The purpose of a comprehensive forensic audit is not to report the total ballots cast but to determine how many votes were real and how many fraudulent. Nor is it necessarily to establish who won or if cheating occurred, it did and on a massive scale, but it is to identify criminal election behavior. That evidence was laid out in “The Arizona Nuclear Earthquake, ‘The Election Should Not be Certified’” (LibertyUnderFire.com). The controlled press ignored proof positive evidence submitted in the first Cyber Ninjas report and predictably will do the same in this second report as well. Nevertheless, Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich, based on the presented forensic documentation, appears ready to unleash indictments leading to prosecution.
Maricopa County since has argued that, “These logs are configured according to factory settings and have a storage limit of 20 megabytes,” thus, despite the law requiring them to keep all election records for 22 months, they did not do so because of limited computer space. They also bypassed the findings of the auditors and left the question unanswered “Why was a script with over 37,000 long inquiries anonymously executed to delete security logs?”
In this new report auditors reminded the County that their feeble excuse for the deleted data was “disingenuous at best when the county had the full control to properly modify this setting to ensure that the log data was properly retained.” Their excuse itself is fraudulent. They broke the law. Notice how often the word deliberate (not originally emboldened) was used in the auditors reprimand.
Section 1.9.4 of this report entitled Log Management, read in part. “So the response of Maricopa County does not address the fact that the user leveraging the EMS admin account deliberately and purposely executed a script that checked the accounts for duplicate passwords 38,478 times. This deliberate execution of the script occurred over three days: specifically on February 11, 2021 there were 462 log entries overwritten, on March 3, 2021 there were 37,686 log entries overwritten, and on April 12, 2021 there were 330 log entries overridden…. The act of executing these scripts had the effect of deliberately ensuring that the Windows security logs covering the dates of the General Election would not be available for review” (Ep. 2607b – Big Tech/[DS] Panic, Strategically Planned, Dark To Light, [TRUTH] = END, X22 Report , October 21, 2021).
Thus overwhelming evidence of election fraud provided in the first report, now amplified by a deliberate coverup and deliberate obstruction of justice,—destroying evidence— is even more overwhelming. They never expected to be caught. Remember these 38,478 deleted votes were likely Trump votes. Trump only needed to exceed 10,457 of these votes to win Arizona. And this is only one county of 15 in Arizona.
Remember also that Cyber Ninjas could not confirm the accuracy of 284,000 votes in their first report. “Buried in Volume III of the audit report. Cyber Ninjas notes that 263,139 ballot images were corrupted and another 21,273 were missing from the forensic images of the election equipment, which prevented the team from confirming the accuracy of the vote totals.”
Continuing, “It was impossible to confirm that the electronically recorded votes corresponded to the corrupted TIFF images. It is possible that manipulation of the election vote totals occurred in the instances where the TIFF images are corrupted or missing. The tabulators process 1.3 million votes from 10:20 to 11:01 [presumably p.m.] without a single corrupt image, nearly 300 suspiciously corrupted missing ballot images evidence that the EBS the EMS was connected to the Internet and the deletion of the GE results, database and thousands of security log files the day before the audit began, make a compelling case for the cover up of the electronic vote manipulation” (Ep. 2588b-Tide Is Turning, How Do You Prevent This From Happening Again, Prosecution Is The Only Way, X22 Report , September 28, 2021).
Once again, of these 284,000 corrupted ballots it is likely that these were Trump ballots Trump needed only to exceed 10,457 from this number to claim Arizona. And this is only the results of one county in Arizona. Any honest reporter has to admit Trump easily won Arizona.
All this corruption despite Arizona state law 13-2407, “Tampering with a Public Record. A. A person commits tampering with a public record if, with the intent to defraud or deceive, such person knowingly: 4. Destroys, mutilates, conceals, removes or otherwise impairs the availability of any public record” (Ep. 2585B-Fraud Vitiates Everything, It’s Time To Investigate the Cheating And Bring Criminal Charges, X22 Reports, September 24, 2021).
