Oct 16, 2012 | Constitution, Globalism
By Harold Pease
On October 6, an unmanned drone flew deep into Israeli territory before it was shot down. The drone, now thought to have been sent by Lebanon, who acquired it from Iran, raises awareness of the sanctity of a nation’s airspace. As the violation of airspace has traditionally been seen as an act of war, Israel sent warplanes over Lebanon the next day. This brings to light how calloused and disrespectful of the air space of other countries we have been where we indiscriminately kill our enemies on their soil.
Drones are now our favored weapon of choice and we unleash them on suspected “terrorists,” without the permission of sovereign countries, throughout the Middle East. Moreover, we assume unto ourselves the right of surveillance of all potential adversaries on their soil. We get away with this because we are the “town bully.” Such would be acts of war if done on stronger countries. According to the Washington Post we have “secret facilities, including two operational hubs on the East Coast, virtual Air Force cockpits in the Southwest and clandestine bases in at least six countries on two continents” (Under Obama, an Emerging Global Apparatus for drone killing, by Greg Miller, Dec. 27, 2011).
The paper reported, “Senior Democrats barely blink at the idea that a president from their party has assembled such a highly efficient machine for the targeted killing of suspected terrorists.” What is worse, “officially, they are not allowed to discuss” this most secretive activity although it is not denied.
President Barack Obama can argue that he did not invent this sophisticated “killing machine.” George W. Bush was the first to use it but he limited its use to Pakistan “where 44 strikes over five years had left about 400 people dead.” This is true, but Obama has amplified its use by at least four times the number of strikes and death and proliferated the death to several additional countries in northern Africa and the Middle East and the above numbers are conservative, the paper revealed.
The fact that such killings have included American citizens raises a serious constitutional question as well. Past presidential candidate, Ron Paul, said it best, “American citizens, even those living abroad, must be charged with a crime before being sentenced” (An Unconstitutional Killing, New York Daily News, October 2, 2011).
The latest drone, the Phantom Eye, uses a hydrogen-fueled propulsion system capable of remaining in the air for four days without refueling, and potentially flying at about 65,000 feet, thus vastly increasing the surveillance capabilities of our military (Boeing Phantom drone has 1st flight, by W. J. Hennigan, Los Angeles Times, June 4, 2012). It has a 150-foot wingspan, perhaps the largest of the drones, but others come as small as a humming bird. Should our government be able to see everything?
No wonder we are especially hated in northern Africa, the Middle East and in Pakistan. A poll last June revealed that “about 74 percent of Pakistanis surveyed regard the U. S. as an enemy,” up from 64 percent just three years ago. The Pew Research Center’s Global Attitudes Project revealed that “only 17 percent support our drone strikes” and that this activity fuels the hatred. Has it occurred to this administration that for every alleged al-Qaeda that we kill we potentially create dozens more? This is a recipe that guarantees perpetual enemies and thus perpetual war. Surely, they know this. Are we not facilitating the strength of the Taliban? The increased foreign aid to “buy back” good will in Pakistan has not worked.
Two additional concerns emerge. First, drone warfare makes war too easy. So instead of making it difficult to engage because mothers will lose sons and sisters will lose brothers, and politicians will lose votes, there are no consequences. We just label a few people terrorists, blow them up, and there is no “body bag” coverage on the nightly news—actually no coverage at all.
Second, it sanitizes war. It is like playing a video game from some structure in Nevada. No one from our side gets killed or hurt. Our players do not have to see any blood or witness the sounds of human agony that result. The “video players” from 8,000 miles away can kill and be home with their families by five o’clock for supper, oblivious to the hell that they have inflicted on others. It is virtual war for us, much like the video game “Modern Warfare II,” and we play it so well. Is this the New World Order?
We have violated the air space of probably a dozen countries and killed their people. If they did not fear us we would presently be at war with most of them. Then we wonder why they hate us. When they are stronger they may one day send drones to spy and kill us.
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.
