Jun 10, 2019 | Constitution, Liberty Articles
Harold Pease, Ph. D.
Outside a declaration of war there is no act of Congress that would affect negatively more Americans than the House of Representative’s recently passed Equality Act now slated for the U.S. Senate, then the President for his signature. Billed to ban discrimination against “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” it, instead, enshrines it into the 1964 Civil Rights Act potentially protecting pedophilia and pederasty under “sexual orientation.”
The 13-paged ambiguous Equality Act “would give homosexuality, transgenderism, and other perversions of human sexuality and gender the same protections as race or sex in employment, housing, public accommodations, and more.” It specifically prohibits religious freedom as a defense. “The legislation applies to churches, religious schools, religious hospitals, religious employers, gathering places, sports, all government entities, and more. Christian adoption agencies will be shut down, too, if they refuse to place children with homosexuals or individuals confused about whether they are men or women. That has already happened in states with similar legislation.”
It could criminalize Christianity, Judaism and Islam as their holy writ condemns as sin the behaviors of the LGBT community. As federal law “churches, synagogues, and mosques will no longer be able to uphold marriage between men and women, or any moral standards on sexuality at all. Counselors of faith will be banned from helping people with unwanted same-sex attractions or gender confusion. And Christians, Muslims, and Jews will no longer be allowed to seek out counselors to help them deal with those issues. Indeed, under the measure, everyone will have to affirm the LGBT agenda, or face persecution and destruction at the hands of the federal government. Churches will lose their tax-exempt status if they do not submit. Schools will lose their accreditation…and this is just the start” (“Equality Act” Would Unleash Federal Persecution of Christians,” By Alex Newman, New American, May 8, 2019).
The “unchurched” may say, “This is not my fight.” But it affects them too with respect to abortion, bathroom privacy, and women’s sports! “By amending the definition of ‘sex’ in the Civil Rights Act of 1964, this legislation codifies a fundamental right to an abortion up until the moment of birth.” One minute short of infanticide. By effectively eliminating Hyde protections, it ensures that American taxpayers foot the bill for abortions (“Democrats’ passage of ‘Equality Act’ is the first stage in their attempts to CRIMINALIZE Christianity,” by Randolph Jason, May 24, 2019).
It vastly undermines women’s privacy. “Men who claim they ‘identify’ as women will be allowed to use women’s restrooms, showers, changing areas, and even bunk with women on trips, including church trips,” any man “could simply walk into female facilities under this bill and claim to be a ‘transgender’ who identifies as female,” placing girls and women at risk. “It would even be forced on churches, domestic-abuse shelters, Christian schools, and much more (“Equality Act”).
The Equality Act decimates high school female sports and the monumental gains in the sexual revolution of the seventies that equalized opportunity for women’s sports. Biological men with more weight, size and strength, claiming transgender status, can compete with women. Rep. Greg Steube (R-Fla.) “introduced an amendment at the last minute to the Equality Act that would have preserved Title IX’s protections for female sports teams, but Democrats — the ‘party of women’ — rejected it soundly.” Women’s sports will never be the same. Ironically the Democratic Party, has abandoned 52% of the population (women) in favor of the “less than one half of one percent of the population claiming transgender status” (“Why do Democrats think they have the authority — and the RIGHT — to regulate gender on high school sports teams?” The National Sentinel, June 3, 2019).
On bathroom privacy and sports they are not the party of women’s rights.
The real fear for critics of the bill is that it “provides the state with the power to persecute anyone who won’t celebrate any aspect of the LGBTQ agenda…it turns any recognition of the differences between the sexes or any preference for traditional sexual morality into actionable ‘hate,’ creating fertile grounds for lawsuits.” It puts the LGBT community in direct collision with God as defined by Christianity, Judaism and Islam. These world religions recoil from the behaviors of this group. Behaviors, they believe, places them at odds with God and salvation itself. This legislation is equivalent to “pouring legal acid on a marriage-and-family-based culture.” For them this is war between good and evil.
