Aug 12, 2013 | Constitution, Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease
Fifty-five of 64 Colorado county elected sheriffs, together with a sizable coalition of grassroots groups, are plaintiffs in a lawsuit against the state of Colorado and until resolved by the courts will not participate in the enforcement of what they consider a violation of the Bill of Rights, notably the Second Amendment, which they have sworn under oath to preserve. The elected sheriffs, consisting of both democrats and republicans, not only believe the laws to be unconstitutional but also unenforceable.
Wordage in the suit cited public safety and the 2nd and 14th Amendments of the Constitution of the United States as major concerns. Sheriffs were especially angered by a tweet from the Colorado Senate Democrats referring to them as criminals, which read: “2day co sheriffs stood in opposition of co’s new gun laws, but not w/law-abiding citizens, but with criminals.” A sheriff of each county is the only elected law enforcement agent in the nation and as such has more constitutional authority than the FBI or ATF. Their election to stand by their oath to protect and defend the Constitution is serious and a big deal. Unfortunately the national media is largely silent on this story.
The same situation exists in the state of New York where 52 of 58 elected county sheriffs signed a letter asking for changes to the New York gun control laws, known as the SAFE Act, shoved through the legislature “just hours after the text became public.” The sheriffs were invited to a meeting where they expected to be able to share their reasons for opposition but instead were threatened by Governor Andrew Cuomo with removal from office. Who would he use to enforce removal, the six sheriffs of the 58 who had not signed? Numerous New York counties have passed non-binding resolutions to these laws in open support for the Second Amendment and those defending it. Schoharie County even going so far as to deny funding for enforcement.
Opponents claim that the SAFE Act is also unenforceable and criminalizes law-abiding citizens. This law is headed for the courts as well. New York sheriffs argue in their friend of the court brief. “Law enforcement’s work is made more difficult attempting to enforce unclear laws that harm, rather than promote, public safety. The laws appear willfully blind to legitimate safety interests, and instead are tailored to impact, and negatively impact, law-abiding firearm owners…. The Supreme Court has confirmed that the Second Amendment protects arms typically possessed by law-abiding citizens, and identified that the right of self-defense is ‘core’ protected conduct that is at its zenith in the home.”
Similar opposition by elected county sheriffs is rising in Maryland to a new law scheduled to go into effect this October 1st. Ten such have already voiced opposition to enforcing it. Other sheriffs “won’t use county resources to enforce the laws’ restrictions” (“Battleground Colorado: Sheriffs Resist,” by Frank Miniter, America’s 1st Freedom, Aug. 2013).
Fortunately such strong support of the Constitution by the law enforcement community is nothing new although the establishment press has been slow to cover these stories. In January and February 2013, angry sheriffs rose up putting the federal government on notice vowing to defend their citizens from the federal government if federal agents began enforcing gun laws outside the limits of the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution. Those states refusing to comply were, as they came on board: Utah, Florida, Georgia, Colorado, New Mexico, Nebraska, Wyoming, Indiana, and Illinois.
With respect to the Second Amendment, Utah’s Sheriffs’ Association went as far as to say, “We are prepared to trade our lives for the preservation of its traditional interpretation.” Wyoming’s new “Firearm Protection Act,” threatens 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 have similar legislation pending.
Even the California State Sheriffs’ Association’s letter to Vice President Joe Biden, signed by seventeen elected county sheriffs, was stronger than had been 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.”
What makes the efforts of Colorado, New York, and Maryland different this time from earlier this year is that previous resistance was aimed at the federal government taking their 2nd Amendment rights from them. This time it is their own state governments attempting to do the same thing in clear violation of the 2nd and 14th Amendments. The sheriff’s, and the populace that keeps them in power, says no when it violates their Constitution that they have sworn to uphold. Those who understand history and freedom know that an armed populace is critical to liberty. Thank goodness our sheriffs understand this and honor their sacred oath. If only our legislators and governors would as well.
Jul 28, 2013 | Constitution
By Harold Pease
Three years ago I published a column that had absolutely nothing to do with the gay issue. Shortly thereafter a reader emailed that she could not attend my upcoming Tea Party address on the U.S. Constitution because of that column which she perceived was negative to her gay interests. I was shocked. Such is the hysteria and emotion that surrounds the issue of gay marriage.
