Sep 2, 2011 | Constitution
By Dr. Harold Pease
By now most informed political observers know something of the executive branches attempt to replace Congress as the major rule-making body by appointing, what are called Czars, who create policy and manage programs in areas where the president has no Constitutional authority as outlined in Article II, Sections II and III. Moreover, these appointments are made without the “advice and consent,” of the U.S. Senate as is required by the Constitution. They function much like cabinet officers but are unconfirmed and are accountable only to the president. They also are not required to swear allegiance to the U.S. Constitution.
This totally unconstitutional new stratum of government first started with Franklin Roosevelt who appointed, without Senate confirmation, eleven so called Czars in the 1930’s during his more than three terms in the White House. Harry Truman had 6 and Bill Clinton 8. Such was never seriously resisted, often because the president’s party also controlled both Houses of Congress and blind party loyalty kept them from questioning their leader. Then Czar power exploded. George W. Bush had 33 and Barack Obama, the king of Czar appointments, virtually began his administration with unconfirmed, unaccountable to no one but himself, 37 Czars. That number now exceeds 50.
Some of the more controversial Czars under George W. Bush head the following areas: AIDS, Bank Bailouts, Bioethics, Bird Flue, Birth Control, Copyright, Cyber Security and even Democracy. Do not ask what a Democracy Czar or a Birth Control Czar does. Not one of these powers belongs to the President. Under Obama such included: Auto, Bank Bailout, Climate, Global Warming, Pay, Domestic Violence, Drug, and Ethics Czars. Once again, these are powers never given to the Executive Branch of Government by the Constitution or any amendment added thereto; presidents just took them while Congress sat idly by. Actually most are state powers as per Amendment 10 of the U.S. Constitution. Both had/have Weatherization and Faith-Based Czars, what ever those are (List of U. S. Executive Branch Czars, Wikipedia.org). Each of these has enormous government power and answer only to the President, as would be the case under a king or dictator. Constitutional checks and balances do not exist.
One Democratic Senator alone had the guts to challenge his own party with the unconstitutionality of this practice. Senator Robert Byrd, the longest serving senator in U.S. history, “wrote a letter to President Obama … criticizing the President’s strategy of creating czars to manage important areas of national policy. Senator Byrd said that these appointments violate both the constitutional system of checks and balances and the constitutional separation of powers, and is a clear attempt to evade congressional oversight (Senior Democrat Says Obama’s Czars Unconstitutional, by Ken Klukowski, June 15, 2009, Infowars.com).”
So what are the President’s real powers outside his right to veto proposed law? Once again they are found in Article II, Sections II and III. Under the Constitution the president has but eleven powers. Let us identify them: 1) “Commander in chief of the army and navy of the United States” including the militia when called into actual service of the United States; 2) supervise departments (cabinet), each presumably established by the Congress (George Washington had but four); 3) grant reprieves and pardons; 4) make treaties with the help of the Senate; 5) with Senate help appoint positions established by law such as ambassadors, ministers and judges; 6) fill vacancies “during recess of the Senate;” 7) make recommendations to Congress on the state of the union; 8) convene both houses on special occasions and handle disputes with respect to convening (Prior to the 20th Amendment in Feb. 6, 1933, Congress convened on the first Monday in December and were out before Christmas—maybe three weeks.); 9) receive ambassadors and other public ministers; 10) make certain that “laws be faithfully executed;” and, 11) “commission all the officers of the United States.”
Simply stated, the president has two supervisory powers over existing organizations and two shared powers with the Senate, otherwise he pardons, recommends, appoints and entertains. That is it! Notice the absence of power to make any rules and regulations on us. This is the job of Congress alone.
Congress should immediately end all Czars and, if resisted in doing so, move next to impeachment proceedings regardless of political party. Please help save your liberty by passing this column on.
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.
