Jun 11, 2013 | Constitution, Economy, Healthcare, Immigration, Tea Party
By Dr. Harold Pease
Citing the thorough documentation provided by The Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), the Tea Party Patriots has officially expressed strong reservation with respect to what they now dub the Gang of Eight Amnesty Immigration Bill. They warn that S.744 “dramatically increases legal immigration, while doing virtually nothing to improve border security or immigration enforcement.” It essentially legalizes that which used to be illegal and goes far to legitimizing open borders. If the establishment press shared with Americans what we share below it would have no chance of passage. Unfortunately they do not.
Dissecting the over 800-page bill section-by-section, four concerns are readily apparent. First, the bill “does not secure the border or strengthen national security.” Instead, it “rewards law-breaking and encourages more illegal immigration.” Twelve provisions documenting the above are noted, complete with section and page numbers. Among them are: the granting of legal status by the Department of Homeland Security “before any measure to secure the border has been taken.” It does not “require a biometric exit system “ to “track aliens who enter and leave the U.S., per current law.” It does not “require any additional border fencing or completion of current border fence requirements.” It does not require illegals “to pay back taxes before getting legal status…it only requires … applicants to pay back taxes ‘assessed’ at the time of application.” The new bill “does not require illegal aliens to learn English before receiving amnesty or even a green card.” It does not “prevent future illegal immigration, ensure fiscal sustainability of the influx of immigrants to the United States,” nor does it “end abuse of prosecutorial discretion or administrative amnesty by the Obama administration.
It does, however, increase access for illegal immigrants to the scarce jobs of U.S. workers. Moreover, it does allow “states to grant in-state tuition to illegal aliens—not the aliens who received amnesty, but all illegal aliens who arrive in the future.”
Second, the bill “does not improve immigration enforcement or public safety. Instead, it undermines immigration enforcement and is riddled with waivers and loopholes:” DHS is allowed to wave—three or more times—“multiple misdemeanor convictions when granting amnesty.” These include: “gang-related crimes and gang membership; three or more drunk driving offenses; domestic violence, stalking, child abuse, and violation of protective orders; committing crimes of moral turpitude; violating federal or state drug laws; trafficking in passports; providing fraudulent immigration services; trafficking immigration documents, including document fraud; prostitution; misrepresenting a material fact to procure visas or other immigration benefits; violating student visas; falsely claiming citizenship; and illegally re-entering the U.S. after deportation (which is a felony).”
The proposed new law “delays implementation of E-Verify to prevent illegals from being employed and voids state and local E-Verify laws. Amazingly it even creates “criminal penalties and a $10,000 fine for any federal official who discloses information found in RPI applications in violation of the law.” And it does not “require the deportation of a single illegal alien” whose “application is denied—for any reason.” The bill authorizes “illegal aliens to bring class action lawsuits against the government” and “allows the Department of Homeland Security to appoint counsel to illegal aliens fighting deportation at taxpayer expense.”
The third major concern is that the “Gang of Eight” Amnesty Immigration Bill, according to the report, “does not prioritize the American worker at a time when 22 million Americans are unemployed or underemployed. Instead, S.744 hurts the American worker:” It does this by tripling immigration within a decade. In addition it “increases the number of guest workers by 50 percent over the decade after enactment.” It enlarges the admission of additional unskilled workers each year to 200,000 and triples the number of skilled workers who may enter. “S.744 creates a new bureaucracy, the Office of Legal Access Programs, to provide illegal aliens with ‘legal orientation programs’ that help fight deportation. The bill requires DHS to make these programs available to the aliens within 5 days of being taken into custody. Section 3503 also authorizes the Office of Legal Access Programs to provide services, including legal services, to aliens in deportation hearings.” All this, of course, dramatically increases “competition for Americans entering or working in those fields.”
Finally, fourth, S.744 “does not prevent American taxpayers from subsidizing illegal immigration. In fact, it makes the current problem worse:” When permanent resident status is given “the alien need only demonstrate income or resources equal to 125 percent of the federal poverty level” to get assistance so our welfare system will be flooded. The bill also “creates a ‘slush fund’ for nonprofits that help implement the amnesty. Section 2537 authorizes DHS to award newly created ‘Initial Entry, Adjustment, and Citizenship Assistance’ (IEACA) grants to nonprofit organizations that help illegal aliens navigate the amnesty process. The bill appropriates $100 million for IEACA grants for the first five years and ‘such sums as may be necessary for fiscal year 2019 and subsequent fiscal years’.”