But movement for similar audits in other states too is ongoing. “In Georgia, 19,000 ballots were counted from a single Zuckerberg drop box over one weekend, but surveillance shows only 24 people dropping off ballots” (Ep. 2588b-Tide Is Turning, How Do You Prevent This From Happening Again, Prosecution Is The Only Way, X22 Report , September 28, 2021).
Six states have door to door canvasing with teams looking and finding thousands of voters that didn’t exist at their registered addresses. These are: Arizona, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Michigan and Washington. Texas Secretary of State announced that it will do a full comprehensive forensic audit in four Texas counties including the two largest Democratic counties in the state. Movement for audits in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania is strong. Virginia governor elect Glenn Youngkin previously called for a 2020 election audit in Virginia (Ep 2595b-America Will Start Winning Again Like Never Before, The Castle Runs Red, Yes, X22 Reports, October 7, 2021). A recent Rasmussen Report poll found that 56% believed cheating affected the outcome of the 2020 presidential election (Biden 2020 win ‘tainted’ 56% say it was a cheater paradise,” by Paul Bedard, Washington Examiner, Oct. 11, 2021).
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.
Finally a breakthrough in the war against ivermectin and hydroxychloroquin in the treatment of COVID-19 which, according to proponents of these drugs, could have saved hundreds of thousands of American lives had they not been politicized by the FDA, CDC, WHO, NIH, AMA, APhA, and ASHP. These strongly opposed “the ordering, prescribing or dispensing” of these drugs to prevent or treat COVID, despite their enormous success by physicians all over America and throughout the world. The largely controlled press, like robots, chimed in against.
Despite the weaponization of these drugs, Nebraska supports doctors’ freedom to prescribe them with informed consent of the patient. At the request of Dannette Smith, CEO of the Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services, Nebraska Attorney General, Doug Peterson issued a legal opinion, after a thorough review of the clinical studies of the two drugs before and after COVID and concluded, that the preponderance of scientific evidence favored their use in treating COVID for those who wished to use them (“Groundbreaking: Nebraska AG Says Doctors Can Legally Prescribe Ivermectin, HCQ for COVID, Calls Out FDA, CDC, Fauci, Media for ‘Fueling Confusion and Misinformation,’” By Megan Redshaw, The Defender, October 18, 2021).
In this review Peterson “cited numerous studies showing ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine reduced mortality by up to 75% or more when used as a preventative or prophylaxis for COVID, suggesting hundreds of thousands of lives could have been saved had the drugs been widely used in America.” Both drugs have been used successfully long-term, hydroxychloroquin discovered in 1949; ivermectin, discovered in 1975, (“3.7 billion doses … administered since the 1980’s”) safely and each for multiple afflictions and off-label usage.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr., chairman of Children’s Health Defense, spoke of Nebraskas’ bold Attorney General’s effort to reestablish medical freedom in his state, “Every citizen … should be grateful for Doug Peterson’s thoughtful and courageous counteroffensive against the efforts of Big Pharma, its captive federal regulators, and its media and social media allies to silence doctors and deny Americans life-saving treatments.”
Mary Holland, Children’s Health Defense President, identified best the effect of the AG’s decision, let “doctors get back to being doctors — without being second-guessed by government, pharmacists and others interfering in the crucial doctor-patient relationship.” Neither Big Government nor Big Pharma should tell doctors or patients what they can and cannot do regarding their health.
His report summarized findings on these two drugs. Respecting hydroxychloroquine a study in 2004 revealed chloroquine to be “an effective inhibitor of the replication of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) in vitro” and should “be considered for immediate use in the prevention and treatment of SARS-CoV infections”—the virus causing the disease COVID—19. A study the following year showed it “had strong antiviral effects on SARS-CoV infection and was effective in preventing the spread of SARS-CoV in cell cultures.” More studies revealed that “hydroxychloroquine significantly reduces the risk of hospitalization and death when administered to particularly high-risk outpatients as part of early COVID-19 treatment.”
