Aug 10, 2020 | Constitution, Healthcare, Liberty Articles
Harold Pease, Ph.D.
At least a dozen medical doctors from all over America assembled in front of the Supreme Court July 27 to counter the only message going forward allowed the American people with respect to the coronavirus. Many had already experienced the removal of their messages on Google, which owns 70% of most American media outside Fox News, including FaceBook, and YouTube (Tucker Carlson Tonight, June 16, 2020).
Outside their COVID expertise they had one thing in common that made their contribution superior to those of Anthony Fauci (a vaccine-ologist), the CDC and WHO, they are the actual physicians of those with COVID-19. They also each had come independently to the conclusion that the 65-year-old drug hydroxychloroquine used so successfully in COVID-1 previously, also worked extremely well with its cousin COVID-19 “it’s 78% similar to the prior version the COVID-1. Not surprisingly, it works.”
These frontline doctors were seasoned physicians in the trenches with the virus. All knew that consequences against their speaking out would likely follow. All knew that what they had to share would be nuked by every media piping the approved media message—be afraid, stay afraid. All knew that what they would tell the American public would be opposite what most Americans were getting on establishment networks, but all were committed to tell the truth. All probably also knew that if they did not speak out now freedom of the press might be gone. If the medical profession could be silenced all other interests challenging the left side of the political spectrum could never survive. Doctors are among the most revered and least political part of our society.
They reasoned that with their combined story they might get through the wall of censorship already in place. They were wrong!! Google, Facebook, YouTube and Twitter de-platformed them within hours the same day but fortunately not before 17 million heard what they had to say. The establishment print press went after them immediately. It was difficult to find any press, outside Fox News, that did not undermine everything they said, our media is so controlled. It remains that none of the journalists, or fact checkers in these countering pieces were themselves physicians. They know nothing in comparison.
Here are some of the messages Google, Facebook, YouTube and Twitter refused to allow Americans to hear. This is every bit as big a censoring as burning books in the Middle Ages.
Dr. Simone Gold spoke of two phases of the virus, early and late, both treatable with present drugs. But physicians are confronted with a generated “spider web of fear…all around us and it’s constricting us” and “draining the lifeblood of the American people,” society and economy that “does not make sense.” The virus is “treatable” now. “That’s what we’re here to tell you.” “But we implore you to hear this, because this message has been silenced.” “There are many thousands of physicians who have been silenced from telling the American people… that we can manage the virus.” Why? Because “it’s 78% similar to the prior version the COVID-1” successfully treated with hydroxychloroquine. “Not surprisingly, it works.”
Dr Bob Hamilton, a pediatrician from Santa Monica, California practicing for 36 years, told reporters that kids are almost entirely asymptomatic and can go back to school now, implying without social distancing or masking. “The mortality rates of children is about one fifth of 1%.” Kids are “not passing it on to their parents or not passing it on to their teachers.” He quoted a pediatric infectious disease specialist and epidemiologists from Scotland, Dr. Mark who said, “There has not been one documented case of COVID being transferred from a student to a teacher in the world, in the world.” Dr. Hamilton continued, “We need to act out of science,” not out of a generated fear. A fear respecting opening up the schools is driven mostly by the wants of teachers’ unions not the needs of the kids.
Dr Stella Emanuel, who works especially with compromised COVID patients as old as 92 with serious medical conditions: diabetes, high blood pressure and asthma told reporters, that “patients do not need to die.” None of hers has and she has treated over 350 back to health. “I put them on hydroxychloroquine, zinc and Zithromax,” she told reporters, and I’ve “not lost one.” She also placed herself and staff on hydroxychloroquine as a prophylaxis as “we see patients, 10 to 15 patients every day…we only wear surgical masks, none of us has gotten sick. It works.” Adding, “Nobody needs to die.” Implicit in this comment and voiced by other physicians is that most of those who died could have been spared if treated with hydroxychloroquine in phase one as a prophylactic, and in phase two with the other two drugs.
And why does hydroxychloroquine work so well? Dr. Cole explained, “It concentrates in the lungs 200 to 700 times higher” than the bloodstream. The invading virus heads for the lungs but is blocked by the drug chloroquine from getting in. That is why the drug is so effective as a prophylactic. Should it get in it seeks to replicate. The addition of “Zinc will mess up the copy machine called RdRP.”
