Jan 5, 2014 | Constitution, Economy, Healthcare, Immigration, Liberty Articles, Take Action, Tea Party
By Harold Pease PH. D
The year has shown monumental efforts by some to get back to the Constitution. An ever-growing portion of the largely distracted public is finally awakening to the fact that they are losing freedom and that both parties are responsible. Let us review those monumental moments of 2013 each of which have been covered extensively by us in previous columns.
We began the year with what was called “successionitis”—a desire of some of the people to leave the Union—not seen in the United States since the Civil War. Fifteen states posted over 25,000 signatures with Texas posting 116,000 by itself. The President closed down his site to further counting. With his refusal to allow further counting and the establishment media’s refusal to continue coverage, the issue was squelched. Discontent with the federal government not following the Constitution and the resultant loss of freedom (especially cited were NDAA and TSA) were said to be the reasons for the backlash by those participating.
This was followed by the 2013 Sheriffs’ Rebellion wherein by mid-February, 336 elected county sheriffs had signed pledges that they will not enforce any unconstitutional gun control laws or executive orders—seventeen of them in California. Nine states refused to comply. The Utah Sheriff’s Association made the strongest statement aimed directly at the President. “We, like you, swore a solemn oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, and we are prepared to trade our lives for the preservation of its traditional interpretation.” Wyoming’s new “Firearm Protection Act,” threatened federal officials with up to five years in prison and $5,000 in fines if convicted of attempting to enforce unconstitutional statutes or decrees infringing on the gun rights of Wyoming citizens. Kentucky has enacted something similar and reportedly, Missouri and Texas have similar legislation pending.
Also in February thousands gathered from California to New York and from Florida to Alaska, on February 23, to remind the federal government that the “right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” They were saying, in effect, “Back off Mr. President with your executive orders and Congress with your proposed new laws, you are on sacred Constitutional soil.” The establishment press was weak, almost non-existent, in its coverage. The 124 cities participating largely had to enter their own pictures of their event on the Internet to get coverage—so weak was press response. Seventeen such rallies were held in California alone, a state already sensitive to the loss of gun right freedoms and threatened with more of the same by a largely hostile democratically controlled State Legislature.
On March 6, 2013, one man stood on the Senate floor arguing for 13 hours, even against his own party, to prevent the President’s use of drone strikes to kill Americans on U.S. soil. Without Tea Party support Rand Paul would have been alone. The phrase, Stand With Rand” became popular overnight. Senator Paul wanted assurance from the President that he would never do this to us as he had Americans in other lands. The assurance finally came the next day from Eric Holder but it was far from convincing.
Summer brought the “Gang of Eight” and immigration reform that had every appearance of just another amnesty. S. 744 did nothing to improve border security or immigration enforcement and the House, resisting the pressure to be railroaded, has chosen not to act upon the Senate’s favorable vote until 2014. The Tea Party Patriot movement played an important role in revealing it’s numerous defects.
The year brought an outbreak of media coverage of the National Security Administration’s, NSA, spying on over 100 million Americans, recording their telephone conversations, emails, and other electronic messages for the last seven years. Attention turned to, “Whatever happened to congressional or judicial oversight?” Included in the revelations was the 35 years of FISA court’s special surveillance requests on 34,000 citizens, with virtually no denials. This has caused many to look to the Constitution for protection from their own government. They asked, “Is government spying on its own citizens constitutional?” Edward Snowden said no and intentionally shared with the world that which our government was doing to us and everybody else. He helped give us focus on our government’s serious violations of Amendments I, IV, V and even VI. To millions he was a hero.
In the Fall of the year, Barack Obama, by himself, in total defiance of the Constitution Art. I, Sec. 8, Clause 11, almost took us into war by his intention to, send a “missile across the bow of a Syrian ship.” He was supported in his doing so by Secretary of State, John Kerry and Republican power Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham. At least 60% of Americans did not support another no-win war and the President backed down.
In November Senator Ted Cruz stood for 21 hours and 19 minutes, once again mostly by himself with but Tea Party support. Our national debt at 17 trillion dollars, the highest in our history, with Obama responsible for seven trillion of that number in the last five years, was central to his stand. The Republicans had not shut down the government as the media said. Instead they fully funded the government with the exception of Obamacare. More and more people are realizing that the U.S. is going to experience a fiscal collapse unless we return to fiscal responsibility—a core principle of the Tea Party movement. Senator Cruz opposed the debt-ceiling rise as another always follows.