Ivermectin too proved especially good treating “antiviral activity against several RNA viruses by blocking the nuclear trafficking of viral proteins.” COVID is a virus. In the SARs epidemic of 2003 ivermectin demonstrated an “ability to inhibit SARS-CoV-2 replication,” like COVID a respiratory infection, leading to lower infection rates. Countries using ivermectin “with routine mass drug administration of prophylactic … have a significantly lower incidence of COVID-19.”
Attorney General Peterson found that peer reviewed COVID studies treating patients with ivermectin “reported positive outcomes, including shorter time to resolution of disease manifestations that were attributed to COVID-19, greater reduction in inflammatory marker levels, shorter time to viral clearance, [and] lower mortality rates in patients who received ivermectin than in patients who received comparator drugs or placebo. The drug led to improvement of COVID outcomes when used in early treatment or as a prophylaxis.”
He noted also that the few negative studies on the use of ivermectin as a COVID treatment were not peer reviewed, “excluded most available evidence, cherry picked data within studies, misreported data, made unsupported assertions of adverse reactions to ivermectin and had conclusions that did not follow from evidence.” In the case of the hostile treatment of hydroxychloroquin published in the Lancet, “the statistics were flawed and the authors refused to provide analyzed data.” Even its editor, Dr. Richard Horton, admitted later after publication, “that the paper was a ‘fabrication,’ a ‘monumental fraud’ and a ‘shocking example of research misconduct’ in the middle of a global health emergency.”
Why the opposition by Big Pharma to two drugs that already cure COVID? MONEY!! Even without ivermectin and hydroxychloroquin 99% will survive COVID. Vaccines would not be necessary. They do not work anyway, else why would one need boosters every three months? Look at all the industry profits already made. The truth is, COVID is a trillion dollar industry. Are we smart enough to see the obvious?
Probably the best evidence for ivermectin as an effective cure for COVID is, however, Merck the patent holder of ivermectin, who is not promoting it as a COVID cure. Ivermectin, a cheap 46 year-old drug, has long wore out its profit potential. Why not create a “new” drug, largely ivermectin, call it molnupiravir, up the price a hundred times plus, and market it as a “just discovered” cure for COVID? “[T]he U.S. government has agreed to pay [Merck] about $1.2 billion for 1.7 million courses of its experimental COVID-19 treatment, if it is proven to work in an ongoing large trial and authorized by U.S. regulators.” Molnupiravir, “aims to stop COVID from progressing when given early in the course of disease”—just as ivermectin does now.
Forward a copy of this column to your elected state leaders asking them to join Nebraska in restoring doctors’ medical freedom to prescribe what they and you feel is best for 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.
As a college professor for forty years, I instructed the Constitution and Current Events and still teach both in LibertyUnderFire.com columns on line such as this one. I know the Constitution worked well for every situation this nation confronted in those 40 years. My current events classes began. “You are not Democrats or Republicans, you are constitutionalists.” “Every issue presented here will be debated and resolved with this document.” When applied as written it has never failed us and students learned how to use and love it.
The following parts of the Constitution when followed, demonstrate why tyranny can never gain hold in the United States and why the Constitution remains its principle antidote. Follow along with your own copy of the Constitution.
Every single law must be initiated and passed by elected members of Congress—the Legislature. After signed into law the executive and judicial branches were given power only to act on existing law, one to administer the other to adjudicate.
Lawmakers initially had limited time to make law. Congress assembled on the first Monday in December (Article I, Section 4 ) and our Christian founders wanted to be home for Christmas, December 25. Getting home in time, in a horse and buggy day, gave them less than three weeks to make law. Such limited time was practiced until changed by the 20th Amendment ratified Jan. 23, 1933, when Franklin D. Roosevelt wanted the federal government to meet continually.
Lawmakers must adhere to a list in making law, not just make it up (Article I, Section 8). Today neither political party pay any attention to this list. The list gives them only four areas from which to make law: taxes, paying debts, provide for the common defense, and general welfare of the United States. The remainder of this, originally one long sentence of 17 paragraphs, were qualifiers on these last two powers, common defense and general welfare so that these were further restricted. The Founders had no intention of leaving these broad phrases unspecified.