Amidst this hysteria comes a view from one who is gay but opposed to gay marriage. I would not now write about his objections had the media done justice to the gay view that opposes gay marriage. It is totally ignored. Doug Mainwaring sees his gay associates as “selfish adults” who “have systematically dismantled that which is most precious to children as they grow and develop,” the right to a father and a mother.
He is disappointed that the media misses the full and complete discussion of the issue, primarily the part that deals with unintended consequences. Advocates of gay marriage are selfish, he believes, because they exclude this part of the debate. What does this do to the children from these relationships, the definition of a family, even the meaning of marriage? “Natural law, tradition, religion, intellectual curiosity, and free inquiry no longer play a role in deliberations. Same-sex marriage legislation is defended solely on grounds of moral relativism and emotions,” he argues. These exclusions have consequences even if we deny that possibility.
In the past, he maintains, “defenders of marriage found it easy to win the battle” by “appeals to religion and tradition.” But today the institutions that most readily influence public opinion favor the move, as for example, the establishment media, politicians and large corporations. “One only needs to consider media headlines from the last few weeks,” he writes. “We are bombarded with approvals of same-sex marriage. To the casual onlooker, not steeped in this issue, it would seem that conservatism has embraced same-sex marriage. Each day brings fresh news of Republican political elites, Fortune 500 companies, NFL members, and even Dirty Harry himself, Clint Eastwood, throwing their support behind genderless marriage.”
Politicians likewise appear to support it because “they’re concerned about votes. Supporting same-sex marriage now looks like a winner for them.” Giant corporations too have come on board ever “eager to polish their images and create goodwill.”
Without thought to unintended consequences as part of the dialogue, he writes, “genderless marriage now enjoys an aura of equality and fairness,” but it “will not expand rights and freedoms in our nation. It will not redefine marriage. It will undefine it.”
Unintended consequences have already damaged the institution of marriage, he argues, even before the gay marriage issue. “No-fault divorce, instituted all across our country, sounded like a good idea at the time” but “it changed forever the definition of marriage from a permanent relationship between spouses to a temporary one. Sadly, children became collateral damage in the selfish pursuits of adults.”
Mainwaring’s most powerful argument is that “same-sex marriage will do the same, depriving children of their right to either a mom or a dad. This is not a small deal. Children are being reduced to chattel-like sources of fulfillment. On one side, their family tree consists not of ancestors, but of a small army of anonymous surrogates, donors, and attorneys who pinch-hit for the absent gender in genderless marriages. Gays and lesbians demand that they have a ‘right’ to have children to complete their sense of personal fulfillment, and in so doing, are trumping the right that children have to both a mother and a father—a right that same-sex marriage tramples over. Same-sex marriage will undefine marriage and unravel it, and in so doing, it will undefine children. It will ultimately lead to undefining humanity. This is neither ‘progressive’ nor ‘conservative’ legislation. It is ‘regressive’ legislation.”
He ends with a plea to seriously consider the unintended consequences before they become consequences. “But for the sake of all children and those yet to be born, we need to slow down and seriously consider the unintended consequences of undefining marriage. Otherwise, we risk treating our progeny as expendable pawns, sacrificed in the name of self-fulfillment. We can do better than that” (I’m gay, and I oppose gay marriage, by Doug Mainwaring, thePublicDiscourse.com, March 27, 2013).
Out of the hysteria and emotion that surrounds the issue of gay marriage and away from the institutions that so influence and manage our thinking comes the voice of reason and it comes from one who is gay. Perhaps it is time to listen, or at the very least, consider the time tested unintended consequences especially for the children who have no voice in the debate. It is rather pious of us to just ignore the possible consequences of this issue.
Jul 9, 2013 | Constitution
You received two articles last week so as to have the one on the Declaration of Independence in a timely manner. There is no new article for today.
