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.
Jan 14, 2013 | Constitution, Economy, Take Action, Taxes
By Dr. Harold Pease
There are few parts of the Constitution more clear than, “All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other bills” (Article I, Section 7, Clause 1). In a vote taken well after midnight (the supposed deadline) December 31, the SENATE passed a bill raising taxes on those with incomes above $400,000 a year, a tax increase on this group from 35% of their annual income to 39.6%, and the removal of tax exemptions for those making $250,000 or more a year. The capitol gains tax on everyone was raised from 15% to 20% and there were many other adjustments on the tax code as well. This bill definitely did not originate in the House of Representatives as required by the Constitution. So, does anyone care?
The Senate then forwarded their “revenue raising” bill to the House the day after the deadline presenting them with a single choice, be blamed for taking the country over the so-called fiscal cliff or not. It was blackmail! With no way to modify any of its provisions and the bell having already rung ending the tournament, they agreed. It is true that the House had not presented to the Senate any revenue raising solution as it opposed such, largely because President Barack Obama had made it clear that he would not sign any law that did not raise revenue on the rich. Still, the House is the only body that had authority to do so and their intention not to support a tax increase, by not originating one, should have stood regardless of what the Senate and President thought or wanted. Allowing these other bodies to do so for them has weakened this part of the Constitution and House authority. Henceforth, past practice wrongly will be used to legitimize future revenue raising by the Senate and this part of the Constitution, in effect, will be obliterated.
So why should you care? For thousands of years, until the Constitution, governments taxed their citizens whenever and whatever they wished. The people had no say. If the pharaoh in Egypt wanted bricks without straw from the Israelites, for instance, so be it. In our republic we have two legislative bodies, the House to represent the people, and the Senate to represent the individual states. Prior to 1913 the State Legislators elected the Senate so that it could protect the interests of the states from the federal government’s natural inclination to grow, absorbing state functions. This is called federalism—shared government. The House was to protect the interests of the people as its first and major concern.
The power of the purse (both taxing and spending) is one of the most important powers of the Constitution. The Founders resolved that it should be left with the representatives of the people; “all bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives (Article I, Section 7).” This made it impossible for the people to be over-taxed for more than two years as all members of this body come up for reelection on the same date—every two years.
Addressing this subject James Madison, the father of the Constitution, observed, “This power over the purse may, in fact, be regarded as the most complete and effectual weapon with which any constitution can arm the immediate representatives of the people, for obtaining a redress of every grievance, and for carrying into effect every just and salutary measure.” The U.S. Constitution mandates that “the House of Representatives cannot only refuse, but they alone can propose the supplies requisite for the support of government.” This power alone he added, “can overcome all the overgrown prerogatives of the other branches of the government. They, in a word, hold the purse… (The Federalist 58).”
Taxes, the historic grievances of the masses of all ages, were left to this body alone to originate or initiate. The significance of this placement cannot be over-stated. In the Constitution only the masses could originate taxes as all revenue for the government came from the backs of the people. In the United States it is impossible to be over-taxed if we are following the Constitution. No other nation in all history, as far as we know, had this protection from their government. Once processed through the House, the Senate could modify as on other bills, but it must first come from the House. This cannot happen without permission from the people’s representatives.
This may seem like a small thing given all the hype on the Fiscal Cliff but the people really do not want to surrender their freedom from excessive taxation, which, prior to this document was virtually unheard of in the history of the world. Losing this is far more serious than what pundits said would be the worst-case scenario of the cliff because, once gone, it is unlikely to be retrieved. Members of congress are doing so incrementally by not insisting that the government stay within its bounds and honor the document that they individually have sworn to uphold. No one will destroy the Constitution all at one time but by their ignorance, or worshipful loyalty to party, are doing so one piece at a time. If your representatives voted for this please send him a copy of this article so that he/she will be more sensitive to this issue in the future.
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.
