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.
Nov 19, 2012 | Economy
By Dr. Harold Pease
This Thanksgiving Day we think of the Pilgrims, abundant foods, and giving thanks. Few remember the starving times when the first year after landing about half died, largely of famine. Harvests were not bountiful in 1620, 1621 and 1622. Plymouth was beset by laziness and thievery. William Bradford, the governor of the colony, in his History of Plymouth Plantation reported that “much was stolen both by night and day” to alleviate the prevailing condition of hunger. The mythical “feast” of the first Thanksgiving did fill their bellies briefly, he reported, and they were grateful, but abundance was anything but common. Why did this happen? Because they had fallen victim to the socialistic philosophy of “share the wealth.” This dis-incentivizes the productive element of society.
Then suddenly, as though night changed to day, the crop of 1623 was bounteous, and those thereafter as well, and it had nothing to do with the weather. Bradford wrote, “Instead of famine now God gave them plenty and the face of things was changed, to the rejoicing of the hearts of many, for which they blessed God.” He concluded later, “any general want or famine hath not been amongst them since to this day.”
One variable alone made the difference and ended the three-year famine. They abandoned the notion of government (or corporation) owning the means of production and distribution in favor of the individual having property and being responsible to take care of himself. Before no one benefited by working because he received the same compensation as those who did not. After the change everyone kept the benefits of his labor. Those who chose not to work basically chose also to be poor and the government (corporation) no longer confiscated from those who produced to give to those who did not. No government food stamps here.
Ironically all this could have been avoided had Plymouth consulted history and communicated with their neighboring colony, some distance south of them, who had previously been down the same trail. Jamestown too was first a socialist society where each produced according to his ability and received according to his need which, of course, was affected by the supply. One cannot divide what does not exist. Our textbooks tell us that only one of twelve survived the first two years for precisely the same reason, again, largely because of their starving time. The problem, as noted by Tom Bethel in his work The Noblest Triumph: Property and Prosperity through the Ages, was identified by an unnamed participant as “want of providence, industrie and government, and not the barenness and defect of the Countrie.”
Captain John Smith is credited with having saved the floundering colony by his “no workie, no eatie” government program (once again the Virginia Company was the government) and was hated for it. Addicted to the promise of getting something for nothing, even if it is always less than promised, the receiving part of the population will always oppose their not getting their “fair share.” Sound familiar? Captain Smith was eventually carted off to England in chains as fast as the parasitic population could do so. Once again, why? Philip A. Bruce in his Economic History of Virginia in the Seventeenth Century, p. 121 called it agricultural socialism. “The settlers did not have even a modified interest in the soil…. Everything produced by them went into the store, in which they had no proprietorship.” When settlers finally were allowed to own their own property, and keep what they produced, things changed over night.
Colony Secretary Ralph Hamor wrote of incoming prosperity, beginning in 1614, after ownership of land was allowed. “When our people were fed out of the common store, and labored jointly together, glad was he [who] could slip from his labor, or slumber over his tasks he cared not how, nay, the most honest among them would hardly take so much true pains in a week, as now for themselves they will do in a day, neither cared they for the increase, presuming that however the harvest prospered, the general store must maintain them, so that we reaped not so much corn from the labors of thirty as now three or four do provide for themselves.”
This Thanksgiving let us be grateful for the prosperity that we have even in hard times such as today. Jamestown and Plymouth set us upon a course that recognized that prosperity requires incentive to flourish and that the profit motive stimulates industry. We are so grateful that having recognized the poison of “the share the wealth” philosophy, they purged it from their midst and proceeded to make America the most prosperous country on earth. Others, through the ages, maintained that understanding. Will we be so smart? Let us share this message at the table as we feast upon turkey and pumpkin pie this Thanksgiving Day so that our children will know how prosperity is produced.
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.
Oct 30, 2012 | Constitution, Economy, Taxes
By Dr. Harold Pease
Viewing past presidential elections, and the one we are now in, it becomes very obvious to me that the winner will be the one who gathers the most special interest groups by promising them favors in return for their vote, often from the public treasury. Today there are between 9 and 15 thousand lobbyists working on Capitol Hill seeking ever-larger portions of the tax pie for their faction. Purchased politicians can’t say no. When they can’t actually meet all the promises they have made, they simply raise the debt ceiling which signals the Federal Reserve to print more paper money, a process sometimes called quantitative easing. Hence we have passed to our children a debt in excess of 16 trillion dollars.
The Founding Fathers were quite familiar with the need to control special interest groups, then referred to as factions, as absolutely critical to liberty. Democratic governments in both Athens and Rome had bred and fed factions thus, “bread and circuses” was the cry of their factions before their loss of liberty.
