May 19, 2021 | Constitution, Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease, Ph.D.
What follows is an open letter to America warning that “our nation is in deep peril,” signed by 317 retired generals and admirals. How serious, “We are in a fight for our survival as a Constitutional Republic like no other time since our founding in 1776.” Who are the combatants? “The conflict is between supporters of Socialism and Marxism vs. supporters of Constitutional freedom and liberty,” each defining the other as domestic terrorists. In this war of information this message will be censored or undermined by the largely socialist press thus not available to most Americans.
Senior military leaders are in consensus that the 2020 election was the most important election since our country was founded. “With the Democrat Party welcoming Socialists and Marxists, our historic way of life is at stake.” The letter follows:
“Without fair and honest elections that accurately reflect the ‘will of the people’ our Constitutional Republic is lost. Election integrity demands insuring there is one legal vote cast and counted per citizen. Legal votes are identified by State Legislature’s approved controls using government IDs, verified signatures, etc. Today, many are calling such commonsense controls ‘racist’.… Using racial terms to suppress proof of eligibility is itself a tyrannical intimidation tactic…The FBI and Supreme Court must act swiftly when election irregularities are surfaced and not ignore them as was done in 2020. Finally, H.R.1 & S.1, (if passed), would destroy election fairness and allow Democrats to forever remain in power violating our Constitution and ending our Representative Republic….
“The Current Administration has launched a full-blown assault on our Constitutional rights in a dictatorial manner, bypassing the Congress, with more than 50 Executive Orders quickly signed, many reversing the previous Administration’s effective policies and regulations. Moreover, population control actions such as excessive lockdowns, school and business closures, and most alarming, censorship of written and verbal expression are all direct assaults on our fundamental Rights. We must support and hold accountable politicians who will act to counter Socialism, Marxism and Progressivism, support our Constitutional Republic, and insist on fiscally responsible governing….”
The military identified eight actions that must change very soon to preserve liberty.
“•Open borders jeopardize national security by increasing human trafficking, drug cartels, terrorist sentry, health/CV19 dangers, and humanitarian crises. Illegals are flooding our Country bringing high economic costs, crime, lowering wages, and illegal voting in some states. We must reestablish border controls and continue building the wall while supporting our dedicated border control personnel. Sovereign nations must have controlled borders.
“•China is the greatest external threat to America. Establishing cooperative relations with the Chinese Communist Party emboldens them to continue progress toward world domination, militarily, economically, politically and technologically….
“•The free flow of information is critical to the security of our Republic, as illustrated by freedom of speech and the press being in the 1st Amendment of our Constitution. Censoring speech and expression, distorting speech, spreading disinformation by government officials, private entities, and the media is a method to suppress the free flow of information, a tyrannical technique used in closed societies. We must counter this on all fronts beginning with removing Section 230 protection from big tech.
“•Re-engaging in the flawed Iran Nuclear Deal would result in Iran acquiring nuclear weapons along with the means to deliver them, thereby upsetting Mideast peace initiatives and aiding a terrorist nation whose slogans and goals include ‘death to America’ and ‘death to Israel’….
“•Stopping the Keystone Pipeline eliminates our recently established energy independence and causes us to be energy dependent on nations not friendly to us, while eliminating valuable US jobs. We must open the Keystone Pipeline and regain our energy independence for national security and economic reasons.
“•Using the U.S. military as political pawns with thousands of troops deployed around the U.S. Capitol Building, patrolling fences guarding against a non-existent threat, along with forcing Politically Correct policies like the divisive critical race theory into the military at the expense of the War Fighting Mission, seriously degrades readiness to fight and win our Nation’s wars, creating a major national security issue….
“•The “Rule of Law” is fundamental to our Republic and security. Anarchy as seen in certain cities cannot be tolerated. We must support our law enforcement personnel and insist that DAs, our courts, and the DOJ enforce the law equally, fairly, and consistently toward all.