Oct 9, 2012 | Constitution, Economy
By Dr. Harold Pease
On August 31, between the two national party conventions, our national debt exceeded $16 trillion dollars; four of which is from eight years of George W. Bush and six, and counting, from less than four years of Barack Obama—the two biggest spending presidents in U.S. history. So what is a trillion dollars? Let me try to give some perspective. To begin with a trillion is the number 1 followed by twelve zeros. A trillion dollars is a thousand billion and a billion is a thousand million. This still means very little to my students who count their money in fives, tens and twenties.
One mathematician gave us a more practical way to evaluate our outstanding debt. One trillion one-dollar bills stacked atop each other (not end to end but flat) would reach nearly 68,000 miles into space—a third of the way to the moon (See CNN News Cast, Feb. 4, 2009). If so, the debt incurred under President Obama alone, $6 trillion, would take us to the moon and back. Moreover, if you like traveling atop this stack of ones, our total $16 trillion in debt would take you to and from the moon twice and to the moon a third time and you would still get a third of the way back to earth as well.
Senator Mitch McConnell gave another illustration just as awe striking. He calculated that if we spent a million dollars every day since Jesus was born we still would not have spent a trillion dollars—only three-fourths of a trillion dollars (ibid.).
Someone else equated our national debt to seconds and concluded that a million seconds is about 11½ days and a billion seconds is about 32 years. A trillion seconds is about 32,000 years thus 16 trillion seconds is 512,000 years (See CNN News Cast, Feb. 4, 2009). This only make my head spin. My Ph. D is not in math.
I ask my students, “Who gets to go without so that this debt can be paid?” Go without?” That is a concept foreign to this generation!! They do not know, and neither do their parents and grandparents who laid it on their backs. When they are told that their immediate share of the debt is $51,265 (see USDebtClock.org), due immediately, they are angry.
The 13th amendment ending slavery has been rescinded. They are America’s new slaves. Bondage was given them before their birth, or while they were in the womb, or before they were old enough to know what it meant to be sold into slavery. The past generation wanted nice costly programs for free and were willing to sell their children in order to have them. Well Communist China owns an eighth of us and the bills are due. What is worse the older generation is still anxious to incur even more debt on our defenseless children and grandchildren. Are we not the most debt addicted, insensitive generation in all human history?
The latest new theory to avoid fiscal responsibility and continue unlimited spending used by both Bush in late 2009 and Obama in 2010 is referred to as Quantitative Easing. Crudely it means printing more money out of thin air to cover our debt, but it is far more sophisticated than that. For Bush the money supply was greatly expanded by having the Federal Reserve purchase $600 billion in Mortgage-backed securities (Harding, Robin. 3 November 2010, Quantitative Easing Explained. Financial Times). Obama purchased $600 billion of Treasury securities over a six month period of time beginning in November 2010 in what has been called Quantitative Easing or QE2 to distinguish it from QE1, the Bush expansion of the money supply (Cesky, Annalyn,3 Nov.2010, “QE2: Fed Pulls the Trigger” CNNmoney.com. Retrieved 10 Aug. 2011). Neither has stimulated the economy or created jobs, but for a few months, like a drug high, things seem to feel better.
The biggest problem with expanding the money supply is that it reduces the value of the money that you have in your pocket. Prices go up. Those on fixed incomes are robbed as surely as had a thief lifted their wallet or purse. They cannot return to their employer for a raise to compensate for the loss caused by their own government.
Last month the Federal Reserve announced a third round of Quantitative Easing, QE3. Fed Chair Ben Bernanke will be expanding the money supply, this time by purchasing $40 billion worth of mortgage-backed securities per month indefinitely. By doing so now we will experience a similar feel good euphoria, with respect to the economy, through the presidential election. Bernanke fears more fiscal restraint from a President Mitt Romney than from President Barack Obama, it is alleged (Skousen, Mark, Oct. 2012, “Forecasts and Strategies,” p. 1).
Still, with all the sophisticated “doublespeak” it means that we will print whatever money we need to purchase whatever we wish. Neither party is serious about stopping the debt and removing the bondage that we are imposing upon our children and grandchildren. Moreover, who cares if our debt of dollar bills stacked upon one another can go to the moon four times and back to earth three so long as the government fills our stomachs and buys our cell phones.
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.