James Madison, Father of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights, defined a faction, in The Federalist Papers No. 51, as “a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or minority of the whole, who are united and activated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.” He saw the source of factions as being “the various and unequal distribution of property. Those who hold, and those who are without property, have ever formed distinct interests in society. Those who are creditors, and those who are debtors, fall under a like discrimination.”
Tension over income distribution will always exist because we do not share the same talents or work ethic. The problem with democracy, he continued, is that “there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party, or the obnoxious individual. Hence, it is, that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security, or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives, as they have been violent in their deaths.” Free men are not equal and equal men are not free.
George Washington warned that factions “put in the place of the delegated will of the nation the will of party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community” (Congressional Record, Feb. 19, 1973, S2653). He admitted that they “may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men, will be enabled to subvert the power of the people, and to usurp for themselves the reins of government; destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.” Unions come to mind. Factions are focused only upon themselves and demand an ever larger share of the public pie until there is no pie. Look at Greece.
Madison knew that factions could not exist in non-free states, they could simply be outlawed, but in free states only a republic could control them. The Constitution was specifically designed to do just that by offering them no incentive to assemble on the federal level. Congress was given but four powers: to tax, to pay the debts, and to provide for the general welfare and common defense. Clauses 2-9 of Section 8, Article 1 defined what general welfare is and 10-17 what common defense is. No money was set aside for, or provided to, any special interest. The power distributed benefited all equally and at the same time. The federal role was as referee only. Our Constitution does not redistribute wealth; it leaves the individual to do that by his work ethic. It remains the fairest way. The Founders, who were all veterans, even resisted the temptation to carve out special privileges for themselves. With no money to divide, the vultures had no reason to assemble.
Unfortunately, the resistance to use the public treasury to further special interests did not last. A transcontinental railroad was desirable in the late 1860’s and the country was willing to look the other way, ignoring the Constitution, when two railroads, the Union and the Central Pacific, were given the privileged contracts. The completed track laid in 1869 wet the lips of other railroad building companies who thought that they should get monies from the public treasury as well. The government, invaded by “me too” applicants financed three additional transcontinental railroads by the early 1890’s.
Benjamin Harrison decided to promise veterans monies from the treasury in his election against Grover Cleveland, who honorably refused to do so. Harrison’s win opened Pandora’s box. Now that some were getting access to the treasury, other groups and causes felt that they should as well. Franklin D. Roosevelt and Lyndon B. Johnson opened it even wider allowing anyone with a cause to get taxpayer monies. Armies of special interest groups now assemble on the Capital to feed off the public trough. Damaged is the view that the federal government can only do and finance the listed items in Article I.
Factions will inevitably destroy our republic unless we return to the list. It will not be easy. We are addicted to debt, having everything right now, and passing it along to our children. Still, the foundation is there. Every remodel is first ugly and dirty before it shines, but getting back to where government cannot show favoritism to any group, interest, or faction is critical or this patient is terminal. The Founders had to start from the beginning to control factions. We already have machinery in place to do so but lack statesmen who will use it. It is time to find those statesmen.
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.
Oct 9, 2012 | Constitution, Economy
By Dr. Harold Pease
On August 31, between the two national party conventions, our national debt exceeded $16 trillion dollars; four of which is from eight years of George W. Bush and six, and counting, from less than four years of Barack Obama—the two biggest spending presidents in U.S. history. So what is a trillion dollars? Let me try to give some perspective. To begin with a trillion is the number 1 followed by twelve zeros. A trillion dollars is a thousand billion and a billion is a thousand million. This still means very little to my students who count their money in fives, tens and twenties.
One mathematician gave us a more practical way to evaluate our outstanding debt. One trillion one-dollar bills stacked atop each other (not end to end but flat) would reach nearly 68,000 miles into space—a third of the way to the moon (See CNN News Cast, Feb. 4, 2009). If so, the debt incurred under President Obama alone, $6 trillion, would take us to the moon and back. Moreover, if you like traveling atop this stack of ones, our total $16 trillion in debt would take you to and from the moon twice and to the moon a third time and you would still get a third of the way back to earth as well.
Senator Mitch McConnell gave another illustration just as awe striking. He calculated that if we spent a million dollars every day since Jesus was born we still would not have spent a trillion dollars—only three-fourths of a trillion dollars (ibid.).
Someone else equated our national debt to seconds and concluded that a million seconds is about 11½ days and a billion seconds is about 32 years. A trillion seconds is about 32,000 years thus 16 trillion seconds is 512,000 years (See CNN News Cast, Feb. 4, 2009). This only make my head spin. My Ph. D is not in math.