“•The mental and physical condition of the Commander in Chief cannot be ignored. He must be able to quickly make accurate national security decisions involving life and limb anywhere, day or night. Recent Democrat leadership’s inquiries about nuclear code procedures sends a dangerous national security signal to nuclear armed adversaries, raising the question about who is in charge….
“Under a Democrat Congress and the Current Administration, our Country has taken a hard left turn toward Socialism and a Marxist form of tyrannical government which must be countered now by electing congressional and presidential candidates who will always act to defend our Constitutional Republic. The survival of our Nation and its cherished freedoms, liberty, and historic values are at stake…."
The reason the military express such strong feelings on this subject is because they died on foreign soil defeating Socialist and Communists and are now forced to oppose them again on their own soil—America.
Dr. Harold Pease is a syndicated columnist and an expert on the United States Constitution. He has dedicated his career to studying the writings of the Founding Fathers and applying that knowledge to current events. He taught history and political science from this perspective for over 30 years at Taft College. Newspapers have permission to publish this column. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.
May 12, 2021 | Constitution, Liberty Articles
Harold Pease, Ph.D.
Safety is probably the natural right most easily explained and is based primarily on the presumption that people have the right to exist and will naturally first flee from danger, then, if unsuccessful, will arm themselves regardless of what the law may or may not say or permit. Natures’ law will never allow gun confiscation to be fully implemented in a free America.
I learned this lesson my first year teaching college in California many years ago. A Mexican gang led by a black attacked two white students in the college quad because they were white. As the nearest faculty member available, I intervened only to have the students flee and I alone faced perhaps a dozen thugs I had never seen before who hated me only for the color of my skin. On the ground, unable to comprehend what was happening to me, I took a boot every time I raised my head. Another faculty member came into the quad and being white also was attacked. Half the group left me to attack him. Eventually we were able to escape behind a nearby classroom door. When police arrived the leader of the gang threatened to kill me if I identified him. A day later a student highway patrolman secretly gave me a can of maze, at the time illegal. “This will take care of 20,” he told me. I carried it for years. Giving it to me would have cost his job and mine. Neither cared—safety was the issue.
Thousands fled socialist countries as it enveloped their countries. Hundreds risked their lives going over the Berlin Wall once socialism was imbedded in Eastern Germany and hundreds of thousands fled to the south in Korea and Vietnam or on boats away from Cuba to America. The same is so from Venezuela in our day. It was once said that communism would end tomorrow in China if everyone were issued a hand gun tonight. You might miss the shooting the next day if you slept in. Certainly the more than a million Uyghurs in slave labor camps would take their religious freedom back and their genocide end in China.
Thousands are escaping socialist-leaning states of California, Oregon, Washington, Michigan, New York and New Jersey under excessive, even tyrannical rule by their Democrat governors exceeding that of the tyranny of King George III. Here political refugees are finding freedom from excessive government in Florida, Texas, Idaho,Utah and South Dakota; Republican led states who refused to lock down their citizens.
Residents feel unsafe when society or government appeared unstable as in 2020, when Black Lives Matter and Antifa riots were staged in most major cities in America, even near the White House, especially in Democratic controlled cities. This was especially so when nowhere condemned by Democrat Party leadership or their media. When statues were torn down, inner city buildings and automobiles set afire, Molotov cocktails thrown at police, and thugs occupied downtown Seattle and Portland, people did not feel safe. When George Soros’ financed district attorneys in Chicago, Los Angeles and St. Louis were setting criminals free as fast as they were arrested, it resulted in concern for normal people. When a senior citizen couple living in a private gated community in St. Louis, Missouri threatened to use firearms to protect themselves and their property from a mob of thugs who broke down the gate, were themselves arrested—instead of the thugs—all Americans felt unsafe. This could happen to me. If government won’t protect me, I must.