Dec 31, 2012 | Constitution
Dr. Harold Pease
In mid November 2012, the nation was greeted with a movement, seemingly originating out of nowhere that can only be referred to as successionitis—a desire of the people to leave the Union—not seen in the United States since the Civil War. Without the Internet it would have been totally ignored and never known by the rest of us. The establishment press did not cover it until it was too big to ignore, then coverage was minimal. The media was largely dismissive citing the reelection of Barack Obama as the reason and the movement, largely of racists, certainly extremists, was simply sour grapes on the part of those preferring Mitt Romney. Certainly the movement did not actually mean anything, they implied.
They could not have been more wrong!! Universally devoid of coverage were questions: why so many participated, why the movement came on so fast and was so strong, and why it was so geographically spread? Why would this not be a legitimate expression of the discontent of the people; even a warning to an overly controlling federal government?
True, the petitions began in Louisiana the day following the reelection of President Obama and within a week spread to all 50 states, but the anger had been mounting for at least 20 years when neither party appeared to follow the Constitution nor give heed to federalism—the concept of shared governance between the feds and the states, so critical to freedom. It is also true that Obama represents a divided nation as never before since 1861 and is seen by half the nation as a facilitator of that divide, especially with respect to his push for income redistribution, better known as socialism and class warfare. Just as before the Civil War, there seems to be no middle ground. If compromise means further loss of liberty, petition signers want no more of it. Those who watch the Constitution disregarded or undermined on virtually a daily basis believe that there is no more freedom to surrender.
Most of the petitions from all fifty states cited sections of the Declaration of Independence as justifying their requests. The Louisiana petition read: “Peacefully grant the state of _____ to withdraw from the United States of America and create its own new government. As the founding fathers of the United States of America made clear in the Declaration of Independence in 1776: ‘When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the Earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation…Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and institute new government.’”
Moreover, the loss of freedom in 1776 is identified with what petition proponents see as tyranny today. The Texas petition read: “The U.S. continues to suffer economic difficulties stemming from the federal government’s neglect to reform domestic and foreign spending. The citizens of the U.S. suffer from blatant abuses of their rights such as the NDAA, the TSA, etc. Given that the state of Texas maintains a balanced budget and is the 15th largest economy in the world, it is practically feasible for Texas to withdraw from the union, and to do so would protect its citizens’ standard of living and re-secure their rights and liberties in accordance with the original ideas and beliefs of our founding fathers which are no longer being reflected by the federal government.” My guess is that a third of America agree with these charges, though not necessarily with the solution. Petition signers believe that the U.S. federal government is so mismanaged that secession is the only option for future prosperity.
By November 15 the following states each had over 35,000 signatures: Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas had 116,000 by itself by the twentieth of the month. Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, Missouri and South Carolina were above the 25,000 required of each state for the President to keep his word to answer their petitions within 30 days of initiation. Thus far I have found no response by the President, nor does the media appear to insist that he make one. The government’s website no longer posts the count, the Presidents response, or the issue, but we have reason to believe that a dozen more states were significantly increasing their numbers daily and therefore would have easily passed the required number, and that the total for all states exceeded a million citizens by the December 7, deadline (“50 States File Secession Petitions With D.C.” American Free Press, Nov. 20, 2012, by Pete Papaherakles).
At this point the signers see their signing as only a veiled threat. Few really want their state to leave the Union and all know that this could not ever happen without the state legislature voting to do so. They also know that the federal government will never allow them to do so. How extreme for the media to believe so. For signers it was the only way that they could get attention to the issue so ignored by the establishment media and both major political parties – we are losing our liberty. But given the volume of signers, the geographical spread, and the speed and intensity of this dissent, the federal government should be placed on notice that there is anger out there not seen since the Civil War and it should work to remove such. Writing them off as some kind of joke only confirms citizen concern that those in power only seek to enslave them more fully.
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.
Dec 23, 2012 | Constitution
By Dr. Harold Pease
It was in the eighth grade when I moved from Santa to Christ as my main focus of Christmas. I well remember the star saturated night when the heavens overwhelmingly testified of God’s awesomeness. I could almost feel the words of my favorite Christmas carol “Silent Night” go down into my soul as never before as I both sang and pondered its words. Perhaps it was the scenic nativity-like setting where I found myself, hand milking my neighbors cow while he was away for a week, the three-sided shed that allowed my gaze into the dark but star-lite, cold, cloudless night which allowed my peak into the heavens and most of all, it was Christmas Eve. I was alone with Christ. It could not have been more impressive and it was the same every morning and night for the week after Christmas.