Today’s posting is to alert you to the soon to be video series on the Constitution free on LibertyUnderFire.org. We believe it to be the easiest and fastest way to get up to speed on the U.S. Constitution that presently is under the greatest attack in its history. It is the only way back to universal prosperity and liberty. Readers know that we have lost so much the last two decades. It is imperative that all who love liberty become devout constitutionalists first before loyalty to any party. It is that serious. In fact, readers know that I do not use the words conservative or liberal as they are so divisive. Why create your own opposition. Everyone should be a constitutionalist. Those opposed to the Constitution are thus forced to be seen for what they are and opposition to the Constitution is not an equal alternative view. They thus are force to defend themselves not against you but against the one document that everyone serving in any position of leadership is required by oath to pledge loyalty to. You will be notified when they are posted. Dr. Harold Pease
Jul 1, 2013 | Constitution, Liberty Articles, Take Action, Taxes
By Dr. Harold Pease
Should the patriots once again have ability to rewrite the Declaration of Independence what would they say? How might it be different? Many have asked, “Is it time to restate the obvious? We have lost much of our liberty, as they had, from their elected government.”
There is no reason to believe that the committee, headed by Thomas Jefferson, would retract the base for the right of revolution from “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God”—definitely a higher level than mere man. Nor is there any reason to believe that they would retract “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” Nor the right of revolution when all other means are exhausted, as they had, which is so eloquently stated in the remainder of the second paragraph. So we would expect them to retain the means of making revolution—the right to bear arms. The general theme of the last three paragraphs, that “in every stage of these Oppressions we have Petitioned for Redress” and “with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor,” would be retained as well.
What is, however, perplexing is how many of the listed oppressions—the causes of the American Revolution—have returned in our day. Jefferson targeted the King for the oppressions but Parliament, an elected body, was actually responsible for most of them as is Congress in our day. These include: “He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.” This would be our unelected federal bureaucracy today, 2.8 million strong. The $50 million for IRS parties and $70 million for IRS bonuses in 2013 come to mind. We have yet to hire the 16,000 new folks to administer our socialized medicine (Obamacare) programs, yet another enormous swarm “to eat out our substance.” These officers live off the wealth produced by others.
“He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.” Bradley tanks were used against the Branch Davidian Church during the Clinton Administration, and FEMA and the federalized National Guard were used in New Orleans during the hurricane Katrina under George W. Bush. The recently passed National Defense Authorization Act legalizes military kidnapping of American citizens thought by the President and military to be “terrorist” and shipped to Guantanamo Bay and detained without trial indefinitely. Civil power was/is told to be secondary or non-existent in these examples.
“He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Act of pretended Legislation:” The United Nations was created by treaty. It’s law, often “foreign to our constitution” is becoming recognized universal law with authority to supersede national law. The Supreme Court often references UN law to establish constitutionality of U.S. law. A pending case is the UN Small Arms Treaty which opponents of gun control fear will be used to nullify our Second Amendment.
“For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent.” Anytime a president offers money to a foreign country by way of treaty, as did President Jimmy Carter in the Panama Canal Treaty, he is taxing us without our consent. Only the House of Representatives, which is excluded from treaty making, can raise a bill of revenue. When the Senate, which is supposed to approve all treaties, and the President offer money in a treaty it “imposes taxes on us without our consent.” Today presidents offer reams of money to foreign countries without a thought to asking the people first, as required by the Constitution.
“For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury.” The National Defense Authorization Act, signed into law on New Years Eve 2011 by President Barack Obama, potentially removes trial by jury altogether for citizens thought by the president to be terrorists. A term never defined. If a trial is held at all it will be out of the country and in a military court—without the benefit of the Bill of Rights.
“For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences.” Once again the NDAA transports us secretly, unbeknown to our friends and family and potentially without notice to civil authorities, to Cuba for indefinite detention. Nothing that the British did to us in 1776 was more drastic than this.
“For…altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments.” Our government has been moving from a republic to a democracy and now into socialism for many decades led by both major political parties. At least Barack Obama was honest with us when he promised to “fundamentally change” our government if elected.
“For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.” Our legislatures have been suspended when five things, now very common, happen: 1) when Congress usurps the powers of state governments to themselves, 2) when Congress allows an unelected bureaucracy to add sometimes thousands, of new regulations to a new law, 3) when the President makes law by executive order, 4) when the President appoints so-called Czars to administer programs and write new law for areas where the Constitution never gave the federal government any jurisdiction, 5) and when the Supreme Court rules in such a way as to create new law as in Obamacare.