I ask my students, “Who gets to go without so that this debt can be paid?” Go without?” That is a concept foreign to this generation!! They do not know, and neither do their parents and grandparents who laid it on their backs. When they are told that their immediate share of the debt is $51,265 (see USDebtClock.org), due immediately, they are angry.
The 13th amendment ending slavery has been rescinded. They are America’s new slaves. Bondage was given them before their birth, or while they were in the womb, or before they were old enough to know what it meant to be sold into slavery. The past generation wanted nice costly programs for free and were willing to sell their children in order to have them. Well Communist China owns an eighth of us and the bills are due. What is worse the older generation is still anxious to incur even more debt on our defenseless children and grandchildren. Are we not the most debt addicted, insensitive generation in all human history?
The latest new theory to avoid fiscal responsibility and continue unlimited spending used by both Bush in late 2009 and Obama in 2010 is referred to as Quantitative Easing. Crudely it means printing more money out of thin air to cover our debt, but it is far more sophisticated than that. For Bush the money supply was greatly expanded by having the Federal Reserve purchase $600 billion in Mortgage-backed securities (Harding, Robin. 3 November 2010, Quantitative Easing Explained. Financial Times). Obama purchased $600 billion of Treasury securities over a six month period of time beginning in November 2010 in what has been called Quantitative Easing or QE2 to distinguish it from QE1, the Bush expansion of the money supply (Cesky, Annalyn,3 Nov.2010, “QE2: Fed Pulls the Trigger” CNNmoney.com. Retrieved 10 Aug. 2011). Neither has stimulated the economy or created jobs, but for a few months, like a drug high, things seem to feel better.
The biggest problem with expanding the money supply is that it reduces the value of the money that you have in your pocket. Prices go up. Those on fixed incomes are robbed as surely as had a thief lifted their wallet or purse. They cannot return to their employer for a raise to compensate for the loss caused by their own government.
Last month the Federal Reserve announced a third round of Quantitative Easing, QE3. Fed Chair Ben Bernanke will be expanding the money supply, this time by purchasing $40 billion worth of mortgage-backed securities per month indefinitely. By doing so now we will experience a similar feel good euphoria, with respect to the economy, through the presidential election. Bernanke fears more fiscal restraint from a President Mitt Romney than from President Barack Obama, it is alleged (Skousen, Mark, Oct. 2012, “Forecasts and Strategies,” p. 1).
Still, with all the sophisticated “doublespeak” it means that we will print whatever money we need to purchase whatever we wish. Neither party is serious about stopping the debt and removing the bondage that we are imposing upon our children and grandchildren. Moreover, who cares if our debt of dollar bills stacked upon one another can go to the moon four times and back to earth three so long as the government fills our stomachs and buys our cell phones.
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 17, 2012 | Constitution, Economy, Healthcare
By Dr. Harold Pease
The U.S. Constitution requires that states remain a republic and gives the federal government authorization to mandate such (Art. IV, sec. 4), but does it work the other way? Can the states require that the federal government remain a republic and not turn into a socialist state? With the Affordable Care Act one seventh of the economy is turned over to the federal government.
Such is the question posed by Arizona in a new initiative that just qualified for the November ballot. If passed it would give Arizonians two ways of ignoring federal law that exceeds the constitutional powers of the federal government as identified in the U.S. Constitution, either by vote of the Arizona Legislature with the signature of the Governor, or, by the people through a ballot measure. All other powers “are reserved to the States, or to the people,” as noted in Amendment 10 of the Constitution. Arizona acknowledges the U.S. Constitution as “the Supreme law of the land” but will add to her state constitution language prohibiting the U. S. Constitution from being violated by any government, including the federal government.
One of the reasons that the states took three years to ratify the constitution, as submitted by the Constitutional Convention in 1787, was because of their paranoia of big government. Having expelled British tyranny, the last thing that they wanted was to have it return in an American form. They wanted a list of “thou shalt nots;” things that the federal government could never do to them under any circumstances. They called it a Bill of Rights. In the 10th Amendment of that document, they made it clear that all power not listed belonged to the states so the “Arizona take” is clearly constitutionally implied. The federal government is to act only in the 17 areas listed in the Constitution. The word health, or anything like unto it, is not there so such is clearly a state issue. Regardless of the Supreme Court ruling and Justice John Robert’s judicial legislation, the federal government has stolen state authority and in doing so has violated the Constitution.
