Feb 10, 2020 | Constitution, Liberty Articles
Harold Pease, Ph. D
Senator Rand Paul’s question to the House Managers in the impeachment question and answer phase of the proceedings against Donald Trump follows. “Are you aware that House intelligence committee staffer Shawn Misko had a close relationship with Eric Ciaramella while at the National Security Council together and are you aware, and how do you respond to, reports that Ciaramella and Misko may have worked together to plot impeaching the President before there were formal House impeachment proceedings.”
Why is this the most important question of the about 100 asked? The campaign to impeach Donald Trump began “at the moment he was sworn in” (Washington Post, Jan. 20, 2017). Hoax followed hoax until the present Ukrainian debacle resulting in the Senate impeachment trial and acquittal of President Trump. But the hoax perpetuators always walk away without consequence despite two notable victims—the Constitution and Donald Trump.
Nancy Pelosi knew what she was doing when she said, “He will be impeached forever.” Trump’s name will be listed forever in the history books with Johnson, Nixon and Clinton as having been impeached—all associated with wrong doing. When a very large segment of the population was so ignorant of the Constitution that they wondered why Trump was still president the day after being impeached by the House, the same will be so in the future. Ignorance rules. Impeachment means accused, not tried. Pelosi could not have done anything more harmful to Trump’s reputation with generations yet unborn and she knew it. Her name will be forgotten in the dust heap of history but Trump’s never will, primarily because of her.
Trump’s name has been defamed although no crime can actually be identified and certainly not one listed in the Constitution as impeachable. Trump can’t sue to recover it. He can never remove this defamation— acquittal only partially helps. This may be the best case in American history when the accused was not allowed to face his accuser in direct violation of the 5th Amendment requiring it.
Yet the individual most responsible for having placed this stain on Donald Trump walks the streets having irreparably hurt another but himself protected from disclosure because he called himself a whistleblower, although in no way does he fit the definition of the 1989 Whistleblower Protection Act, and thus is not entitled to special protection. Without his complaint, based entirely upon hearsay as were 16 of the 18 House witnesses, the impeachment would have never resulted. He was billed by Adam Schiff as their strongest case but was disarmed when Trump declassified and published his conversation with the Ukrainian President.
Notice Senator Paul’s question did not use the term whistleblower. Said differently, “Congressman Schiff, how do you respond to reports that your employee and his friend Ciaramella, from a shared previous post in the NSC, worked together to plot the whistleblower leak to push the House into this impeachment charade before there were formal House impeachment proceedings?” And, “In refusing to identify the person you first brought to the public’s attention as key to the need of impeachment are you not hiding your connection as a fact witness in this plot to unseat an elected president?”
Chief Justice John Roberts without explanation, announced: “The presiding officer declines to read the question as submitted.” He did the same with a second and similar Paul question the next day. A presumption is that it contained the name of the so-called whistleblower. But how could he assume this—not from the question—unless this name was already DC common knowledge. In a town known for leaking like a sieve, it was. Only the public is denied knowing.
So John Roberts, by refusing only this question of a hundred, indirectly gave credence that one of the two names Senator Paul was asking Schiff about was the whistle-leaker. Since everyone already knew Shawn Misdo as a Schiff employee, then Eric Ciaramella is the man most responsible for the impeachment of Trump and the name forbidden by the Democratic Party media machine to name.
No other name is mentioned as being the infamous whistle leaker. The Internet is full of references to him some more credible than others. Real Clear Investigations observes that Ciaramella’s name has been an open secret in Washington D.C. His lawyers Mark S. Zaid and Andrew P. Bakaj refuse to confirm or deny that he is. According to The Washington Post, the whistleblower is still working at the CIA, but has been provided security. Q followers identified him last September. He has been named by Rush Limbaugh, Eric Trump, and Rand Paul.
The Washington Examiner established that he is a career CIA analyst who was detailed to the NSC at the White House during the Obama administration working as point man on Ukraine issues with Vice President Joe Biden traveling with him to Ukraine on Air Force Two at least one of the six visits Biden made to Ukraine. Ciaramella also worked under leaker James Clapper.
It is time to reveal the name outside the DC beltway, of the one person that started the most recent of several impeachment parades, Eric Ciaramella. We insist that he be investigated thoroughly as an accomplice in the Biden Quid Pro Quo and as an accomplice with Adam Schiff in the Ukranian Hoax Coup to replace a president of the United States.