The Federal government was limited in the amount of property it could hold to just 10 square miles for a capital and only land for military purposes which must be purchased and approved by the state legislatures from which taken (Article I, Section 8, Clause 17). Today federal land encompasses about a third of the U.S., this without any approval other than their own.
Presidents must adhere to a list of areas where they can execute the law found in Article II, Sections 2 and 3. There never was, nor is there today, constitutional language authorizing presidents to make law, executive orders, decrees or mandates. Nor can they combine ancient pieces of law to create a new law. Initially executive orders were interdepartmental directives.
The Supreme Court must adhere to a list of areas where they can adjudicate the law and be in compliance with two types of adjudication—original and appellate (Article III, Section 2). There exists no constitutional language authorizing ruling in such a way as to create new law as that belongs to the legislative branch alone. Nor does any language exist enabling them to undermine or destroy federalism. Remember the states created the Constitution. Housed permanently within it is shared government or federalism (See Article V and Amendment 10).
The Constitution allows change to it but only through 3/4ths vote consent of the states (federalism)—no exceptions (Article V). This is why enemies of the Republic despise it. They can’t go through it, around it, or over it. They tried. The Constitution also has no language allowing any authority to be passed to a higher government than itself such as the United Nations. Globalists have wanted world government since Woodrow Wilson’s League of Nations.
States would not ratify the Constitution without a specific list of things the government could not do to them, a Bill of Rights, arranged in order of their preference—“thou shalt nots.” These include Amendment I the expression rights: religion, speech, press, and assembly specifically were denied governmental control. Amendment II was especially important as it included the right of revolution, the same authority they used to revolt against British tyranny. This could not be denied their posterity should government tyranny again prevail. “The right of the people to keep and bear arms,” was made nonnegotiable, by “shall not be infringed.”
The first three words of the Constitution were “We the People,” Amendment 9 wanted it understood that any “enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights,” of the people could never mean that these alone were their rights. It would always be “We the People.”
But Amendment 10 is today probably the most important sentence in the Bill of Rights and in the Constitution as it places the states between the individual and the federal government to protect him/her from federal tyranny. It established federalism as the heart and protector of the Constitution. It defined how the entire Constitution is to be interpreted. “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” But today it is one of the least applied sentences.
Finally, every office holder federal, state and local is required to give an oath of allegiance to the Constitution. From the president down to every person employed in the armed services it is in substance similar to the following for the president: “I do solemnly swear … that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United State.”
For these reasons tyranny can never prevail in America with the Constitution as written. But when it is shredded, as is happening, tyranny will reap through American like a whirlwind.
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.
These are unprecedented times. No president has intentionally failed to protect this country from invasion until now. Previous to this time all political parties, would have supported impeachment to rid themselves of this major threat to national security.
The Joe Biden Administration pretend there is no border crisis as a million and a half unvetted invaders coming from at least 150 countries have illegally crossed into the United States during his time in office. America has no southern border. Biden has never been on the border and shows no interest in upholding any of the long established laws regarding it while narcotics and sex traffickers flow freely through. Presently Florida is suing Biden for human trafficking as his administration purposely flies or buses illegals into our cities nation wide.
All this on a border that was more secure under the Trump Administration, largely by building a wall, than at any time in our history. Even now we know of 60,000 illegals, mostly Haitians, approaching our border to overwhelm our border patrol and invade our states, counties, and cities. This would be the second Haitian invasion in six weeks and the Biden Administration has no announced plans to deter them, and in fact by negligence, he encourages their coming.
Does the Constitution allow this? No!! Article IV, Section 4 specifically guarantees each state protection “against invasion.” When taking office the president swears by oath “to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States” (Article II, Section I, Clause 8). His primary function is to execute the laws passed by Congress: “He shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed” (Article II, Section III). He refuses! His administration is the greatest threat to the Constitution in U.S. History.
What is the countries recourse when its chief executor openly defies established immigration laws, engages in human trafficking of illegals into the interior, and refuses the primary duty of his office to protect the nation? An unsecured border is America’s biggest national threat. The answer is not to wait three plus years for another “fraudulent” election, there will be no America left to save. Nor is it the 25th Amendment as Kamala Harris appears no more fit for the office than Biden—especially on the subject of illegal immigration. Nor is it Impeachment as the House of Representatives, led by Speaker Nancy Pelosi, constitutionally charged with initiating this process will defy this part of the Constitution as well.
