Jul 14, 2019 | Economy, Liberty Articles, Taxes
By Harold Pease, Ph. D
Barack Obama, Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton, were not the first presidential candidates to introduce socialism into mainstream America. Previous presidents did so and it has been in our diet for most of a hundred years. All twenty Democratic Party 2020 presidential candidates, as per their recent debates, would make militant socialist Eugene V. Debbs, founder of the Socialist Party of America (1901) and five-time presidential candidate, look like today’s conservative republican. Why are many Americans accepting socialism? Because socialism promises everything for free.
Athenian democracy (the “great idea”) profoundly changed the world that was formerly ruled by monarchies; a king stayed in power and passed it on to posterity until removed. It gave ever-larger portions of vote power to the masses but democracy had no brakes. Should everyone have an equal vote? Are they equally informed, equally intelligent, equally gifted? No, but as it expands the next level wants everything as well. Once tasted it enlarges until all have equal participation despite their differences, gifts or ignorance.
Nearly 300 years after democracy was first introduced in Athens, Aristotle (384 BC – 322 BC), wrote of democracy’s inherent weakness, that being, when every man is allowed to rise to the level his talent and industry permit him, some will become rich and others poor. The rich will always despise the poor, and the poor will always envy the rich. When the poor obtain the same vote power as the rich under a democracy, as they always will given their greater numbers, they will use that power to take from the rich.
It may take time for this to happen because democracy does initially encourage the profit motive, which stimulates everyone’s desire to get rich. This is good for society because to do so they invest, creating additional businesses, employing more people, and developing an ever-larger middle class. The middle class, Aristotle believed, should be the ruling class as it is closer to the poor and better understands its legitimate needs and, at the same time, it has enough of the world’s goods not to covet, thus destroy, the rich class. Still, in time the less productive will grow and become more politically powerful, especially as they learn to attach their vote to politicians who, to get elected, promise freebies.
Democracy self-destructed in both Athens and Rome because it had no brakes. Every western civilization history textbook speaks to the “bread and circuses” (free food and entertainment) of Rome.
Thus the Founding Fathers rejected democracy as our form of government in favor of a republic inserting, in their Constitution, the brakes democracy lacked. Today’s enemies of a republic intentionally favor the word democracy over republic because they despise the brakes.
At what moment is society democratized or socialistic enough? As things become freer for the non-productive part of society, more money must be confiscated from the productive middle and upper classes and it is the rich class and entrepreneurial middle class that risk their money to create the jobs making the republic successful. When has a poor man ever created a job for anyone?
In time the productive classes cannot provide the money that is demanded of them to feed and otherwise subsidize the less productive class. They are disincentivized, and then destroyed, by ever-higher taxes. All too soon the definition of rich is lowered until socialism devours the middle class as well—even until all are poor. Despite unrealistic promises, socialism gives only slavery and shared poverty.
Aristotle recognized this when he wrote, “Republics decline into democracies and democracies degenerate into despotisms.” The force to democratize more increases as voting becomes more universal which is what democracies encourage. Shouldn’t everyone have an equal vote? Those in Athens came to believe so. Wrote Aristotle, “Democracy arises out of the notion that those who are equal in any respect are equal in all respects; because men are equally free, they claim to be absolutely equal.”
As voting becomes more universal vote power favors those who seek government favors as they, in time, become the majority. This process is accelerated, and corrupted, when politicians link government gift-giving with their election. As the less productive, as a class, always tend to favor financial favors from government to their benefit, and since all government money comes from the middle and upper classes through ever increasing taxes, (presently 47% of the adult population pay no federal income tax and a good share of these make up the less-productive class) they eventually destroy the productive base of society as government takes over more of the economy by confiscation or regulation. The overriding principle is, the more socialism the higher the taxes and burden on the producing class. Why? Because in exchange for the vote the socialist politician advocates that everything be free. This is his most powerful lure and works well on the idealistic youth and already dependent.
As government controls more portions of the economy, democracy transcends to socialism. Sometime in this transition democracy ceases to be democracy although the term continues to be used, hence Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez’s warning in 2009 to Fidel Castro, both devout socialists, “We have to be careful lest we become right of Obama.” It needs noting that all twenty of the 2020 democratic presidential contenders are far left of Obama, thus decidedly socialists.