Aug 28, 2011 | Constitution
Dr. Harold Pease
Meet Amanda Collins, a University of Nevada, Reno Campus student, who was brutally raped in the same parking garage where campus police park their cruisers, less than 100 yards from the police station. What is different about her, from the approximately 9 other students raped per day on college campuses throughout the United States, is that it happened near the police station and she had a concealed weapons permit which authorized her to carry a gun everywhere except on campus. She maintains that it probably would not have happened had she been allowed to carry her concealed weapon. What is worse, is that she is haunted by the knowledge that she was the first of three rapes and one murder which all could have been avoided.
With respect to her right to have a concealed weapon she wondered, “why I could be trusted at the deli shop across the street [to carry a gun], and then as soon as I crossed that arbitrary line, I was suddenly deemed incompetent and unable to make sound decisions or untrustworthy for whatever reason by the same authorities who granted me the permission to carry in the first place.”
It turns out that the individual who raped her, James Biela, now sitting on death row, ended up killing yet another rape victim, 19-year-old Brianna Denison. It was Amanda Collin’s drawing of him that allowed the police to find and arrest him ten months later but Amanda, having first fired a gun with her father at age 5 or 6, could have killed him in self-defense with one well-placed bullet.
Collins argues, “My inability to be able to carry allowed [Biela] to continue assaulting women, and ultimately he murdered one, too.” Her mother said it best when confronting the university chancellor, “ If guns aren’t the answer, then what is? Where were your police when my daughter was being raped?” Next door was apparently not good enough.
So what has the University of Nevada, Reno Campus done to prevent the same thing happening again? The lighting in the parking lot has been improved and they installed more call boxes so victims can get help. What is Amanda’s response to this? “A call box above my head when I am being straddled wouldn’t be any more help than the police that night. What am I supposed to do, ask my attacker to hold on and then run and push the button, then fight off my attacker while telling the operator what’s going on (Fighting Chance, by David Burnett, First Freedom, Sept. 2011, pp. 22-28)?”
When institutions deny their students the right to defend themselves—even making it a criminal behavior to carry a gun with the intent to protect oneself—they then assume that responsibility unto themselves. When they fail to provide the protection that they deny are they responsible? This is presently being tested in the courts and so far it looks promising for future victims. Victims unprotected by their colleges or universities are suing their institutions.
Some might argue that allowing everyone qualifying to have a concealed weapon on campus would invite frequent “shoot-outs.” This has proven not so in Utah which has had such a law for sometime. Colorado has left concealed carry to the board of directors of each campus so some allow it and others do not. A national campaign to open this part of society to firearms is gaining momentum. If you wish to be better informed on this issue see www.concealedcampus.org. More than half of the Texas House of Representatives has signed as co-authors of a measure directing universities to allow concealed handguns for both students and professors. Texas has 38 public universities and more than half a million students. Wisconsin and Virginia are also liberalizing their former views against concealed weapons on campus.
Yes Amanda, you could have saved three rapes and a murder but your story of such is resonating to thinking people with the reality that first responders (police) “are good and essential and necessary—but instant responders are better. The university takes instant responders out of the equation” and, unfortunately, the victims are the innocent—often dead.
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.
Aug 17, 2011 | Constitution, Tea Party
By Dr. Harold Pease
Michele Bachmann was winner of the Iowa Straw Vote held August 13 with 29% of the vote. In a close second, just 152 votes behind her, was Ron Paul at 28%–together that totals 57%. The significance of this cannot be over-stated as the two are the only Tea Party Presidential candidates in the race and as such a significant majority of Iowans voted for the Tea Party philosophy. Will the establishment media notice this story and give adequate credit to the Tea Party Patriot influence? I am writing this the day of the straw vote. You will be able to answer that question for yourself when this column is published next week in your newspaper, but let me predict the answer. Not likely!!
Iowa is the first hard evidence, in an election year, of where the nation is politically and it appears to be overwhelmingly in favor of Tea Party Patriot core values: limited Constitutional government, the free market, and fiscal responsibility—themes consistently emphasized by Bachmann and Paul. Polls are not hard evidence as they are too subject to who is polled and how questions are phrased so should not be given the same level of credibility.