Oct 2, 2012 | Constitution, Globalism
By Dr. Harold Pease
I used to believe that if you read and viewed news sources widely enough, which I do, you would have all the information to be properly informed. I depended upon this assumption. I defended and trusted this assumption. I teach Current Events every semester and find so much under-reported. Most of the “real news” is seemingly not headlined. One such is the attempt this summer by the United Nations to further restrict the availability of firearms.
The U.N. Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) has been a dream of internationalist and globalists for several years. In their 2006 meeting some 153 countries favored the Treaty, 24, including the United States, did not. Traditionally, until now, the United States has been the leading “hold out” primarily, it is feared, because it could effectively damage the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights—your right to defend yourself with a firearm.
Ironically proponents falsely use Article VI, Section 2 of the Constitution to destroy the part of the Constitution referenced above. If they could outlaw international firearms trade throughout the world it would have to be embraced in the United States as well. “This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.” By restricting movement of conventional firearms by treaty the U.N Treaty provision would be the supreme law of the land they conspired.
The Founders would never have meant for another government to have the power to alter or dismantle any provision of the Constitution that all elected officials are required to swear by oath to preserve. Even more is this so with respect to the Bill of Rights, wherein the federal government is especially restricted from infringement, which acceptance was a condition required by many states for ratification of the Constitution itself. Then the power of the individual state was viewed as superior to federal power that a statement of supremacy of the Constitution had to be made. That is all.
Our previous objection to this treaty was moved from the back burner, and all doors flew wide open for it, when Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, with the green light from President Barack Obama, both long-time anti-gun proponents, announced, “The United States is committed to actively pursuing a strong and robust treaty that contains the highest possible, legally binding standards for the international transfer of conventions weapons” (America’s 1st Freedom, “Gun Owners Win Battle at U.N.,” p. 46-48). Hence all countries gathered in New York City July 2-27, 2012, to do just that.
The Treaty noted the inherent right of all nations to self-defense but refused to allow the individual that same right. The Treaty seemed focused on conventional firearms, even “non-explosive” weapons, whatever those were, perhaps bows and arrows? Transfers of arms and ammunition required mountains of paper work with proponents wanting information on “end users”—information designedly impossible to know at sale.
Perhaps it is time to remind ourselves that there would not be a United States of America, a land of the free and the home of the brave, without an armed populace that was willing to force a separation with Great Britain because of perceived tyranny. Surely we have not forgotten those Americans who hid their firearms from the British in Lexington and Concord, or the farmers who rushed to the front in the Battle of Saratoga. An armed populace best ensures freedom from tyranny; that is why the Second Amendment exists.
Sadly, the establishment press was negligent in informing Americans of this potential serious restriction on firearms availability endorsed and encouraged by the present administration. Fortunately, 130 members of the House of Representatives threatened the President with their intention not to fund the new treaty were it enacted. Fifty-one U.S. Senators, in letters to both Obama and Clinton, wrote of their opposition to the Treaty and hundreds of thousands of NRA supporters signed a petition that declared “independence from any United Nations treaty that would strip (them) of (their) constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms.” Because of them the United States, once again, did not sign the Treaty. These are our real hero’s in our fight to preserve our Bill of Rights but again, very little coverage from the popular presses who sometimes give us only part of the news. A story like this should have been headlined everywhere and often.
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.
Sep 24, 2012 | Constitution
By Dr. Harold Pease
Given our constant drift from a Republic to a Democracy, it might be well to review what historical philosophies most favored the latter form of government. The Founding Fathers and the Communists were total opposites on the word Democracy, one distained; the other loved. Guess which one hated and which one loved?
First, those who favored Democracy: the most blunt was Karl Marx, the father of communism. He wrote, “Democracy is the road to socialism.” Vladimir Lenin, the one activating the communist philosophy into a government in Russia, agreed. In his 1905 work, Two Tactics of Social Democracy, he saw Democracy as a strategy leading to his desired socialist revolution. “Social-Democracy, however, wants, on the contrary, to develop the class struggle of the proletariat to the point where the latter will take the leading part in the popular Russian revolution, i.e., will lead this revolution to the democratic-dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry.” In a letter to Inessa Armand in 1916, he added, “We Social-Democrats always stand for democracy, not ‘in the name of capitalism,’ but in the name of clearing the path for our movement, which clearing is impossible without the development of capitalism.” Class conflict and the philosophy “share the wealth” were, and remain, central to the empowerment of communism.