Dr Stella Emanuel summed up why the frontline doctors were there. “I came here to Washington DC, to tell America. Nobody needs to get sick. This virus has a cure. It is called hydroxychloroquine, zinc, and Zithromax… You don’t need masks, or shutdowns, there is a cure.” Then adding, “It is time for the grassroots to wake up and say no, we’re not going to take this any longer. We’re not going to die.” “When people are dying, it’s unethical.” We know how to treat this virus. We do it every day.
Dr. Harold Pease is a syndicated columnist and 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 taught history and political science from this perspective for over 30 years at Taft College. Newspapers have permission to publish this column. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.
Aug 3, 2020 | Constitution
Harold Pease, Ph.D.
Accessing truth is getting increasingly difficult. The political world has divided into two camps. Almost no outlet is interested in the middle anymore. Leftist publications give leftist propaganda and use leftist fact checkers to authenticate it. The same exists for rightist publications. Take voter fraud in mail-in balloting for example, virtually all Democrats see no crime, or possibility of crime in it, and advocate national mail in voting for 2020. Virtually all Republicans see voter fraud as an outcome and a way to rig elections for the left. I greatly fear the next close national election as Antifa and Black Lives Matter organizations have demonstrated that they are fully ready to vote by violence.
In the 2016 presidential election debates Hillary Clinton asked Donald Trump if he would accept the outcome of the election. It turns out that she was the candidate that did not accept the election outcome—she still doesn’t. The George Soros funded, “Not My President” movement made it apparent that Clinton followers came close to wanting that election settled with violence. Trump’s big Electoral College victory is the probable reason the nation eventually, although reluctantly, accepted his win.
Since the left in unison insist that there exists little or no significant corruption of mail-in voting, let’s ask the right for documentation of such. Apparently the Heritage Foundation is the only organization on either side that actually documents voter fraud. Four years ago it found 1,071 instances of it resulting in 938 criminal convictions and detailed each by state. It identified nine types of fraud: impersonation fraud at the polls, false registrations, duplicate voting, fraudulent use of absentee ballots, buying votes, illegal “assistance” at the polls, ineligible voting, altering the vote count, and ballot petition fraud. About half of these dealt with mail in voting per se. The study is billed as but a sampling demonstrating “the many different ways in which fraud is committed,” It documents “a long and unfortunate history“ of the same (“A sampling of election fraud cases from across the country”).
Four years later in 2020, The Heritage Foundation’s election fraud database number had to be increased to 1,285 instances. Since the left is arguing that the coronavirus exempts many from in person voting the updated Foundation report included how Wisconsin successfully held a primary during the coronavirus scare and “how other countries such as Liberia have conducted an election successfully during a health crisis” (Database Swells to 1,285 Proven Cases of Voter Fraud in America, Kaitlynn Samalis-Aldrich and Hans A. Von Spakovsky, May 10, 2020, The Heritage Foundation).
To the issue that many elections are too close to call, sometimes for weeks, any fraud is too much fraud and intolerable. Fraud in battleground states is especially serious.
Unfortunately major voter fraud abuses have been identified in Texas, California, Pennsylvania and Michigan. In Texas the former head of the Texas Democratic Party in Fort Worth funded a voter fraud ring. Leticia Sanchez and three accomplices “have been indicted for allegedly submitting fraudulent absentee ballot applications and then either intercepting the ballots in mailboxes or improperly “assisting” elderly voters in filling out their ballots.” In another case, the attorney general is “investigating mailers sent to non-citizens by the state Democratic Party asking them to register using applications that already had the box asking about citizenship checked ‘Yes.’”
Apparently in California the Democrat led state registered almost 25,000 ineligible voters under the state’s new automatic voter registration system. This was brought to the attention of the Los Angeles Times when a Canadian complained that he had not been registered properly.
For 20 years the Pennsylvania Department of Motor Vehicles allowed thousands of non-citizens to register to vote. This information was forced into the light by the Public Interest Legal Foundation (PILF) after months of successful litigation.
Similar findings were made in Michigan, New Jersey and Illinois by the PILF. Michigan had no mechanism “to keep false citizenship claims from being accepted during voter registration.” This allowed Detroit to register to vote at least 1,444 non-citizens. This was so in numerous sanctuary cities in other states as well.
Imagine how the left, especially their establishment media, would howl were they to discover that the right was doing this to them.
Voter registration is constitutionally a state function and Democrat led states have taken advantage of this for years. “A 2012 report by the Pew Center on the States found that more than 1.8 million dead people were registered to vote and 2.75 million people were registered in more than one state.” The Pew report also “found that 24 million registrations were either invalid or inaccurate, making the registration systems vulnerable to fraud” (“Voter Fraud Exists – Even Though Many in the Media Claim It Doesn’t,” by John Fund, Oct 29th, 2018).