Who was it that said, “We have met the enemy and he is us?” The Tea Party Patriots have good reason to oppose this bill. It impacts all three of its core values: limited constitutional government, the free market, and fiscal responsibility. No piece of legislation could erase our southern border more effectively. A foreign power could not do more damage to our homeland security than our own U.S. Senate does in this one bill which now goes to a, hopefully, more responsible House of Representatives.
Jun 4, 2013 | Constitution, Healthcare, Liberty Articles, Take Action, Taxes
By Dr. Harold Pease
The Constitution is exceptionally clear on the origin of all taxes. “All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives,” not the Senate (Article I, Sec. 7). When is the House going to protect its powers from the Senate’s intrusive attempts to steal its power? Recently the Senate passed the “Marketplace Fairness Act” by a vote of 69-27, an Internet sales tax, giving states the authority to require on-line retailers, with no physical presence in those states, to collect sales taxes. Americans will pay more taxes with this bill than without. It is a bill for raising revenue and it did not originate in the House as mandated by the Constitution.
To put the Senate in its constitutional place the House should never take this bill up. Instead, if they feel such legislation is needful, they should originate their own bill after which invite the Senate to take a new bill through the committee process and to the floor once again. I might also suggest not doing so for a year or two just to make the message stronger. “You are infringing on our constitutional jurisdiction.” If the Senate will not do so, the House should consider the bill non-existent. Under no circumstances should they accept this bill as appropriate action on the part of their sister law-making body. Retailers, on the other hand, should refuse to pay this tax and challenge it in the courts on the constitutional grounds cited above.
Unfortunately, this is becoming a practice on the part of the U.S. Senate. Yet another infringing piece of legislation has also just passed the Senate Judiciary Committee in a 13-5 vote, the so-called “Gang of Eight” immigration bill, S.744, obviously originating therein. The Heritage Foundation estimates that this bill will cost taxpayers a net $6.3 trillion above what illegals contribute through taxes over the next 50 years providing benefits for millions now living in the United States. There may be debate over the numbers but what is clear is that the bill did not originate in the House of Representatives as constitutionally required and that Americans will pay more taxes with this bill than without it. Therefore it constitutes an unconstitutional tax.
The worst of all such recent intrusive taxes was “The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act,” known as Obamacare, also originated in the Senate, not in the House as constitutionally required. Weeks ago I wrote of the extensive efforts on the part of the Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid, to cover this up following the judicial decree of Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. proclaiming it a tax when the administration had argued otherwise. The establishment media should have been all over this story and was not. Obamacare may be the only revenue-raising bill in American history originated and processed by the Senate alone. Nothing could be more unconstitutional!!
So why does this matter, a tax is a tax? For thousands of years governments taxed their citizens with no limits. Rulers lived lavishly off the wealth extracted from their poor subjects with little or no mercy toward them—lavish physical structures and frivolous wars of conquest were too often the norm. The Founders wisely took this power from the rich and gave it to the poor by requiring that the poor, then the majority, had to consent to any taxation over them. The power to tax is the only constitutional power exclusively given to the masses. The House of Representatives was the only branch of government designed to actually represent them as it is based upon population. The Senate was to represent the states, the people only indirectly.
As far as I know the United States is the first, possibly the only, country in world history that puts its tax base with the masses who pay the taxes. It is a priceless freedom. If we are over-taxed in the United States we have chosen to be so and one body alone is responsible—The House of Representatives. No tax can constitutionally originate with the President or the Supreme Court, (even if Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. says that it is okay), not even the Senate, although it can modify as on other bills once originated by the House. The House is also in charge of spending. We must not let this freedom dwindle or allow the line between the two legislative branches to be blurred into oblivion.
By letting “origin” slide in these three matters, the House looses its clear distinction on the origin of taxes and the people their right of first approval of taxation for generations yet unborn and probably forever. If left unchallenged these three offending bills, one already implemented, severely damage Article I, Section 7 of the Constitution. All involved are under oath to preserve the Constitution. There is nothing in the Constitution more clear than this. Liberty is lost one piece at a time. It is also restored one piece at a time. Pass this around.
