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
Jul 4, 2011 | Constitution
By Dr Harold Pease
The Declaration of Independence ends with one of the most passionate appeals ever put to words and memorized by yesterday’s grade school child. “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.” Their action would bring on war against the then greatest power on earth, and no European strategist gave them a ghost of a chance—yet they stood.
And, of course, a goodly number did suffer loss of life and property as a result. Most paid a remarkably high price for taking their stand. In a wrathful spirit of revenge, the enemy singled them out for harsh vengeance. Five were captured and imprisoned and two others barely escaped captivity. Richard Stockton, one of those captured after his whereabouts was betrayed by a loyalist informer, was “dragged from bed in the middle of the night, severely beaten and thrown into prison” where he underwent continual abuse and also suffered malnourishment. By the time the Congress arranged for his exchange, he was broken physically and never recovered. He had also lost almost all his property.
Unable to capture Abraham Clark, another signatory, the British took their wrath out on his two sons, who were imprisoned on the notorious prison ship Jersey. “Word was sent to Clark that his boys would be freed if he would disown the revolutionary cause and praise the British Crown. At his refusal, his sons were singled out for cruel treatment. One was placed in a tiny cell and given no food. Fellow prisoners kept him alive by laboriously pushing tiny bits of food through a keyhole. Both sons somehow survived their ordeal.”
The British had a particular zeal for destroying the homes and property of the signers. Those suffering this fate included Benjamin Harrison, George Clymer, Dr. John Witherspoon, Philip Livingston, William Hooper, and William Floyd. The sacrifices of John Hart and Francis Lewis are particularly noteworthy. “While his wife lay gravely ill, Redcoats destroyed Hart’s growing crops and ripped his many grist mills to pieces. Bent on taking him, they chased him for several days. They almost nabbed him in a wooded area, but he hid in a cave. When he returned home with his health broken, he found his wife dead and their 13 children scattered.”
The story of Francis Lewis was equally tragic. “When the British plundered and burned his home at Whitestone on Long Island, they took his wife prisoner. She was thrown into a foul barracks and treated cruelly. For several months she had to sleep on the floor and was given no change of clothing. George Washington was able eventually to arrange for her exchange for two wives of British officers the Continental Arm was holding prisoner. Her health was so undermined that she died two years later.”
Thomas Nelson Jr., another signatory, made one of the most unusual sacrifices of the war. At Yorktown the British had selected his residence as headquarters. Washington, reluctant to destroy his compatriots beautiful home, was directed to do so by Nelson himself.
Probably John Quincy Adams, a son of one of the 55 patriots making the above pledge and later a president of the United States, said it best. “Posterity—You will never know how much it has cost my generation to preserve your freedom. I hope you will make good use of it.” Let us never forget that liberty is not free. It was purchased and maintained by the blood of those before us.
Let this be a warning to those who would take it from us now, we too are standing “with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence,” mutually pledging “to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor” as well.
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.
Jun 15, 2011 | Constitution
By Dr. Harold Pease
The Associated Press recently announced that “The Book of Mormon,” a new Broadway production, took home nine Tony Awards. What interested me the most about this was their admission that it was “designed to gently mock Mormons….”
Imagine a script designed to “gently mock” Islam or their sacred book the Koran, or Christianity or their sacred book the Bible. The Middle East would be in flames, al-Qaida would grow, and President Barack Obama would travel abroad on bended knee delivering speeches of apology. How could Americans produce or support mocking them as entertainment and be so insensitive? Muslim factions, of which there are many, just like Christianity, would bind together to block and oppose the production. They would view such as an attack on all. Hopefully, Christians will do the same for their sister faith known more precisely as The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
The Broadway production should bother all. The three authors are openly promoted for being crude, profane, and blasphemous. In fact, the lyrics of one song have to be constantly beeped for non-adult audiences and they take pride in “breaking barriers.” Apparently, “one of those bleeps now has the distinction of having been uttered from a Broadway stage for the first time in history.” This certainly makes me want to line-up as one of the first viewers as has Hillary Clinton (‘Book of Mormon’ Creators Now Pushing the Edge on Broadway, The Associated Press, 11June 2011, Mlive.com).
Not one of my many Christian Pastor friends emphasizes crudity, profanity, and blasphemy, emphasized in this production, as virtues. None believe that “every religion is rooted in myths” as do the authors. Not one of them advocates giving into humanly passions, as does this production, because they are hard to resist and it is unrealistic to ask people to just say no to them. Failure to do so is why we have pregnancy at 15.
The fact that one of the “Mormon Elders” is gay, and that a highlight of the play is the song “I Believe,” full of perversions of Mormon theology for hilarity, should be offensive to all. That this can be done to one denomination or religion shows that it can be done to all. The authors excuse themselves by saying. “We just try to keep it in the context of how we can treat each other right and laugh about it without being too offended about it.” But none of them are the least bit religious, as implied by their own admissions, and how can targeting a religion be seen as “treating each other right?” For them there is nothing sacred (Ibid). Upon acceptance of the awards Trey Parker said that he would be “remiss if he didn’t thank his late book co-writer—Joseph Smith, the founder of the Mormon religion. ‘You did it, Joseph! You got the Tony!’ Looking skyward and holding up his award (‘Book of Mormon’ Shines at Annual Tony Awards, Mark Kennedy AP Writer, The Bakersfield Californian, 13 June 2011 p.16).” Again, what if that name had been Mohammad or Christ?
The biggest irony of all, however, is that the people who create this kind of satirical expression who defend, trumpet or advocate diversity, inclusion and acceptance—largely the entertainment and intellectual industries—often show none of these qualities in their own productions. Instead, they demonstrate quite the opposite, and in this case, profit off the mockery of the sacred beliefs of others to fatten their bank accounts oblivious to who or what they may offend. They also, hypocritically, condemn capitalism and the free market while they do so.
So, what is the Mormon response? In typical fashion, as in previous opposition, they let it go. Reportedly they say, in effect, “that the musical might entertain you for a night, but the Book of Mormon, the scripture, will save your life” (‘Book of Mormon’ Creators Now Pushing the Edge on Broadway, The Associated Press, 11June 2011, Mlive.com). Basically they believe that the righteous will not be attracted to crudity, profanity or blasphemy and will want to know what they really believe and what the book really says.
Will the president apologize on bended knee to them as he has to past offenses against Islam? Probably not!
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.