I never had that experience again in the same way but I always had an intense love for the carols that spoke of his birth: “Oh Holy Night,” “Hark! The Herald Angels Sing,” “Joy to the World,” and “The First Noel.” They were just different somehow—far more powerful than regular jingles. My background was not particularly unique for the time period. Santa was there for the children but he never competed with Christ for the spotlight. The transition to Christ just followed with maturity. Years followed years, I had children and now they have children and, because of home and church the songs have passed on as they had for hundreds of years before. But, unfortunately, this does not happen for everyone.
Today the earth is still bathed with happy songs but radio stations seldom play the ageless Christ-birth songs: “Far, Far Away on Judea’s Plains,” “With Wondering Awe,” “Away in the Manger,” and “O Little Town of Bethlehem.” Outdoor nativity decorations are virtually non-existent unless you make your own. Even indoor nativity scenes are hard to find. Stores have almost nothing to purchase that speaks to this Holy Night. Have we removed Christ from Christmas?
There are no television shows or movies that address Nativity themes but Hollywood never really did much in this direction anyway, the “Waltons” or “Little House on the Prairie” were the exception, but then again that was in an earlier generation. There is no Nativity symbolism on television programs today. Everything is “feel good” or Santa related. Even the Grinch is given more attention than Christ.
All references to Christ have been removed from our schools and teachers dare not encourage the singing of traditional Christmas carols, although any tune without the mention of Jesus Christ is encouraged. A culture that did not know the words of “Silent Night,” “It Came Upon a Midnight Clear,” “Joy to the World,” or, “Oh, Come, All Ye Faithful” would have been unheard of in my day, but is the norm today. Only the churches and homes give any exposure to Christ in Christmas, as was so for me and generations before me. Sadly some churches may give more emphasis to Santa than Christ. Neither churches nor communities have Nativity plays as once they did.
The reason for the season is Jesus Christ, that is why it is called Christ-mas but few homes show any evidence that He is center placed. Most Americans consider themselves unchurched (a term for those without religious affiliation) so the incentive to read, tell or act out the “Old Story” is mostly gone. Seemingly each generation transfers to the next less of Christ in Christmas.
Today we do not wish to offend other religions so Christmas has turned into Winter Break and Easter into Spring Break. I refuse to use these terms. Some advocate changing Christmas to Winter Holiday. The undermining of Christ’s special day is endless and seemingly intentional.
Why not change to a traditional Christmas this Christmas season, like generations before you. In your home play mostly the traditional Christ centered songs. Instead of a Santa, or reindeer in your front yard make a nativity scene. Take yourself or family to a church service. Find a service that will speak of that special night and rehearse the events of that most special day. Go caroling to shut-ins or to a nursing home. Read to your friends and loved ones on Christmas Eve the story of the birth of Jesus Christ—the one believed by all Christians to be the Savior of the world. If you have children let them act it out. Give Christ a few hours of your month. You will never be sorry that you took this challenge.
You may never have a special moment in a shed milking a cow on a cold starry night as I did as a 14 year-old boy but this same special feeling will find a way of filling your soul just as intensely in its own way. Then you will not be an accomplice in removing Christ from Christmas and will join those who wonder why anyone would want to.
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.
Dec 17, 2012 | Constitution, Economy, Healthcare, Take Action, Taxes, Tea Party
By Dr. Harold Pease
What most do not realize is that December 31 is but the first fiscal cliff—the little one. Given the inability of both parties to deal with this little one, although they have known about it for almost two years, how can we have any faith in their ability to prevent the ultimate collapse of the economy if immediate and drastic changes are not made soon? Why not solve both now before options are more drastic later?
Neither party really represents limited constitutional government and both are addicted to debt. It is like an addict prescribing his own detox program. Consequently Freedom Works, a Tea Party affiliate, selected 12 of their own members and through the Internet invited 150,000 members to make suggestions on what should be done. The Tea Party Debt Commission was formed to provide the federal government a solution. Its final report summarized the problem, “Our government is doing too many things it can’t do well, or shouldn’t do at all, with money it doesn’t have. We are borrowing 43 cents of every dollar we spend….”
