Jan 30, 2012 | Constitution, Tea Party
By Dr. Harold Pease
Civil libertarians and constitutional buffs are angrier with the Federal Government now than at any time since the Bush Patriot Act was pushed onto the American people ten years ago. Buried deep within the over 600 page, $662 billion National Defense Authorization Act is language that “would require the military to hold suspected terrorists linked to Al Qaeda or its affiliates, even those captured on U. S. soil indefinitely” and without trial, on the say so of the military through the President alone. Moreover, even Americans could be removed to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba against their will and deprived of their constitutional rights.
The fury has to do with U.S. citizenship. Originally Senators Carl Levin and John McCain, who sponsored the bill, did not exempt U.S. citizens—a serious omission which dumps sizable portions of Amendments 4, 5, 6 and 8 of the Bill of Rights. Senators Rand Paul, Dianne Feinstein and others demanding a citizen exclusion proposed amendments to do so, all of which were rejected. Senator Feinstein noted that her goal “was to ensure the military won’t be roaming our streets looking for suspected terrorists.” The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, following the Civil War, forbade the U.S. military from performing law enforcement functions on American soil. The American Civil Liberties Union was also blunt. “Since the bill puts military detention authority on steroids and makes it permanent, American citizens and others are at greater risk of being locked away by the military without charge or trial if this bill becomes law.” When asked if it were possible for an American to be shipped to Guantanamo Bay, John McCain, a co-author of the bill, said yes. Senator Lindsey Long was more blunt. “When they say, ‘I want my lawyer,’ you tell them, ‘Shut up. You don’t get a lawyer.’”
Finally, Dianne Feinstein successfully got Senate colleagues to accept a weakened version of the same thing, “nothing in the bill changes current law relating to the detention of U.S. citizens and legal aliens.” Even while getting this clarification Senator Levin was still arguing, “that the June 2004 Supreme Court decision in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld said U.S. citizens can be detained indefinitely.” So, since it was so difficult to get an exclusion for Americans, and the co-authors of the bill, Senators Levin and McCain, say that it does include U.S. citizens as well. Why would a weak exclusion give civil libertarians any comfort? It doesn’t.
Some things are very clear. The terms “terrorists” and “affiliates” are not adequately defined, the President is given way too much power, and it violates the U.S. Constitution upon which everyone voting has sworn to uphold. It is hard to trust the government’s precise definition of terrorist when Vice President Joe Biden, a few weeks ago, referred to Tea Partiers as terrorists and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a few months prior to this referred to them as mobsters (a term also implying a threat to society). What guarantee do we have that the “new” enemy does not simply rotate to anyone defined as “anti-government,” citizen or not?
The measure places too much power and trust in the office of the President which has not proved particularly trustworthy in the past with respect to the Constitution and civil liberty. Franklin D. Roosevelt, with the stroke of a pen, detained thousands of Japanese Americans in “relocation camps” in World War II on the basis of race and potential terrorism alone. Jose Padilla, allegedly an affiliate of al Qaeda, a U.S. citizen arrested in Chicago for having plans to detonate a “dirty bomb,” was tortured and confined, without benefit of a lawyer for three years, by then President George W. Bush; all this within the borders of the United States. No actual evidence of a “dirty bomb” was ever produced, nor was Padilla ever charged with a crime. Two other Americans, Donald Vance and Nathan Ertel, had similar torture experiences as did Padilla but with less time in solitary confinement, again without charges. (See details in the December 5 issue of The New American). Ultimately, with no evidence to support their confinement, they were set free.
And if Americans are sent to Guantanamo Bay under this law, how much confidence can we have that if found innocent they would be set free, especially given President Barack Obama’s recent assertion, cited in the above reference, that were military commissions to find them innocent they still “would never be set free from prison.” This is so wrong! Why should we have confidence in any president to not use this power as seemeth him good?
The threat of potential incarceration without recourse to a lawyer, judge and trial is very serious. The military performing police duties here to for rendered by civil authorities is unconscionable in a free society. Ninety-three senators voted for this bill. Only seven understood the Constitution well enough to vote no. Should President Obama sign this bill into law, I will follow with an column on how it emasculates Amendments 4, 5, and 6 of the Bill of Rights. Until then pass this column along to others. It is your liberty at stake.
