Feb 20, 2013 | Constitution, Economy
Dr. Harold Pease
It is the normal course of things to read in both houses of Congress every February, somewhere near his birthday of February 22, President George Washington’s Farewell Address. Until the last two decades it has always been seen as a guidepost for the future, and reverenced as such. It was given, in fact, for this very purpose just prior to his leaving the presidency. In it he warned posterity of possible pitfalls that could undermine or destroy this great experiment in liberty. His warnings may be more timely 217 years later as we near his birthday February 22. Although read, we have not adhered to it for at least the last four presidents.
In strong terms Washington asked that we avoid debt. He said: “As a very important source of strength and security cherish public credit… use it as sparingly as possible, avoiding occasion of expense… [Use the] time of peace, to discharge the debts which unavoidable wars may have occasioned, not ungenerously throwing upon posterity the burden which we ourselves ought to bear.”
Today our national debt sits at over $16.5 trillion—the highest in our history—increased by about four billion a day. To put this in perspective if we laid dollar bills on top of each other a trillion dollars would take us upward 68,000 miles into the sky—a third of the way to the moon. Three trillion would take us all the way. Sixteen and a half trillion dollars stacked on top of one another would take us to the moon and back twice, then to the moon and half the way back. Obviously today neither party has taken Washington’s advice. Presently the debt per taxpayer is $146,193. We are spending our way into oblivion (See USDebtClock.org).
Washington pleaded with the nation to keep religion and morality strong. He said: “Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports…. Let it simply be asked, where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice? Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.” The Founding Fathers never supported the notion of separation of religion and government—only the separation of an organization of religion from government. What would Washington say of the immorality that prevails today?
Our first president also had advice with respect to how we should deal with foreign nations. He advised that our commercial policy “should hold an equal and impartial hand; neither seeking nor granting exclusive favors or preferences…diffusing and diversifying by gentle means the streams of commerce but forcing nothing.” This is a far cry from the bullying tactics we’ve too often employed the last 100 years. Today we have troops in 32 nations in over 1200 military bases.
But the warning about foreign aid was especially good. He basically told us that gift giving in foreign affairs is a good way to be universally hated. He said it placed us “in the condition of having given equivalents for nominal favors, and yet of being reproached with ingratitude for not giving more.” Today there is hardly a nation in the world that does not have its hand out and when, after once giving, the amount is reduce or terminated we are hated all the more for it. Even potential enemies line up for favors. The Muslim Brotherhood state of Egypt received 1.8 billion dollars last year in foreign aid and is to receive, in addition, sixteen F-16 fighter jets and 200 Abrams tanks this year. Israel is their only likely target.
He warned against the origin of “combinations and associations” whose intent was to suppress the desires of the majority in favor of the minority. He called them artificial power factions. We call them special interest groups. What would he say upon learning that a third of the cabinet of every president since Herbert Hoover belonged to the semi-secret Council on Foreign Relations as does either the President or Vice President of every administration including Barack Obama’s?
Such factions, he said, “May answer popular ends and become potent engines by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government….” The antidote for this, Washington explained, was “to resist with care the spirit of innovation” upon basic constitutional principles or premises no matter how flowery, appealing or “specious the pretext.”
Washington worried about posterity not holding their elected officials strictly to the limits imposed by the Constitution. He knew many would seek to undermine that document by twisting it to gain power they could not acquire without the distortion. Sound familiar? He said: “But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed.” Today much of what the federal government does is not even mentioned in the Constitution and therefore, as interpreted for most of 200 years, unconstitutional.
But freedom fighters are not likely to be popular, he said: “Real patriots, who may resist the intrigues of the favorite, are liable to become suspected and odious; while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interests.” One need not look far for the “tools and dupes,” they seem to be everywhere and in both major political parties.
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
Feb 14, 2013 | Constitution, Economy
By Dr. Harold Pease
In President Barack Obama’s 5th State of the Union address he did not offer a single cut, but did ask Congress to do many things, most of which are very expensive. They include: raising the minimum wage to $9.00 per hour, finding a way to provided full-time employment for all who wish it, cutting red tap on new oil and gas permits, and working with Congress on “research and technology” in the energy area. He wants to “cut in half the energy wasted by our homes and businesses.” He wants high-speed rail, high-tech schools and self-healing power grids. His “Fix-It-First program” puts people back to work on 70,000 structurally deficient bridges across the country.” We also need modern ports, modern pipelines, and modern schools. Most of these programs require vast funding from the taxpayer.