The Tea Party Plan cuts, caps, and balances federal spending. The budget is balanced in four years, without tax hikes, and remains balanced. Federal spending is reduced by $9.7 trillion over the next ten years. The plan shrinks the federal government from 24 % of GDP to about 16 %. Finally it stops the growth of the debt and begins paying it down. Within a generation there would be no national debt. Bold indeed!
How do they do this? First, stop duplication of services. They note that the “Government Accountability Office counted no fewer than 47 job training programs, 56 financial literacy programs, 80 economic development programs, 18 food assistance programs, 20 programs for the homeless, 82 teacher-quality programs spread across 10 agencies, and more than 2,100 data centers. All told, we have nearly 2,200 federal programs.” Government is bloated, inefficient, and wasteful.
Second, repeal services that we can no longer afford and/or that are not authorized within the Constitution. These goals include repealing ObamaCare, eliminating four unconstitutional, costly, inefficient Cabinet agencies—Energy, Education, Commerce, and HUD—and reducing or privatizing many others, including EPA, TSA, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac. Their report calls for ending farm subsidies, government student loans, and foreign aid to countries that don’t support us—luxuries we can no longer afford.
Third entitlement programs must be incentivized to give donors more for their money. Boldly they opened the unfunded liabilities door—the door neither party dares to open as potentially it could destroy career politicians and political parties. They concluded that they could make Social Security “sustainable and actually improve benefits by harnessing the power of compound interest.” They noted, “Three decades ago, Chile embarked on a bold transformation of its retirement security system. Today, that system [SMART Accounts] is the envy of the world, giving seniors far better benefits than the old, government-run system ever did.”
Shortly thereafter three counties in Texas adopted the SMART Accounts program in favor of personal accounts and thus those retiring today do so “with much more money and have significantly more generous death and disability supplemental benefits than do Social Security participants.” Moreover, they “face no long term unfunded pension liabilities.” The Commission recommends that, “all state and local governments should have the option of opting into the ‘Galveston model.’ ”
The Tea Party Debt Commission saw the Medicare program as outdated, inefficient, and corrupt and recommended six major changes that if followed would save, they predicted, $676,000,000 the first year and $2,030,843,000,000 in 10 years. These changes are first “let individuals opt out of Medicare under Senator Jim DeMint’s ‘Retirement Freedom Act.”’ Second, let all new Medicare beneficiaries enroll in the Federal Employees’ Health Benefit Program (FEHBP) introduced by Senator Rand Paul as the “Congressional Health Care for Seniors Act.” Third, reduce Medicare subsidies to actual cost of hospitals’ graduate medical education. Fourth, maintain Medicare’s physician payment rates at the 2011 level. Fifth, convert the open-ended Medicaid program into a capped block grant to the states. And six call on all states to reform their medical malpractice and product liability systems—tort reform.
Opting into the same Medicare program the members of Congress use, the second Tea Party change recommended, is much better for participants because it “relies on competing private insurers to provide benefits, and as a result has very little of the fraud and waste problems that plague today’s outdated and poorly designed Medicare system.” One wonders why Congress can make for themselves such a good system and leave us one with “between 10 and 20 percent of Medicare’s $450 billion annual budget being attributable to waste, fraud, and abuse….” Moreover, it suspends pension contributions and COLAs for Members of Congress, whenever the budget is in deficit.
The new plan offers a rational transition to ownership of our own retirement and more control and choice over our health care. Why did the government fail to accomplish the same thing—even behind closed doors? Their first concern is to protect their jobs and party. Outsiders, without a personal stake in the outcome, can see much more and do much more without the inevitable political wrangling. Learn more and review the details of the Tea Party Debt Commission’s recommendations by visiting FreedomWorks.org/the-tea-party-budget. Will Congress explore these changes with intent to make them? Not unless you demand that they do so.
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.