Instead of equality it gives legal power to largely opponents of religion who will, according to Prof. Robert Gagnon of Houston Baptist University, an expert in biblical sexual morality, “codify into law that you are a bigot, the moral equivalent of a racist, tantamount to being a member of the Klu Klux Klan, who must be shut out of society and, wherever possible, harassed and persecuted for your beliefs.” Thus, the Equality Act “is the most dangerous bill to freedom of speech and the free exercise of religion that has ever been proposed on a national level” (“A misnamed legal jackhammer strikes,” by Robert Knight, Washington Times, May 19, 2019). No wonder the vast majority of religious communities oppose it.
Ironically the best way to have the LGBT community treated fairly is housed in religion. “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you,”
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 3, 2019 | Constitution, Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease, Ph. D.
A litany of state laws aimed to alter the 2nd Amendment have descended trespassing other amendments as well, permitting “police-led searches” of our social media, thus effectively “abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press” constitutionally protected in the First Amendment. Disagreeable speech is labeled “hate speech.”
Presently at least 179 counties in the country and three states, Alaska, Idaho and Kansas, have declared Second Amendment sanctuary status as a result. The movement for sanctuary status includes any federal or state law that threatens the Second Amendment as written by the Founding Fathers. In New Mexico that includes requirements for firearm storage and background checks for private firearm sales. In New York, it includes banning bump stock devices. In Washington State it is I-1639, which “classifies semi-automatic rifles commonly owned for recreation and self-defense as assault weapons and prohibits young adults under the age of 21 from purchasing them.” These violate principally the Second Amendment “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
But the issue that has lit the sanctuary revolution most recently is “red flag” laws as they violate other amendments as well. These potentially allow thousands of innocent citizens to be punished only upon the fear that a crime might be committed. Secret lists of innocent people are created by family, acquaintances, and potentially disgruntled ex-lovers or spouses. Any one that can approach a judge with the claim that someone is a danger to himself and/or others, the sheriff is sent to disarm and confiscate his weapons. Those identified are punished without having committed a crime. All this without a shred of evidence of unlawful behavior.
As reported, state “red flag” laws are driving sheriffs and county commissioners to seek Second Amendment sanctuary county status to defend their people from them and to uphold the Constitution they have sworn by oath to protect. In no state is that more evident presently than in Colorado where 60% of the counties have declared sanctuary status which basically means “the law is null and void in this county.” Officers either have to refuse to follow orders or defend the Constitution. When county commissioners declare sanctuary status, sheriffs do not have to stand alone.
Standing alone is still constitutional as sheriffs are the only elected law enforcement agents in the United States and each must swear an oath of allegiance to the U.S. Constitution to hold that trusted office. Constitutionally they can only be removed by the people in their districts as they specifically represent only them—not public opinion outside their district, the state or the federal government. They understand that a law from either congress or state legislatures cannot undo an amendment to the Constitution—only another amendment and that requires the support of 3/4ths of the states, none of which has happened for any “red flag” law in any state. As such they should be null and void at passage.
“Red flag,” laws, distinguished from other anti-gun laws, are based entirely upon the assumption that someone may commit a crime, rather than has committed a crime. Their speech or behavior is viewed a red flag. Hitler, Stalin, Mao Tse-tung and Castro, all socialists, would have loved such laws. They could have labeled and disarmed their opposition before they did anything.
These also fly in the face of Amendment IV, V, VI and the XIV. Amendment IV reads in part: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.” Today computers and electronic devices are our “papers” and “effects” our weapons of self preservation. It is “unreasonable” to confiscate them on the assumption that they may be used inappropriately. We might also wish to remove their automobiles, knives, hammers, or medicines they MIGHT use to harm themselves or others. Heretofore “probable cause” was based upon evidence, not opinion. Again, there exists no crime!
Amendment V reads in part: “No person shall be…deprived of…property, without due process of law.” Due process is denied thousands under “red flag” laws. None were charged with a crime, arrested or convicted before gun confiscation.
Amendment VI. None were “informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defence.” None of these four required conditions, prior to confiscation, were met as no crime had been committed. The targeted had no opportunity to resist confiscation.
Finally, Amendment XIV. “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” “Red flag” laws totally deny “due process.”