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.
Jul 1, 2019 | Constitution, Liberty Articles, Taxes
By Harold Pease, Ph. D
A week before the 4th of July everyone dons patriotic symbols . A week later few do. The event comes and goes: colors red, white, and blue are popular for a day. One might be viewed as “super patriotic” (as though this were bad) were one to display the symbols too long.
The evening is filled with fireworks (the bigger the better) but few know why. When asked, the most common response is freedom. “Freedom from what or whom?” I ask. If a stare could kill, I’d be dead. But there is no real understanding behind the expression. It is rare when anyone answers correctly, “Freedom from excessive government.”
The cause of the American Revolution was excessive government. Some say, “taxation without representation” but this is but a part of excessive government. Every U.S. History text has a chapter dealing with the causes. It is filled with the rules and regulations that were most oppressive to the colonists: the Stamp Act, Tea Act, Currency Act, Iron Act, Molasses Act, Sugar Act, even the Hat Act. Such acts were viewed by the colonist as restrictions on their freedom to act independent of governmental permission. When they descended like rain, as they did prior to the Revolution, the colonists demanded to know why, when not satisfied, they resisted the rulings without success, then, “Where is my rifle?”
For one day of the year there is peace between liberals and conservatives. Each wear the emblems of the Revolution and demonstrate their patriotism by raising bigger flags, exploding bigger fireworks, eating bigger steaks and guzzling more alcohol. Parades too are non-partisan and show patriotism, but for what? The next day we ask the federal government to place more restrictions on our neighbor and give us more free stuff at his expense, totally ignoring the Constitution and the reason for the Revolution.
Few share with their children the reasons behind these symbols and still fewer tie the Declaration of Independence to the Constitution which essentially ended the need for a future revolution by restricting the federal government to a handful of areas in which they can constitutionally restrict our behavior (Article I, Sec. 8), freezing forever, if we adhere to the Constitution as designed, our legislative branch doing the same thing to us as had parliament to the colonists. If the two are not tied together then the American Revolution was just a revolution, rightly commemorated by having a longer weekend and an excuse to get drunk.
Lost in the translation and replaced by the blank stare previously mentioned, is your right to do most everything you wish without permission from a government, more especially one located hundreds, often thousands, of miles away. Outside the short list in Article I, Section 8, which, incidentally, has no restrictions on the individual himself, the Constitution left the individual to manage himself. When his behavior offended the right of others to also self-manage, his community, starting at the lowest level (cities, counties, and finally his state government), may regulate his behavior protecting the right of self-management for others as well. Please review this list with family and friends.
This is called freedom. And this is the end result of a 13-year transformative period from the Declaration of Independence through the Articles of Federation to the Constitution, which included the Bill of Rights. The federal government constitutionally could only increase its power through Article V, which required the permission of the states. Today it does so at will because legislators openly oppose these documents or do not care.
The collective view of the Founders was to never elevate to a higher level that which could be resolved at a lesser level. Resolving problems at the lowest level of government, the city for example, allows the individual access to his elected representatives for redress and the offended to those he has most directly offended. A more just outcome is likely.
The 4th of July and Constitution Week in September are our best opportunities to share the message of why the Revolution and the Constitution interconnect and are among the more important events in U.S., even world, history. These two events are our best opportunities to remember and convey to friends and family what liberty is and how and why it must be preserved. Do they know that the vast majority of all inventions on earth came from within the United States under this Constitution, from the clipper ship to moon landing technology? Liberty incentivizes creativity. Do they know that it was purchased by blood and if lost will remain lost until purchased by blood again? Have you told them that if just one generation fails to convey to the next these precious ideas, it will be lost to their posterity. Freedom is not free and never will be.
We are grateful to those who know the real meaning and significance of this event in history and are willing to share it with others. We are forever indebted to those who gave their lives for our freedom in the Revolutionary War and thereafter. We remain grateful for fireworks and parades as long as we do not forget that excessive government is the enemy of liberty, then and now, whether it is taken from us by a parliament, as then, or a Congress, as today.
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.
Jun 24, 2019 | Globalism, Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease, P.h. D.