Apr 23, 2013 | Constitution, Healthcare, Take Action
By Dr. Harold Pease
Many may not be familiar with Article I, Section 7 of the U. S. Constitution that requires that “all bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives.” This means that any law, which extracts money from the American people, can only come from the House. The problem is The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, known as Obamacare, originated in the U.S. Senate not in the House as constitutionally required. The Pacific Legal Foundation, a Sacramento, California based foundation, is pursuing the matter before the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
So why does this matter, a tax is a tax? For thousands of years governments taxed their citizens with no limits. Rulers lived lavishly off the wealth extracted from their poor subjects with little or no mercy toward them—lavish physical structures and frivolous wars of conquest were too often the norm. The Founders wisely took this power from the rich and gave it to the poor themselves by requiring that the poor, then the majority, had to consent to any taxation over them. The power to tax is the only constitutional power exclusively given to the masses. The House of Representatives was the only branch of government designed to actually represent them as it is based upon population. The Senate was to represent the states, the people only indirectly.
As far as I know the United States is the first, possibly the only, country in world history that puts its tax base with the masses who pay the taxes. It is a priceless freedom. If we are over-taxed in the United States we have chosen to be and one body alone is responsible—The House of Representatives. No tax can constitutionally originate with the President or the Supreme Court, (even if Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. says that it is okay), not even the Senate, although it can modify as on other bills once originated by the House. The House is also in charge of spending. We must not let this freedom dwindle or allow the line between the two legislative branches to be blurred into oblivion.
In the Supreme Court’s decision of June 2012, it took great pains to establish that Obamacare is not a law passed under the Commerce Clause; this is a tax they ruled. Whether a fine, as the Administration argued throughout the case, or a tax as Roberts insisted, it is an extraction of money from the masses and therefore a tax and therefore must originate from the House, not the Senate. The philosophical switch created by Roberts made the constitutional error far more glaring. By letting origin slide the House looses its clear distinction on the origin of taxes and the people their right of first approval of taxation for generations yet unborn and probably forever.
What is worse it smacks of a sloppy cover-up by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. Now that the Supreme Court made healthcare constitutional by deeming it a tax, it mandated a House of Representative origin rather than the Senate. A House version HR 3200 was available but Reid did not like it favoring his own HR 3962, The Patient Protection and Affordable Health Choices Act. Prior to the Supreme Courts tax ruling the tax was called a fine, not a tax, so he reasoned that it did not make any difference which legislative body originated the fine. The ruling necessitated resurrecting a bill that had passed the House first but had not been acted upon in the Senate, the Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009 HR 3590, deleting its contents and pasting in the contents of the Senates bill HR 3962.
The Home Ownership Tax Act was a tax providing a first time home buyer’s credit to members of the Armed Services, never mind that it had nothing to do with healthcare and now, after being deleted leaving only the empty shell, had nothing to do with the Armed Services or home buying either. The only thing that Reid kept was the original date, September 17, 2009, which now deceptively confirmed that it preceded Senate action. Accomplices to Reid were the original authors of the deleted bill: Congressman Charlie Rangel of NY, and Senator Clare McCaskill of MO. This is the kind of morphing that reeks of illegitimacy and fraudulency (“Lawsuit to test Origination clause,” The Washington Times, April 8, 2013, p. 12. See Also www.Patriot Guardian.org).
What is even worse. If Reid had indeed simply pasted in his own bill into the dead Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act, as believed, this tax bill HR 3962, the one that became Obamacare, has never actually been before the House of Representatives, the only body actually authorized to originate a tax. Obamacare may be the only revenue-raising bill in American history originated, processed, and implemented by the Senate alone. Nothing could be more unconstitutional!!
If left unchallenged Obamacare severely damages Article I, Section 7 of the Constitution. As an accomplice, the Senate is unlikely to sympathize but you should find a friend in your Congressperson and governor. Each should have a vested interest in this power shift. Contact them with your own summation of the problem or send them a copy of this article.
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.
Apr 11, 2013 | Constitution, Economy, Globalism, Healthcare, Take Action
By Dr. Harold Pease
Are your city or county government leaders ICLEI members, or is your city an ICLEI city? If so, you, or they, may not fully realize that the United Nations has a big influence over your local government decisions. You need to void this influence as quickly as possible.