So voting by mail apparently “makes it easier to commit fraud, intimidate voters, and destroy the protections of the secret ballot” more especially in battleground states. “It puts elections into the hands of the Postal Service. Without the oversight of election and polling officials, ballots can be lost, disqualified, and even stolen” (Database Swells to 1,285 Proven Cases of Voter Fraud in America) Why would we want to put our 230 year old tried and trusted present system at risk to corruption?
Dr. Harold Pease is a syndicated columnist and 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 taught history and political science from this perspective for over 30 years at Taft College. Newspapers have permission to publish this column. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.
Jul 13, 2020 | Constitution, Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease Ph. D
The very thought of one unelected judge with a stroke of a pen nullifying law is unconscionable to most Americans but this has become common against the Donald Trump Administration blocking the executive function of the government at least 37 times. Before him it was 20 times against Barack Obama. When this happens it is called an injunction, most are delayed for a time and overturned by a higher court. Consequently Trump has had to ask for 20 emergency stays from the Supreme Court while these were resolved. No president has had to deal with such unconstitutional judicial overreach. This exceeds the combined number of all 42 presidents preceding him.
There are 663 Article 3 District Court judgeships across the country. Unfortunately, as practiced, any one of whom can issue a nationwide injunction against a federal government action.
These lower district court judges have weaponized themselves against Trump with the complacency of Congress. In fact, it has become a major distortion of the separation of powers doctrine amplifying the judicial branch powers well beyond the Constitution and original intent. Not because Trump did anything particularly unconstitutional, but because one judge out of 663 across America said he had.
National injunction topics include: travel bans, DACA, immigration, border wall, census citizenship, and the environment. Some call this judicial tyranny. Jefferson warned in 1820 that “to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional question [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed and one which would place us under the despotism of an Oligarchy.” James Madison’s address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention of 1788 was specific to this silent danger, “There are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpation” (Assistant Attorney General Beth Williams Delivers Remarks on Nationwide Injuctions at the Heritage Foundation, February 4, 2019).
Judicial review by the Supreme Court of laws passed by Congress came about in 1803 with the Marbury v. Madison decision, fully 14 years after the Constitution was formed, thus wording nullifying created law is not found in the Constitution. Imagine the Founding Fathers placing in the Constitution the power of a very few—now nine—to undo what the majorities of both the House and the Senate had agreed to, then signed by the president. Essentially the court gave itself the power to nullify what hundreds of legislators had agreed to. That judicial review has become sacrosanct by past practice (nobody opposed it enough to end it), it remains not actually in the Constitution—not even in a subsequent amendment—so let us try other constitutional remedies first, dealing with district judges, before challenging judicial review.
Actually District Court judges, those issuing the injunctions blocking presidential authority, are not in the Constitution as a permanent fixture either—only at the behest of Congress. Article III only created the Supreme Court but did authorize “such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.” Thus in adjusting to the work load, Congress has the flexibility to enlarge or contract the District (inferior) Courts. Unfortunately government seldom contracts.
Notice also in Article III the division of powers of the court into original and appellate jurisdictions. In original jurisdiction they operate independent of the legislative or executive branches and these are listed as “all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party.” While in appellate jurisdiction, essentially everything else, they function under the direction of Congress “both as to Law and Fact, with such exceptions, and under such Regulations as Congress shall make.”
Such Congressional oversight is now desperately needed. For instance, where did District Court judges get the authority to by-pass the Supreme Court becoming proactive in stopping the executive branch of government from executing the law? Typically the Supreme Court has to wait until someone challenges a law, “has standing,” a term used to suggest “harmed by legislation.” So the Supreme Court is a passive organization until called to action. What the District Court judges are doing is initiating aggression on their own. Article III also authorizes Congress to impeach justices should their misbehavior be demonstrated. We suggest using it on District Court judges issuing injunctions.
Congress or the Supreme Court needs to remind the District Court judges that their power is limited to resolving single cases between specific parties who brought a case before them, not issuing national edicts restricting a president’s ability to function nationally within his executive authority. Justice Clarence Thomas urged colleagues that “if federal courts continue to issue them, th[e] Court is duty bound to adjudicate their authority to do so” (Assistant Attorney General Beth Williams delivers remarks on nation wide Injunctions at the Heritage Foundation, February 4, 2019). The Supreme Court restricting itself should be the first option, this followed by Congress if still not satisfied.