The Democrats solution to runaway crime has become the following: to allow convicts to vote, to release inmates back on the streets during the Wuhan, China virus, to same-day release arsonists, looters, and Molotov cocktail throwers in our cities during the social unrest of 2020, to deny potential victims the means of protecting themselves through confiscatory gun laws, to open our borders to every thug in the world and, most insane of all, to defund, disarm, cancel and victimize law enforcement—those willing to risk their lives in the defense of others to maintain a civil society.
Those who spoke out against these dangerous practices, like Tucker Carlson, could expect a mob of thugs to do property damage to their homes or threaten bodily harm to his wife and children who had to hide in a closet for protection. My point!! The more these practices become common, and anarchy and lawlessness reigns, the more the victims and innocent seek a gun to protect themselves—natural law—whether it is legal or not.
When cities like Chicago, where a person is shot every two hours, have the toughest gun laws, but the most gun violence, it is obvious that what Democrats, because they are the government in most of these cities of chaos, propose does not, has not, and will not work because their measures violate natural law. Yet they want to spread their chaos to the whole nation and leave the weak and innocent perpetual victims. Natural law postulates, When cities defund police and people do not feel protected they will flee first; then arm themselves for protection whether legal or not.
Here are some other natural laws relating to guns. When guns are outlawed only outlaws have them. It takes a gun to stop gun violence and police can’t get there in time. Good people will acquire firearms in proportion to their threat of danger. Violence begets violence; if a gun is not available a knife, bat, or perhaps poison is. Mass shootings almost always occur in gun free zones like schools, theaters, super markets, because would be shooters know they are not likely to be confronted with someone who can shoot back. Finally, there has never been a gun in the history of the world found to have, by itself, killed anyone. Gun confiscation and individual liberty are oxymorons.
Dr. Harold Pease is a syndicated columnist and an expert on the United States Constitution. He has dedicated his career to studying the writings of the Founding Fathers and applying that knowledge to current events. He taught history and political science from this perspective for over 30 years at Taft College. Newspapers have permission to publish this column. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.
May 5, 2021 | Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease
Probably three fourth of Americans question or have concerns regarding the past voting cycle. It is the most controversial and distrusted election in U.S. History. Over 1000 whistle blowers signed affidavits under penalty of perjury that they witnessed fraud. Just because the controlled press no longer covers this, and censors all who do, does not mean that fraud was not witnessed by thousands.
Why an audit in Arizona, two reasons? Only 10,000 votes separate presidential contestants. And the Senate Republicans there are bold enough to cry, foul ball. (I am attempting to avoid words that are programed to censor this column—bear with me). Yet some facts still remain beyond reason. In Arizona 22,093 mail in ballots were “received” the day BEFORE they were mailed. How does that happen? In Arizona 33,400 illegal immigrants voted (a must see video https://rumble.com/vdp7df-share-unmasked-have-we-uncovered-the-truth-about-the-2020-election.html).
But the courts already established that there was no evidence supporting election fraud. Not so, several courts weighed in that plaintiffs had no standing (they themselves were not harmed), of which the Texas case was the most famous, but NO court looked at a single piece of evidence. No court ruling established that there was no evidence of corruption, only that they themselves would not look at it.
But some states already did recounts. That is true, but if you just do a recount of the same bogus votes, as in Georgia, wouldn’t you have the same bogus results? Wouldn’t you want to first remove the dead, illegal, and previously moved out of state voters? Or, those who voted multiple times? Or, flipped votes to the opposing candidate through computer interference. Or, votes on mail-in-ballots that were on counterfeit paper not issued by the government or had no folds indicating that it had actually been processed through the mail—instead just dumped by trucks, even from out of state as in a truck coming in from New York to Pennsylvania?
In Maricopa County, Arizona 1.9 of the 2.1 million votes were cast by mail. “That means that the election department folded the ballots three times, put them in an envelope and sent them to the voters. And then the voters after putting their votes on the ballot, folded them three times and sent it back. So they're looking for folds in the ballot” (Stinchfield, May 3, 2021, Arizona Audit, Newsmax). If no folds than they are fake votes.