More than half of the states showed their resistance to Obamacare by opting out of exchanges. Resistance to it mounted exponentially when the government website did not work as promised and when the people realized that the President knowingly sold his forced care plan under the false premise that they could keep their doctor and their existing healthcare plan. Most Americans now oppose it.
Seemingly those who damage the Constitution always win. But this year, 2013, had many victories. Let us remember with gratitude those who did stand for freedom and remove from power those who did not. Happy New Year my liberty loving friends!!
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.
May 20, 2013 | Globalism, Immigration
Br Dr. Harold Pease
Almost two decades ago I wrote a paper that outlined the process by which the European Union transcended from the European Coal and Steel Community to the European Economic Community to the European Community to the European Union. Never were the people told that the intended outcome—unification—was to slowly take away their sovereignty. The paper began with a call from General Dwight D. Eisenhower, a Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) member, for “The United States of Europe” (“An Early Champion of Unity,” U.S. News and World Report, Oct 15, 1990, p. 65). I documented how the Marshall Plan money was handed out, not so much to prevent communism from making progress in Europe, as we had been told, but to consolidate Europe first economically than politically into a single country.
I did not publish the paper, although based upon numerous sources, it seemed out of reach for most Americans at the time. Imagine telling people that a group of wealthy Wall Street elites, through the use of tax-payer money, had something to do with the consolidation of Europe into a single country and planned the same for North America with the unification, first economically than political, of Canada, Mexico and the United States into a single country known as the North American Union, with a single currency called the “Amero” Dollar. Who would believe it until now? I was young in my career and decidedly not anxious to step too far out of political correctness.
I am now established in my career and have the respect of colleagues’ so such is more easily believed. I have also seen that foreign policy never changes from democratic to republican presidents with respect to foreign aid, military adventurism, perpetual war, the continued enlargement of the power of the United Nations, and never ending illegal immigration on our southern border.
I told my students 25 years ago that there would never be an effective deterrent to illegal immigration because the Council on Foreign Relations, from which all Secretaries of State, U.N. Ambassadors, Russian and Chinese Ambassadors, and a third of all Presidential Cabinets are drawn, is a strong advocate of globalism. They are easily the most powerful special interest group in the United States and they are clearly for open borders and trans-national agreements.
Extending amnesty in the Immigration Act of 1965 did not work because we did not seal the border. It just encouraged more to come. When offered again by President Ronald Reagan in the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, with the promise that we would never need it again, I issued my warning that despite the promise to finally end illegal immigration we would repeat this a few decades down the road. And now here we are. I make the same promise thirty years from now. Those that have undue influence upon both the democratic and republican parties—the globalists—have no intention of actually sealing the border.
China built the Great Wall to keep barbarians out of their country centuries ago without bulldozers, giant trucks, cranes or any other heavy lifting and earth moving technologies that we have today. The truth is that we do not want to do so.
The truth is that The Council on Foreign Relations wants a generation or two of illegal immigration to help Mexico gain some measure of economic parity with Canada and the United States before assimilation can be a reality. Illegals tend to send money home and often retire in Mexico. The CFR 2005 publication, “Building a North American Community,” outlined “the groundwork for the freer flow of people within North America.” They seek “cross-border traffic, travel, and trade within North America.” The featured article in the January/February 2004 issue of Foreign Affairs, the Council’s principle publication, has author Jerome Corsi identifying NAFTA, The North America Free Trade Agreement, as being “the first draft of an economic constitution for North America.”
This best explains the semi-secret meeting of George W. Bush in the somewhat obscure location of Waco, Texas, on March 23, 2005, with Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin and Mexican President Vincente Fox to formulate the “Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America,” popularly referred to as SPP. Two years later in Montebello, Quebec, Mexican President Felipe Calderon and Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper again came together with U.S. President George W. Bush. In that meeting Fox News reporter Bret Baier asked each, “Can you say today that this is not a prelude to a North American Union, similar to a European Union?” None denied it (Permanent Amnesty, Temporary Border, The New American, April 22, 2013, p.15). The very controversial Bush planned Super Highway running through the mid-west, allowing unrestricted use by both neighbors, seems to be currently on the back burner, but President Barack Obama does support open borders and trans-national agreements both of which undermine national sovereignty and strengthen regional governance.