Thus “red flag” laws violate the following constitutional amendments: I, II, IV, V, VI and XIV—half of the Bill of Rights. No wonder sheriffs and counties are bailing. How serious is this threat to the Constitution as written? Presently 15 states have them in place and 13 more are processing them, potentially 28—more than half of the union. In accepting states the Bill of Rights has been severely damaged.
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 27, 2019 | Constitution, Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease, Ph. D
As urban areas are pushing for more gun controls rural areas are mounting an equal amount of resistance, citizens even posting “we will not comply” signs. So far the battle is largely confined to western counties but spreading eastward as at least 179 counties now designate themselves as Second Amendment sanctuary counties. State sheriff associations are driving the issue for four primary reasons: it’s unconstitutional, violates due process, is unenforceable and does nothing to protect law abiding citizens. Most probably see it also as a back door to eventual gun confiscation.
So what does it matter what sheriffs think? Sheriffs are the only elected law enforcement agents in the United States and each must swear an oath of allegiance to the U.S. Constitution to hold that trusted office. They understand that Congress has sole authority to make law, that law must originate with and be approved by both the House and Senate (535 individuals), and that the only power belonging to the President is to execute that law, suggest through his state of the union address, and/or sign or veto, which can be overridden.
These 535 make federal law, not just a single person, as was the case with kings and now with dictators. All executive orders that have the effect of law are unconstitutional. Presidents doing so undermine the relevancy of the Congress and this is a form of tyranny. Moreover, it is well to remember that a law cannot undo an amendment to the Constitution—only another amendment and that requires the support of 3/4ths of the states, so Congress is restricted also.
Presently 29 out of 33 counties in New Mexico have opted for Second Amendment sanctuary status together with a majority in Colorado 38 of 64, Illinois 64 of 102. and Washington 24 of 39. States with fewer sanctuaries counties include: Oregon with 13 of 36, Maryland 3 of 23, Nevada 5 of 16, North Carolina 1 of 100, Rhode Island 5 of 31, and Tennessee 2 of 95, thus totaling 179. In New York an additional 52 of 62 counties officially oppose the state’s SAFE Act (Secure Ammunition and Firearms Enforcement Act of 2013) but they have not yet sought Second Amendment sanctuary status.
And there exists three Second Amendment sanctuary states: Alaska, Idaho and Kansas so a proper tally would include all counties in these states. Moreover, Missouri is poised to become the fourth.
These came into existence from the Sheriff’s Rebellion of 2013 when President Barack Obama, failing to get Congress to initiate his anti-Second Amendment agenda, signed 23 executive orders on January 16, by-passing Congress. By February 14, 2013 nine state sheriff associations, and 336 elected county sheriffs had signed pledges to defend their citizens from either Barack Obama’s unconstitutional executive orders or any gun legislation coming out of Congress that, in effect, damaged this constitutional amendment. The states refusing to comply were, as they came on board: Utah, Florida, Georgia, Colorado, New Mexico, Nebraska, Wyoming, Indiana, and Illinois.
Even the California State Sheriffs Association’s letter to Vice President Joe Biden was stronger than expected, putting him, and the federal government, on notice. “It is the position of CSSA, in accordance with the Constitution of the United States and the statutes of the State of California, that law-abiding persons who meet the established requirements have the right to acquire, own, possess, use, keep and bear firearms. This right shall not be infringed.”
The Utah Sheriff’s letter, aimed directly at President Obama, was the most blunt. “We respect the Office of the President of the United States of America. But, make no mistake, as the duly-elected sheriffs of our respective counties, we will enforce the rights guaranteed to our citizens by the Constitution. No federal official will be permitted to descend upon our constituents and take from them what the Bill of Rights—in particular Amendment II—has given them. 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 made it clear what would happen to federal agents attempting to enforce their alterations of the amendment. It passed their “Firearm Protection Act,” which 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. Reportedly, Missouri and Texas had similar legislation pending.
The Obama Administration backed down.
As mentioned, in 2013 the states of Kansas, Alaska and Idaho declared themselves Second Amendment sanctuary states. These are some of the words Kansas passed into law. “Any act, law, treaty, order, rule or regulation of the government of the United States which violates the second amendment to the constitution of the United States is null, void and unenforceable in the state of Kansas.”