The Founding Fathers gave the States one additional option for bringing any of the three branches of government back into line. It allows them to use the 10th Amendment of the Constitution to nullify the law in their state, but usage of this is a last resort when the two other branches of government are unwilling or unable to bring in line the rogue branch.
Dr. Harold Pease is a syndicated columnist and 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 taught history and political science from this perspective for over 30 years at Taft College. Newspapers have permission to publish this column. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.
Jun 29, 2020 | Constitution, Liberty Articles
Harold Pease, Ph.D.
In the first American Revolution Americans roughly divided in three equal groups, Loyalists favored England, Patriots the Colonists, and another third too apathetic to help either side. The Patriots won because the apathetic third would not stand with the Loyalist but also would not support them. In that revolution the enemy, England, was largely overseas.
As a young man I wondered which side I’d have supported as a colonist in 1776. Would I have been at Valley Forge with George Washington during the devastatingly cold winter of 1777? Would I have have left my plow, grabbed my rifle and raced to the front without command to stop Johnny Burgoyne in the Battle of Saratoga? Would I have supported the Declaration of Independence and eventually the Constitution and Bill of Rights that followed? And still later, would I have risked my life to end slavery for my black brother in the American Civil War? Yes! I know because as an adult I now stand for the same things as they. With which group would you have stood? Is it still so today?
In the current American Revolution the enemy is inside the United States. Basically they are the hate America, the Constitution, the Founders, tradition, statues, religion, law and order, and the police, crowd. Many are anarchists, socialists, and gang thugs like Antifa. They achieve their purposes by intimidation, fear, looting, burning buildings in primarily black neighborhoods they pretend to uplift, and killing policemen. Most probably do not vote, they have a more effective way to destroy America—anarchy; nevertheless, they decidedly favor the Democrat Party.
Amazingly Democrat Party icons: Jimmy Carter, Bill or Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Chuck Schumer or Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden do not publicly condemn their positions or violence. Together they could stop anarchists in their tracts but do not. Because there exists no pushback from Democratic Party leadership—not even when the flag is burned—an intelligent person must conclude that this is now the Democrat Party—a party that would have been rejected by John F. Kennedy and all pre-Kennedy Democrat Presidents.
This 4th of July is very different from all preceding it. America is poised to openly reject everything the Founder’s stood for. Portland recently toppled a statue of even George Washington, the father of this country, placing the flag around his neck before setting it afire. The Abraham Lincoln statue, representing the man who, with 360,222 northerners, gave his life ending slavery, was torn down while leaving untouched the statue of Steven A. Douglas who ran as the Democrat Presidential nominee for president supporting continued slavery. Logic is upside down and inside out.
Democrats have historically been the party of slavery and the Ku Klux Klan. Today they run America’s 20 largest cities, most wanting to defund their police leaving poor blacks unprotected, but blacks still vote for the party that historically betrayed them. In this they remain under slavery. Today it encourages the slaughter of their young through abortion.
There exists a division in this country unlike any since the Civil War. And a threat to individual liberty unlike any since the first American Revolution. As then, only one side can win. The choice is freedom or tyranny, the Constitution or socialist enslavement. But today Internet platforms and the vast majority of media outlets, college professors, and elected officials favor one side of this equation. These are formable opponents every bit equal to England in 1776. But stand we must, everyones’ liberty is at stake.
Imagine a country where its enemies seek to disarm its citizens (2nd Amendment), remove its border protection (ICE), defund its protectors (police), and threaten religious assembly and free speech. Today the biggest enemy to our liberty is from within. I believe the day will come, when our eyes are opened to the designs of the would be tyrants around us, when no one will admit having been a member of the Democrat Party.
The vast majority of our opponents in the present revolution show bias towards Christianity. They ruled church meetings non-essential in the coronavirus scare. They set St. John ’s Episcopal Church, across from the Whitehouse, afire. BLM leader Shaun King wants Christ statues torn down. Are Bibles next to be burned?
A relationship with deity is mentioned five times in the Declaration of Independence. This document brought on war against the then greatest power on earth, and no European strategist gave the Patriots’ winning a ghost of a chance—yet they stood and won. They could count on no one but God and themselves. We must resurrect the war cry in that document again. “And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.”
President John Quincy Adams said it best. “Posterity—You will never know how much it has cost my generation to preserve your freedom. I hope you will make good use of it.” Let us never forget that liberty is not free. It was purchased and maintained by the blood of those before us and may have to be once again.