So how does this audit differ from other audits? Transparency for one thing, with nine live-streaming cameras recording everything which can be viewed in real time publicly and later for reference if needed. Viewers of each of the 2.1 million ballots are required to follow six processes. “A. Examine the physical ballot. B. Note any differences or observations about the thickness or feel of the ballot, and if necessary, attach thickness designator. C. If Election Day poll vote, note the presence of a visible fold. D. If non-Election Day. poll vote, note the absence of visible folds. E. Confirmed Fold Designator on the name is correct [designator]. F. Note any visible differences in the colors or text on the ballot. G. Place ballot under UV-B and UV-A source and compare for representative specimens ( Ep. 2466b - Are You Ready To Take Back Control Of The Country? The Silent Majority Will Reign, X22 Report Published April 30, 2021).
So why does it matter? Two reasons mostly; faith in future elections and, this issue is not gong to go away. First, if more than half of America saw this election as illegitimate, or stolen, it places in question all elections going forward and undermines our new president. If viewed as corrupt, why vote? And, if they did cheat, why would they stop cheating, the longer they hold power the more they are incentivized to censor and rid themselves of future opposition. How could we then say we differed from banana republics? To the benefit of both political parties, if found to be true, a mechanism must be in place to never let this happen again.
Second, supposed fraudulence was viewed by or participated in by thousands—far too many to ever go away. It will be questioned in the history books a hundred years from now. While we have all the ballots (the physical evidence), hundreds of affidavits, let every aspect of this election see light and every hearing or audit conducted. If this was the most clean election ever, as Democrats insists, they should be reassured. Why would they object, unless they know it wasn’t.
Let the forensic audit proceed. Democrats say they want to follow the science let it have its input with tests on ink color, paper thickness or weight, fold evidence and UV ray technologies brought to bear to give us proof positive that the individual occupying the White House, or those seated in the U.S. Senate in Arizona, were elected by citizens. Let us end this dispute with total confidence now.
But transparency is not what half of America want. Instead Democrat news outlets censor virtually everything in opposition to this step. A least 70 Democrat lawyers have gathered in Maricopa County to oppose every step of this audit. They have attempted to use the office of the Attorney General to do the same. It seems anything showing another side has been removed from the Internet. The only media coverage is seemingly in opposition.
Democrats act as though they have something to hide—like Richard Nixon in the Watergate burglary. They do if they cheated. If shown in Arizona, other states will follow with their forensic audits. I think this is why the opposition.
Dr. Harold Pease is a syndicated columnist and an expert on the United States Constitution. He has dedicated his career to studying the writings of the Founding Fathers and applying that knowledge to current events. He taught history and political science from this perspective for over 30 years at Taft College. Newspapers have permission to publish this column. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.
Apr 29, 2021 | Constitution, Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease Ph.D.
The Democratic led House of Representative just voted 216-208, along party lines, to make Washington D. C. the 51st state in the Union. The bill now goes to the Senate. But there are two serious problems. The District of Columbia already has more House and Senate members living within it than any state in the Union, thus is the most represented city in the nation, and the Constitution forbids making the capitol a state without 3/4th of the states’ approval.
Democrats say that the District of Columbia is under represented but what they fail to mention is that D.C. is the only city in the nation governed by the whole House of Representatives. Moreover, few commute daily from their districts thus live in close proximity to the Capitol. Technically they are D. C. residents, eating, working, socializing and sleeping in that city many times more than in their residence’s in Florida, Maine, California, Hawaii or Alaska. They regularly frequent the city’s gyms, restaurants, clothing shops, beauty salons and barber shops. They care about its streets and utilities because they use them. They socialize with other representatives about the needs and environment of the city as much or more than any city in their districts. Name another city as represented as it? No city gets more attention from people with power than Washington D.C.