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.
Feb 3, 2020 | Constitution, Liberty Articles
Harold Pease, Ph. D
Although no president has been removed from office through impeachment conviction what would happen were Donald J. Trump the first? The Constitution is clear. He would be removed from office immediately and forbidden “to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States” again. As a private citizen, without privilege due to executive office, he would be “liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to law.” If the crime were serious enough he could go to prison like anyone else.
Vice President Mike Pence would be sworn into office as the 46th president. He would finish the Trump term and run for president in 2020. He would need to move fast. The 25th Amendment to the Constitution requires him to nominate a new vice president “who shall take the office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both houses of Congress.”
Should Pence die, through natural causes or otherwise, prior to this confirmation vote, the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, would be sworn into office as the 47th president of the United States and she would finish the Trump/Pence term and run for president in 2020. She would also immediately nominate a new vice president who would take office when confirmed by the majority in both Houses. The Democrats would have retrieved the White House without a popular or Electoral College vote.
Why is Adam Schiff, and others, allowed to lie without consequence? Yes, Schiff has a real problem with the truth. The Constitution is designed to protect him with good reason. If he is removed his congressional district is denied their choice of voice in the House of Representatives. Excepting “Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace” (Article I, Section 6, Clause 1), he and all Congressmen and Senators, are “privileged from Arrest during Attendance in the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same,” and, this is important, “for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.”
Be grateful for this. It works both ways. Our lawmakers are free to express themselves without fear of any government retaliation, all information is free to get out.
That said, it is also true that most tire quickly of the lies or offensive behavior of those who cannot restrain themselves and cease empowering them with their support—notice the lack of interest in the impeachment proceedings. In an informed and vibrant elective such is challenged in the next election and a better option forwarded to take his place. The Constitutional process cleans out such. Granted in some districts constituents are not informed or vibrant and such remain in office forever. Maxine Waters and Nancy Pelosi districts come to mind in addition to Adam Schiff.
But the Constitution deals with that too when extreme. “Each House may …. punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.” The Constitution did not anticipate political parties and far too many vote by party, regardless of what their candidates do or say. As a result this check on lying or inappropriate behavior is largely tolerated because of political party.
So why shouldn’t the Senate have ANY additional witnesses beyond the 18 that already testified? (Yes 18! Schiff refuses to release the transcript of Michael Adkinson # 18, presumably it defends Trump.) Because it severely muddies the Constitution which is very clear that the House investigates and the Senate evaluates. The House, is supposed to fully investigate and cite the impeachable offenses BEFORE they vote. The Senate is not to do the work of the House as both bodies would do the same thing. It cannot call new witnesses but it could recall a witness previously called by the House if some point in their previous testimony needed clarification or having Adkinson testify again. Their call for new witnesses strongly suggests that they are still looking for a crime. Nor can the Senate add a new impeachable offense should a new witness, such as John Bolton, give them such.
The Mitt Romney’s in the Senate and the Democrats insisting upon additional witnesses would create a precedent for doing the work of the other body and forever searching for a crime that does not exist. The present clarity of the Constitution would be undermined. Both groups demonstrate constitutional illiteracy.
Why aren’t Obstruction of Justice and Obstruction of Congress impeachable offenses? Four reasons: 1) both are too vague therefore subject to varied interpretation and varied application, 2) most previous presidents did both, 3) neither is a crime, and 4) neither is in the class of High Crimes such as Treason or bribery. Even Quid-Pro-Quo, if proved, is not a crime or an impeachable offense. Actually obstruction of Congress is a legitimate separation of powers function of the Executive Branch.
The Constitution is non-partisan. The bar for impeachable offenses was made high and uncommon so that presidents had some immunity from mere disagreements. If Trump is removed from office for anything presently cited by the House, it would weaken future presidents to the point that they would not dare oppose or offend the majority in the House lest they have to spend most of their time warding off frivolous and multiple impeachment inquiries.
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.
Jan 20, 2020 | Constitution, Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease, Ph. D
We live under two political systems: one centered on foreign affairs, the other primarily domestic. It’s called Federalism—the two share power. Neither subservient or above the other and each with separate duties. Like a good marriage, a team.