I too was slow to see the influence of the United Nations on city, county, or state governments but the documentation supporting that influence is now overwhelming. I was conversant with their use of environmental prongs to standardize regulations and govern allocations of resources on the nations of the earth through the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil and through their United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), but we were okay because we had not signed the 1997 Kyoto Protocol Treaty. There were so many other fronts in trying to preserve our Constitution and Republic this seemed less unimportant.
While I battled the loss of freedom elsewhere, the United Nations formed in 1990 the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives, or ICLEI, to ideologically infiltrate local governments into “winning enactment of global-warming legislation at the state and local levels.” A tentacle of a giant UN octopus has reached into our local governments. Now becoming recognized for what it is, it appears almost everywhere. It claims over 1200 local government members in 70 different countries. Of that number 130 are members of our county and city governments in California alone. California’s ICLEI cities include Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco and Sacramento, which sheds light on how California could be so easily enticed into AB 32, formally known as the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. This legislation, sometimes referred to as “cap and trade,” is driving businesses from the state and flooding those who stay with regulatory nightmares.
ICLEI’s purpose, according to their web page, is to “Connect cities and local governments to the United Nations and other international bodies… Mobilize local governments to help their countries implement multilateral environmental agreements such as the Rio conventions…. Forge multi-stakeholder partnerships such as Resilient Cities, a global framework on urban resilience and climate adaptation where local governments, international agencies, development banks, ministries, institutes and others, collaborate.” The master plan is Chapter 28 of Agenda 21.
Agenda 21 “proposes a global regime that will monitor, oversee, and strictly regulate our planet’s oceans, lakes, streams, rivers, aquifers, sea beds, coast-lands, wetlands, forests, jungles, grasslands, farmland, deserts, tundra, and mountains. It even has a whole section on regulating and ‘protecting’ the atmosphere.”
But Agenda 21 is far more than just extreme environmental regulation—that is just the beginning. The New American magazine gave the best description of what it includes. “It proposes plans for cities, towns, suburbs, villages, and rural areas. It envisions a global scheme for healthcare, education, nutrition, agriculture, labor, production, and consumption—in short, everything; there is nothing on, in, over, or under the Earth that doesn’t fall within the purview of some part of Agenda 21” (“Your Hometown and the United Nations,” February 21, 2011, p. 14). In short, it will affect every person on earth and that affect is not likely to be positive for individuals or their local governments. Like a vacuum cleaner it siphons power from local and state jurisdiction to the United Nations.
The list of environmental groups, foundations, and government agencies supporting Agenda 21 is mind-boggling. Local opposition is underfunded and overwhelmed.
“Sustainable development” (not defined) is the wording used to describe their end result. This is the most appealing part of Agenda 21 for visionaries of a perfectly, totally managed, world governing environment. Unfortunately, it is way too open-ended allowing the ruling class (the planners, of course) to modify the rules as necessary. Gone would be the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, but Utopians do not think that far in advance. Fortunately, locally elected leaders generally do, but they need to rid themselves of this UN influence, like a cancer, to remain locally controlled and free. Once again, are your city or county leaders ICLEI members? Why not ask 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 weekly articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.
Dec 17, 2012 | Constitution, Economy, Healthcare, Take Action, Taxes, Tea Party
By Dr. Harold Pease
What most do not realize is that December 31 is but the first fiscal cliff—the little one. Given the inability of both parties to deal with this little one, although they have known about it for almost two years, how can we have any faith in their ability to prevent the ultimate collapse of the economy if immediate and drastic changes are not made soon? Why not solve both now before options are more drastic later?
Neither party really represents limited constitutional government and both are addicted to debt. It is like an addict prescribing his own detox program. Consequently Freedom Works, a Tea Party affiliate, selected 12 of their own members and through the Internet invited 150,000 members to make suggestions on what should be done. The Tea Party Debt Commission was formed to provide the federal government a solution. Its final report summarized the problem, “Our government is doing too many things it can’t do well, or shouldn’t do at all, with money it doesn’t have. We are borrowing 43 cents of every dollar we spend….”