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 30, 2012 | Constitution, Tea Party
By Dr. Harold Pease
With Tea Party Patriot Presidential Candidates Michelle Bachmann and Rick Perry out of the race and the Patriots running from Mitt Romney, can Newt Gingrich appeal to them? Despite his initial support for the movement, even speaking at a Tea Party rally in New York in 2009, where he threatened to fire big-spending legislators if they did not straighten up, his baggage says “never!!”
The core values of the Tea Party Patriot Movement are fiscal responsibility, limited Constitutional government and the free market. So how has Newt fared on Tea Party priorities? His past shows clearly a preference for bigger government in all problem solutions as has his predecessors’ both Republican and Democrat. Virtually all Gingrich solutions to the following problem areas are national—never county or state: education, welfare, homeland security, law enforcement, and energy. Of course, despite the rhetoric to fire big-spenders, each of the above must be funded. His vote to create the federal Department of Education is a case in point. Most in the profession of teaching are unable to identify anything for which the thousands of bureaucrats therein employed have accomplished. Most see it as wasteful spending and thus fiscally irresponsible. Nor has he recommended its abolition were he president.
Gingrich’s preference for international solutions over national ones is the same. He has consistently favored empowering “super governments” (those over our own) such as the UN, NAFTA and GATT and thus passed large portions of our national sovereignty to them. Of course, sovereignty transfers come with costly financial assistance obligations that most Tea Party Patriots see as not being fiscally responsible. Mr. Gingrich has consistently voted for foreign aid and supported federally funded loans to foreign governments through the Export-Import Bank. Moreover, Gingrich does these transfers with full knowledge of the loss of sovereignty to his own country. With respect to GATT he said, “We need to be honest about the fact that we are transferring from the United States at a practical level significant authority to a new organization…. This is not just another trade agreement…. It is a very big transfer of power” (“Newt Gingrich: The Establishment’s Conservative,” 27 Nov. 2009, New American). His 22-year-long membership in the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), an organization promoting sovereignty transfers from all nations to the United Nations, makes him out of step with most Tea Party supporters who see such as unconstitutional.
With respect to the second Tea Party Patriot core value of limited Constitutional government, Gingrich has to be rated with George W. Bush and Barack Obama. Most of what he has voted for in over twenty years in power, especially in an interventionist foreign policy, is no different and outside the U.S. Constitution. He may talk about limited government, but his vote is almost always for more government. He endorses federal involvement and spending in areas such as energy, education, labor, science, and the environment—all outside the U.S. Constitution. In a speech at the Center for Strategic and International Affairs in July 1995, he saw the U. S. Constitution as an obstruction in our interventionist foreign policy. He said, “The American challenge in leading the world is compounded by our Constitution. Under our [constitutional system]—either we’re going to have to rethink our Constitution, or we’re going to have to rethink our process of decision-making.” Of course it is an obstruction to our meddling in the affairs of other lands. For one thing the Constitution requires Congressional approval, even a declaration, before we go to war!!!
Finally, the third Tea Party core value, the free market. Gingrich’s support of bailouts demonstrates his belief that some entities are too big to fail. In the free market no business is “propped up” or “saved” by the taxpayer. Business failure results from inefficiency which opens the door for those who are more efficient. Moreover, Gingrich’s support of GATT, which brought this nation’s economic interests under the scrutiny and supervision of the World Trade Organization, severely damaged the free market.
Unfortunately, though one of the nation’s greatest debaters—thus the words sound right—Presidential candidate Newt Gingrich cannot make a valid case for having been in harmony with Tea Party Patriot core values and should not expect their support. If Patriots give it anyway they will be disappointed.
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 24, 2012 | Constitution, Globalism, Tea Party
By Dr. Harold Pease
The Republican Presidential Debate held in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina finally brought to light a real divide, other than on Iran, between the candidates. The issue was The National Defense Authorization Act, signed into law by President Barack Obama December 31, 2011, with Ron Paul and Rick Santorum viewing it as a threat to civil liberty and unconstitutional and Mitt Romney decidedly supporting it. Neither Rick Perry nor Newt Gingrich was asked to give their view. I could find nothing in print revealing a position for either on the extremely controversial law. This is very unfortunate as Sections 1031 and 1032 authorize the military to arrest and indefinitely detain U.S. citizens without charge or trial—even on U.S. soil. Since either could be the one exercising this power we should know where they stand.