Will the so-called “Gang of 8,” and their 800-page immigration reform bill that seems to parallel “Building a North American Community” stop illegal immigration after we have extended amnesty once again? No, because there is a force greater than they, The Council on Foreign Relations of which John McCain, one of the “Gang of 8,” is a member as is Vice President Joe Biden, and past and present Secretaries of State, Hillary Clinton and John Kerry. The CFR plan is to make illegal legal. Should Americans go with their plan? No! Not unless there is enforceable resolve from both political parties to end all federal benefits enticing illegals to come to the United States in the first place and a “real wall” absolutely and totally backing this.
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 29, 2012 | Constitution, Healthcare, Immigration, Take Action
By Dr. Harold Pease
What if the Supreme Court became an arbitrator trying to please both sides rather than “letting the cards fall where they may,” ruling alone on constitutionality as designed? In the end neither side is really happy and the Court’s function is blurred or discredited. What if preserving its own image became more important to justices than defending the Constitution? Or worse, what if the Court forced a round peg into a square hole, so to speak, to force a decision not intended, or argued for by either side therefore creating new law—a function of Congress alone? What if all of the above were in one decision such as with the recent Supreme Court decision on National Healthcare? How can the states or people keep the Supreme Court in line with the U. S. Constitution? The answer is in the Constitution as understood by the Founders.
Our constitution first divided power between the states and the federal government with the powers given to the federal government listed, defined, and limited and those of the states left undefined and not listed, as per Amendment 10. This is known as federalism and is sometimes thought of as a marriage—shared and equal—neither the state nor federal government the master nor slave of the other.
The portion of power left to the federal government is then divided between the legislative, executive, and judicial branches. The down side of federalism (our marriage) is that the umpire is one of the three branches of government at the federal level and as such is likely to rule in favor of a strengthened federal government were it to arbitrate between the states and the federal government. It is equivalent to two adversarial teams playing basketball and the referee is a member of the federal team. The balancing component to this, potentially lopsided division of power, is the doctrine of nullification.
Is it constitutional to say no to the federal government when a state believes a Supreme Court decision to be unconstitutional? One having a limited knowledge of the Constitution would say no and cite Article VI, the supremacy clause, as the end of the matter. On matters listed in the Constitution he would be right, but this time the Supreme Court has ruled on something where it lacks authority to rule, clearly a state issue, and as such, if left unchallenged, certainly damages, perhaps even nullifies, the 10th Amendment of the Constitution, which leaves to the states all areas not delegated to the federal government. This understanding pre-existed any law on health by a couple of centuries.
To curb the umpire (Supreme Court), should he clearly favor one side, the Founders supported the doctrine of nullification. Rather than sue the federal government for having exceeded its constitutional power, the 26 states so doing should instead have followed the Idaho example and in essence said “not in our state.” The effort to grow the federal government beyond the listed bounds would have been unenforceable if enough states did so.
Such has two historical precedents. Thomas Jefferson in 1798 attempted to nullify The Alien and Sedition Acts created by his Federalist Party predecessors. These raised residency requirements for citizenship from 5 years to 14. Moreover, the law allowed the president to deport “dangerous” foreigners during times of peace and imprison them during times of hostilities. Anyone defaming or impeding government officials, including the president, was subject to heavy fines and/or imprisonment. Jeffersonians objected on the basis of the unreasonable empowerment of the president and the attack on the First Amendment, particularly freedoms of speech and press. They too said, “no will do.” Because nullification was better understood as part of the “balance formula” of the Constitution and because the offending law was designed to last only until 1801, (Federalists did not want it used against them should they lose the next election), nullification stayed in place.
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. President Andrew Jackson prepared to invade the state. A compromise Tariff of 1833 gradually lowered the tariff to acceptable levels and the issue faded away.