The Tea Party Plan cuts, caps, and balances federal spending. The budget is balanced in four years, without tax hikes, and remains balanced. Federal spending is reduced by $9.7 trillion over the next ten years. The plan shrinks the federal government from 24 % of GDP to about 16 %. Finally it stops the growth of the debt and begins paying it down. Within a generation there would be no national debt. Bold indeed!
How do they do this? First, stop duplication of services. They note that the “Government Accountability Office counted no fewer than 47 job training programs, 56 financial literacy programs, 80 economic development programs, 18 food assistance programs, 20 programs for the homeless, 82 teacher-quality programs spread across 10 agencies, and more than 2,100 data centers. All told, we have nearly 2,200 federal programs.” Government is bloated, inefficient, and wasteful.
Second, repeal services that we can no longer afford and/or that are not authorized within the Constitution. These goals include repealing ObamaCare, eliminating four unconstitutional, costly, inefficient Cabinet agencies—Energy, Education, Commerce, and HUD—and reducing or privatizing many others, including EPA, TSA, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac. Their report calls for ending farm subsidies, government student loans, and foreign aid to countries that don’t support us—luxuries we can no longer afford.
Third entitlement programs must be incentivized to give donors more for their money. Boldly they opened the unfunded liabilities door—the door neither party dares to open as potentially it could destroy career politicians and political parties. They concluded that they could make Social Security “sustainable and actually improve benefits by harnessing the power of compound interest.” They noted, “Three decades ago, Chile embarked on a bold transformation of its retirement security system. Today, that system [SMART Accounts] is the envy of the world, giving seniors far better benefits than the old, government-run system ever did.”
Shortly thereafter three counties in Texas adopted the SMART Accounts program in favor of personal accounts and thus those retiring today do so “with much more money and have significantly more generous death and disability supplemental benefits than do Social Security participants.” Moreover, they “face no long term unfunded pension liabilities.” The Commission recommends that, “all state and local governments should have the option of opting into the ‘Galveston model.’ ”
The Tea Party Debt Commission saw the Medicare program as outdated, inefficient, and corrupt and recommended six major changes that if followed would save, they predicted, $676,000,000 the first year and $2,030,843,000,000 in 10 years. These changes are first “let individuals opt out of Medicare under Senator Jim DeMint’s ‘Retirement Freedom Act.”’ Second, let all new Medicare beneficiaries enroll in the Federal Employees’ Health Benefit Program (FEHBP) introduced by Senator Rand Paul as the “Congressional Health Care for Seniors Act.” Third, reduce Medicare subsidies to actual cost of hospitals’ graduate medical education. Fourth, maintain Medicare’s physician payment rates at the 2011 level. Fifth, convert the open-ended Medicaid program into a capped block grant to the states. And six call on all states to reform their medical malpractice and product liability systems—tort reform.
Opting into the same Medicare program the members of Congress use, the second Tea Party change recommended, is much better for participants because it “relies on competing private insurers to provide benefits, and as a result has very little of the fraud and waste problems that plague today’s outdated and poorly designed Medicare system.” One wonders why Congress can make for themselves such a good system and leave us one with “between 10 and 20 percent of Medicare’s $450 billion annual budget being attributable to waste, fraud, and abuse….” Moreover, it suspends pension contributions and COLAs for Members of Congress, whenever the budget is in deficit.
The new plan offers a rational transition to ownership of our own retirement and more control and choice over our health care. Why did the government fail to accomplish the same thing—even behind closed doors? Their first concern is to protect their jobs and party. Outsiders, without a personal stake in the outcome, can see much more and do much more without the inevitable political wrangling. Learn more and review the details of the Tea Party Debt Commission’s recommendations by visiting FreedomWorks.org/the-tea-party-budget. Will Congress explore these changes with intent to make them? Not unless you demand that they do so.
Dr. Harold Pease is an expert on the United States Constitution. He has dedicated his career to studying the writings of the Founding Fathers and applying that knowledge to current events. He has taught history and political science from this perspective for over 25 years at Taft College. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.
Dec 10, 2012 | Constitution, Economy, Healthcare, Take Action
By Dr. Harold Pease
Presently 17 states have chosen not to setup insurance exchanges with respect to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Law, commonly cited as Obamacare, primarily because they fear that doing so would bankrupt their state and they remain convinced that it is a serious intrusion on their constitutional jurisdiction—even freedom. Some were among the 26 states that suede the Federal Government for exceeding its constitutional authority. They may not know that they have one constitutional check left to exercise if they but have the will.
