Aug 17, 2011 | Constitution, Tea Party
By Dr. Harold Pease
Michele Bachmann was winner of the Iowa Straw Vote held August 13 with 29% of the vote. In a close second, just 152 votes behind her, was Ron Paul at 28%–together that totals 57%. The significance of this cannot be over-stated as the two are the only Tea Party Presidential candidates in the race and as such a significant majority of Iowans voted for the Tea Party philosophy. Will the establishment media notice this story and give adequate credit to the Tea Party Patriot influence? I am writing this the day of the straw vote. You will be able to answer that question for yourself when this column is published next week in your newspaper, but let me predict the answer. Not likely!!
Iowa is the first hard evidence, in an election year, of where the nation is politically and it appears to be overwhelmingly in favor of Tea Party Patriot core values: limited Constitutional government, the free market, and fiscal responsibility—themes consistently emphasized by Bachmann and Paul. Polls are not hard evidence as they are too subject to who is polled and how questions are phrased so should not be given the same level of credibility.
Media selected, front runner, Mitt Romney, who clearly did not get the kind of applause that Ron Paul or Newt Gingrich did in the Presidential debate held just two days before, only got 3%; an extremely low number for their favorite not likely to be emphasized by the major media. Were it anyone else he/she would be moved to the bottom of the stack until he/she proved himself/herself again elsewhere—perhaps in New Hampshire this winter. Rick Perry, announcing on the same day as the Iowa straw vote, and not campaigning at all in the state, received more votes than Mitt Romney. Based upon this Bachmann and Paul are the only real front-runners but the numbers are too close to give either of them a decisive victory over the other so media coverage of each should be somewhat equal.
Only once has the Iowa straw vote actually picked the eventual winner but it does give the winner more exposure and the spotlight for a time—unless, of course, you are Ron Paul who consistently and unfairly gets downplayed. Will the establishment media undermine or belittle this win, and Paul’s near victory (short by only 152 votes), as they already have the applause factor—he did get louder and more frequent applause than any other candidate? Based upon how he was treated in the last presidential election. Yes!! This is an excellent example of how the media guide us in our thinking. That is why in political science we teach that the first election is the media’s.
Although the media have never understood or fully acknowledged the significance of the anger of the American people to excessive government and uncontrolled spending as exemplified by the approximately 2400 Tea Party gatherings held throughout the United States in the year 2009, the people have and this anger is apparently alive and well in the Mid-West. Falsely characterized as “Astroturf,” then “mobsters,” then “racists,” and, more recently by the Vice President as “terrorists,” has not deterred Tea Party followers but rather hardened these “political unseasoned ‘mom’ operations with homemade signs.” They have come to know that the core values they endorse are at the very heart of freedom and the Constitution and must be preserved.
Anything could still happen in the weeks ahead as the actual vote comes this winter in New Hampshire then in South Carolina, but the race has begun with a clear cut win for the Tea Party Patriots. Unless the media successfully vilify, undermine, or discredit them a sizable hurricane in the political world may follow. Certainly the establishment media did not see this one coming, especially not just out of the shoot, so to speak, as was the case in Iowa.
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.
Aug 13, 2011 | Constitution, Economy, Taxes, Tea Party
By Dr. Harold Pease
I do not usually write on themes getting extensive attention in the media but the establishment press has overlooked a big story in the debt limit debate. Every one has covered who lost: the President, Congress and both major political parties but almost no one identified the Tea Party Patriot movement as the clear victor.
Remember the over 2400 separate and spontaneous gatherings of Tea Party Patriots in 2009, geographically spread throughout the nation and proportionately held April 15, July 4, and Sept. 11, with about 800 such gatherings held each date. These gatherings, with no national leadership or direction, led mostly by moms with homemade signs, was perhaps the showing of greater anger against the federal government than in any single year in our history—certainly in my life time.
Remember as well the two Tea Party assemblages of over a million in Washington D. C. during that same year crying out “President Obama!! Can you hear us now?” “CAN YOU HEAR US NOW?? Yes, the establishment media had trouble covering these stories then too, but they still happened.
The Tea Party movement resulted in the election of a few candidates committed to Constitutional limited government, the free market and fiscal responsibility—the Tea Party’s core values and actually those of the U.S. Constitution as well. Values perceived by them as having been largely abandoned by the leadership of both major political parties.
All this is conceded but how does this translate to a win for the Tea Party Patriots on the Debt Limit Deal? True to the Constitution and their election promises these patriots bucked the weak-kneed Republican Party in the House of Representatives and the spend-happy Democrats in the Senate and forced both to talk about the following previously ignored concepts. What is the proper role of government? How do we get a Balanced Budget Amendment to curb our addiction to debt? Are raising taxes always the only answer? And given government’s addiction to growth, will they ever have enough?