Now to the Constitutional concerns. “The Congress shall have Power … to exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the government of the United States” (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17). Again, Congress is specifically charged to govern the city thus it is the most represented city in America and the only city with direct access to the federal budget.
One may need to be reminded of why the District of Columbia was created. The cities of Boston, Philadelphia and New York served their purpose very well in the birth of the Republic but they were cities within existing governments. What the Founders had to have was a place separate from and not subject to the influence of a host state. The two governments, the states and the new federal government created by the Constitution, that would run America must be independent of the other. This would be the home of the federal government, it would operate on its own property not within another that could influence it or, in reverse, be dominated or favored by it.
This property must never be a state and must be too small to be thought possible that it should be; presently it is 1/20th the size of Rhode Island, America’s smallest state. The perception of a small and limited federal government was important and carefully preserved by the wordage “not exceeding ten Miles square.”
Another constitutional concern involves Virginia and Maryland, who donated the ten square mile block of land to the federal government for a specific purpose, a space for a federal government, that would not have been given for any other purpose—definitely not to be made into another competing state. Certainly Maryland’s claim on it, if not used for the purpose given in the contract (Constitution), is much stronger than its claim to statehood. It could be argued that the only other “right” use of this land would be to return it to Maryland since Virginia’s portion was ceded back in 1846 with dubious constitutional authority. Then, and today with Maryland, any change in the Constitution (contract) requires an amendment.
If not used as a part of the District of Columbia it should be returned to Maryland, then a bid for statehood would violate Article IV, Section 3. “No new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State….without the consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.”
If made into a state then there is the necessity of repealing Amendment 23 of the Constitution, ratified in 1961, giving the District of Columbia three Electoral College votes because it wasn’t a state and now cant’t have six. Repeal requires 3/4th of the states. In the present climate of no bipartisanship this would require one side or the other to give up three Electoral College votes. Since Washington D.C. has been and will remain Democrat Party territory for decades the new state, “Washington, Douglass Commonwealth,” would get three Electoral College votes in perpetuity thus Democrats logically should forgo the three Electoral College votes still given to D.C. in Amendment 23 in addition to that given as a state—but will they?
Making the District of Columbia a city state would make this city, already the most represented city in the nation and probably even more so than any state as well, even more powerful. It also is unconstitutional because D.C. was specifically designed to not be a state. This cannot be changed by statue. This bill damages or alters two articles and one amendment of the U.S. Constitution, thus could require two new amendments and one amendment repeal in the Constitution. Each demand the use of Article V which requires a proposing process of two-thirds of both Houses of Congress or the application of the legislatures of two thirds of several states followed by a ratification process of 3/4th of the several states.
Everyone knows the Democrat bid to make the District of Columbia a new state is equivalent to “packing the Senate” which would vanish if they, in doing so, were establishing two new Republican Senators in perpetuity. It’s clearly a power grab akin to packing the Supreme Court and can not be rewarded.
Dr. Harold Pease is a syndicated columnist and an expert on the United States Constitution. He has dedicated his career to studying the writings of the Founding Fathers and applying that knowledge to current events. He taught history and political science from this perspective for over 30 years at Taft College. Newspapers have permission to publish this column. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.
Apr 21, 2021 | Constitution, Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease, Ph. D
Many may not remember their basic U.S. History courses as to why the Second Amendment exists in the first place. Certainly, when enacted, there was no thought of restricting type of firearm, or where or who could carry. So its placement as the second most valued freedom in the Bill of Rights had nothing to do with personal safety or hunting, these were already assumed. It was specifically placed right after freedom of religion, speech, press and assembly to make certain that these freedoms were never taken from us. Our Constitution was founded with a healthy fear of government. Historically it was always a government that took away liberty.
One must remember that early patriots did not ask the existing British government if they could revolt. They argued in The Declaration of Independence, that they were “endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” coming from a much higher source than mere man and that “whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government.” God is referenced five times in this document and thus, they believed, He sanctioned their rebellion. They were expected to suffer evils while sufferable, “but when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariable 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.”