Until one of these options is activated removing him, the only remaining constitutional option and answer is that the states must secure their own borders. Remember, under federalism, implemented with the Constitution, we operate under two co-equal governments federal and state; the federal to govern primarily foreign policy, the state entirely internal interests. Should the federal government refuse to protect the border, an open border translates into a state issue one foot inside.
Arguably a state, with Biden opposition, cannot order federal agencies to protect it from an invasion, but it can use the state militia without his authority. The militia is not the army. It is the people, the citizens, and in the 2nd Continental Congress, even before the Constitution, the militia was defined as every able bodied male 17 years of age and older.
In 1903 the Dick Act clarified the 2nd Amendment definition of militia by dividing it into Part A, the unorganized militia, “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed,” and Part B, “a well regulated Militia,” the National Guard. Both “being necessary to the security of a free State.” The organized militia was to remain a separate body from the army and navy and retain its distinct internal function and control under the state legislatures and governors (when they could not be convened) “against domestic violence” (Article IV Section 4). Notice the wording in the Constitution authorizing Congress, “to provide for calling for the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions”—all internal functions (Article I, Section 8, Clause 15). Congress and state legislatures can call it forth.
Unlike the army the militia is allowed to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections including, with state authorization, domestic violence . The Posse Comitatus Act forbids the military these internal functions.
The National Guard was never to be thought of as merely a pool of reserve troops for the army. Impeachment proceedings should have been threatened against President George W. Bush when he treated them as such deploying 100,000 of them in 2005 to Iraq and Afghanistan, when enlistments were not enough, rather than asking Congress to restore the draft. This alteration of the Constitution by blatant ignorance is serious. The National Guard was simply an easy target and no one from either party objected. But it cannot perform its constitutional duty outside the United States. President Barack Obama ordered one-year deployments of Guardsmen in Afghanistan in 2014. Both parties have violated this part of the Constitution.
The rational for a militia separate from the army is very simple. The first line of defense from unwanted aggression is oneself (2nd Amendment), followed by local law enforcement agents, followed by the National Guard guarding the nation from within (2nd Amendment), followed by the military. Biden, by unconstitutionally flying or busing illegals into the interior rather than vetting them fully in Mexico, should motivate all state legislatures to send their Guardsmen to the border immediately. Placing them on the border to repel the coming Haitian invasion would be entirely constitutional. It would also help discourage future invasions.
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.
These are unprecedented times. No president has intentionally failed to protect this country from invasion until now. Previous to this time all political parties, would have supported impeachment to rid themselves of this major threat to national security.
The Joe Biden Administration pretend there is no border crisis as a million and a half unvetted invaders coming from at least 150 countries have illegally crossed into the United States during his time in office. America has no southern border. Biden has never been on the border and shows no interest in upholding any of the long established laws regarding it while narcotics and sex traffickers flow freely through. Presently Florida is suing Biden for human trafficking as his administration purposely flies or buses illegals into our cities nation wide.
All this on a border that was more secure under the Trump Administration, largely by building a wall, than at any time in our history. Even now we know of 60,000 illegals, mostly Haitians, approaching our border to overwhelm our border patrol and invade our states, counties, and cities. This would be the second Haitian invasion in six weeks and the Biden Administration has no announced plans to deter them, and in fact by negligence, he encourages their coming.
Does the Constitution allow this? No!! Article IV, Section 4 specifically guarantees each state protection “against invasion.” When taking office the president swears by oath “to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States” (Article II, Section I, Clause 8). His primary function is to execute the laws passed by Congress: “He shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed” (Article II, Section III). He refuses! His administration is the greatest threat to the Constitution in U.S. History.