Since World War II America’s wars have never stopped. Why? We have become the policemen of the world with over 800 military bases world wide. Right now we have warships patrolling the Strait of Hormuz to prevent Iran from sinking more oil vessels. President Trump opposes world government and campaigned against “nation building” and “regime change.” He wants to bring our troops home.
In a recent interview with FOX’s Steve Hilton, Trump gave a remarkably clear and honest answer to the above question. “Don’t kid yourself,” he said, “You do have a Military-Industrial Complex. They do like war!” And he expressed his dilemma with this “complex” in Syria. “So I wipe out a hundred percent of the caliphate. I say I want to bring my troops back home. The place went crazy!! You have people here, in Washington, they never want to leave.”
Although Trump is not a globalist he is unduly influenced by them. Colonel Douglas Macgregor, author of Margin of Victory, essentially said as much when interviewed on Tucker Carlson Tonight, May 20, 2019. “The president by now understands that he is surrounded inside the White House and within the administration by people who are part of this bi-partisan globalist elite. In other words, the inner circle of advisors whether it is John Bolton or Mr. Pompeo from the State Department or any number of other people. Along with the general officers, the four stars and the senior intelligence operatives and officers, all of whom have risen to great rank over the last 20 years as a result of their participation in these strategic failures… are absolutely committed to stopping any change.” “They like war,” as Trump said.
So Trump wipes out the caliphate in the Middle East, the reason for our military presence there, and the “military industrial complex” goes nuts when he wants to bring home his troops. So we remain.
But fear of the “military-industrial complex” ( a marriage between globalist politicians, the military and the industry making war materials—each profiting from war) is not new. President Dwight D. Eisenhower warned of its danger in his farewell address. January 17, 1961. “In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.”
How powerful was it in 1961? Eisenhower continued, “We annually spend on military security alone more than the net income of all United States cooperations — corporations …. The total influence — economic, political, even spiritual — is felt in every city, every Statehouse, every office of the Federal government. … we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications” (https://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/dwightdeisenhowerfarewell.html).
Do “grave implications” mean that once in a region like Europe, Japan, South Korea, or the Middle East our military never leaves. That is what Trump learned, “You have people here, in Washington, they never want to leave.”
Today Wikipedia documents US troops in “more than 150 countries” (The New York Times says 172—we have “troops in nearly every country”) around the world with thousands of military personnel still in many of the above named regions/countries 74 years later. Approximately a third of our troops serve outside the US in places most Americans have never heard of such as Aruba, Bahrain, Kenya, and Qatar. As noted, we have over 800 military bases encircling the globe all in the name of “our” national security.
Who are these people who never want to leave? No special interest group has had more impact over foreign policy the last 100 years than the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), leading many to question if we have but one political party in the United States with two arms. This is why, until Trump, there has been little difference in foreign policy between Democrat and Republican presidents.
They obtained their advisers, especially Secretaries of State, from the same globalist special interest group, the CFR. They all supported extensive foreign aid, policing the world, and continual wars without declaration or pre-established end. All supported international trade agreements that enhanced the power of the United Nations over the U.S. and exported jobs formerly held by Americans. All supported the bank bailouts and their management of the money supply through the bankers private Federal Reserve Bank and opposed its being audited. All supported problem solving on the federal or international level rather than the state or county levels. Presidential candidates Elizabeth Warren and Joe Biden are CFR supported so these policies are not likely to change should they win the presidency.
So why do America’s wars never really stop, even when the enemy has been totally decimated as in the ISIS caliphate in the Middle East, even when President Trump wants them to stop? Because the military industrial complex (consisting of the military, war industries, and globalist politicians) profit or benefit from war as they have for nearly a century. Despite Eisenhower’s advice they remain a powerful secret combination in our government.
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.
Jun 17, 2019 | Constitution, Liberty Articles, Take Action
By Harold Pease, Ph. D.
Neither the words equality or discrimination are found in the U. S. Constitution, nor inferred, and no new amendment to the Constitution has been added moving either from a state to a federal prerogative, 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 it freedom.
Now the House of Representatives, presently controlled by the Democratic Party, wishes to impose upon us 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.
So 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.
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. There exists no new powers to distribute. 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. This can be done only 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 end 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.
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. 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 the 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.
Jun 10, 2019 | Constitution, Liberty Articles
Harold Pease, Ph. D.