The right of revolution requires the means of revolution and this is the reason the Second Amendment exists. Normally the ballot box is the only self-correction needed but they had no intention of forfeiting the right to revolution they exercised giving us liberty in the first place. Nor did they assume that future generations would never need the more serious self-correction they used.
So passionate were they over this issue that they double protected it, first by making it a constitutional amendment. No presidential degree or congressional statute can alter an Amendment—only another amendment submitted through the states as per Amendment V. This requires a vote of three-fourths of the states in support. Second, this is the only amendment, that itself, specifically forbids change. “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” No piece of law is more secure. As far as we can ascertain, America’s Constitution is the only Constitution in world history that specifically prohibits its government from removing the right of the people to keep and bear arms and thus the means to resist its government tyranny—as was exercised against the British.
An armed populace twice proved its value to liberty in the Revolutionary War. First, many do not remember why Lexington and Concord were so important. The Americans learned that the British planned to go door to door to confiscate their firearms so they gathered and hid them in these two villages. Now the British night gun raid, and Paul Revere’s desperate midnight ride warning the Americans enroute, so they could retrieve their guns to use against the British, makes sense.
Second, the Battle of Saratoga preventing the conquest of the northeast by General Johnny Burgoyne was stopped, not by the military, but by angry farmers with their own military styled “assault” rifles. This American victory encouraged other countries, notably France, to enter the war on our side. We would not have won the war without an armed citizenry.
The Founders’ attitude regarding guns—even military issue—was clear. Thomas Jefferson wrote: “No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” And George Washington said: “A free people ought not only to be armed,” but also, “they should promote such manufacturies [sic] as tend to remind them independent of others for essential, particularly military, supplies” (Gun Control, Freemen Report, May 31,1975, p. 1).
But many fear our government today. We fear when tyrannical governors condemn to death thousands of senior citizens by sending COVID-19 infected patients into nursing homes, or when the Bill of Rights was openly defied and 1st Amendment protection rights denied their people. We fear: when statues of our Founding Fathers and great former leaders are torn down and those doing this are leaving our inner cities aflame, when a majority believe election integrity no longer exists, when a president rules almost entirely by executive decrees, when one party rule is largely established, when our borders previously secured are no more, and when one side of the political spectrum is largely censored or cancelled.
We fear Congress when it seeks to pass an Equality Act that insures inequality, or a Bill For the People Act cements permanent fraud in elections favoring one party in particular, or when they push to pack the Supreme Court or make DC a state—all to install one political party rule in America. This fear is demonstrated when people are fleeing for safety from tyrannical states to freer states like Idaho, Florida, Texas and Utah. How can anyone in their right mind agree to give up their right to resist the government should it become tyrannical? In some places it already has.
The Second Amendment is the Constitution’s final check on tyranny. We have the same right of revolution the Founder’s used, fully expressed in The Declaration of Independence. Widespread gun ownership has never been a threat to truly free societies. An armed citizenry keeps the government on short notice of the governs’ ability to resist should God given inalienable rights be taken from them.
A popular slogan runs. “I love my country but I fear my government.” Given the fear and unconstitutional antics noted above, perhaps we should hang on to the 2nd Amendment as designed as our final option against tyranny. An option we hope never to have to use again.
Dr. Harold Pease is a syndicated columnist and an expert on the United States Constitution. He has dedicated his career to studying the writings of the Founding Fathers and applying that knowledge to current events. He taught history and political science from this perspective for over 30 years at Taft College. Newspapers have permission to publish this column. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.
Apr 7, 2021 | Constitution, Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease, Ph.D.