The promise to vote on a Balanced Budget Amendment, to not raise taxes, and to actually cut future spending, are each a part of the finished agreement because of the insistence of the Tea Party members of Congress. As a group only the Tea Party saw the looming financial problems ahead if we did not seriously live within our means and scale back our debt. NOW!! With our debt credit down grade and near stock market crash of this week can anyone seriously question Tea Party philosophy now? Still, there are voices in the land aimed to discredit them.
Republicans have shown themselves to have no fire in their bellies and have thus caved-in to the run-away spending plans of their adversaries every time. Sometimes, as under the Bush Stimulus, they have shown themselves as leading the charge for debt enslavement. In short, modern Tea Party Patriots gave the Republican Party enough fire so that they did not cut and run so easily.
Did the Tea Party get what they wanted? No! Definitely not!! Were that the case they would have had an actual Balanced Budget Amendment, actual spending cuts, and our credit rating would not have been down graded. Reducing the rate of increase is not the same as reducing spending. The deal did nothing to stop the growth of our debt and resulting bondage of our children. In fact, it did just the opposite. Still, opponents were forced to listen and give some attention to the Tea Party Patriots—a huge victory especially given their small size in Congress and governments nature to spend without restraint. We just need more of them in Congress. Returning to the Constitution is the only answer and they are the only ones saying it.
Hopefully, more Americans will see the Tea Party Patriot movement and our defense of the Constitution as the same thing. Until now they have been a somewhat lone voice in the wilderness as far as Congress was concerned but with this victory should merit our greater confidence lending to greater support resulting in even bigger victories to come.
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.
Aug 9, 2011 | Constitution
by Dr. Harold Pease
The only power the president has with respect to making law is his signature or the veto of law passed by Congress, or threat thereof. That veto power requires that he return the bill with “his objections” for reconsideration which Congress can override by a two-thirds vote. He may also suggest an area needing the attention of Congress in his State of the Union Address. That’s it! Everything else is pure fabrication on his part to more fully empower himself.
So what are so-called “Signing Statements” used extensively by President George W. Bush and now President Barack Obama who once condemned them? These two words are not in the U.S. Constitution nor is there anything that could suggest this practice. Instead of using one of only two options provided by the Constitution and sending objectionable parts back to Congress for reconsideration, he has created a more powerful third option, that of signing into law the bill excluding the parts that he disagrees with thus undermining the veto power. Signing Statements also have the effect of enabling him to give his own separate spin to the law that is not that of the 535 individuals who created it. One person alone was never given such power. Unless immediately challenged by the Congress his will be the interpretation used by future Congresses, as well as by the Supreme Court, when related issues resurface. In essence he openly refuses to enforce the law he just signed despite his oath to do so. Kings with parliaments never had it so good.
Candidate Obama understood how the practice violated the Constitution and empowered the president when he said: “Congress’s job is to pass legislation. The president can veto it, or he can sign it. But what George Bush has been trying to do as part of his effort to accumulate more power in the presidency, is he’s been saying ‘Well, I can basically change what Congress passed by attaching a letter saying, I don’t agree with this part, or I don’t agree with that part. I’m going to choose to interpret it this way or that way,’” He continued, “That’s not part of his power. But this is part of the whole theory of George Bush that he can make laws as he’s going along. I disagree with that. I taught the Constitution for ten years. I believe in the Constitution.” Then he promises not to do the same thing were he to be elected president. “And I will obey the Constitution of the United States. We’re not going to use signing statements as a way of doing an end run around Congress” (“Obama Signing Statement: Despite Law, I Can Do What I Want on Czars,” by Jonathan Strong, April 15, 2011).
Candidate Obama was right to be so condemning of President Bush who “issued more than 100 such statements signaling that his administration would not carry out congressionally approved provisions on a range of issues, from barring the use of torture to requirements that the executive branch report certain information to Congress.” Ultimately a bipartisan panel of the American Bar Association “decried Bush’s use of signing statements as a serious threat to the rule of law, saying it ran contrary to the system of presidential vetoes and congressional overrides created by the U.S. Constitution” (Exercising his Power or Venturing into Congressional Turf? By Louis Jacobson, July 24, 2009, St Petersburg Times Politifact.com).
So with this Constitutional clarity and solemn promise we would not expect to find President Obama doing the same thing. Wrong! To date he has done so 18 times (Signing Statements Still Controversial, by David G. Taylor, July 27, 2011, St Petersburg Times Politifact.com). His justifications for doing so are filed with the same legalese as are those of his predecessor he condemned. The fact remains that he violates the Constitution as well—only he, unlike his predecessor, cannot claim ignorance in doing so. Having instructed the Constitution he knows the damage that his activity does to the separation of powers as well as empowering him to alter law.