His program would allow homeowners to refinance at today’s rates. He would help finance manufacturing, energy, infrastructure, and housing. Make the preschool program “available to every child in America.” He invites a federal governmental roll in “boosting graduation rates, reducing teen pregnancy, even reducing violent crime.” The government should “reward schools that develop new partnerships with colleges and employers, and create classes that focus on science, technology, engineering, and math.” Colleges, he said, “must do their part to keep costs down, and it is our job to make sure they do.” These imply vast subsidies and vastly more regulations. He would offer companies incentives to hire those who were difficult to hire. He spoke of “rebuilding vacant homes in run-down neighborhoods” and of partnering “with 20 of the hardest-hit towns in America,” presumably to rebuild them with tax-payer money. And he wanted more Internet control. To pay for these budget-busting programs he offered only closing tax loopholes and again taxing the rich.
Most pundits will note how expensive the above would be, especially when we are $16.5 trillion in debt (approximately $6 trillion from Barack Obama alone) and adding to this $4 billion each day. Someone has to ask the question, “Are we intentionally attempting to bankrupt this country?” Or, they might write about the vast expansion of federal control over our lives, that will never be returned, and the resultant loss of liberty.
Because few read the Constitution anymore, they may not notice that not a single one of these expensive power-grabbing and bankruptcy-leading measures meet the list requirement in Article I, Section 8. Nor have any of the power increases been presented to the states for the required 3/4th ratification to become federal powers, as required by Article V. All power areas not listed, nor added by way of amendment, belong to the states as per Amendment 10, otherwise, in time, we will not need state government, as all power will emanate from our “all-knowing” and “all-powerful” federal government.
But even more frightening is the expansion of presidential power and the ineptitude of Congress with respect to defending itself because of its worshipful allegiance to party rather than to the Constitution they swore to uphold. Obama announced the launch of three more “manufacturing hubs” to guarantee, “the next revolution in manufacturing is Made in America.” And requested Congress to create an additional 15 such hubs. What these are, and more precisely what they do, was not given. Nor was it given that while he created the first three, why he now needed Congress to create another 15. And, if Congress won’t will he then do so himself?
On climate change he “urged” movement from Congress then threatened them if it did not happen. “But if Congress won’t act soon… I will. I will direct my Cabinet to come up with executive actions we can take, now and in the future.” He then identified three areas where his, presumably executive orders, would follow: “to reduce pollution, prepare our communities for the consequences of climate change, and speed the transition to more sustainable sources of energy.”
His threats are real. Unhappy that Congress had not already moved on gun control last month, as he wished, he created and signed 23 executive orders enlarging his power in this area. The Constitution gives the federal government no authority in this area and the words used in the 2nd Amendment are “shall not be infringed.” Congress alone has all law making powers outside the veto. The President has zero power to make law. Last summer he nullified existing law on immigration by executive order which violation of the Constitution is even more serious.
Internet control was also hinted at in the State of the Union Address. He said, “I signed a new executive order that will strengthen our cyber defenses by increasing information sharing, and developing standards to protect our national security, our jobs, and our privacy.” Three vastly enlarged areas of government control that have never been presented to the Congress or the States. How do executive orders differ from monarchical decrees?
As with Congress the president’s powers are also listed, Article II, Sections 2-3, and not a single one of the powers that he is bestowing upon himself exists in the Constitution. All powers not listed, or added by way of amendment, belong to the states and the people as per Amendment 10.
Obama is a great orator but is he good enough to talk us into bankruptcy and out of liberty? For many yes! In Star Wars III the people clapped when they lost their liberty. Are we doing the same?
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.
Feb 11, 2013 | Constitution
By Dr. Harold Pease
“We Are All Socialists Now” said the front cover of Newsweek, Feb. 16, 2009, exactly four years ago. Editors Jon Meacham and Evan Thomas wrote, “Whether we want to admit it or not, the America of 2009 is moving toward a modern European state,” toward socialism, they observed, “even before Barack Obama’s largest fiscal bill in our history.” The magazine had a red hand (republican) shaking a blue hand (democrat) in favor of socialism. Both parties accepted the “growing role of government in the economy,” they observed. “The U.S. government has already—under a conservative Republican administration—effectively nationalized the banking and mortgage industries.” Moreover, “it was, again, under a conservative GOP administration that we enacted the largest expansion of the welfare state in 30 years: prescription drugs for the elderly.” The “sooner we understand where we truly stand, the sooner we can think more clearly about how to use government in today’s world,” they noted.