One might argue that the Civil War ended the Nullification Doctrine but the real root cause of the Civil War was the practice of slavery, (I am aware that the immediate cause was keeping the union together), which practice made a mockery of the whole liberty concept. The slave issue pre-dated the Declaration of Independence and I would need another column to show why the war did not exempt the nullification argument.
Critical to the success of the Nullification Doctrine is the number of states committed to it. Obviously one state or a few, unable to prevail at least a majority to follow, would be easily overpowered by an overwhelming federal government power. But if the 26 states, who sued the federal government on the mandate issue, now said we will not comply, the federal government would be forced to find a face-saving exit on the issue and back down. That is the final constitutional check on overreaching federal power—the one least talked about and understood. If, at this time, the states do not care enough to preserve their power they deserve not to have it, or 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. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.
Jul 22, 2012 | Constitution, Immigration, Take Action
By Dr. Harold Pease
What follows are six major changes to traditional constitutional procedure that have happened the past six months, none of which through the change process required in Article V of the Constitution, but each will adversely affect the distribution of power in this country and how we define liberty in the future. This time period could very well be the most radical six-month period of constitutional change in U.S. history. Should we be concerned with, or worse, frightened by, our own government?
We begin on New Years Eve with the President signing into law the 600-plus pages National Defense Authorization Act which, among other things, authorizes the military to seize and transport U.S. citizens from U.S. soil to Guantanamo Bay on the presumption that they are terrorists. The threat of potential indefinite incarceration without recourse to lawyer, judge and trial is unconscionable in a free society. The new law ends the writ of habeas corpus found in Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution and Posse Comitatus protection (protection from ones own armed forces). It also lays waste to much of the Bill of Rights, notably Amendments 4, 5, 6, and 8. Its intimidation potential will impact free speech, press, and assembly as well. Local law enforcement is essentially bi-passed.
Then in February, The National Operations Center (NOC), a part of The Department of Homeland Security, released its “Media Monitoring Initiative” giving itself permission to “gather, store, analyze, and disseminate” data on millions of users of social media, primarily Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube. So far they appear less concerned with the information on the average Joe or Jane, although all is kept just in case, as they deal with unmanaged journalists and bloggers. These are defined as those who use “traditional and/or social media in real time to keep their audience situationally aware and informed,” such as myself. Targeted are those who post articles, comments, or other information to popular web outlets. It is a clear violation of the 4th Amendment in the Bill of Rights.
In March we saw and heard Joint Chief of Staff Chairman General Martin Dempsey and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, each, in testimony given to the Senate Armed Services Committee, inferred that the authority that they depended upon for military purposes came not from Congress, as required in the U. S. Constitution, but from unelected UN or NATO authorities. Disbelieving what he heard, Senator Jeff Sessions repeatedly inquired in different ways only to be given the same answer.
Also, on March 16, President Barack Obama issued his National Defense Resources Preparedness Executive Order authorizing the Executive department to take-over, in case of a national emergency, all civil transportation, including the “movement of persons and property by all modes of transportation … within the United States.” Other things specifically listed to be under his sole control were: all forms of energy, all farm equipment, all food resources, all food resources facilities, all health resources, and all water resources (Section VIII). “National emergency” was never adequately defined. Nor was it explained why the president needed near dictatorial power in a national emergency and had not in crisis heretofore or when this dictatorial power would end. The Order makes The National Security Council and Homeland Security Council the policy-making forum—not Congress.
In June, frustrated by his inability to get through Congress a law on immigration he favored, and tired of making law the constitutional way, President Barack Obama, openly defied Congress and the Constitution on June 16, 2012, by ordering a like measure to that previously defeated, implemented anyway. In a news conference he outlined the general parameters of his “Dream Act” but specifics came from a six-page Memorandum from John Morton, Director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (See FEA Number 306-112-0026), to enforcement personnel, which essentially advised ignoring existing immigration law. Although our empathy goes out to the children of illegals raised in the United States, is it now permissible for future presidents to make law and defy the authority of Congress?
Finally, despite the clear wordage of the Constitution that “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives,” the Supreme Court essentially wrote new law by its ruling, in June, on National Health Care. Even Justice Anthony M. Kennedy referred to it as “vast Judicial overreaching” or “Judicial legislation.” So is it now okay if the Court attempts “to force on the nation a new act?”