Let this be a warning to those who would take freedom from us now. We too are standing “with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence,” mutually pledging “to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.” Again, which side are you standing with?
Dr. Harold Pease is a syndicated columnist and 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 taught history and political science from this perspective for over 30 years at Taft College. Newspapers have permission to publish this column. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.
Jun 1, 2020 | Constitution, Liberty Articles
Is it possible Americans are watching the death of free speech and therefore liberty? The defiance of the 1st and 4th Amendments of the Bill of Rights from March-May by Democrat governors and mayors has been beyond mind boggling and demonstrates that the Constitution, at least in these states, is on a ventilator.
But the growing collusion between Big Tech and government has been even more threatening as the former seems hell-bent on political censorship in favor of the left. At a time when the world is threatened by an unknown virus dissenting speech from physicians who work with the virus would be most valued, but it was stifled.
The examples of big tech censorship are many, we identify only two. Dr Knuit M. Wittkowski, former head of biostatistics epidemiology and research design at Rockefeller University, argued that massive lockdowns, mass quarantines, were a mistake, “We will see more cases among the elderly, because we have prevented the schoolchildren from creating herd immunity.” A dissenting view that conflicted with that of the government. “Google decided that disagreeing with the government is forbidden” (Tucker Carlson Tonight, May 19, 2020).
In mid April two Bakersfield, California physicians, Dan Erickson and Arten Massihi reported similarly, “Our immune system is used to touching. We share bacteria, staphylococcus, streptococcal bacteria, viruses. We develop an immune response, dealing to this stuff…. When you take that away from me,” Erickson continues, “My immune system drops as I shelter in place…. You keep me there for months, it drops more. Sheltering in place decreases your immune system and then as we all come out of shelter in place with a lower immune system, and start trading viruses, bacteria, what do you think’s going to happen? Disease is going to spike” (https://youtu.be/xfLVxx_lBLU). YouTube, decided to back lockdown state governors and removed both videos because they conflicted with the government’s position.
YouTube CEO Susan Wojcicki, in an interview with CNN, admitted that, “Anything that would go against World Health Organization recommendations, would be a violation of our policy.” It would be classed as unsubstantiated or harmful misinformation and therefore removed (Tim Hinchliffe, “Big tech COVID-19 surveillance data & censorship threaten privacy & free speech: op-ed,” The Sociable, April 22, 2020).
In effect Big Tech has created an unholy alliance with Big Government and Big International agencies against the people to control the parameters of acceptable opinion and speech world wide. Harmeet Dillon, civil rights attorney, acknowledged that these companies, although private, have exceeded the rights of being just private. “But where the government is actually instructing and conspiring, which is happening with some of these states, contacting and working with Google, Facebook, Twitter and others to say take down the misinformation. That is the government using these tech companies as their tools and all of a sudden, it’s a whole different scenario in terms of legal liability, as well as in terms of the terrible impact on America.” (Tucker Carlson Tonight, May 19, 2020).
Facebook, defining political speech it disagreed with as hate speech, in 2018 banned Infowars’ Alex Jones from his Internet audience of millions. More recently, using the virus as an excuse, it began removing what it called misinformation speech, basically blocking anything out of harmony with the WHO. Now it is removing “event posts for anti-lockdown protests in various US states, in tandem with state officials”—specifically in California, New Jersey and Nebraska. “Facebook ‘reached out to state officials to understand the scope of their orders’ and resolved to ‘remove the posts when gatherings do not follow the health parameters established by the government and are therefore unlawful’, such as when protests intend to flout social-distancing rules.” They have made themselves “arbiters of truth” (Tom Slater, “We need to stop the spread of Big Tech censorship,” Spiked, May 8, 2020).
Facebook and YouTube both “monopolize huge arenas of public discussion. Writers and thinkers unable to promote their work on Facebook, or video makers unable to upload their work to YouTube, are effectively denied access to a significant portion of what now constitutes the public square. At a time when billions of people are under house arrest, and the literal public square is largely off-limits, this is an even more sinister development. As is the fact that governments and powerful organizations seem to be working hand in glove with tech firms to enforce conformity” (Ibid.).
Emboldened by their new power they will only accelerate it. “Facebook has stressed that state governments did not ask them to remove specific posts. But what seems to have happened is almost worse. Facebook moderators appear to be banning events posts on the basis of what they reckon the laws of a particular state constitute” (Ibid.).