Dec 10, 2012 | Constitution, Economy, Healthcare, Take Action
By Dr. Harold Pease
Presently 17 states have chosen not to setup insurance exchanges with respect to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Law, commonly cited as Obamacare, primarily because they fear that doing so would bankrupt their state and they remain convinced that it is a serious intrusion on their constitutional jurisdiction—even freedom. Some were among the 26 states that suede the Federal Government for exceeding its constitutional authority. They may not know that they have one constitutional check left to exercise if they but have the will.
Those who spend any time with the Constitution know that the federal government is limited to a list of specific areas wherein Congress can legislate (Art. I, Sec. 8) and if a desired power is not on that list, or not added thereto by way of an amendment to the Constitution, they are prohibited from legislating therein. All other powers not provided in that document are left to the states and to the people as per Amendment 10 of the Bill of Rights. Checks and balances were created in an effort to keep the federal government from creating its own authority and taking over everything. The Founding Fathers saw going off the list and thus doing something not authorized as tyranny.
Senators were especially charged to protect state sovereignty, the list, and the 10th Amendment, but Progressives in the early 20th Century weakened that protection by ratifying the 17th Amendment, which favored a popular vote for this office rather than, as it was before, having Senators selected by state legislatures who were purposely far more state sovereignty centered. State power was thereafter left unprotected and measures clearly of state jurisdiction and unlisted, such as health care, got through the badly damaged shield and became law.
The Supreme Court was also one of those checks and balances, but it too has become damaged when previous small perversions of the Constitution become leverage for yet other larger perversions, and original intent the intended interpretation, was replaced by past practice, a philosophy also accentuated by the Progressives Movement. What do we do when the Court too is compromised as in Obamacare?
The Supreme Court also has one other problem. Think of our government, as the founders did in the Constitution, as two parts, with power divided between two government teams—the federal and the state. The Supreme Court can never be the final arbitrator between these two teams as it is a valued player on the federal team, and thus not neutral. It will always tend to favor the federal team. What can the states do to stop federal intrusion into their arena even when such intrusion is blatantly clear to anyone reading the Constitution? Nullification.
The Founders left us with one final check on tyranny, but it is not well known and is little used. If the 26 suing states, or even the 17 who have rejected creating the insurance exchanges, instead just said “No! “The law is clearly unconstitutional and will not be implemented, in part or whole, in this state without a constitutional amendment so authorizing. If this law, which virtually destroys the 10th Amendment to the Constitution, is allowed to stand the states have no protected jurisdictions from the federal government and are merely appendages to it.” If enough understood that this law is the death of the philosophy of shared power, or federalism, they would oppose it. If even a minority of states stood together on this point it would stop this federal takeover of one-seventh of the economy in its tracks. State legislators, you are the last constitutional check. Are you listening?
Nullification has two historical precedents. Thomas Jefferson (principle author of the Declaration of Independence) and James Madison (referred to as the father of the Constitution) attempted to nullify The Alien and Sedition Acts in 1798 created by their Federalist Party predecessors. These authors penned the Virginia and Kentucky Resolves objecting on the basis of the unreasonable empowerment of the president and the attack on the First Amendment, particularly freedoms of speech and press. The Supreme Court never took the case, largely because the bill was design to last only until 1801, (Federalists did not want it used against them should they lose the next election) thus the issue died naturally undoubtedly assisted by resistance of these states.
Next to use the Nullification Doctrine was South Carolina with respect to the 1828 “Tariff of Abominations,” believed by them and neighboring states to be unconstitutional. Opponents to it declared it to be “null and void” within their border and threatened to take South Carolina out of the Union if Washington attempted to collect custom duties by force. Andrew Jackson prepared to invade the state. A compromise Tariff of 1833 gradually lowered the tariff to acceptable levels and the issue faded away. States standing firm brought compromise.
Unfortunately for power-hungry federal politicians, the word health is not in Section 8, nor has it been added to the Constitution by way of amendment through Article V, which is the process for “change that you can believe in,” and thus our Founders would have considered it devoid of constitutional authority. If we are to follow the Constitution as intended, and not make a mockery of it, health related concerns are state functions at best and cannot be moved to a federal jurisdiction without a 3/4th affirmative vote of the states as per Article V of the U.S. Constitution. The last acceptable constitutional check to federal tyranny is the state legislatures. Will states stand with the Constitution and its authors or be bullied into submission?
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.