Thomas Jefferson explained, “The states are not subordinate to the national government but rather the two are coordinate departments of one single and integral whole…. The one is domestic the other the foreign branch of the same government.”
The Founders were aware of the nature of all governments to grow. George Washington warned, “Government is like fire, a dangerous servant and a fearful master.” In order to ensure the fire does not spread and burn down the home, one builds a fireplace to keep the fire contained. That fireplace is the Constitution, particularly Section 8, which lists all powers that are given to Congress. Everything Congress did was to be clearly linked to at least one of these enumerated grants of power. The states who created the federal government, retained unto themselves all other powers as per Amendments 9 and 10 of the Constitution.
The advantages of federalism are enormous. States become laboratories of experimentation. Californians remember numerous “brownouts” at the turn of the century because of California’s failed energy policies. Other states viewing this were careful to avoid the same policies. States look to sister states for models and borrow from them in refining their own programs. These places of experimentation work to everyone’s advantage. What if we had federalized California’s failed energy policy? We would have had “brownouts“ on a national scale.
Had our power crazed federal government refrained from its natural inclination to take more power, healthcare reform could have gone through this experimental process designed by our Founding Fathers. We would then have been able to identify the weaknesses or strengths while they were still geographically isolated. Only three states had tried it: Oregon, Massachusetts, and Hawaii. That was clearly not enough to identify and avoid the “brownouts “ in the area of healthcare. Instead, they took a half-baked idea and made it mandatory for all and called it Obamacare.
Since healthcare was, and is not yet, a listed authority of the federal government it necessitates an enlargement of the enumerated list through Article V, requiring ratification by “3/4th of the Several States.” Since more than 60% of the people did not want this, the Constitution would have protected us from what we know now was unsustainable.
To protect Federalism the Founders did two things. First, Senators were to be selected by state legislatures so the U. S. Senate would be protective of state concerns. All law required the approval of the House of Representatives—the peoples’ representatives—and the Senate—the states’ representatives. That is why we have two branches of government to make law—two perspectives. The Seventeenth Amendment, mandating that the people, rather than the state legislators, elect U. S. Senators, destroyed this protection. Senators are today simply glorified House members. State issues thereafter were left mostly unrepresented—thus unprotected—on the federal level.
Second, the structure of the U. S. Constitution listed and defined federal power Article I, Section 8, leaving all power not specifically listed with the states as per the 10th Amendment. “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
The Progressive (socialist) Movement of the early 20th Century wrecked havoc on Federalism. The 16th Amendment, removing the previous constitutional taxing requirements based upon “apportionment among the several States “ and “census or enumeration,” to simply incomes, which could be raised arbitrarily at will. This left the federal government with unlimited resources to spend and expand—feeding its natural tendency to grow.
It used this excess to bribe states, counties, and cities to perform functions not listed in the Constitution, like the 55-mile-per-hour speed limit of the Ford and Carter Administrations, which funding later could be denied if states refused to comply. Consequently states became addicted to federal money making it near impossible for them to “just say no” to federal takeover in their domestic dominion. A third of their resources come from the federal government.
Federal courts have amplified federal law by a twisted interpretation of the poorly constructed Amendment 14, also to the detriment of Federalism. Amendment 18, repealed by Amendment 21, openly invited the federal government to decide approved beverages for us and then from there to approved drugs; all matters constitutionally left entirely to state jurisdiction.
Failure to preserve Federalism has cost us much liberty, most notably limited government. Lawmakers totally ignore both the listed areas of government (Article I, Sec. 8) and Amendment 10. State legislators have no influence in the U.S. Senate, once designed to protect them. States are bribed into compliance and now are addicted to federal handouts. They have become mostly administrative agents of the federal government without immunity to federal intrusion nor will to use nullification to block unconstitutional law. And we are excessively taxed.
We do not need an Article V constitutional convention to restore Federalism, just more lawmakers who understand the Constitution as written and will adhere to it, especially in the areas specified above. Now is the time to find and elevate them.
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.
Dec 31, 2019 | Constitution, Liberty Articles
Harold Pease, Ph. D
As a college professor teaching the Constitution for forty years I am disturbed when those in power demonstrate constitutional illiteracy. Such is the time in which we live.
Impeachment means accused. Three presidents Andrew Johnson, Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton were impeached (accused), none were removed from office in a subsequent Senate trial. Nixon removed himself by resigning, the other two continued in office filling their terms.