Next, those who abhorred Democracy: as far as we can tell the list included all the Founding Fathers. Benjamin Franklin wrote in 1759, “Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.” Years later, when Franklin exited the Constitutional Convention, a woman inquired of him, “What form of government have you left us?” the brilliant Franklin answered, “A Republic, if you can keep it.” The phrase expressed some doubt as to whether man could understand the value of a Republic enough to protect it from becoming a Democracy.
So, once again, what is wrong with a Democracy? James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, in his Federalist Paper, No. 10, wrote, “In a pure democracy, there is nothing to check the inducement to sacrifice the weaker party or the obnoxious individual.” Thomas Jefferson agreed but was more blunt; “A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.” On another occasion he reasoned that the Republic would “cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.”
Alexander Hamilton, Jefferson’s political arch-rival, saw it similarly. “We are now forming a Republican form of government. Real Liberty is not found in the extremes of democracy, but in moderate governments. If we incline too much to democracy, we shall soon shoot into a monarchy, or some other form of dictatorship.”
Do you remember your guess? Most would have guessed wrong. Now do you understand why the word Democracy is not found in any of our original founding documents, not even in our Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag? Our system, a Republic, protects us from the less informed masses, which is always the majority. This is why, until the perversion of the Constitution by the 17th Amendment, the state legislature selected their two U.S. Senators—not the people. This is why the Electoral College selects the president and why the people have no voice in the selection of Supreme Court members.
If you call this undemocratic the Founders would agree with you. Their review of history showed them that Democracy in Athens and Rome led to tyranny by the majority that then destroyed liberty in both places. The 2009 Census reports that 47.5% of our adult population pays no federal income tax. When that number exceeds 50% we will join the fallen Republics of Athens and Rome with their “bread and circuses” as examples of the majority voting to feed their wants from those who produce. When the “rich” are destroyed and cannot provide, the majority takes to the street in anger. The majority will then vote for whatever tyrant promises them security. The historical record is clear.
This is why socialists and communists loved democracy and the Founders decidedly do not!! It was Alexis de Tocqueville, a visiting French philosopher in 1840, who told us when our Republic would fall. “The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the publics’ money.” That day is today. Both parties must return to the Constitution, which preserves the Republic, or we will lose both the Republic and the Constitution.
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
Freedom’s Cost
By Kenneth C. Tack
I want to be remembered. I want to know that my life, my ultimate sacrifice, was not given without making a difference in this world. These are the wishes of a dying man.
I lie here in this green field in silence while a war rages around me. My thoughts turn to my three year-old daughter and my wife at home. My wife will be making dinner around this time. I always loved coming home from my work in the fields to the savory smell of a salty slice of beef cooking on the wooden stove, and seeing the melting butter dribble down the side of the mountain of mashed potatoes that she had set on the table. Then my blond-haired little girl would always rush her sturdy little legs over to give me a warm greeting. All these things remind me of why I fight for this Union.
My thoughts snap back to reality in Yorktown. General Washington has finally managed to pin down the British General, Lord Cornwallis, after many years of defeat. This was to be our final great push for freedom. I silently laugh to myself when I think about all the chaos that was caused by 56 people signing one piece of paper. Off in the distance I see the white sails of the French Armada, and I know we will win this war. We shall win this beautiful land known as America.
I lay my head back on the soft grass. The air is chilly due to the ocean breeze, but that discomfort is small in comparison to seeing my bloody neighbors lying unnaturally still in the green grass beside me. The stale smell of drying blood is overpowering, and it’s already hard to breathe. I glance at the gaping wound in my chest, caused by a well placed British round. I know I will not survive to enjoy the freedom that was not free. I will never again embrace my sweet little girl, nor feel the warm embrace of my loving wife. No, I will be embraced by the arms of my Creator tonight.