Neither the words equality or discrimination are found in the U. S. Constitution, nor inferred. Also, no new amendment to the Constitution has been added moving either from a state to a federal jurisdiction, which is the required path detailed in Article V for enlarging the powers of the federal government. State delegates formed the U.S. Constitution and they gave the federal government no power over human association. We naturally discriminate between philosophies, organizations, and people we wish to embrace, date or avoid; even whom or what we like. We call this freedom.
Now the Democratic Party wishes to impose upon the people restrictions over human associations without a new amendment to the Constitution. Under the misnamed Equality Act it wishes to enshrine “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” to the 1964 Civil Rights Act outlawing discrimination respecting race or sex in employment, housing, and public accommodations. What it does in practice is to “allow the government to impose a belief system about sexual decisions and sexual behaviors on the nation.” The Act is “basically government-sanctioned discrimination against religious people” (CBN News, October 2018). If government is empowered to manage human associations it manages everything.
More fully how would the misnamed Equality Act violate the Constitution? Remember the Founding Fathers created a system called federalism which recognized the principle of dual sovereignty between the states and the federal government, neither the master nor slave of the other—the states to have domestic dominance, the federal government foreign policy dominance. All power was divided in 1787 between these two governments. There exists no new powers to distribute.
The Constitution restricts the federal government, (the executive, legislative and judicial branches) to the enumerated clauses housed in Article I, Section 8. In this it was restricted to four areas of federal law, these were: to tax, to pay the debts, to provide for the general welfare and national defense. To restrict the federal government from enlarging its power, which is its natural tendency to do, the last two of the four grants of power, general welfare and national defense, each required an additional eight clauses giving greater restrictive clarity.
Neither equality or discrimination were named, or inferred, as a function of the federal government. The eight clauses of general welfare benefited citizens equally and at the same time. None made distinctions between types of people or human associations.
All powers not specifically listed, or added later to the Constitution by way of the Amendment process outlined in Article V, were left to the states. The states retain all power that they did not specifically give to the federal government. The federal government can only expand its power at the expense of the states by distorting or ignoring the existing list which is what it is attempting to do. This can only succeed when the people are ignorant of the Constitution or do not care. Proponents of the Equality Act include both.
Even with this clarification, states, fearing that the federal government might still attempt to grow at their expense, refused to ratify the Constitution without additional restrictions on it, hence the Bill of Rights. But none of these housed either equality or discrimination. The Bill of Rights ends with the clarity of Amendment 10: “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.”
So neither equality nor discrimination are in the Constitution or Bill of Rights but the word equal (not the same as equality) is in the 14th Amendment. This was a Civil War amendment (1868) designed to ensure that the rights of ex-slaves were protected as the South was attempting to re-enslave them through legislation. It reads in part, “No state shall . . . deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” One cannot pluck out this phrase and give it new meaning outside the context of its origin, — to protect freed men from slavery—which is precisely what the Democrat Party is doing with their Equality Act.
But there is another problem with the broad use of the phrase “equal protection of the laws” used out of context, This phrase applies only to that law already constitutional, and that, has to have a solid base in the listed powers of Article I, Section 8 or in a new amendment to the Constitution ratified by three-fourths of the states as required by Article V. Any other interpretation destroys the Constitution as designed.
A great irony of our time is that the misnamed Equality Act “creates grave inequalities between those who simply want to live according to their religious beliefs and the reigning culture of political correctness. In short, it threatens our most fundamental freedoms of speech, religious exercise, and privacy. The Equality Act upends two centuries of First Amendment law that restrains government from forcing Americans to speak messages or participate in events that violate their deeply held religious beliefs” (https://firstliberty.org/what-is-the-equality-act/).
The Equality Act has no origin in the Constitution, and thus is unconstitutional. If passed it would violate a large part of the First Amendment more especially the free exercise of religion, speech and press. A mere act or statute cannot nullify a constitutional amendment. It opens up a myriad of new laws on human association, also without constitutional base. Neither equality or discrimination can be defined and certainly not guaranteed without Orwellian governmental control. Perhaps that is their intention.
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.