If the “growing role in government” is how Newsweek measures socialism, four years later we are even more socialist than they supposed. In this time period the federal government obtained a controlling interest in General Motors, absorbed 1/7th of the economy under Obamacare, and expanded the power of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to oversee most homes in America. This land expansion was in addition to their ownership of a third of all the landmass in the United States known as federal land. This does not count the controlling influence over all businesses by the eighty thousand new pages of bureaucratic rules and regulations descending upon businesses annually that effectively manage most everything else.
Clearly we are replacing our Constitutional Republic, which emphasizes limited government and individual freedom, and Newsweek tells us that we are just beginning. In light of their honesty it might behoove us to understand where socialist might be taking us by noting where socialism has gone before.
In 1975 the book, “From Under the Ruble,” 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 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 “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 moved by gun control. That is the first thing that goes in any tyrannical government. He found the economic definition of socialism incomplete.
In practice socialism resulted in the meaningful governmental control of the means of production and distribution. In the U.S. this is done through thousands of rules and regulations on virtually every activity.
Socialism resulted in complete control of private property. Property 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. Try doing anything in our society today without first asking permission of the government. Sexual promiscuity is first tolerated, even encourage, but ultimately procreation on a selective and supervised basis follows. So far we have not lost the right of partner choice, nor did they in China, another socialist paradise, but their birth number is regulated to but one child.
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. Marriage as an acceptable practice was also minimized.
One of the most defining characteristics of all profoundly socialist countries was the government’s extreme hatred of religion and their commitment to its ultimate destruction. Today’s Progressives in the U.S. have a distance to go to accomplish this, but the value or necessity of organized religion is undermined.
The destruction of the hierarchy into which society has arranged itself was yet another characteristic under which Shafarevich lived. The idea of equality to a socialist had a special character. It meant the negation of the existence of any genuine differences between individuals: “equality” was turned into “equivalence.” Socialism aims to establish equality by the opposite means of destroying all the higher aspects of the personality. Turning “equality” into “equivalence” is progressing nicely in this country as well.
Newsweek’s invitation to “think more clearly about how to use government in today’s world” should dissuade us from going there at all. Why would anyone want to embrace a system that ended all semblances of freedom and which, for them, self destructed in 1989? At least in the USSR they would have been happy to trade their socialism for our freedom. Are we smart enough to listen to them?
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.
Feb 2, 2013 | Constitution
By Dr. Harold Pease
No one needs a military styled assault weapon for personal protection or hunting. Some wonder why we can’t let this part of the 2nd Amendment go?
Many may not remember their basic U.S. History courses and a little review might help us understand why the Second Amendment exists in the first place. Certainly, when enacted, their was no thought of restricting type of firearm, or where, or who could carry. So its placement as the second most valued freedom in the Bill of Rights had nothing to do with personal safety, or even hunting, these were already assumed. It was specifically placed right after freedom of religion, speech, press and assembly to make certain that these freedoms were never taken from us. It was aimed (if I may use this word in this context) squarely at the government. But certainly we need have no fear of the government today?
To understand it more fully one must remember that the early patriots did not ask the existing British government if they could revolt against them. They argued in The Declaration of Independence, that they were “endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” coming from a much higher source than mere man and that “whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government.” God is referenced five times in this document and thus, they believed, He sanctioned their rebellion. They were expected to suffer evils while sufferable, “but when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariable the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.”
The right of revolution requires the means of revolution and this is why the Second Amendment exists. Normally the ballot box is the only self-correction that is needed but they had no intention of giving up the same right that they exercised to give us freedom in the first place. Nor were they pious enough to assume that their correction would stay in place and that future generations would never need the more serious self-correction as they had.
The wordage of the 2nd Amendment was stronger than any other sentence in the Constitution. “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” They saw this right as being connected with a free country and specifically forbade the federal government any authority with respect to it because historically it was always a government that took away liberty.
An armed populace had twice proved their value to liberty in the Revolutionary War. Many do not remember why Lexington and Concord were so important. The Americans learned that the British planned to go door to door to confiscate their firearms so they gathered and hid them in these two villages. Now the British night gun raid, and Paul Revere’s desperate midnight ride warning the Americans en-route, make sense. The Battle of Saratoga preventing the conquest of the northeast by General Johnny Burgoyne was stopped, not by the military, but by angry farmers with their own military styled assault rifles. This American victory encouraged other countries, notably France, to come into the war on our side. It is doubtful that we would have won the war without an armed citizenry.