What is the countries recourse when its chief executor openly defies established immigration laws, engages in human trafficking of illegals into the interior, and refuses the primary duty of his office to protect the nation? An unsecured border is America’s biggest national threat. The answer is not to wait three plus years for another “fraudulent” election, there will be no America left to save. Nor is it the 25th Amendment as Kamala Harris appears no more fit for the office than Biden—especially on the subject of illegal immigration. Nor is it Impeachment as the House of Representatives, led by Speaker Nancy Pelosi, constitutionally charged with initiating this process will defy this part of the Constitution as well.
Until one of these options is activated removing him, the only remaining constitutional option and answer is that the states must secure their own borders. Remember, under federalism, implemented by the Constitution, we operate under two co-equal governments federal and state; the federal to govern primarily foreign policy, the state entirely internal interests. Should the federal government refuse to protect the border, an open border translates into a state issue one foot inside.
Arguably a state, with Biden opposition, cannot order federal agencies to protect it from an invasion, but it can use the state militia without his authority. The militia is not the army. It is the people, the citizens, and in the 2nd Continental Congress, even before the Constitution, the militia was defined as every able bodied male 17 years of age and older.
In 1903 the Dick Act clarified the 2nd Amendment definition of militia by dividing it into Part A, the unorganized militia, “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed,” and Part B, “a well regulated Militia,” the National Guard. Both “being necessary to the security of a free State.” The organized militia was to remain a separate body from the army and navy and retain its distinct internal function and control under the state legislatures and governors (when they could not be convened) “against domestic violence” (Article IV Section 4). Notice the wording in the Constitution authorizing Congress, “to provide for calling for the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions”—all internal functions (Article I, Section 8, Clause 15). Congress and state legislatures can call it forth.
Unlike the army the militia is allowed to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections including, with state authorization, domestic violence . The Posse Comitatus Act forbids the military these internal functions.
The National Guard was never to be thought of as merely a pool of reserve troops for the army. Impeachment proceedings should have been threatened against President George W. Bush when he treated them as such deploying 100,000 of them in 2005 to Iraq and Afghanistan, when enlistments were not enough, rather than asking Congress to restore the draft. This alteration of the Constitution by blatant ignorance is serious. The National Guard was simply an easy target and no one from either party objected. But it cannot perform its constitutional duty outside the United States. President Barack Obama ordered one-year deployments of Guardsmen in Afghanistan in 2014. Both parties have violated this part of the Constitution.
The rational for a militia separate from the army is very simple. The first line of defense from unwanted aggression is oneself (2nd Amendment), followed by local law enforcement agents, followed by the National Guard guarding the nation from within (2nd Amendment), followed by the military. Biden, by unconstitutionally flying or busing illegals into the interior rather than vetting them fully in Mexico, should motivate all state legislatures to send their Guardsmen to the border immediately. Placing them on the border to repel the coming Haitian invasion would be entirely constitutional. It would also help discourage future invasions. 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.
The rational for a militia separate from the army is very simple. The first line of defense from unwanted aggression is oneself (2nd Amendment), followed by local law enforcement agents, followed by the National Guard guarding the nation from within (2nd Amendment), followed by the military. Biden, by unconstitutionally flying or busing illegals into the interior rather than vetting them fully in Mexico, should motivate all state legislatures to send their Guardsmen to the border immediately. Placing them on the border to repel the coming Haitian invasion would be entirely constitutional. It would also help discourage future invasions. 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.
The rational for a militia separate from the army is very simple. The first line of defense from unwanted aggression is oneself (2nd Amendment), followed by local law enforcement agents, followed by the National Guard guarding the nation from within (2nd Amendment), followed by the military. Biden, by unconstitutionally flying or busing illegals into the interior rather than vetting them fully in Mexico, should motivate all state legislatures to send their Guardsmen to the border immediately. Placing them on the border to repel the coming Haitian invasion would be entirely constitutional. It would also help discourage future invasions. 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.
Vaccine mandates, passports, masks, social distancing, and everything associated with COVID-19 is unconstitutional and therefore unlawful and unenforceable at the federal level. It is also at the state level because of the Bill of Rights, but that requires a future column. Joe Biden’s decree, affecting 80 million Americans, mandating that all employers with more than 100 employees, be vaccinated, or weekly tested for the virus, or their businesses will be fined. This mandate, said to have originated as an OSHA regulation, did not. Nancy Pelosi knows it is not law and thus has included the mandate in the Infrastructural Bill now before Congress.