Popularly referred to as the “indefinite detention act” the new law authorizes the military to arrest citizens suspected of being terrorists on the say-so of the president or the military alone. No real proof needed. It voids the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 prohibiting the military any law enforcement authority on U.S. soil and voids much of the Bill of Rights as well. Americans now can be extradited to Guantanamo without benefit of trial, judge, or jury and held indefinitely—even tortured (see Section 1068). Activists on both the left and right vehemently oppose it, the one believing that it could eventually be twisted to apply to Occupy Wall Street participants and the other Tea Party participants. Each group has been referred to as terrorists by their enemies.
As mentioned the strongest support for The National Defense Authorization Act came from Mitt Romney. When asked if he would have signed the bill into law as had President Obama, Romney answered emphatically, “Yes, I would have.” He continued. “I do believe it is appropriate to have in our nation the capacity to detain people who are threats to this country, who are members of al Qaeda. Look, you have every right in this country to protest and to express your views on a wide range of issues, but you don’t have a right to join a group that has challenged America and has threatened killing Americans, has killed Americans, and has declared war against America. That’s treason. In this country we have a right to take those people and put them in jail.” That may be Governor, but only after they have been tried and convicted in accordance with the Bill of Rights with the assumption that they are innocent until proven guilty.
Romney recognized that such power exercised by one man could be abused “but I don’t think he (President Obama) will abuse this power, and if I were president I would not abuse this power,” he said. How naïve! This reminds me of the famous Richard Nixon statement with respect to his authorization to break into Watergate. “If the President does it, it is not a crime.” Therein lies the problem. President Obama may never abuse such power, nor may a “President” Romney, but somewhere down the line some president will have his enemies defined as terrorists and removed. The Constitution is written to protect us from that person. With opposition destroyed so would be liberty. No president should have such power. The Founding Fathers never allowed such trust in one person in the Constitution.
Such naivety is dangerous as is candidate Romney’s understanding of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Both flaws should cast doubt on his ability to protect these documents and lead a free people. Moreover, on the subject of treason, which a civil trial would determine, the Constitution requires the “witness of two or more to an overt act;” clearly not the voice of just one man who could benefit personally by the action.
Fortunately to his credit, Rick Santorum chimed in. “A U.S. citizen who is detained as an enemy combatant should have the right to a lawyer and to appeal their case before a federal court.” Unfortunately, no other candidate was invited to respond to this important question, but it was obvious that Ron Paul was not going to be ignored on the subject. Although not asked, he was able to get into the debate that holding American citizens indefinitely is a breach of the U.S. judicial system. An Internet search revealed much public discourse from him, and only him, in opposition to this law.
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 13, 2012 | Constitution, Globalism, Tea Party
Dr. Harold Pease
The Republican Presidential Primaries have obscured the President’s late December signing of the most damaging law to the Bill of Rights in my lifetime. Known as the National Defense Authorization Act the over 600 page, $662 billion law “would require the military to hold suspected terrorists linked to Al Qaeda or its affiliates, even those captured on U. S. soil, indefinitely” and without trial, on the say so of the military through the President alone. Moreover, even U.S. citizens could be removed to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba against their will and deprived of their constitutional rights. In my commentary on this law in early December (see “New Bill Damages Bill of Rights and Could Target Americans for Military Detention,” LibertyUnderFire.org), I noted that the law gave no protection from a revolving definition of terrorism to anti-government, perhaps even Tea Partiers or Occupy Wall Street folks.
The threat of potential incarceration without recourse to a lawyer, judge and trial is very serious. The military performing police duty, heretofore rendered by civil authorities, is unconscionable in a free society. Our only hope was a promised Presidential veto which did not happen. Therefore, what follows are details on how the new law emasculates the Writ of Habeas Corpus in the U.S. Constitution and Amendments 4, 5, 6 and 8 of the Bill of Rights.