I suppose the “Tories” in our day would argue, as they did then, “But our elected government gave us all these laws” (oppressions), thus it is okay because “we did it to ourselves.” That argument was made then as well but fortunately it did not keep the rest of us, the Patriots, from revolting nonetheless. Let us revolt by our vote to once again remove the returning offending tyranny and oppressions. Please share.
Jun 28, 2013 | Constitution, Liberty Articles, Take Action
By Dr. Harold Pease
Recent revelations on either the National Securities Administration’s seven-year accumulation of your phone calls and email massages, or, the 35 years of FISA court’s special surveillance requests on 34,000 citizens, has caused many to look to the Constitution for protection from their own government. Is government spying on its own citizens constitutional?
In the Constitution the words national security are not used but common defense is mentioned twice, first in the Preamble, which is but a statement of intent and is not generally seen as usable for codification of law. Article I, Section 8 houses the four powers of congress: to tax, to pay the debts, to provide for the general welfare and to provide for the common defense. Sections 2-9 are the qualifiers on what is meant by common defense so as to limit government’s inclination to define everything as common defense, as it now has national security. All the war powers belong to congress alone. Only after a war is declared does the president have commander and chief responsibilities over the military. Unfortunately for big government advocates, collecting and storing data on its citizens is not cited or even alluded to.
Fortunately for us this behavior is specifically forbidden in the Fourth Amendment which reads: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” The amendment was specifically designed to prevent government spying.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated is the strongest possible language conceivable. In their day the British government used what was called “a general search warrant” which allowed their agents to harass the people thought to be doing, or saying, something disapproved by the government. No such flexible interpretation was allowed in our government. In our day, computers are your papers. Simply confiscating them and storing them, perhaps indefinitely, should be no different than the police walking into your home and taking any letters, or messages, that you have received, or are about to send, from you and housing them in police headquarters in case they should need them in a later day. Moreover, unreasonable was not to be decided by the police.
As a first principle your house and papers are off-limits to the government. All searches are unreasonable without probable cause that you are doing something harmful to others. Probable cause must be decided independently from the police unless you are in the act of doing something unlawful and immediate police response is necessary. Elected judges exist for assessing probable cause. Should they get too cozy with the police there exist other checks to keep them restrained as, for example, their defeat in the next election. As initially interpreted there were to be few federal laws hence few unelected federal justices. This was to be a state, county, or city matter. Rousted out of a good sleep in the middle of the night, judges were not likely to be too happy having to assess frivolous charges.
There exists no constitutional authority for a blanket extraction of all your electronic data. Judges swear an oath to preserve the Constitution. They are not to perform with a private view outside that document. Notice also the specific restrictive phraseology with respect to this power; they are to particularly describe “the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized”—evidence that something unlawful happened. There is no authority for a “fishing expedition.” NSA spying on its own citizens without a search warrant is clearly unconstitutional.
So what of the government’s secret FISA court where over the last 35 years special federal (unelected) judges have only turned down 11 spying requests out of 34,000 made. Isn’t that based upon probable cause? Not necessarily! The request is more likely made because they lack probable cause and wish to find it by accessing your private records or conversations. We might think more positively toward the existence of the secret FISA court were it not for three big negatives: judges are not elected and accountable to the people, the court operates behind an impenetrable double-door in a vault-like room in total secrecy, and the rules empowering the spying activities are different than those allowed other judges in other federal courts. In any other court, for an ordinary surveillance warrant, a judge must find that a suspect “is” involved in a crime. Under FISA the standard is lowered to “may be involved.” An ordinary wiretap runs 90 days. FISA taps can last a year. A suspect under ordinary criminal surveillance “must be told” about it eventually but not under FISA. And finally, if prosecuted, a defendant is never allowed to see the top-secret warrant applications used against him, which is a probable violation of the Six Amendment as well.
Moreover, the FISA court violates the Fifth Amendment in that the accused is, in a very real sense, forced to be a witness against himself—perhaps the only witness. It is his papers, emails, and phone conversations that convict him.