The House alone formulates the charges (Art. I, Sec. 2, Cla. 5) which must be treason, bribery or high crimes and misdemeanors (Art. II, Sec. 4). Constitutionally no other charges are impeachable. The House cannot make up any offense that is not clearly one of these as in “obstruction of justice” or “obstruction of Congress.” “The Senate has the sole power to try all Impeachments” and the Chief Justice presides (Art. I Sec. 3, Cla. 6). The Senate cannot add to the list of charges. Constitutionally simple and practiced the last 231 years until now.
If House leadership chooses to discontinue the impeachment process by not passing its listed charges to the Senate—even after a positive vote on the charges was taken—it has not finished its process. Trump is, in effect, not charged because it is the only body constitutionally allowed to bring charges.. The accused cannot be said to have been impeached. The charges are effectively dropped. The moment that House leadership passes the baton to the Senate, Trump will join the others afore mentioned as having been accused (impeached) and will finish his term in office unless the Senate votes to remove him which has never happened to any president. It would be unconstitutional for the Senate to go into House chambers and, in effect, take the impeachment baton from them.
Nancy Pelosi, had no authority to turn the accusation process, normally done by the whole House, into the appearance of a trial in two House committees—which she did. It confused voters, “If tried and convicted, why is Trump still president?”
The founders wanted one body to accuse, a separate body to try. Any crime by a president is a crime against the people, thus the larger numbered House and more frequently elected, should be the one listing the accusations. This is why the House of Representative has “sole Power of Impeachment (Art. 1, Sec.2, Cla. 5), meaning initiating the accusing process.
Why was the House purposely forbidden doing more than accuse? Alexander Hamilton, the frequently cited founder of the Democratic Party, understood the greater emotion and passions of this body which made it the perfect body to originate the complaints but not to deliberate them. He wrote in The Federalist Papers #65, they would be “too often the leaders or the tools of the most cunning or the most numerous faction, and on this account, can hardly be expected to possess the requisite neutrality towards those whose conduct may be the subject of scrutiny”—think Chairmen Adam Schiff and Jerry Nadler. Remember Democratic leaders were calling for the impeachment of Trump before he was inaugurated and thereafter have unsuccessfully searched for a crime.
Hamilton prophetically continued, “in such cases there will always be the greatest danger that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties, than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt.” Remember in the House “trial” the president, his lawyers, and Republican colleagues were excluded due process, even calling witnesses.
Why was the Senate, with six-year terms rather than two and then elected by their state legislature, thought by the Constitutional Convention to be “the most fit depositary of this important trust?” Because, Hamilton explained, it was “least hasty in condemning” and “will be most inclined to allow due weight to the arguments which may be supposed to have produced it.”
Hamilton asked: “Where else than in the Senate could have been found a tribunal sufficiently dignified, or sufficiently independent? What other body would be likely to feel CONFIDENCE ENOUGH IN ITS OWN SITUATION, to preserve, unawed and uninfluenced, the necessary impartiality between an INDIVIDUAL accused, and the REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PEOPLE, HIS ACCUSERS?” The Senate is not so emotionally charged as is the more frequently elected House, reason can prevail. Notice the Democrats cannot wait 10 months for the people to vote again so emotionally charged are they as exemplified by Democratic Majority Whip James Clyburn reportedly saying, “Give the President a fair trial, then hang him.”
Still, Hamilton warned, “it ought not to be forgotten that the demon of faction [political party] will, at certain seasons, extend his sceptre over all numerous bodies of men.” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, not satisfied with the two House charges—neither a crime or listed in the Constitution as impeachable offenses—remains in search of a crime, forever demanding more witnesses. Even if found the Senate cannot constitutionally add to the list of accusations given it by the House.
Again, if House leadership chooses to discontinue the impeachment process by not passing its charges to the Senate—even after a positive vote on the charges was taken—it has not finished its process. The charges in effect are dropped by the only body constitutionally empowered to bring charges. It has stopped the process and the accused, President Trump, cannot be said to have been impeached because the charges were dropped.
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.