The Writ of Habeas Corpus found in Article I, Section 9 recognized that some day war might exist on our soil and that the accused had rights that might have to be momentarily delayed until recognized civilian authority could reasonably attend to them. It allowed this delay in only two circumstances “when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.” Section 9 is a list of powers specifically denied Congress; nor were they given to the President in Article II. This strongly suggests no federal role outside these two parameters in the delay of justice—certainly no military role. The removal of any civilian role and the carting off of U.S. citizens to a foreign country without benefit of judge or jury obliterates this right.
Amendment 4 deals with searches and seizures and reads in part “no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation…” Warrants give civil authority the power to arrest only when the reason for the search (probable cause) has been reviewed and authorized, normally by an elected judge, who has given an oath to uphold the Constitution. He stands between the plaintiff and the defendant as the protector of Constitutional law. There is no role for the military even with a President’s authorization. Tell this to the young soldiers just following orders. Freedom dies when this amendment dies.
Amendment 5 has several parts that are affected by the new law but space limits my coverage to just a couple. Infamous or serious crimes mandate a grand jury, twelve or more citizens to evaluate the evidence before proceeding, which will not exist in a military arrest and extradition to Guantanamo Bay process. Moreover, one cannot “be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” Due process is the civilian judicial system. The amendment does have a short-term exclusion “when in actual service in time of war or public danger” but the National Defense Authorization Act is a permanent exclusion rather than a temporary one and this brief exclusion should only hold when the enemy has brought war to our soil.
Amendment 6 deals with criminal court procedures where “the accused shall enjoy the right to … a public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed … to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel in his defense.” The new law destroys the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution. There will be no “impartial jury,” no “obtaining witnesses in his favor,” no “counsel in his defense,” and Cuba is hardly within “the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed.”
Finally, the new law will obliterate Amendment 8 for those the President and his military define as terrorists. The protection against cruel and unusual punishment for them ends and torture is justified. Does anyone really think that the military will care about excessive fines or bail either?
Sadly both parties, despite their oath to preserve the Constitution, are responsible for this bill. There was bipartisan support for it. Unbelievably, Ron Paul is the only presidential candidate from either party to speak out against it.
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 20, 2011 | Constitution
Dr Harold Pease
Consider the dilemma of the mother of Jesus when she was told of her soon to be pregnancy without benefit of marriage. A quarter of a century ago Mrs. Mary Santomaro wrote an unusual Christmas poem that has become a personal favorite—“If Mary Had Said No.” It warrants deep and serious reflection. Normally my readers are not treated to a poem and/or something written by another but this Christmas message cannot be said more profoundly by anyone other than to whom the message was given.
She was a young Israeli girl
Living with her mother, Anne.
Thrilled that Joseph, House of David,
Sought her daughter’s hand.
Anne was happy for she felt
She had not long to live.
Joseph would be good to her,
A happy life to Mary give.
The betrothal was announced
To family and all friends.
The preparations had been made.
Soon wedding vows would blend.
But then a strange thing happened
One day as Mary prayed,
Gabriel stood by her and spoke
“Hail, full of grace…” he said,
Then, “…the Lord is with thee.
Blessed art thou among women.”
And he told her even more,
She would bear a son, this omen.
She wondered at his greeting words.
She knew no man. How could this be?
“The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee,”
“…the power…Most High…over shadow thee; …”
This young Israeli girl then spoke,
“Behold the handmaid of the Lord;”
She accepted what God had asked,
“… be it done … according to Thy word.”
We all know as a direct result
A Blessed Babe was born
And laid within a manger
Upon a blessed morn.
For thirty-odd years, Emmanuel,
Then we put Him to scorn,
Crucified Him on a Cross
And all man’s sins were borne
By One Who could repair
The wrongs that man had done
And once again restore to each,
Adopted daughter, son.
Since that time more have died
Willingly for His Name.
In every age, from every land,
Sprung from martyrs, they came.
Christians, they have long been called,
Followers of the Holy One,
Living what He taught and lived
That triumph over death he won.
Many people since that time
Fought great evils to live as He
Carrying the flame of Eternal Truth,
Heads bowed, on bended knee.
But what if Mary had said, “No!”?