No federal government! You must tear down your $2 billion NSA Bluffdale, Utah spy facility capable of storing a Yottabyte of our private information against our will. You must do likewise to your Oak Ridge plant that houses the fastest computer in the world designed to analyze our private data for your own purposes; and the latest revelation—to share that information with seven sister federal agencies. Spying on your own people is a blatant violation of the Constitution. You may argue that you are only protecting us from bad people out there but who protects us from you? Fortunately the Constitution does if only enough will begin to use it in their voting practices and those we elect will honor their pledge to protect it, and us, from you.
Dr. Harold Pease is an expert on the United States Constitution. He has dedicated his career to studying the writings of the Founding Fathers and applying that knowledge to current events. He has taught history and political science from this perspective for over 25 years at Taft College. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.
Jun 25, 2013 | Constitution, Liberty Articles, Take Action
By Dr. Harold Pease
With the recent outbreak of establishment media coverage of the National Security Administration’s, NSA, spying on over 100 million Americans, recording their telephone conversations, emails, and other electronic messages for the last seven years, the attention has turned to whatever happened to congressional or judicial oversight. Defenders of the spying are assuring us that such is in place and we should not worry. The government’s surveillance of its own citizens is old news dating back to at least 35 years as is the government’s secret court, the FISA court, authorizing them to do so. I have told my students about this court for at least 25 years.
This secret court began during the Jimmy Carter Administration with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, in 1978. Initiated by Ted Kennedy it had strong bipartisan support. It was created as a response to President Richard Nixon’s usage of federal resources to spy on political activist groups during his tenure as president, which likely violated the Fourth Amendment. Ironically, the solution, legalized spying on our own citizens, was a greater violation of the Amendment than before. Few voices opposed giving the government extra spy power during the “Cold War” when it seemed that the whole planet was falling under the totalitarian influence of communism but, once legalized, the surveillance moved to other groups notably the socialists who opposed the Vietnamese War.
CBS News commentator Dan Rather, in his program, Eye on America, was one of the first to speak out on the intricacies of this secret court and he did so in 1994–nineteen years ago. He correctly spoke to the issue that all federal courts are supposed to be open, that the Constitution has no place for secret courts. His program opened, “Chances are you have never heard of this court because it does operate in secret.” The FISA court “holds no public hearings, classifies its rulings top secret and has wide freedom to order domestic spying in the name of national security.” Alan Deshowitz, a defense attorney at the time, was cited as having said, “The idea of there being a secret court in America is so UN-American and the end result is that the rights of American citizens are being violated by this court. What is at stake here is the liberty of the American people. Secrecy and liberty are incompatible.”
The 1994 program continued, “Behind the stone walls of the Justice Department’s sixth floor the court sits in an ultra-high security vault, guarded by impenetrable double doors. There, seven federal judges hear surveillance requests from the FBI, the CIA, and the Department of Defense. And it appears the court has never heard a request it didn’t like. Over the years the government has asked for 7,500 surveillance warrants. The number refused by the court is zero. The government has never been denied.” In 1994 this amounted to two surveillance approvals on U. S. citizens a day. There was no follow up on how the information obtained was used in the defense of freedom.
It gets worse, “The questions “under FISA aren’t quite as tough as they are in even an ordinary criminal case. In any other court for an ordinary surveillance warrant a judge must find that a suspect is involved in a crime. Under FISA the standard is lowered to ‘may be involved.’ An ordinary wiretap runs 90 days. FISA taps can last a year. A suspect under ordinary criminal surveillance ‘must be told’ about it eventually but not under FISA. And finally, if prosecuted, a defendant is never allowed to see the top-secret warrant applications used against him.” Ironically, all this is happening “in a windowless vault just beyond Constitution Avenue,” the program concluded.
To date the secret court has reviewed 33,900 requests denying, in its 35-year history, only eleven—so much for oversight. This means that 968 Americans are approved for secret spying, through wiretapping and other surveillance techniques, each year with only one rejection. This number is not to be confused with the 100 million Americans subjected to secret blanket extraction of their electronic data for the last seven years for some future purpose by the NSA. These are they where your Congress, through FISA, authorized actual study of your private information without your permission or knowledge. I guess that is okay as long as it is on someone else. The problem is, it may be on you for the last anti government thing you said or wrote. How Orwellian is this? Tell your congressman to end the FISA secret court. Secrecy and liberty are incompatible.