Dec 3, 2019 | Constitution, Economy, Globalism, Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease, Ph. D
No one has been more outspoken against globalism than President Donald Trump. His “America First” platform is the antithesis of their plans for world government. This is the reason all globalists, Democrat and Republican, and all globalist mediums, especially The New York Times and Washington Post, oppose him at all costs. Hence the shock when globalists now praise Trump’s USMCA (United States/Mexico/Canada) sovereignty destroying replacement of NAFTA—seemingly a merged agreement of the worst parts of NAFTA and TPP.
Most Americans viewed the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade agreements for what they were, sovereignty sucking packs to undermine and destroy the independence of nation states, as previous agreements had done in Europe resulting in the European Union. Globalists, funded by the financial global elites (from the Rockefeller’s to George Soros) had failed previous tries at world government, notably the League of Nations and the United Nations, and concluded that loyalty to nation states is the enemy to world government, hence their decades-old strategy of consolidating regions of the globe, first economically, then politically into regional government. These then consolidated later into world government.
Trump had billed the TPP as “the worst agreement ever negotiated” and three days after his inauguration withdrew the United States as a signatory and refused further TPP negotiations. He promised to renegotiate NAFTA as well. In the Rose Garden, October 1, 2018 USMCA rollout, Trump said, “Throughout the campaign I promised to renegotiate NAFTA, and today we have kept that promise,”
So why are the globalists so happy with USMCA? It looks to be a blend of the worst parts of NAFTA and TPP. According to the online Huffington Post, “At least half of the men and women standing behind Trump during his Rose Garden ceremony praising the new deal were the same career service staff who negotiated nearly identical provisions in TPP, which Trump had railed against.” One of these, Trevor Kincaid, the lead negotiator for TPP, said, “It’s really the same with a new name. It’s basically the ‘22 Jump Street’ of trade deals.”
Richard N. Haass, president of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), the lead organization for world government and the most influential organization on foreign policy, in both major political parties the last hundred years, tweeted his praise for the agreement, “The USMCA looks to be the trade pact formerly known as NAFTA plus 10-20%. Hope it becomes a precedent for TPP.” Adding later, “What matters is that the US joins it.…” Haass, so enthused by the agreement, added the next day, “USMCA is NAFTA plus TPP plus a few tweaks. Whatever … TPP by another name.” No wonder. The lead negotiator of the agreement was CFR member Robert Lighthizer, who candidly admitted that the USMCA is “built on” many aspects of the TPP.
Christian Gomez, who spent considerable time with the 1,809 paged document wrote, “A side-by-side comparison of the USMCA and the TPP shows extensive overlap. Virtually all of the problems inherent in the TPP are likewise contained in the USMCA, such as the erosion of national sovereignty, submission to a new global governance authority, the unrestricted movement of foreign nationals, workers’ rights to collective bargaining, and regional measures to combat climate change” (What’s Wrong with the USMCA? New American, Nov. 2018).
So the globalist are happy. They thought under Trump their decades old efforts to unite the United States, Mexico and Canada into a regional government, economically first then politically, as they had the European Union, would be unraveled. Instead, globalists regained all their lost ground plus leapt forward into the areas of labor, immigration, and environment regulation, which agreement would handcuff the legislatures of these countries to regional law passed by unelected bureaucrats.
Gomez added, “The pact is even worse than NAFTA regarding undermining American sovereignty and self-determination, in favor of North American integration extending beyond trade to include labor and environmental policies. It is, in fact, so bad that the globalists who had lambasted Trump for renegotiating NAFTA praised him afterward” (Ibid).
So much for the Constitution or national sovereignty holding them back. And Trump fell for it.
The massive size of the agreement screams control. Liberty is defined by the limits of the government on the individual. The management of an entire country is housed in a Constitution of only four or five pages and a Bill of Rights of a single page—not 1,809.
A real free trade agreement could probably fit a single page and be noted for its absence of rules on trade—as it was in the early days of this republic. Let us instead disallow the rich from funding organizations designed to end our Republic, destroy the Constitution, or create a world government, all of which they presently do. Such used to be called treason.
Now there exists no evidence Trump really supports globalism except his USMC Agreement—everything else he has done demonstrates otherwise. He has clearly been duped. Getting him to disavow what he called “incredible” will not be easy but he must if he sincerely decries world government and supports America First. If not, he will be credited with instigating “the worst agreement ever negotiated”—a government over our own. And in time will be linked with the Rockefeller’s and George Soros as having helped bring about world government.