How serious is this? Social platforms were already important theaters for democratic participation and deliberation; now they’re the only game in town (Sam Adler-Bell, “Facebook Is Removing Protest Pages. That’s a Terrible Precedent,” Harvard Law Today, April 24, 2020).
Tucker Carlson assessed the damage to liberty, “The right to have your own opinions, to think for yourself, to disagree with your elected leaders, politicians, was the most basic right that every American enjoyed for 240 years, it was the signature right of this country.” He warned, “They’re going to try and censor Fox News next, you watch” (Tonight, May 19, 2020).
Author
Dr. Harold Pease is a syndicated columnist and 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 taught history and political science from this perspective for over 30 years at Taft College. Newspapers have permission to publish this column. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.
May 11, 2020 | Constitution
A few days ago two Michigan police officers visited a mother that had allowed her daughter to play with the child next door in their backyard. They demanded to know why she was not enforcing the governments’ stay at home order. They demanded her name which she refused to give as she “has done nothing wrong.” For this she was cited as being uncooperative. The video of the incident showed them treating her with pure contempt (Tucker Carlson Tonight, May 1, 2020).
This should never happen in America. The Constitution gives government agents no such power.
Given the draconian measures used by Democratic governors denying civil liberties in their states many Americans wonder why the Constitution isn’t protecting them as before. But today elected officials are largely constitutional illiterates as are their constituents. Virtually no one has read fully and recently the less than 10 page document. For years I had to tell students that Democrats overwhelmingly ignore the Constitution and Republicans carry it with them but seldom read it—neither defending it against actions of their own political party.
Hence some governors have turned into little tyrants respecting the 1st Amendment. When Governor Phil Murphy of New Jersey was asked if his actions were not violating the Constitution. He answered, “That’s above my pay grade.” But it shouldn’t be! It is Government 101 and all governors took an oath to preserve it. The Constitution required it.
“The Senators and Representative before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath … to support this Constitution” (Article 6, Clause 3). All elected leaders and all military personnel swear an oath to preserve the Constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic.
The First Amendment that Democrat governors and some mayors are threatening reads: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” The 14th Amendment made it applicable to all states offices as well.
Simply put, for those with tyrannical tendencies. No governor, legislature (including city and county), congress or president shall make or enforce any law or decree respecting religion, speech, press, or peaceable assembly. Nor may they deny citizens petitioning government for redress of grievances when civil liberties are offended.
We will walk on public places, including beaches, when and where we please. We will attend any church where, when, and in any size allowed by the pastor of the attended congregation as we please. You may not regulate the distance between walking or communicating people. We will wear face coverings at the request of the owner of buildings we visit but not at your order, as you do not own us. You may not require us to stay in our homes or yards. You may not collectively shut down our work places without individual due process. You may not use drones above our heads taking photos and shouting instructions monitoring and enforcing a collective behavior. We are a free people. These rights are not negotiable and do not disappear in times of national emergencies. These rights come from God—not from you. Yes, the Constitution also gives us due process on the parts of the above where contested.
The remainder of Tucker Carlson’s interview with Governor Phil Murphy follows:
Tucker. “Fifteen congregants at a synagogue in New Jersey were arrested and charged for being in a synagogue together. Now the Bill of Rights, as you well know, protects Americans …. right to practice their religion as they see fit and to congregate together to assemble peacefully. By what authority did you nullify the Bill of Rights in issuing this order? How do you have the power to do that?”
Governor. “That’s above my pay grade Tucker. I wasn’t thinking of the Bill of Rights when we did this.
Tucker. “Since you are an elected official, a leader in the government, an executive, how do you have the authority to order something that so clearly contravenes the Bill of Rights of the United States, the Constitution? Where do you get the authority to do that?
Governor. “Well here’s the thing. We know we need to stay away from each other, number one. Number two, we do have broad authority within the state. Number three we would never do that without coordinating, discussing and hashing it out with the variety of the leaders of the faiths in New Jersey.
Tucker. “You can’t just, as the governor of a state, tell people who they can talk to, when and where, because the Constitution of the United States, upon which all this is based, prohibit you from doing this; so you clearly decided that you could do it.
Governor. “We have to find a different way to worship.
Tucker. “Government is not allowed to tell people how to worship” (Tucker Carlson Tonight, April 15, 2020).
Unfortunately the same conversation could have been with almost any of the other 1st Amendment violating governors, or worse, 3rd world dictators.
Author
Dr. Harold Pease is a syndicated columnist and 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 taught history and political science from this perspective for over 30 years at Taft College. Newspapers have permission to publish this column. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.