As I lie here on my deathbed, all I can think about is the cause for which my friends and I died. I don’t want my cohorts’ sacrifice, nor mine, to go unremembered, or have it be bathed in apathy. After all, who are we if we are forgotten? Freedom is a gift, but it can be lost if its consumers forget that it was bought with a high price. It is something that must be carried in our hearts, because freedom cannot spread on its own. It is because of these things I wish to be remembered, not for my personal fame or glory. I wish to be remembered so that the freedom I paid for with my life will endure for all eternity.
My final thoughts travel back to my home, for they are the reason I am even here. My eyelids now feel like a thousand pounds, and my breathing is becoming scarcer by the moment. Now for the final time I look up into the sky with a single tear sneaking steadily down my cheek, for my one regret is that I will not be there for my family when this war is over. They too shall know freedom’s cost, and they will value freedom more because of that.
With these final thoughts in my head I take a deep breath and close my heavy eyes. I have fulfilled my duty to ensure liberty.
Now it’s your turn.
. . . .
It is no secret that freedom is being lost in today’s world. Everywhere we go we see regulations put on our lives for seemingly no reason at all. Freedom in its very core is the ability to do whatever you want, as long as it doesn’t interfere with another’s ability to do the same thing. That is what the revolutionaries fought for with their lives, and that is made clear in their war cry, the Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” But even after all of their sacrifices, the young America knew that one day, even America might start to lose their freedom; this is their cry to this America today:
“But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”
–Declaration of Independence
Sep 12, 2012 | Constitution
By Dr. Harold Pease
A recent ABC News-Washington Post poll disclosed that President Barack Obama leads challenger Mitt Romney by three percentage points in the race for president of the United States—well within the margin of error. If this race remains this close in November chances are the one with the popular vote may lose to the one with the Electoral College vote as has happened before.
For those who do not know, the Founding Fathers opposed a democracy and hoped that descendants would never turn what they created into such. The word democracy is not in any of our original governing documents. Benjamin Franklin referred to democracy as two wolves and a lamb voting on what they would have for lunch; the well armed lamb contesting the vote. Realizing that the majority is not always right and, as such, could trample the rights of the minority becoming very tyrannical, they created a republic instead, thus we pledge allegiance to “the republic for which it stands.” A lynch mob is a democracy; everyone voting to hang the accused except the one proposed to be hung.
The vote system they created, referred to as the Electoral College, spread the vote geographically, and favored the informed over the less informed. Spreading the vote geographically was not easy, as everyone knew that the popular vote could be won by a few populated states, (today a few as ten, some say four), and that rural states or sections would never see the candidate nor would he make an appeal to their interests. To equalize the population advantage and encourage candidates to make a larger geographical appeal, the College gave population-deprived states disproportionately at least three votes. Although candidates could probably still ignore the rural states, the College made it decidedly less tempting to do so.
The College system intentionally favors the informed. Those less informed tend to vote for leaders who can give them the most from their vote but the Constitution is designed to give nothing to anyone except the opportunity to maximize their talent in an environment of freedom from excessive government. The moment government takes from one and gives to another, recipient voters henceforth expect something from their vote and politicians have shown that they can be purchased. It becomes a “blood sport” as to which candidate can give the most “goodies” to get elected.
I ask my students how many months they spent studying the propositions on the last California ballot prior to voting? Months? Days? Hours? Seldom was it more than the least amount possible to give them a “gut” feeling. I than ask why they should have the same vote power as one who did spend months studying an issue?
When put this way they better understand the principles of a republic, which rejects a popular vote for the president, having the states make that decision instead. States select a number of voters for the president equal to the number of members of Congress (both House and Senate) they have. These non-governmental individuals, selected by the state legislatures presumably for their integrity, experience, success, and wisdom, are presumably less emotionally driven (they have seen it all) and less susceptible to the emergence of a tyrant. Remember, Adolph Hitler was elected. Presumably his election would have been thwarted had Germany a functioning electoral college to mitigate the emotion or ignorance of the masses. The citizens chosen to be Electoral College voters do so in their separate state capitols usually sometime in late November and that vote is sent to, and read by, the vice president of the United States before a combined session of both Houses of Congress usually the first week in December. Normally there is little coverage of the real election of the president and this, usually negative.