Why does such continue and what is the solution? Because of the plague of political parties that George Washington warned would, in effect, cause us to be more loyal to them than to the principles of the Constitution. Republicans excused Bush and Democrats excuse Obama. The practice will continue to alter the Constitution until our loyalty returns to the Constitution and we threaten impeachment to anyone tampering with it whether a Bush or an Obama. It is time to 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.
Jul 23, 2011 | Constitution, Healthcare
By Dr. Harold Pease
Many do not know that we live under two political systems: one primarily national in function, the other primarily domestic. It’s called federalism—the two share power and are equal. Neither was to be subservient to the other and each was to have separate duties. Thomas Jefferson explained it best when he said, “The states are not subordinate to the national government but rather the two are coordinate departments of one single and integral whole…. The one is domestic the other the foreign branch of the same government.”
Think of this relationship as an ideal marriage, where neither partner is subservient to the other. The duties in a relationship are gradually assigned to one partner or the other. Neither feels beneath the other, rather they are a team.
Though this was the ideal, the Founders were aware of the nature of all governments to grow. George Washington articulated this when he warned, “Government is like fire, a dangerous servant and a fearful master.” In order to ensure that this fire does not spread too far and burn down the home, one builds a fireplace to keep the fire under control. That fireplace is the Constitution, particularly Section 8, which outlines all powers that are given to Congress. Everything Congress did was to be clearly linked to at least one of these enumerated grants of power. In essence the States, who created the Federal Government, retained unto themselves all other powers as per Amendments 9 and 10 of the Constitution.
The advantages of federalism are enormous. States become laboratories of experimentation. Californians remember numerous “brownouts” at the turn of the century because of California’s failed energy policies. Other states viewing this were careful to avoid the same policies. States have the tendency to look at sister states for models and to borrow from them in refining their own programs. These places of experimentation work to everyone’s advantage. What if we had federalized California’s failed energy policy? We would have had “brownouts“ on a national scale.
Had our power crazed Federal Government refrained from their natural inclination to take more power, health care reform could have gone through this experimental process designed by our Founding Fathers. We would then have been able to identify the weaknesses or strengths while they were still geographically isolated. Only three states had tried it: Oregon, Massachusetts, and Hawaii. That was clearly not enough to identify and avoid the “brownouts “ in the area. Instead they took a half-baked idea and made it mandatory for all. Of course, this would have necessitated an enlargement of the enumerated list through Article V, requiring ratification by “3/4th of the Several States.” Since more than 60% of the people did not want this bill, the Constitution would have protected us from the federal government’s self empowerment.
To protect federalism the Founders did two things. First, Senators were to be selected by state legislatures so the U. S. Senate would be protective of state concerns. All law required the approval of the House of Representatives, the peoples’ representatives, and the Senate, the states’ representatives. That is why we have two branches of government to make law—two perspectives. The Seventeenth Amendment, insisting that the people also elect U. S. Senators, destroyed this protection. States thereafter were left unprotected.
Second, the structure of the U. S. Constitution limited and defined federal power leaving all power not specifically defined with the states as per the 10th Amendment. When Congress fails to defend this amendment and federalism as intended, it falls upon governors and their attorney generals to take the more confrontational approach as has Arizona over illegal immigration, or the 26 states presently suing the federal government over mandated national healthcare, or Idaho who took an even stronger stance on the same subject. “It ain’t happening here!” “See you in court.”
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.
Jul 10, 2011 | Constitution, Tea Party
By Dr. Harold Pease
Has it really come to this? Time magazine, one of our most respected magazines, seriously posing the question, “Does It Still Matter?” over the backdrop of the U. S. Constitution partially shredded as their cover page for their 10th Annual History and Fourth of July Issue. The second page of the ten-page article, authored by Richard Stengel, has the U. S. Constitution completely shredded vertically. This event signals a disrespect and ignorance of this document that I have not seen in my over 25 years teaching it.
The article’s overriding fallacy begins with the first sentence and continues throughout, “Here are a few things the framers did not know about: World War II, DNA, sexting, airplanes, the atom, television, Medicare, collateralized debt obligations, the germ theory of disease, miniskirts …” etc. In short, “How can it be relevant, without great alteration for our day?” Certainly the piece is a masterful explanation of the Constitution as a “living Constitution.” Among other things it criticizes the “Tea Party and its almost fanatical focus on the founding document.”
The truth is that the Constitution has nothing to do with these things nor did it have for the new things of the 1800’s, nor will it have for a new list the following century after the one we are now in. None of these things matter because this document is based upon human nature and natural law which do not change from century to century. Man is still power hungry whether he rides a horse, drives a car, or flies an airplane. Stengel does not seem to understand this.