Media selected, front runner, Mitt Romney, who clearly did not get the kind of applause that Ron Paul or Newt Gingrich did in the Presidential debate held just two days before, only got 3%; an extremely low number for their favorite not likely to be emphasized by the major media. Were it anyone else he/she would be moved to the bottom of the stack until he/she proved himself/herself again elsewhere—perhaps in New Hampshire this winter. Rick Perry, announcing on the same day as the Iowa straw vote, and not campaigning at all in the state, received more votes than Mitt Romney. Based upon this Bachmann and Paul are the only real front-runners but the numbers are too close to give either of them a decisive victory over the other so media coverage of each should be somewhat equal.
Only once has the Iowa straw vote actually picked the eventual winner but it does give the winner more exposure and the spotlight for a time—unless, of course, you are Ron Paul who consistently and unfairly gets downplayed. Will the establishment media undermine or belittle this win, and Paul’s near victory (short by only 152 votes), as they already have the applause factor—he did get louder and more frequent applause than any other candidate? Based upon how he was treated in the last presidential election. Yes!! This is an excellent example of how the media guide us in our thinking. That is why in political science we teach that the first election is the media’s.
Although the media have never understood or fully acknowledged the significance of the anger of the American people to excessive government and uncontrolled spending as exemplified by the approximately 2400 Tea Party gatherings held throughout the United States in the year 2009, the people have and this anger is apparently alive and well in the Mid-West. Falsely characterized as “Astroturf,” then “mobsters,” then “racists,” and, more recently by the Vice President as “terrorists,” has not deterred Tea Party followers but rather hardened these “political unseasoned ‘mom’ operations with homemade signs.” They have come to know that the core values they endorse are at the very heart of freedom and the Constitution and must be preserved.
Anything could still happen in the weeks ahead as the actual vote comes this winter in New Hampshire then in South Carolina, but the race has begun with a clear cut win for the Tea Party Patriots. Unless the media successfully vilify, undermine, or discredit them a sizable hurricane in the political world may follow. Certainly the establishment media did not see this one coming, especially not just out of the shoot, so to speak, as was the case in Iowa.
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.
Aug 13, 2011 | Constitution, Economy, Taxes, Tea Party
By Dr. Harold Pease
I do not usually write on themes getting extensive attention in the media but the establishment press has overlooked a big story in the debt limit debate. Every one has covered who lost: the President, Congress and both major political parties but almost no one identified the Tea Party Patriot movement as the clear victor.
Remember the over 2400 separate and spontaneous gatherings of Tea Party Patriots in 2009, geographically spread throughout the nation and proportionately held April 15, July 4, and Sept. 11, with about 800 such gatherings held each date. These gatherings, with no national leadership or direction, led mostly by moms with homemade signs, was perhaps the showing of greater anger against the federal government than in any single year in our history—certainly in my life time.
Remember as well the two Tea Party assemblages of over a million in Washington D. C. during that same year crying out “President Obama!! Can you hear us now?” “CAN YOU HEAR US NOW?? Yes, the establishment media had trouble covering these stories then too, but they still happened.
The Tea Party movement resulted in the election of a few candidates committed to Constitutional limited government, the free market and fiscal responsibility—the Tea Party’s core values and actually those of the U.S. Constitution as well. Values perceived by them as having been largely abandoned by the leadership of both major political parties.
All this is conceded but how does this translate to a win for the Tea Party Patriots on the Debt Limit Deal? True to the Constitution and their election promises these patriots bucked the weak-kneed Republican Party in the House of Representatives and the spend-happy Democrats in the Senate and forced both to talk about the following previously ignored concepts. What is the proper role of government? How do we get a Balanced Budget Amendment to curb our addiction to debt? Are raising taxes always the only answer? And given government’s addiction to growth, will they ever have enough?