Outside a declaration of war there is no act of Congress that would affect negatively more Americans than the House of Representative’s recently passed Equality Act now slated for the U.S. Senate, then the President for his signature. Billed to ban discrimination against “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” it, instead, enshrines it into the 1964 Civil Rights Act potentially protecting pedophilia and pederasty under “sexual orientation.”
The 13-paged ambiguous Equality Act “would give homosexuality, transgenderism, and other perversions of human sexuality and gender the same protections as race or sex in employment, housing, public accommodations, and more.” It specifically prohibits religious freedom as a defense. “The legislation applies to churches, religious schools, religious hospitals, religious employers, gathering places, sports, all government entities, and more. Christian adoption agencies will be shut down, too, if they refuse to place children with homosexuals or individuals confused about whether they are men or women. That has already happened in states with similar legislation.”
It could criminalize Christianity, Judaism and Islam as their holy writ condemns as sin the behaviors of the LGBT community. As federal law “churches, synagogues, and mosques will no longer be able to uphold marriage between men and women, or any moral standards on sexuality at all. Counselors of faith will be banned from helping people with unwanted same-sex attractions or gender confusion. And Christians, Muslims, and Jews will no longer be allowed to seek out counselors to help them deal with those issues. Indeed, under the measure, everyone will have to affirm the LGBT agenda, or face persecution and destruction at the hands of the federal government. Churches will lose their tax-exempt status if they do not submit. Schools will lose their accreditation…and this is just the start” (“Equality Act” Would Unleash Federal Persecution of Christians,” By Alex Newman, New American, May 8, 2019).
The “unchurched” may say, “This is not my fight.” But it affects them too with respect to abortion, bathroom privacy, and women’s sports! “By amending the definition of ‘sex’ in the Civil Rights Act of 1964, this legislation codifies a fundamental right to an abortion up until the moment of birth.” One minute short of infanticide. By effectively eliminating Hyde protections, it ensures that American taxpayers foot the bill for abortions (“Democrats’ passage of ‘Equality Act’ is the first stage in their attempts to CRIMINALIZE Christianity,” by Randolph Jason, May 24, 2019).
It vastly undermines women’s privacy. “Men who claim they ‘identify’ as women will be allowed to use women’s restrooms, showers, changing areas, and even bunk with women on trips, including church trips,” any man “could simply walk into female facilities under this bill and claim to be a ‘transgender’ who identifies as female,” placing girls and women at risk. “It would even be forced on churches, domestic-abuse shelters, Christian schools, and much more (“Equality Act”).
The Equality Act decimates high school female sports and the monumental gains in the sexual revolution of the seventies that equalized opportunity for women’s sports. Biological men with more weight, size and strength, claiming transgender status, can compete with women. Rep. Greg Steube (R-Fla.) “introduced an amendment at the last minute to the Equality Act that would have preserved Title IX’s protections for female sports teams, but Democrats — the ‘party of women’ — rejected it soundly.” Women’s sports will never be the same. Ironically the Democratic Party, has abandoned 52% of the population (women) in favor of the “less than one half of one percent of the population claiming transgender status” (“Why do Democrats think they have the authority — and the RIGHT — to regulate gender on high school sports teams?” The National Sentinel, June 3, 2019).
On bathroom privacy and sports they are not the party of women’s rights.
The real fear for critics of the bill is that it “provides the state with the power to persecute anyone who won’t celebrate any aspect of the LGBTQ agenda…it turns any recognition of the differences between the sexes or any preference for traditional sexual morality into actionable ‘hate,’ creating fertile grounds for lawsuits.” It puts the LGBT community in direct collision with God as defined by Christianity, Judaism and Islam. These world religions recoil from the behaviors of this group. Behaviors, they believe, places them at odds with God and salvation itself. This legislation is equivalent to “pouring legal acid on a marriage-and-family-based culture.” For them this is war between good and evil.
Instead of equality it gives legal power to largely opponents of religion who will, according to Prof. Robert Gagnon of Houston Baptist University, an expert in biblical sexual morality, “codify into law that you are a bigot, the moral equivalent of a racist, tantamount to being a member of the Klu Klux Klan, who must be shut out of society and, wherever possible, harassed and persecuted for your beliefs.” Thus, the Equality Act “is the most dangerous bill to freedom of speech and the free exercise of religion that has ever been proposed on a national level” (“A misnamed legal jackhammer strikes,” by Robert Knight, Washington Times, May 19, 2019). No wonder the vast majority of religious communities oppose it.