Suppose that she had then
Told God, “It’s not convenient.”
“Can’t afford the stipend.”
She might have said, “There’s no way!
Everyone will talk!”
“I don’t want to have a child.”
Today, would any blame her balk?
But if she had, chances are
The world would long be gone
And none of us would be here
To choose the right or wrong.
Long before we even arrived
The world would have become
A more-sophisticated people,
Fewer, hedonistic, everyone.
There would be no call to peace,
No inalienable rights assumed,
The mighty would gobble up the weak,
No intercessions for the doomed.
Entire nations would disappear,
Progeny ripped asunder
For within their very bodies
Sprang no new lives to encumber.
Pretty soon God would call off the world
Knowing we would never change.
Why put up with us any more,
This people of such evil-arrange?
One thing, though, we’d have no need
To make decisions we now do…
To kill each other, do as we want,
Live our life and abort a new!
But Mary didn’t do that.
Not a wail of complaint was wrung.
“Behold, the handmaid of the Lord.”
For this Jesus Christ was sprung!
There are many, including my own daughter, that pray everyday that they might have one of these rejected babies because their own bodies will not allow their having their own. Instead, over a million and a half mothers in the United States annually choose to extinguish that which moves inside 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. Katie is his daughter-in-law. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.
Nov 26, 2011 | Constitution
By Dr. Harold Pease
This is the season to be grateful and to acknowledge our many blessings, even in the midst of extreme difficult times for so many of our neighbors and friends. Even our own circumstances may have brought us beneath what we think we can endure. During such times it is sometimes hard to find things to be grateful for or to find the hand of God in anything. Finding someone whose life circumstances are much worse sometimes helps a little. One such was Martin Rinckart. He authored the beloved Christian hymnal “Now Thank We All Our God” which has given fellow Christians strength in their trials for almost 400 years.
In 1637 the Swedes and Germans were in the midst of The Thirty-Year War (Catholics vs. Protestants) and refugees from that encounter were flooding into Eilenburg, Saxony where Martin Rinckart was serving as Archdeacon of his native German town. A horrible plaque gripped the area leaving some 8,000 persons dead in a single year. Rinckart had to assist “at the beds of the sick and dying.” Although fortunately he maintained his own health during this time of death, he “had to read forty or fifty funeral services a day” including the services of two of his fellow clergymen. A fourth ran away, out of fear of getting sick, leaving him the lone church authority in this major crisis. He assisted in burying some 4,480 in all. In May of that year, his wife died. “By the end of the year, the refugees had to be buried in trenches without services.”
This horror was followed by a famine “so extreme that thirty or forty persons might be seen fighting in the streets for a dead cat or crow.” As the head of the church in his area “his door was surrounded by a crowd of poor starving wretches, who found it their only refuge.” He shared everything he had reserving “the barest rations for his own family.”
Next the Swedes returned demanding a tribute of $30,000 from the town. Such money was not available. After failing to entreat the invading general for mercy, Rinckart turned to those following him and, in the general’s presence, said “Come, my children, we can find no hearing, no mercy with men, let us take refuge with God.” He then “fell on his knees and prayed with such touching earnestness that the Swedish general relented, and lowered his demand at last to 2,000 florins.”
Apparently the words of his hymn were originally written as a grace to be said before meals but given his circumstances it became a song of strength in adversity. Listen to them. “Now thank we all our God with hearts and hands and voices, Who wondrous things hath done, In whom his earth rejoices; Who, from our mothers’ arms, Hath blessed us on our way With countless gifts of love, And still is ours today.” The first verse of this Lutheran hymnal is certainly a message of thanksgiving; the second, one of protection and guidance. “Oh, may our bounteous God Through all our life be near us, With ever joyful hearts and blessed peace to cheer us, And keep us in his love, And guide us day and night, And free us from all ills, Protect us by his might.”
Perhaps his life and song can make us stronger as well. At the very least it should give us a few extra things for which to be thankful. None of us are fighting over a dead cat or crow to eat. Despite our obstacles, deep inside we know that God still has our best interests in mind. When we next sing this song we will probably do it with more gratitude reflecting, at least for a moment, on our great blessings, as he did, rather than our trials.
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.