Even if OSHA had originated the regulation, or Congress succeeds in passing it, states can still nullify the decree or law within its state, according to the 10th Amendment. It reads, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” This protects federalism.
The Tenth Amendment restricts the federal government, (the executive, legislative and judicial branches) to the enumeration clause of Section I, Clause 8, which lists the areas in which the federal government can legislate, execute, and adjudicate? All powers not specifically listed, or added later to the Constitution by way of the amendment process outlined in Article V, are left to the states.
This clause divides all federal power into the four following areas: Congress has power to tax, pay debt, provide for the general welfare and common defense. So as to restrict the federal government from enlarging its power, which is its natural tendency to do, the last two grants of power of the four each had an additional eight clauses giving clarity to what was meant by general welfare and national defense.
Even with this clarification, states, fearing that the federal government might still grow at their expense, refused to ratify the Constitution without additional restrictions harnessing it more fully to the enumerated powers, hence the Bill of Rights. These ended with Amendment 10 and the deliberate handcuffs on federal power.
The proper constitutional response is to refuse to recognize it in their state and boldly so declare. It is quick and final. No branch of government was empowered to override federalism. The solution is definitely not to sue the federal government as this only places the decision in another branch of the same federal government, which almost always rules to increase federal power. Once rendered in court, it only makes it more difficult to refuse compliance later. The solution is not to rescind an executive decree or mandate, because such asks a federal entity to do what the executive branch never had power to do in the first place. If Congress has stepped outside the listed powers making a new law, it is not to ask Congress for a law less restrictive, as that implies that they had the power to create law outside listed powers in the first place.
None of these actions preserve separation of power. What does is to honor the Constitution as written and declare boldly that the federal government has no constitutional jurisdiction as the power exercised is not listed in Article 1, Section 8, Clauses 1-18 and has not been added to the Constitution by amendment. Until this, all unlisted power remains with the states.
Founding Fathers James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, and Alexander Hamilton were each especially vocal with respect to states having the authority to “Just Say No!” to federal law not enumerated. This was the original view of the Constitution. Such was used in 1798 in the Kentucky and Virginia Resolves, in 1832 in the Nullification Crisis in South Carolina, and more successfully with the northern states, especially Wisconsin, in 1854 over the highly unconstitutional Fugitive Slave Act. Without a new amendment to the Constitution dealing with health, vaccine mandates, abortion, and many more issues, remain entirely state issues.
James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, wrote in The Federalist Papers #46. “Should an unwarrantable measure of the federal government be unpopular in particular States, … the means of opposition to it are powerful and at hand. The disquietude of the people; their repugnance and, perhaps refusal to cooperate with officers of the Union, the frowns of the executive magistracy of the State;” would provide “very serious impediments;” more so if states stood together. This “would present obstructions which the federal government would hardly be willing to encounter.”
Thomas Jefferson wrote in agreement in the Alien and Sedition Acts, “where powers are assumed which have not been delegated, a nullification of the act is the rightful remedy” and “that every State has a natural right in cases not within the compact to nullify of their own authority all assumptions of power by others within their limits: that without this right, they would be under the dominion, absolute and unlimited, of whosoever might exercise this right of judgment for them.” And, Alexander Hamilton shared, “…the State governments will, in all possible contingencies, afford complete security against invasions of the public liberty by the national authority” (Federalist Papers #28).
Remember, the states created the federal government in the first place establishing a system called federalism which recognized the principle of dual sovereignty, neither is master or slave to the other. Each viewed state nullification as an important check on unacceptable federal assumption of state powers. No branch of the federal government, not even the Supreme Court, has the constitutional authority to destroy this check. The Constitution will recover confiscated state authority if governors have the fortitude to reject immediately any decree, mandate or law not tied directly to enumerated powers. It is time they do it again. Long term delay give opponents supposed past practice legitimacy which in time can destroy precious parts of the Constitution if not brought back in line.
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.