So, with respect to these six major changes in traditional constitutional procedure occurring the last six months, should we be concerned with, or frightened of, our own government? How can we not be? Think of all the power taken by, or hand delivered to, the office of President. What event awaits us when such will be used? Unless Congress is willing to reverse the above six items, it may very well be making itself, and the Constitution, irrelevant. You can help by refusing to support any candidate who is not aware of, and is actively against, any of the six constitutional procedure changes noted above.
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 25, 2012 | Constitution, Immigration
Dr. Harold Pease
Normally I do not write on talk show topics, wherein there exists extensive coverage (how be it little depth), I prefer introducing topics missed or under covered by the establishment news, but too few seem to care about the Constitutional fallout from the President’s most unconstitutional executive order/directive ever. Have we no Constitutionalists left in either party?
There is nothing more clear nor basic in the Constitution than the separation of federal power into three branches, one to legislate, yet another to execute that law, and a third to adjudicate possible violations, when contested, of that law—a division of power held “sacred” until the last few decades. The Constitution reads: “All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives”(Article I, Sec. I).
The Executive Branch has no authority to make law—any law!!!! Executive Orders are constitutional only when they cite a single, recently passed law of Congress, where that law needs a statement of implementation by the executive branch. Presidential Directives, a type of Executive Order, differs only in defining how that law, passed by Congress, will be implemented. Neither type is to alter, or defy, law formerly passed by Congress.
For years some in Congress have been working on what is called the Dream Act that would extend amnesty and place illegal immigrants on a course toward full citizenship. Lacking popularity, twice it has failed to get the majority vote of both Houses of Congress required by the Constitution thus leaving existing immigration law unchanged; once, between 2008-2010, when the President’s party controlled everything except the Judicial branch. A president can only suggest a need for new law in his State of the Union Address, and either sign or veto a law passed by Congress, which then, if vetoed, must be overridden by a vote of 2/3rds of both houses to become law. That is it. This is the law of the land and the Constitutional procedure violated by President Barack Obama June 16, 2012, when, failing to get a favorable vote from Congress, openly defied Congress and the Constitution by ordering a like measure to that defeated, implemented anyway.
In a news conference he outlined the general parameters of his plan but specifics came from a six-page Memorandum from John Morton, Director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (See FEA Number 306-112-0026), to enforcement personnel, which essentially advises ignoring existing immigration law. If left to stand this becomes existing law without the consent of the people through their representatives voiding the role of Congress. Ironically, if a Republican president did the same thing, the Democratic Party would make the same constitutional argument and rightfully demand immediate retraction of the President’s new law under threat of his impeachment.
This is the most open case of contempt for Congress and the Constitution and the President knew it. In March 28, 2011, he said, with respect to the idea of nullifying Congress on the deportation issue. “The notion that I can just suspend deportations just through executive order, that’s just not the case, because there are laws on the books that Congress has passed.”
So why would he now “flip-flop” and knowingly violate the Constitution? Obama sees an inept Congress that has not placed any restraint on his previous unconstitutional executive orders. He brilliantly also sees a way to “buy” the Hispanic vote. If the Republicans resist he has a powerful campaign issue.
His argument for the violation, “It is the right thing to do.” has nothing to do with the fact that he is usurping the powers given only to Congress, and in the most contemptuous way possible, and establishing a precedent for the continued nullification of Congress. Moreover, he is also in violation of his oath of office to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States”(Article II, Sec. 1, Clause 8). His failure to do so is “a high crime,” an impeachable offense, which action should be introduced with bipartisan support with 100 signatures in the Senate and 435 in the House. This issue is that clear.
So why should Democrats be concerned and reign in their president? Because if they do not they, in effect, give permission to the next Republican president to defy Congress on something they had previously established as law, like national healthcare for instance, and by a simple Directive he too could not enforce that law. Democrats must see that their failure to insist on a retraction of the Directive forever weakens the sole power of Congress to make all law and places us on the road of government by decree or edict of one man. You must choose the Constitution over party. How does a president’s defiance of Congress differ from what a king or dictator does? It doesn’t. The Constitution is their to protect all parties and all citizens from arbitrary and caprices rule. Please let it work.
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.