The promise to vote on a Balanced Budget Amendment, to not raise taxes, and to actually cut future spending, are each a part of the finished agreement because of the insistence of the Tea Party members of Congress. As a group only the Tea Party saw the looming financial problems ahead if we did not seriously live within our means and scale back our debt. NOW!! With our debt credit down grade and near stock market crash of this week can anyone seriously question Tea Party philosophy now? Still, there are voices in the land aimed to discredit them.
Republicans have shown themselves to have no fire in their bellies and have thus caved-in to the run-away spending plans of their adversaries every time. Sometimes, as under the Bush Stimulus, they have shown themselves as leading the charge for debt enslavement. In short, modern Tea Party Patriots gave the Republican Party enough fire so that they did not cut and run so easily.
Did the Tea Party get what they wanted? No! Definitely not!! Were that the case they would have had an actual Balanced Budget Amendment, actual spending cuts, and our credit rating would not have been down graded. Reducing the rate of increase is not the same as reducing spending. The deal did nothing to stop the growth of our debt and resulting bondage of our children. In fact, it did just the opposite. Still, opponents were forced to listen and give some attention to the Tea Party Patriots—a huge victory especially given their small size in Congress and governments nature to spend without restraint. We just need more of them in Congress. Returning to the Constitution is the only answer and they are the only ones saying it.
Hopefully, more Americans will see the Tea Party Patriot movement and our defense of the Constitution as the same thing. Until now they have been a somewhat lone voice in the wilderness as far as Congress was concerned but with this victory should merit our greater confidence lending to greater support resulting in even bigger victories to come.
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.
Aug 9, 2011 | Constitution
by Dr. Harold Pease
The only power the president has with respect to making law is his signature or the veto of law passed by Congress, or threat thereof. That veto power requires that he return the bill with “his objections” for reconsideration which Congress can override by a two-thirds vote. He may also suggest an area needing the attention of Congress in his State of the Union Address. That’s it! Everything else is pure fabrication on his part to more fully empower himself.
So what are so-called “Signing Statements” used extensively by President George W. Bush and now President Barack Obama who once condemned them? These two words are not in the U.S. Constitution nor is there anything that could suggest this practice. Instead of using one of only two options provided by the Constitution and sending objectionable parts back to Congress for reconsideration, he has created a more powerful third option, that of signing into law the bill excluding the parts that he disagrees with thus undermining the veto power. Signing Statements also have the effect of enabling him to give his own separate spin to the law that is not that of the 535 individuals who created it. One person alone was never given such power. Unless immediately challenged by the Congress his will be the interpretation used by future Congresses, as well as by the Supreme Court, when related issues resurface. In essence he openly refuses to enforce the law he just signed despite his oath to do so. Kings with parliaments never had it so good.
Candidate Obama understood how the practice violated the Constitution and empowered the president when he said: “Congress’s job is to pass legislation. The president can veto it, or he can sign it. But what George Bush has been trying to do as part of his effort to accumulate more power in the presidency, is he’s been saying ‘Well, I can basically change what Congress passed by attaching a letter saying, I don’t agree with this part, or I don’t agree with that part. I’m going to choose to interpret it this way or that way,’” He continued, “That’s not part of his power. But this is part of the whole theory of George Bush that he can make laws as he’s going along. I disagree with that. I taught the Constitution for ten years. I believe in the Constitution.” Then he promises not to do the same thing were he to be elected president. “And I will obey the Constitution of the United States. We’re not going to use signing statements as a way of doing an end run around Congress” (“Obama Signing Statement: Despite Law, I Can Do What I Want on Czars,” by Jonathan Strong, April 15, 2011).
Candidate Obama was right to be so condemning of President Bush who “issued more than 100 such statements signaling that his administration would not carry out congressionally approved provisions on a range of issues, from barring the use of torture to requirements that the executive branch report certain information to Congress.” Ultimately a bipartisan panel of the American Bar Association “decried Bush’s use of signing statements as a serious threat to the rule of law, saying it ran contrary to the system of presidential vetoes and congressional overrides created by the U.S. Constitution” (Exercising his Power or Venturing into Congressional Turf? By Louis Jacobson, July 24, 2009, St Petersburg Times Politifact.com).
