicycles, cars and boats then later poking holes into the side of the wooden structure. Any jarring of a wood framed structure seals the doors inside and makes movement difficult even impossible if doors are closed. The Davidians may not have been able to escape the fire. At one point a video shows an Abrams tank being brought in. Dianne Sawyer refers to it as “the heaviest tank in the armies arsenal.” Films also show helicopters flying overhead day and night. Dick DeGuerin, David Koresh’s attorney, who spent at least 30 hours with David, talks on tape about bullet holes in the ceiling presumably from helicopters above indiscriminately shooting and of his having examined a wound to the upper part of the body of Mr. Koresh received while he was lying down. Videos exist of other armored vehicles on site as well.
Other reports spoke of the sound of rabbits being slaughtered, loud music blasted all night with speakers aimed at their living quarters. The most intimidating song played repeatedly was, “These boots are made for walking,” sung by Nancy Sinatra. The lyrics have an ire prophetic feel to them considering what eventually happened. They follow: “These boots are made for walking, and that’s just what they’ll do. One of these days these boots are gonna walk all over you. You keep playin’ where you shouldn’t be playin and you keep thinkin’ that you´ll never get burnt. Ha! I just found me a brand new box of matches yeah and what he knows you ain’t had time to learn. These boots are made for walking, and that’s just what they’ll do. One of these days these boots are gonna walk all over you.” Surely the federal government and the Bill Clinton Administration have much still to explain.
But the toughest images are those of the survivors. One survivor, Ruth Riddle, said later, “I remember sitting in my room watching the tanks go through the building. They kept saying, ‘This is not an assault… But how could it be otherwise’.” She also described the last moments. “The fire got so hot. It was coming down the hallway. It was outside the windows. It got so close and got so hot… And so I jumped. When I was looking back. I heard someone say. Where is everybody? Where are the children? What can I say? The building was burning where everybody was.”
Another survivor said, “The wall next to me caught on fire. Then I leaped out the side of the window. Looking back, seeing the place on fire, I saw someone fall out a window, on fire.”
People in their last moments would gather as a family. One family of seven members was gathered where they were all touching each other as they finally fell into a clump. Dianne Sawyer spoke of “thirty-one mothers and all the children huddled shoulder to shoulder in the fierce heat covered with wet blankets.”
One of the most moving films showed a tank poking holes in their home but in the same picture the U.S. flag on a pole in front waved in the breeze. That flag remained waving long after the structure was smoldering rubble on the ground and all eighty in the building, including at least 17 little children, had been burned alive. In this case the stars and strips did not protect this church, nor its inhabitants of children and families. We must never forget. Another photo, not far from the flag showed the mailbox out front. It read, Branch Davidian Church, Box 471B. The Constitution, and flag, should be for all, even the “nuts.” In this case, it, and the search warrant, appears to be missing.
Dr. Harold Pease is an expert on the United States Constitution. He has dedicated his career to studying the writings of the Founding Fathers and applying that knowledge to current events. He has taught history and political science from this perspective for over 25 years at Taft College. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.
Many may not be familiar with Article I, Section 7 of the U. S. Constitution that requires that “all bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives.” This means that any law, which extracts money from the American people, can only come from the House. The problem is The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, known as Obamacare, originated in the U.S. Senate not in the House as constitutionally required. The Pacific Legal Foundation, a Sacramento, California based foundation, is pursuing the matter before the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
So why does this matter, a tax is a tax? For thousands of years governments taxed their citizens with no limits. Rulers lived lavishly off the wealth extracted from their poor subjects with little or no mercy toward them—lavish physical structures and frivolous wars of conquest were too often the norm. The Founders wisely took this power from the rich and gave it to the poor themselves by requiring that the poor, then the majority, had to consent to any taxation over them. The power to tax is the only constitutional power exclusively given to the masses. The House of Representatives was the only branch of government designed to actually represent them as it is based upon population. The Senate was to represent the states, the people only indirectly.
As far as I know the United States is the first, possibly the only, country in world history that puts its tax base with the masses who pay the taxes. It is a priceless freedom. If we are over-taxed in the United States we have chosen to be and one body alone is responsible—The House of Representatives. No tax can constitutionally originate with the President or the Supreme Court, (even if Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. says that it is okay), not even the Senate, although it can modify as on other bills once originated by the House. The House is also in charge of spending. We must not let this freedom dwindle or allow the line between the two legislative branches to be blurred into oblivion.
In the Supreme Court’s decision of June 2012, it took great pains to establish that Obamacare is not a law passed under the Commerce Clause; this is a tax they ruled. Whether a fine, as the Administration argued throughout the case, or a tax as Roberts insisted, it is an extraction of money from the masses and therefore a tax and therefore must originate from the House, not the Senate. The philosophical switch created by Roberts made the constitutional error far more glaring. By letting origin slide the House looses its clear distinction on the origin of taxes and the people their right of first approval of taxation for generations yet unborn and probably forever.
What is worse it smacks of a sloppy cover-up by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. Now that the Supreme Court made healthcare constitutional by deeming it a tax, it mandated a House of Representative origin rather than the Senate. A House version HR 3200 was available but Reid did not like it favoring his own HR 3962, The Patient Protection and Affordable Health Choices Act. Prior to the Supreme Courts tax ruling the tax was called a fine, not a tax, so he reasoned that it did not make any difference which legislative body originated the fine. The ruling necessitated resurrecting a bill that had passed the House first but had not been acted upon in the Senate, the Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009 HR 3590, deleting its contents and pasting in the contents of the Senates bill HR 3962.
The Home Ownership Tax Act was a tax providing a first time home buyer’s credit to members of the Armed Services, never mind that it had nothing to do with healthcare and now, after being deleted leaving only the empty shell, had nothing to do with the Armed Services or home buying either. The only thing that Reid kept was the original date, September 17, 2009, which now deceptively confirmed that it preceded Senate action. Accomplices to Reid were the original authors of the deleted bill: Congressman Charlie Rangel of NY, and Senator Clare McCaskill of MO. This is the kind of morphing that reeks of illegitimacy and fraudulency (“Lawsuit to test Origination clause,” The Washington Times, April 8, 2013, p. 12. See Also www.Patriot Guardian.org).
What is even worse. If Reid had indeed simply pasted in his own bill into the dead Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act, as believed, this tax bill HR 3962, the one that became Obamacare, has never actually been before the House of Representatives, the only body actually authorized to originate a tax. Obamacare may be the only revenue-raising bill in American history originated, processed, and implemented by the Senate alone. Nothing could be more unconstitutional!!
If left unchallenged Obamacare severely damages Article I, Section 7 of the Constitution. As an accomplice, the Senate is unlikely to sympathize but you should find a friend in your Congressperson and governor. Each should have a vested interest in this power shift. Contact them with your own summation of the problem or send them a copy of this article.
Dr. Harold Pease is an expert on the United States Constitution. He has dedicated his career to studying the writings of the Founding Fathers and applying that knowledge to current events. He has taught history and political science from this perspective for over 25 years at Taft College. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.