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.
Nov 25, 2019 | Constitution, Economy, Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease, Ph. D
Both major political parties had the power to control or end enslaving national debt the last fifty years. Both failed. Neither even try anymore. Neither party had the intestinal fortitude to say no to government gifting and now offer only more debt on our defenseless children and grandchildren. The hard truth is, there will be no Social Security for the children of today. The present path offers only loss of liberty and bankruptcy.
Our national debt exceeds 23 trillion dollars. To pay this debt today each taxpayer owes $186,578, immediately. Our largest creditors in order are: Medicare/Medicaid $1,253,523,000,000, Social Security $1,044,752,000,000, Defense/War 673,433,000,000, Income Security (welfare) $301,114,000,000, Net Interest on Debt $374,060,000,000, Federal Pensions $287,602,000,000, and Food / Agricultural Subsidies $151,840,000,000 (USDebtClock.org).
Even with the present robust Trump economy (the best in several decades) it has continued to escalate by four trillion dollars the last three years. We face economic Armageddon which, at this late date, may not be avoidable.
We have indebtedness, because both political parties failed to keep their oath of allegiance to the Constitution to follow it. If we do not get back to the Constitution with a strictness that we are not accustomed to, the new slaves (those encumbered by the debt of those before) will not even have freedom. If the Republic falls because of this national debt threat the new tyranny will not restore the government gifting programs responsible for the fall—the above programs disappear either way.
Yes the expensive programs will go, at least on the federal level, regardless, but we can yet save the Constitution and liberty, if we have the will. All power not listed in Article I, Section 8, or elsewhere in the document, or added by way of amendment to the Constitution thereafter, is a state power. Amendment 10 of the Bill of Rights. “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution … are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
Of the seven highest creditors listed above only Common Defense was specifically authorized in the Constitution. Constitutionally the others should have necessitated Article V authorization, an affirmative vote of three-fourths of the states. This did not happen. Most of the programs of the 20th Century, most policies presently advocated by the Democratic Party, and the infrastructure program advocated by President Trump, are outside Article I, Section 8 and are state prerogatives as per Amendment 10, thus cannot be implemented constitutionally without state permission. The hard truth, they lack specific constitutional authority. All six others, although now seen as “sacred cows,” are entwined with government gifting which has accelerated beyond our ability to control.
The Legislative branch was limited to only four areas of law-making power: to tax, to pay the debts, to provide for the general welfare and to provide for the common defense. These are laid out in Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 prior to the first semi-colon, so essential to the proper interpretation of Section 8. To tax needed one qualifier that such must be “uniform throughout the United States” but in the same article, Section 7, Clause 1 the power to tax was given to the House of Representative to originate. To pay the debts needed no qualifiers. But no one in the Constitutional Convention trusted Congress with a free hand in deciding the two other powers, general welfare and common defense. Either could mean anything to a power grabbing federal congress. Each of these needed eight additional qualifiers for clarity so Clauses 2-9 were the law-making powers of Congress with respect to general welfare and Clauses 10-17 respecting common defense.
The long 18-paragraph sentence (yes, sentence) ended with Congress having the power “to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers…,” those listed. Congress was never given power to make any law they thought desirable but only within four perimeters and 17 qualifiers. Section 8 is the most ignored, most abused, part of the Constitution. The hard truth, Congress was not empowered to make any law outside the 17 qualifiers without Article V permission of the states—even if every member of both houses approved.
A careful read of Section 8 reveals that the Founding Fathers gifted no individual or group. It only provided a level playing field enabling citizens to gift themselves by their work ethic and talent.
So what is the constitutional solution ending enslaving national debt? End government gifting!! Begin by initiating a bill or amendment that requires all future requests for gifting to accompany the constitutional wording that authorizes such. If such wordage does not exist the new bill cannot proceed.
Next begin to remove all existing gifting measures of the past that are not specifically identified in Article I, Section 8, Clause 1-18, or added by a constitutional amendment thereafter—even those longstanding and sacred. These should be transferred to, and entirely funded by the states as soon as possible. States that wish to retain portions of the gifting are not prevented from doing so under the Constitution as written, nor are states that wish not to do so prevented. But each state must fund their own programs.
There is hope. The Constitution can save us but only if we have the resolve to use it as written.
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.