So with this Constitutional clarity and solemn promise we would not expect to find President Obama doing the same thing. Wrong! To date he has done so 18 times (Signing Statements Still Controversial, by David G. Taylor, July 27, 2011, St Petersburg Times Politifact.com). His justifications for doing so are filed with the same legalese as are those of his predecessor he condemned. The fact remains that he violates the Constitution as well—only he, unlike his predecessor, cannot claim ignorance in doing so. Having instructed the Constitution he knows the damage that his activity does to the separation of powers as well as empowering him to alter law.
Why does such continue and what is the solution? Because of the plague of political parties that George Washington warned would, in effect, cause us to be more loyal to them than to the principles of the Constitution. Republicans excused Bush and Democrats excuse Obama. The practice will continue to alter the Constitution until our loyalty returns to the Constitution and we threaten impeachment to anyone tampering with it whether a Bush or an Obama. It is time to do so.
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.
Jul 23, 2011 | Constitution, Healthcare
By Dr. Harold Pease
Many do not know that we live under two political systems: one primarily national in function, the other primarily domestic. It’s called federalism—the two share power and are equal. Neither was to be subservient to the other and each was to have separate duties. Thomas Jefferson explained it best when he said, “The states are not subordinate to the national government but rather the two are coordinate departments of one single and integral whole…. The one is domestic the other the foreign branch of the same government.”
Think of this relationship as an ideal marriage, where neither partner is subservient to the other. The duties in a relationship are gradually assigned to one partner or the other. Neither feels beneath the other, rather they are a team.
Though this was the ideal, the Founders were aware of the nature of all governments to grow. George Washington articulated this when he warned, “Government is like fire, a dangerous servant and a fearful master.” In order to ensure that this fire does not spread too far and burn down the home, one builds a fireplace to keep the fire under control. That fireplace is the Constitution, particularly Section 8, which outlines all powers that are given to Congress. Everything Congress did was to be clearly linked to at least one of these enumerated grants of power. In essence the States, who created the Federal Government, retained unto themselves all other powers as per Amendments 9 and 10 of the Constitution.
The advantages of federalism are enormous. States become laboratories of experimentation. Californians remember numerous “brownouts” at the turn of the century because of California’s failed energy policies. Other states viewing this were careful to avoid the same policies. States have the tendency to look at sister states for models and to borrow from them in refining their own programs. These places of experimentation work to everyone’s advantage. What if we had federalized California’s failed energy policy? We would have had “brownouts“ on a national scale.
Had our power crazed Federal Government refrained from their natural inclination to take more power, health care reform could have gone through this experimental process designed by our Founding Fathers. We would then have been able to identify the weaknesses or strengths while they were still geographically isolated. Only three states had tried it: Oregon, Massachusetts, and Hawaii. That was clearly not enough to identify and avoid the “brownouts “ in the area. Instead they took a half-baked idea and made it mandatory for all. Of course, this would have necessitated an enlargement of the enumerated list through Article V, requiring ratification by “3/4th of the Several States.” Since more than 60% of the people did not want this bill, the Constitution would have protected us from the federal government’s self empowerment.
To protect federalism the Founders did two things. First, Senators were to be selected by state legislatures so the U. S. Senate would be protective of state concerns. All law required the approval of the House of Representatives, the peoples’ representatives, and the Senate, the states’ representatives. That is why we have two branches of government to make law—two perspectives. The Seventeenth Amendment, insisting that the people also elect U. S. Senators, destroyed this protection. States thereafter were left unprotected.
Second, the structure of the U. S. Constitution limited and defined federal power leaving all power not specifically defined with the states as per the 10th Amendment. When Congress fails to defend this amendment and federalism as intended, it falls upon governors and their attorney generals to take the more confrontational approach as has Arizona over illegal immigration, or the 26 states presently suing the federal government over mandated national healthcare, or Idaho who took an even stronger stance on the same subject. “It ain’t happening here!” “See you in court.”
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.