Ironically the best way to have the LGBT community treated fairly is housed in religion. “Do unto others as you would have them do unto 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.
Jun 3, 2019 | Constitution, Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease, Ph. D.
A litany of state laws aimed to alter the 2nd Amendment have descended trespassing other amendments as well, permitting “police-led searches” of our social media, thus effectively “abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press” constitutionally protected in the First Amendment. Disagreeable speech is labeled “hate speech.”
Presently at least 179 counties in the country and three states, Alaska, Idaho and Kansas, have declared Second Amendment sanctuary status as a result. The movement for sanctuary status includes any federal or state law that threatens the Second Amendment as written by the Founding Fathers. In New Mexico that includes requirements for firearm storage and background checks for private firearm sales. In New York, it includes banning bump stock devices. In Washington State it is I-1639, which “classifies semi-automatic rifles commonly owned for recreation and self-defense as assault weapons and prohibits young adults under the age of 21 from purchasing them.” These violate principally the Second Amendment “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
But the issue that has lit the sanctuary revolution most recently is “red flag” laws as they violate other amendments as well. These potentially allow thousands of innocent citizens to be punished only upon the fear that a crime might be committed. Secret lists of innocent people are created by family, acquaintances, and potentially disgruntled ex-lovers or spouses. Any one that can approach a judge with the claim that someone is a danger to himself and/or others, the sheriff is sent to disarm and confiscate his weapons. Those identified are punished without having committed a crime. All this without a shred of evidence of unlawful behavior.
As reported, state “red flag” laws are driving sheriffs and county commissioners to seek Second Amendment sanctuary county status to defend their people from them and to uphold the Constitution they have sworn by oath to protect. In no state is that more evident presently than in Colorado where 60% of the counties have declared sanctuary status which basically means “the law is null and void in this county.” Officers either have to refuse to follow orders or defend the Constitution. When county commissioners declare sanctuary status, sheriffs do not have to stand alone.
Standing alone is still constitutional as sheriffs are the only elected law enforcement agents in the United States and each must swear an oath of allegiance to the U.S. Constitution to hold that trusted office. Constitutionally they can only be removed by the people in their districts as they specifically represent only them—not public opinion outside their district, the state or the federal government. They understand that a law from either congress or state legislatures cannot undo an amendment to the Constitution—only another amendment and that requires the support of 3/4ths of the states, none of which has happened for any “red flag” law in any state. As such they should be null and void at passage.
“Red flag,” laws, distinguished from other anti-gun laws, are based entirely upon the assumption that someone may commit a crime, rather than has committed a crime. Their speech or behavior is viewed a red flag. Hitler, Stalin, Mao Tse-tung and Castro, all socialists, would have loved such laws. They could have labeled and disarmed their opposition before they did anything.
These also fly in the face of Amendment IV, V, VI and the XIV. Amendment IV reads in part: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.” Today computers and electronic devices are our “papers” and “effects” our weapons of self preservation. It is “unreasonable” to confiscate them on the assumption that they may be used inappropriately. We might also wish to remove their automobiles, knives, hammers, or medicines they MIGHT use to harm themselves or others. Heretofore “probable cause” was based upon evidence, not opinion. Again, there exists no crime!
Amendment V reads in part: “No person shall be…deprived of…property, without due process of law.” Due process is denied thousands under “red flag” laws. None were charged with a crime, arrested or convicted before gun confiscation.
Amendment VI. None were “informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defence.” None of these four required conditions, prior to confiscation, were met as no crime had been committed. The targeted had no opportunity to resist confiscation.
Finally, Amendment XIV. “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” “Red flag” laws totally deny “due process.”
Thus “red flag” laws violate the following constitutional amendments: I, II, IV, V, VI and XIV—half of the Bill of Rights. No wonder sheriffs and counties are bailing. How serious is this threat to the Constitution as written? Presently 15 states have them in place and 13 more are processing them, potentially 28—more than half of the union. In accepting states the Bill of Rights has been severely damaged.
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.