Today’s threat to the Second Amendment is not presently coming from the federal government but from state governments and politicians largely from urban areas. The Sheriff Rebellion of 2019 is county against state. Sheriffs are once again placed in the position, “Will I obey the law when such violates the Constitution which I swore, by oath, to defend.” “NO!!!” Thank God they see, and understand, their duty.
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 20, 2019 | Constitution, Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease, Ph. D.
Attorney Generals for both Presidents Barack Obama (Eric Holder) and Donald Trump (William Barr) received congressional contempt citations, the enforcement of either required action from DoJ personnel—their boss. So, with Holder nothing happened and with Barr nothing will happen. But there are big differences.
Many recall the refusal of Eric Holder to surrender 74,000 documents in his possession to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, U.S. House of Representatives, that would bring to light the alleged gunrunning scandal now known as “Operation Fast and Furious.” The House was left powerless when Holder obtained from Obama executive privilege freezing the documents from congressional or public view—thus the cover up charge.
Executive privilege, or anything like it, especially withholding potentially criminal activity, is not constitutional. When Richard Nixon argued similarly in Watergate the media rightfully was all over him but they were amazingly quiet on the gunrunning story as potentially it could bring down a president long supported by them. Ironically Holder used the Nixon argument in his request that Obama assert executive privilege (Attorney General Eric Holder Letter to Obama, June 20, 2012).
From the 6,000 documents released of the 80,000 requested by the House, this is what is known or believed to be true. The Obama administration’s contempt for the Second Amendment was well documented. Previous attempts to get Americans to give up their right to possess firearms had failed. Since Americans will not willingly do so, imagine someone in power plotting to create the rational that would turn most reasonable people against these rights and gun sales at gun shows.
Seemingly the intent was for the government, through the Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms Administration (ATF), to secretly sell illegal guns to the Mexican drug cartels, and then blame those sales on U.S. gun shows to discredit them. The administration had argued that 90% of the guns used by Mexican drug cartels came from gun shows in the United States. The ATF gun sales, if undetected, would provide the government rational and support to close down the gun shows making it more difficult for citizens to obtain a firearm. The story is full of government intrigue, lies, conspiracy, and the murder of hundreds of Mexican citizens and an American Border Patrol Agent, Brian Terry.
The transfer of illegal weapons to Mexican drug cartels was done without consulting U.S. law enforcement officers outside ATF or the Mexican authorities. The government would have succeeded with the scheme were not some of the illegal firearms found at the scene of murdered Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry, one of which actually the instrument of his death.
Among the 6,000 released Holder documents was found an email wherein Arizona U.S. Attorney Dennis Burke, charged with executing the “Operation Fast and Furious,” boasted to a colleague of the operation’s propaganda value, presumably to vilify gun shows. It read: “Some of these weapons bought by these clowns in Arizona have been directly traced to murders of elected officials in Mexico by the cartels, so Katie-bar-the-door when we unveil this baby” (“Will Holder’s Watergate Become Obama’s Waterloo?” Americas 1st Freedom, April 2012). They knew precisely what they could do with the propaganda value of their sales—destroy the gun shows.
Wayne La Pierre, Executive Vice President of the NRA, best expressed the seriousness of this illegal operation, apart from defrauding Americans of their constitutional gun rights, when he wrote. “In that ‘gun-walking’ operation, Obama administration operatives encouraged, bankrolled, and oversaw repeated felonies at gun stores and at border crossings with criminals smuggling at least 1,700 firearms into Mexican drug-fueled criminal commerce.” Regular citizens, doing the same thing would serve time.
What was disclosed reportedly suggested that U.S. gun shows were not the source of cartel firepower, as this administration had repeatedly contended, they, through their ATF agents were, and Holder intentionally lied when he told Congress he heard about “Fast and Furious” from the media, as did other Americans. “One Justice Department official claimed his Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination and refused to testify,” elevating suspicion that, so far, we may see only the tip of the iceberg.