The Founders’ attitude regarding guns—even military issue— was clear. Thomas Jefferson wrote: “No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” And George Washington said: “A free people ought not only to be armed,” but also, “they should promote such manufacturies [sic] as tend to remind them independent of others for essential, particularly military, supplies” (Gun Control, Freemen Report, May 31,1975, p. 1).
Five monumental things frightened many Americans in 2012 alone, beginning with the Presidents signing of the National Defense Authorization Act, which enabled him to kidnap and send to Guantanamo Bay for indefinite detention anyone he identified as a terrorist. This was followed by the “Media Monitoring Initiative” where the federal government gave itself permission to “gather, store, analyze, and disseminate” data on millions of users of social media, primarily Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube. In March we saw and heard Joint Chief of Staff Chairman General Martin Dempsey and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, each, in testimony given to the Senate Armed Services Committee, inferred that the authority that they depended upon for military purposes came not from Congress, as required in the U.S. Constitution, but from unelected UN or NATO authorities. Also, on March 16, President Barack Obama issued his National Defense Resources Preparedness Executive Order authorizing the Executive department to take-over, in case of a national emergency, all civil transportation, including the “movement of persons and property by all modes of transportation … within the United States.” In June, frustrated by his inability to get through Congress a law on immigration he favored, and tired of making law the constitutional way, President Barack Obama, openly defied Congress and the Constitution on June 16, 2012, by ordering a like measure to that previously defeated, implemented anyway.
There has been a slogan for many years that runs like this. “I love my country but I fear my government.” Many Americans have come to believe that the real reason that the federal government wants assault weapons banned has less to do with the 16-year-old gunman in Sandy Hook Elementary, and more to do with disarming America so that it cannot resist tyranny. Given the unconstitutional antics noted above perhaps we should hang on to the 2nd Amendment in tact for the time being?
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.
Jan 25, 2013 | Constitution, Take Action
By Dr. Harold Pease
Finally, an organization is protecting the Constitution and it is not the House of Representatives, U. S. Senate, U.S. President, the U. S. Supreme Court, or the States, as should be the case. It is the least likely of all those who swear by oath, upon condition of taking office, to preserve it—the Sheriffs’ Departments in county after county and growing. Sheriff Tim Mueller of Linn County, Oregon was the first with his January 14th directive to all sheriffs in his county that they would not be enforcing any law that violated the 2nd Amendment. Two days latter the New Mexico Sheriffs Association, with 30 of their 33 county sheriffs, next stood with “we also will protect the Second Amendment from the federal governments recent assault on it.” Then, the next day, 28 of 29 counties in Utah under the signature of the Utah Sheriffs’ Association informed the President that they will protect the 2nd Amendment for their people even with their lives—even from the federal government. In California 13 county sheriffs have made similar pledges.
The straw that broke the camels back for the county sheriffs was President Barack Obama’s signing some 23 executive orders on January 16, further restricting the rights of gun owners. The Utah backlash followed the next day. Sheriffs are the only elected law enforcement body in the United States and they understand that Congress has sole authority to make law, that law must originate with and be approved by both the House and Senate, and that the only power that belongs to the President is suggestion, through his state of the union address, and his veto, which can be overridden. The Utah sheriffs reminded the President that, “It is imperative this discussion be had in Congress, not silenced unilaterally by executive orders” and advised that he remember, “that the Founders of this great nation created the Constitution, and its accompanying Bill of Rights, in an effort to protect citizens from all forms of tyrannical subjugation.”
Some 535 individuals make all the law on the federal level, not just a single person as was the case with kings and is the case with dictators today. All executive orders that have the effect of making law are unconstitutional; the President has no authority to make law. Doing so reduces the relevancy of the Congress and is a form of tyranny. Moreover, it is well to remember that a law cannot undo an amendment to the Constitution—only another amendment and that requires the support of 3/4ths of the states, so Congress is restricted also.
The Utah Sheriffs letter said in part, “With the number of mass shootings America has endured, it is easy to demonize firearms; it is also foolish and prejudiced. Firearms are nothing more than instruments, valuable and potentially dangerous, but instruments nonetheless. Malevolent souls, like the criminals who commit mass murders, will always exploit valuable instruments in the pursuit of evil. As professional peace officers, if we understand nothing else, we understand this: lawful violence must sometimes be employed to deter and stop criminal violence. Consequently, the citizenry must continue its ability to keep and bear arms, including arms that adequately protect them from all types of illegality.” This inference also includes the government.
The letter ended aimed directly at the President. “We respect the Office of the President of the United States of America. But, make no mistake, as the duly-elected sheriffs of our respective counties, we will enforce the rights guaranteed to our citizens by the Constitution. No federal official will be permitted to descend upon our constituents and take from them what the Bill of Rights—in particular Amendment II—has given them. We, like you, swore a solemn oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, and we are prepared to trade our lives for the preservation of its traditional interpretation.”