Those who spend any time with the Constitution know that the federal government is limited to a list of specific areas wherein Congress can legislate (Art. I, Sec. 8) and if a desired power is not on that list, or not added thereto by way of an amendment to the Constitution, they are prohibited from legislating therein. All other powers not provided in that document are left to the states and to the people as per Amendment 10 of the Bill of Rights. Checks and balances were created in an effort to keep the federal government from creating its own authority and taking over everything. The Founding Fathers saw going off the list and thus doing something not authorized as tyranny.
Senators were especially charged to protect state sovereignty, the list, and the 10th Amendment, but Progressives in the early 20th Century weakened that protection by ratifying the 17th Amendment, which favored a popular vote for this office rather than, as it was before, having Senators selected by state legislatures who were purposely far more state sovereignty centered. State power was thereafter left unprotected and measures clearly of state jurisdiction and unlisted, such as health care, got through the badly damaged shield and became law.
The Supreme Court was also one of those checks and balances, but it too has become damaged when previous small perversions of the Constitution become leverage for yet other larger perversions, and original intent the intended interpretation, was replaced by past practice, a philosophy also accentuated by the Progressives Movement. What do we do when the Court too is compromised as in Obamacare?
The Supreme Court also has one other problem. Think of our government, as the founders did in the Constitution, as two parts, with power divided between two government teams—the federal and the state. The Supreme Court can never be the final arbitrator between these two teams as it is a valued player on the federal team, and thus not neutral. It will always tend to favor the federal team. What can the states do to stop federal intrusion into their arena even when such intrusion is blatantly clear to anyone reading the Constitution? Nullification.
The Founders left us with one final check on tyranny, but it is not well known and is little used. If the 26 suing states, or even the 17 who have rejected creating the insurance exchanges, instead just said “No! “The law is clearly unconstitutional and will not be implemented, in part or whole, in this state without a constitutional amendment so authorizing. If this law, which virtually destroys the 10th Amendment to the Constitution, is allowed to stand the states have no protected jurisdictions from the federal government and are merely appendages to it.” If enough understood that this law is the death of the philosophy of shared power, or federalism, they would oppose it. If even a minority of states stood together on this point it would stop this federal takeover of one-seventh of the economy in its tracks. State legislators, you are the last constitutional check. Are you listening?
Nullification has two historical precedents. Thomas Jefferson (principle author of the Declaration of Independence) and James Madison (referred to as the father of the Constitution) attempted to nullify The Alien and Sedition Acts in 1798 created by their Federalist Party predecessors. These authors penned the Virginia and Kentucky Resolves objecting on the basis of the unreasonable empowerment of the president and the attack on the First Amendment, particularly freedoms of speech and press. The Supreme Court never took the case, largely because the bill was design to last only until 1801, (Federalists did not want it used against them should they lose the next election) thus the issue died naturally undoubtedly assisted by resistance of these states.
Next to use the Nullification Doctrine was South Carolina with respect to the 1828 “Tariff of Abominations,” believed by them and neighboring states to be unconstitutional. Opponents to it declared it to be “null and void” within their border and threatened to take South Carolina out of the Union if Washington attempted to collect custom duties by force. Andrew Jackson prepared to invade the state. A compromise Tariff of 1833 gradually lowered the tariff to acceptable levels and the issue faded away. States standing firm brought compromise.
Unfortunately for power-hungry federal politicians, the word health is not in Section 8, nor has it been added to the Constitution by way of amendment through Article V, which is the process for “change that you can believe in,” and thus our Founders would have considered it devoid of constitutional authority. If we are to follow the Constitution as intended, and not make a mockery of it, health related concerns are state functions at best and cannot be moved to a federal jurisdiction without a 3/4th affirmative vote of the states as per Article V of the U.S. Constitution. The last acceptable constitutional check to federal tyranny is the state legislatures. Will states stand with the Constitution and its authors or be bullied into submission?
Dr. Harold Pease is an expert on the United States Constitution. He has dedicated his career to studying the writings of the Founding Fathers and applying that knowledge to current events. He has taught history and political science from this perspective for over 25 years at Taft College. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.