When confronted with this “horse vs. airplane” nonsense, I ask my students in every Constitution class, “What in the Preamble to the Constitution, which is a statement of the needs of man to which government attempts to address, is no longer relevant? Outdated if you will?” Year after year the answer is the same. Nothing! “Were these the same needs of those 600 years ago and will they be the same for those 200 years from now?” Yes!!! “What would you add?” Again, nothing! Then, the basic needs of man do not change and the Preamble must be the most complete summation of those needs ever recorded. It is based upon a long history of human nature that the well-read Founders understood.
After the Preamble the Constitution then divides power between two entities, the Central Government and the States with those of the Federal Government specifically listed in Art. I, Sec. 8, and those to the states, everything else, as noted in Amendment 10. Why? Because the Founders knew from human nature, that all governments have the natural tendency to collect power to themselves (which is what is happening today) and if successful individual liberty is always suffocated. This will still be so 200 years from now as it was centuries ago in Athens and Rome. Either the people harness the government or the government harnesses the people.
The Constitution then divides what power is left to the federal level between its three branches: legislative (which makes all the law), executive (which executes the law), and Judicial (which judges the law when contested). All three kept separate for the purpose of keeping the Federal government from consolidating into one and thus enlarging its jurisdiction over us. Our right to less jurisdiction used to be called freedom. Stengel surely knows this simple truth but seems not to know why. All governments like to grow their power and will inevitable do so unless restrained.
Did the Founders not believe in change? Of course they did! But enlarging federal power beyond the list in Art. I, Sec. 8, required three-fourths of the states to consent to have a new power moved to the federal level. This was change one could believe in and total transparency because it would be written. Often those of both major parties like to forget how change is authorized in the Constitution just making it anyway, counting on the ignorance of the masses or party loyalty to sustain them. Time magazine, Stengel, and other “living Constitution” advocates appear to like governments increasing jurisdiction in everything and offer no counter to the natural flow of power away from the people and lower levels of government. In time they will remove all protection from big government and indeed destroy the Constitution as created, ironically in the name of the Constitution they pretend to value.
This Constitution is the clearest ever written and can handle, quite nicely, any new problem, including the four referenced by Stengel. What we need are people in power who know how it works and will follow it precisely as intended—even “fanatically,” as with the Tea Parties. It follows the premise to never elevate to a higher level that which can be resolved at a lesser level. So why is that important, because it maximizes the individual’s influence over his/her government. It assumes that he, in fact, does know what is best for him.
But some want an evolving document, one that “rolls with the times,” one that is one thing today and quite another tomorrow. We Tea Party Patriots say, “No thanks.” “The original one was designed to limit people, like you, from getting power and destroying our liberty.”
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. www.LibertyUnderFire.org.
Jul 4, 2011 | Constitution
By Dr. Harold Pease
It always amazes me when otherwise intelligent people are unable to find evidence of God in our governing documents. The Declaration of Independence, the signing of which we commemorate July 4th, alone has five references to God—two in the first paragraph, one in the middle, and two in the last.
“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.” Who is responsible for “the laws of nature” but God—certainly not man nor nature itself? From the “laws of nature” sprang an awareness of natural law (sometimes called common sense), understood by early philosophers to be a source of higher law that never changes. This was best explained by Cicero, a Roman politician, as early as the 1st Century B. C. —even predating the existence of Christianity when he wrote: “Nor may any other law override it, nor may it be repealed as a whole or in part… Nor is it one thing at Rome and another at Athens, one thing today and another tomorrow, but one eternal and unalterable law, that binds all nations forever.” Of “Nature’s God,” the second reference to deity is, of course, more explicit and needs no explanation.
The third reference to God is the word “creator” found in the second paragraph. “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” This boldly identified our base for at least three unalienable rights as God, and the Founders identified this truth as self-evident. Any person endowed with common sense or reason would/could come to this conclusion.
So passionate were they with respect to these three “God-given rights” that such was identified as the purpose of government. “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…”
Moreover, their right of revolution hinged upon the denial of these “God-given rights.” “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, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes… But when a long train of abuses and usurpations… 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.” Once again, an appeal to natural law, which emanates from God, was noted and the loss of which always justifies revolution.
The fourth and fifth references to God are found in the last paragraph. The rightness of our cause was left to God as judge. “We, therefore, the Representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown…”
The fifth and last reference to God asks for his divine protection in our revolutionary course of action. “And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.”
There was no dissent noted with respect to these references to God and their placement or emphasis in this document by any of the participants then, nor should there be now.
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