Both democracy and socialism are hostile to the basic elements of a republic which is decidedly weighted in limited government, is based upon natural inalienable rights, and favors individual differences rather than absolute equality in its philosophical orientation. How far into socialism we have traveled and at what point we are no longer a republic no one can say, at what point does gray become black or pink become red, but certainly one law turning over a seventh of the economy to the federal government is a giant step from a republic and should concern all. It does Arizona.
It isn’t just the one issue of health care where Arizona is concerned but it is the pattern of the never-ending enlargement of the powers of the federal government, at the expense of state prerogatives, and the 10th amendment, that is transforming the federal government from a republic, as understood by the Founders, into something else. It is Constitutional defilement to them and the use of Amendment 10 is central to the restoration of freedom from government and the return of checks and balances of which state jurisdiction is essential, before all power is housed at the federal level and we are no longer free.
Examples of federal overreach are everywhere. Proponents of this change in the Arizona Constitution cite federal speed limits and the federal ban on incandescent light bulbs, as examples of other intrusions into state power (Arizona’s Secession-lite plan, by Alex Seitz-Wald, July 6, 2012) but they could list dozens more. This has to stop they contend and with an overreaching compliant court, they are rightfully using the 10 Amendment tool to do so. Certainly in upholding the 10th Amendment to the Constitution other states should join them.
Dr. Harold Pease is an expert on the United States Constitution. He has dedicated his career to studying the writings of the Founding Fathers and applying that knowledge to current events. He has taught history and political science from this perspective for over 25 years at Taft College. To read more of his articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.
Jun 4, 2012 | Constitution, Economy
By Dr. Harold Pease
On January 30, 2012, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg surprised many by advising those attempting to create a new constitution in Egypt not to use the U.S. Constitution as its model. “I would not look to the US Constitution, if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012,” she told the Egyptian people on national television. “I might look at the constitution of South Africa. … It really is, I think, a great piece of work that was done. Much more recent than the U.S. Constitution: Canada has a Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It dates from 1982. You would almost certainly look at the European Convention on Human Rights. Yes, why not take advantage of what there is elsewhere in the world,” (U. S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg To Egyptians: Look to the Constitutions of South Africa or Canada, Not to the U.S. Constitution, MEMRI TV Al-Hayat, Egypt, Jan. 30, 2012)?
Those who wish to undermine the Constitution infer that our Constitution may not be a good fit for other cultures like Egypt. On this score they would do well to remember that we have assimilated every language, culture, religious and ethnic group on earth and we did so because all humans share the same basic need for freedom from excessive government to fully flourish. The Constitution is the most flexible governing document with respect to diversity ever written, and unless modified by progressives such as Ginsburg, it always will be.
Implied is the assumption that because it is old, it is outdated and therefore irrelevant to the needs of our day. This document will always be relevant because it is designed to harnesses the negative aspects of human nature and is based upon natural law; items that do not change from century to century. Man is still power hungry, and the people need to be protected from such hunger, whether man rides a horse, drives a car, or flies an airplane. Our Constitution minimizes these forces by dividing, restricting, and listing power. Should some overreach their power we have elections and impeachment to remove them. Finally, we have a Bill of Rights that further harnesses excessive government. None of these measures have shown themselves to no longer be needful. Justice Ginsburg does not seem to understand this.
When confronted with this “horse vs. airplane” nonsense, I ask my students, “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 people 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.
But it does not guarantee housing, or medical rights, as does the South African constitution, some might say. Actually it does not distribute wealth or guarantee anything except the freedom to use one’s own talent to do that for himself and in doing so the Constitution created the most energized and therefore the most universally prosperous society in recorded history such that even the lazy have more wealth than those who worked hard in yesteryear. The U. S. Constitution has made this nation the envy of the earth. General Douglas Mac Arthur virtually forced the Japanese to adopt our Constitution and within a single generation they too became a wealthy country even competing economically with our own.
The problem with using a constitution to redistribute wealth, as in the countries cited by Justice Ginsburg, and, as is the socialist dream, is that it kills the incentive to produce of both the productive and the non-productive elements of society. The productive, because their wealth is by force taken from them and given to another, are disincentivized to work harder as are the less productive because the wealth of the more productive is given to them anyway, so why should they work harder? Ironically, the redistribution of wealth does not help the poor unless wealth actually exists to redistribute, and that does not happen unless incentive to produce exists, no matter what the government says or guarantees.
No, Justice Ginsburg, the U.S. Constitution has proven itself to be the most relevant, flexible, wealth producing, governing document on earth and you, of all people, should have made that case to the Egyptians. Strict adherence to the principles locked into this document would make them a more prosperous nation also. All that you gave them were examples of shared poverty. I fear that your lack of incite, in this most fundamental constitutional matter, may facilitate your helping to bring shared poverty to us 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.