This process is certainly not without its problems, but when the ill informed have the same vote strength, or higher, as the well informed the Electoral College offsets this by placing the weight of government in favor of reason and experience. It remains the best system in the world. I realize that in a day when we have high-speed communication it is easy to assume that, as a result, we have high-speed knowledge and experience as well. As a college professor in the subject area, I can emphatically argue otherwise. Nothing replaces the benefits of reason and experience and these don’t come high speed.
Given our history it is likely that the Electoral College will be called upon, once again, to go against the popular vote when the seasoned voters of the College have reason to distrust the peoples’ choice. It is there duty. It is decidedly undemocratic but we are not a democracy. Hopefully they won’t have to do so this year.
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.
Sep 11, 2012 | Constitution
Dr. Harold Pease
Opponents of the Electoral College seek to alter a process that has worked for well over two hundred years. Unable to get two-thirds of the states to consider altering this part of the Constitution as required, some seek an end run around it instead. They say that the Electoral College is not democratic enough. They call their plan the National Popular Vote Plan. In it participating states would allocate their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote, rather than the winner of the popular vote in their state.
There exists no language in the Constitution authorizing a popular vote for the executive branch of government. Such came about in 1824 after the Electoral College denied the presidency to Andrew Jackson, the most popular man in America due to his success in the Battle of New Orleans in the War of 1812. His supporters, believing the denial to be an injustice, created a straw vote so that the people could participate in the election although this vote had no power.
Over time the media empowered it by treating it as the “legitimate” vote for the president belittling the College process as unfair and undemocratic. Seldom do they remind us that it works because we are not a democracy, but a Republic, and that none of the branches of government are democratic; most especially the Senate and Supreme Court. Andrew Jackson had to wait until he could convince the seasoned citizen voters of the Electoral College that he was not too emotional for the office. He did so four years later in 1828. Moreover, today the media seldom cover the real election for the president in December such is their distain for it.
Those unable to get a two-thirds vote to begin the process of altering the Electoral College have conceived a brilliant plan to do just that without the constitutional amendment required. The plan is to have each state legislature commit their state to support the national popular winner instead of the candidate winning their state. When enough states do so that the Electoral College numbers exceed 270, remaining states will be required to support as well. Wham!! Almost without any public debate outside state legislatures, and seemingly overnight, the popular vote will replace the Electoral College as the means by which a president is elected. We would be back to a few highly populated states deciding for the rest of the country.
Ironically proponents ignorantly use a small portion of the Constitution to destroy a larger portion. They cite Article II, Section 1 which reads, “Each State shall appoint, in such manner as the legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress.” This, they say, gives state legislatures the right to award their electors as they see fit. Actually, the phrase allows the state legislatures appointing powers only. To suggest that they should have influence over their voting once selected, nullifies the reason for their existence. The Electoral College was to be a non-governmental body completely separate and unaccountable to the State Legislature once appointed, as per the rest of the section. Certainly the phrase did not authorize states to simply alter or dump Article II, Section 1 and Amendment 12 of the Constitution.
Moreover, the National Popular Vote Plan also violates Article I, Section 10. This prohibits states from entering into “alliances” with other states unless Congress gives its consent. Certainly agreeing states have entered into an alliance with one another to nullify the Electoral College and the vote of states immediately following reaching the simple majority of Electoral College votes.
At present eight states and the District of Columbia, a combined electoral vote total of 132, have come on board delivering about half the 270 electoral votes needed to impose this upon the rest of the country and nullify a long standing pillar of the Constitution. States voting to change the Constitution without amending it, as required by the document, are: New Jersey 14, Wash 12, Hawaii 4, Illinois 20, Vermont 3, Maryland 10, Mass. 11, DC 3, CA 55. Colorado is likely to be next.
Granted the Electoral College is the most difficult part of the Constitution to understand and is easy to oppose because it is undemocratic. Spend some time to understand it. A patriot and constitutionalist will see through the scheme to destroy it without the debate and transparency required in Article V. No end run around this document should ever be permitted.
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.