Finally, we have a body that understands the Constitution, honors its oath, and is prepared to defend it—even against the federal government. Look for other counties all over the United States to follow. Is your sheriff, who took the same oath, willing to defend you? Why not ask him? Send him a copy of this letter. In light of the National Defense Authorization Act signed into law by the President December 31, 2011, which authorizes the arrest of U. S. citizens on U.S. soil by the military and their shipment to Guantanamo Bay, where they can be held indefinitely without trial, you might wish to have the support of your county sheriff.
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.
Jan 22, 2013 | Constitution
By Dr. Harold Pease
Forget Democrats! Forget Republicans and Liberals and Conservatives!! These are labels to cause someone else to do your thinking for you. This is about the Constitution that all elected officials, when elected, swore to uphold. This is not even about guns but about following the Constitution until authentically changed by amendment. This issue is so serious that it is a certain litmus test to political parties and individuals differentiating those who respect this document from those who do not!
The Second Amendment could not be made clearer: “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” Militia in their day consistently referred to the people. I have read every version of this sentence as it was formulated, principally by James Madison, as the second most important freedom next to the expression freedoms of the 1st Amendment. The Bill of Rights was arranged in order of preference with the exception of Amendments 9 and 10 as they dealt with the concept of general powers retained by the people and those reserved to the states, not specific freedoms as are Amendments 1-8. It is important because it protects the 1st Amendment.
I too weep for the children at Newtown, Columbine, Virginia Tech, and now my own city of Taft, California, where I too was “locked down” while police resolved the gun violence of a 16-year-old student with a shotgun in the classroom. Last summer I had a three-year-old grandson die from an accidental gunshot to the head but these losses cannot, and need not, be resolved by violating the Constitution.
Mr. President, neither Congress, nor you, has any authority to do anything on “the right to bear arms” outside of changing the Constitution by an amendment. It is well to remember that the 2nd Amendment exists because the states would not support the new Constitution without a guarantee that you would never deprive their citizens of their right to bear arms. The language was as strong as they knew how to make it. No sentence in the Constitution was stronger. The amendment was specifically addressed with the federal government in mind. What is it that you do not understand about “shall not be infringed?” Congress, you may not legislate the 2nd Amendment away by giving authorization to some types of weapons over others or approving some types of ammunition and denying others. Nor may the President go into the Oval Office and unilaterally make an executive order limiting or denying these things as Congress alone is constitutionally empowered to make law (Art. I, Sec. I). Your making law should be an impeachable offense. Unfortunately, Congress is too weak to stop the Executive Branch from usurping its authority and that of the people—even that specifically denied them as in this case.
I know of the bogus argument that the 2nd Amendment applies only to the National Guard but anyone reading anything on the subject by the Founding Fathers knows otherwise. The militia was defined in the Second Continental Congress as every able bodied male 17 years of age and older—the citizens. The National Guard was created in 1903 by the Dick Act, which divided the militia into the organized and unorganized militia with the definition retained for the unorganized. I have taught the Constitution long enough to know all the arguments attempting to give place to the federal government over the guns of its citizens; none of them pass muster from the Founders’ perspective. These arguments attract only the less informed.
So times have changed, one might argue, and we now need federal involvement. If so, why not do it constitutionally as required by the Constitution? Don’t just twist the Constitution to mean something never meant, of which Washington warned us not to do, “Let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed” (Farewell Address).
Instructions for change in the Constitution are provided in Article V and can be proposed by either Congress or “on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of several states.” Once proposed the federal government is removed from the picture altogether—it cannot empower itself. The states are given two ways in which they can pass their power to the federal government (remember, all power not listed in the Constitution belongs to the states and the people as per Amendment 10) but it requires 3/4th of the states to do so, either way. Notice that there exists zero power of the office of president to make change. Veto power also does not exist. Let Congress or the states initiate a proposed amendment to empower the federal government as we have 17 times before when the nation wanted a change.
The federal government does not like Article V because it requires permission from the states to enlarge its jurisdiction. That is precisely why this Article exists; still, it remains the proper and only constitutional way to change the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution and anyone trying to do it in any other way should be removed from power as quickly as the Constitution allows—whether Democrat or Republican, conservative or liberal. The biggest fatality in this gun debate is irreparable damage to the Constitution, and to freedom, if we do not insist on change the only way authorized.
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.