The documents sought by the House could have shed light potentially on one of the biggest scandals in American history. including evidence planting—the placement of 1,700 guns in cartel hands. But if true it could also have brought down the Obama presidency.
Holder’s contempt of congress was bi-partisan, Barr’s was not. Barr turned over the entire Mueller document minus some redaction that, he said, would unlawfully disclose sources and methods. He also had the unredacted version housed in another room for members of congress to view. Reportedly no Democrat chose to look at it. His contempt of congress was because he refused to testify before the House Judiciary Committee because it had reportedly changed the rules allowing non-members of congress to ask the questions. The Constitution, and past practice, only allowed members of congress to interrogate. He insisted he would have testified, as he had the week before in the Senate Judiciary Committee, had they limited questioners to members of the committee.
With Barr hundreds did not lose their lives, thousands of documents were not withheld from a House committee, and no laws were broken. Very big differences.
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 20, 2019 | Constitution, Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease, Ph. D.
The Robert Mueller Report has been released in full outside legally required redaction that would compromise sources and methods. It’s over. The Deep State and their media outlets temper tantrum against Attorney General Bill Barr because he feels the need to investigate the beginning of the Trump-Russia Collusion Hoax, now documented, will continue for a time but eventually will dissipate as new documents are declassified supporting Barr’s need to review. The infamous insurance policy to hide FBI agents Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, and other accomplices to the alleged coup d’e’tat to unseat a president of the United States, failed leaving them exposed to treason.
By the time newspapers print this column Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein will have resigned. One of the things that Barr may wish to review, with respect to the coup, was the intent to use the 25th Amendment in their failed plot. In this, outgoing Rod Rosenstein takes center stage.
This was confessed on 60 Minutes by former deputy director of the FBI Andrew McCabe who identified Rod Rosenstein as an accomplice having discussed with others removing the president using the 25th Amendment. This Rosenstein denies. Look for Rosenstein to be put under oath again before the Senate Judiciary Committee regarding this and his offer to wear a “wire” while in meetings with President Trump to entrap him.
They needed Trump to look crazy. This was planned before he was inaugurated. Reportedly Rosenstein told “Mr. McCabe that he might be able to persuade Attorney General Jeff Sessions and John F. Kelly, then the secretary of homeland security and now the White House chief of staff, to mount an effort to invoke the 25th Amendment” (New York Times, “Rod Rosenstein Suggested Secretly Recording Trump and Discussed 25th Amendment,” Sept. 21, 2018).
But the 25th Amendment was never designed to undo an election. Even a casual look at it should end that issue. Deep Staters and their media outlets hated Trump and feared his exposure of their influence in the election. The amendment requires evidence of his mental or physical incapacity. The population had just voted that he was fit and was their best choice of many contenders.
The amendment created the temporary office of acting president which is filled by the elected vice president serving under the president in one of two ways. First, Section 3, by the president’s voluntarily removal of himself as before surgery which might result in death or second, involuntarily by his cabinet and vice president.
Section 4 is what Trump’s alleged conspirators sought to use. It begins “Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore [currently Charles Grassley] of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives [currently Nancy Pelosi] their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.”
Notice the word acting assumes a temporary status, which will automatically be returned to him when he submits to the above named authorities a “written declaration that no inability exists,” that he is fit. He resumes his duties “unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department … transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office.”
Should that happen Congress (both houses) is required to assemble within 48 hours to deal with the issue and is given 21 days thereafter to vote on the matter. If Congress “determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office.”
This amendment is designed to handle a president incapacitated by a stroke, as in President Woodrow Wilson, or a botched assassination attempt leaving a president incapacitated to do his duties, or in a disease like Alzheimer’s for instance. This is not to be used to impeach a president as such is clearly outlined in Article II of the Constitution or to overturn the results of an election—more especially one just occurring.
At this point it might be well to review 18 U.S. Code 2385, Chapter 115, p. 2-6 on what constitutes Treason, Sedition, and Subversive Activities in Advocating an attempted overthrow of Government. This list includes activities respecting: “prints, publishes, edits, issues, circulates, sells, distributes, or publicly displays.” In the coming weeks and months we may wish to review this law.
Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein looked mighty uncomfortable standing expressionless and statue-like behind William Barr when Barr announced the results of the Mueller Report as no collusion and no obstruction. Since he had much to do with the investigation and is the last standing original senior executive officer in the Department of Justice, he may have much to worry about. At least the Russian collusion focus will no longer be on Trump.
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.
Apr 15, 2019 | Constitution, Economy, Liberty Articles, Taxes
Harold Pease, Ph. D
As a nation under the U.S. Constitution we are 230 years old. It may surprise readers to learn that for the first 124 of these years we had no federal income tax and handled our expenses quite well. Today the 55% who pay federal income taxes (77.5 million do not), pay nearly a fifth of their income to the federal government. Prior to 1913 one kept what is now taken from them.
How would you spend it if not taken? You would spend the extra fifth of your salary on thousands of items that are made by others as well as services you might like. This not only would enrich your life but it would provide jobs for others making those items or providing those services. Many middle class folks could purchase a new car every other year with what they are forced to give to the federal government.
Would you spend it more wisely than the federal government? Certainly! Most of the money taken from you by the federal government is spent on perpetual war, foreign aid, grants to privileged portions of our society, and endless unconstitutional subsidized programs; the last two categories of which basically take the money of those who produce and redistribute it to those who do not. Even some non-tax payers get income tax refunds—so corrupt is the system.
Of course, those receiving and benefiting from these programs will defend them. But the fact remains that tax monies provide largely government jobs, which are almost entirely consumption jobs (jobs that consume the production of society but produce little consumable). Such jobs cannot produce for public consumption a potato, a carton of milk, or even a can of hair spray. They bring another person to the table to eat, but not another to produce something to eat.
What largely brought about the give-away programs of the Twentieth Century was the now 106-year-old 16th Amendment—the federal income tax. All three 1912 presidential candidates Teddy Roosevelt, William Howard Taft and Woodrow Wilson, and their respective parties, wanted this financial water faucet that they could turn on at will. With it they could purchase anything—even people.
Prior to 1913 the federal government remained mostly faithful to her grants of power in Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, which left them with only four powers: to tax, pay the debts, provide for the general welfare, and provide for the common defense. Because the federal government has the inclination to maximize their authority the last two power grants, general welfare and common defense, each had eight qualifiers to harness them more fully. Outside these qualifiers the federal government had no power to tax or spend.
General welfare then meant everyone equally (general), as opposed to “specific welfare” or “privileged welfare” as it is today, targeting those to forfeit and those to receive monies. The Constitution did not deny states, counties, or cities from having such programs, only the federal government. But politicians soon learned that the more they promised to the people, from the money of others, the easier it was to get elected and stay elected.
The problem with the federal government going off the list and funding things clearly not on it was that each time they did so the stronger the inclination to do so again. One minor departure begets another until one notices that what the federal government does has little or no relationship to the list. I ask my students what would happen if they took to kindergarten a lollypop and gave it to one child? What would the others say? Where is mine? Try taking away long provided benefits from a privileged group, as for example food stamps, and see how popular you are with that voting group in the next election.
So why does the government now need a fifth of everything you make and it is still not enough? Answer, because we went off the listed powers of the Constitution and every departure required more taxpayer funding. The solution to less tax is less government. A side benefit is more freedom. The productive classes would not be hurt. Seldom do they qualify for the federally subsidized programs anyway.
The fifth taken from the productive classes would be spent by them creating a haven of jobs for those who wished to work. The cycle of dependency would be drastically reduced. The federal government would no longer be an enabler to those not working. States would decide for themselves what assistance programs they could afford with some states offering more and others less as the Tenth Amendment mandates.
So, how did we cover the expenses of the federal government—even wars—our first 124 years? Products coming into the country were assessed a fee to market in the U.S. called a tariff. We got product producers in other countries to cover our national expenses and thus we were able to spend on ourselves every cent of what the federal government now takes, which inadvertently stimulated the economy. No one should be able to argue that our exceeding $22 trillion national debt is fair, has really worked for any of us, and is a better plan. I personally like the idea of being able to purchase a new car every other year.
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.
