Nov 26, 2019 | Economy, Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease, Ph. D
Few realize that New England’s first form of government under the Pilgrims was communalism (socialism) where “each produced according to his ability and each received according to his needs,” applied in practice more than two centuries before Karl Marx first penned the above quote. The result, “share the wealth,” then and now was, and always will be, shared poverty.
William Bradford, Plymouth colony’s governor its first 30 years, wrote of the agreement between the 102 Pilgrim Mayflower passengers and the financial “Adventurers” in his book Of Plymouth Plantation. He noted that the seven-year contract signed July 1, 1620, before leaving Plymouth England, stipulated that the Pilgrims were to pool, for common benefit, “all profits and benefits that are got by trade, traffic, trucking, working, fishing, or any other means of any person or persons…” It further noted “that at the end of the seven years, the capital and profits, viz. the houses, lands, goods and chattels, be equally divided betwixt the Adventurers and Planters…”
During this time the colonists were to “have their meat, drink, apparel, and all provisions out of the common stock and goods of the said colony.” It doesn’t get more socialistic than this because the government divvied out the goods and loafers received the same as those who worked.
The first two years the result was shortages and starvation. Half the colonists died. No one did more than the minimal because the incentive to excel was destroyed by the contract. The industrious were neutralized. Bradford wrote of the scarcity of food “no supply was heard of, neither knew they when they might expect any.” The contract, Bradford added, “was found to breed much confusion and discontent and retard much employment that would have been to the benefit and comfort. For the young men, that were most able and fit for labour and service, did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men’s wives and children without any recompense….”
In other words, socialism made strong men lazy. Bradford spoke of another problem because of the government created famine—thievery. Even in this Christian community, “much was stolen both by night and day….” to alleviate the prevailing condition of hunger.
The “feast” of the first Thanksgiving did fill their bellies briefly, and they were grateful, but abundance was anything but common. Harvests were not bountiful in that year nor the next. Why did this happen? Because they had fallen victim to the socialistic philosophy of “share the wealth.” This dis-incentivized the productive base of society.
After two years of such, with the survival of the colony at stake, they contemplated upon “how they might raise as much corn as they could, and obtain a better crop than they had done, that they might not still thus languish in misery.” They opted to abandon the incentive killing socialist contract in favor of the free market. And so they “assigned to every family a parcel of land, according to the proportion of their number, for that end….”
The effects were almost immediate. A delighted Governor Bradford wrote: “This had very good success, for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been by any means the Governor … could use, and saved him a great deal of trouble, and gave far better content. The women now went willingly into the field, and took their little ones with them to set corn; which before would allege weakness and inability; whom to have compelled would have been thought great tyranny and oppression.”
Then suddenly, as though night changed to day, the crop of 1623 was bounteous, and those thereafter as well, and it had nothing to do with the weather. Bradford wrote, “Instead of famine now God gave them plenty and the face of things was changed, to the rejoicing of the hearts of many, for which they blessed God.” He concluded later, “any general want or famine hath not been amongst them since to this day.”
One variable alone made the difference and ended the three-year famine. They abandoned the notion of government (or corporation) owning the means of production and distribution in favor of the individual having property and being responsible to take care of himself. Before, no one benefited by working because he received the same compensation as those who did not. After the change everyone kept the benefits of his labor. Those who chose not to work basically chose also to be poor and the government (corporation) no longer confiscated from those who produced to give to those who did not.
In other words, the free market (capitalism) is a much greater stimulus than governmental force. The Pilgrims now wished to work because they got to keep the benefits of their labor.
Secure property rights are the key to prosperity for all who wish to work. When this right is threatened by confiscatory taxation or outright confiscation of property, or by excessive government rules and regulations governing such, whether planned as in a contract enforced by the government at Plymouth, or gradual as in our day, work and production slow and can eventually stop. The answer for them was to extract socialism immediately from their midst, as it is for us today as well. May we have the wisdom to do so?
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.
Nov 25, 2019 | Constitution, Economy, Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease, Ph. D
Both major political parties had the power to control or end enslaving national debt the last fifty years. Both failed. Neither even try anymore. Neither party had the intestinal fortitude to say no to government gifting and now offer only more debt on our defenseless children and grandchildren. The hard truth is, there will be no Social Security for the children of today. The present path offers only loss of liberty and bankruptcy.
Our national debt exceeds 23 trillion dollars. To pay this debt today each taxpayer owes $186,578, immediately. Our largest creditors in order are: Medicare/Medicaid $1,253,523,000,000, Social Security $1,044,752,000,000, Defense/War 673,433,000,000, Income Security (welfare) $301,114,000,000, Net Interest on Debt $374,060,000,000, Federal Pensions $287,602,000,000, and Food / Agricultural Subsidies $151,840,000,000 (USDebtClock.org).
Even with the present robust Trump economy (the best in several decades) it has continued to escalate by four trillion dollars the last three years. We face economic Armageddon which, at this late date, may not be avoidable.
We have indebtedness, because both political parties failed to keep their oath of allegiance to the Constitution to follow it. If we do not get back to the Constitution with a strictness that we are not accustomed to, the new slaves (those encumbered by the debt of those before) will not even have freedom. If the Republic falls because of this national debt threat the new tyranny will not restore the government gifting programs responsible for the fall—the above programs disappear either way.
Yes the expensive programs will go, at least on the federal level, regardless, but we can yet save the Constitution and liberty, if we have the will. All power not listed in Article I, Section 8, or elsewhere in the document, or added by way of amendment to the Constitution thereafter, is a state power. Amendment 10 of the Bill of Rights. “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution … are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
Of the seven highest creditors listed above only Common Defense was specifically authorized in the Constitution. Constitutionally the others should have necessitated Article V authorization, an affirmative vote of three-fourths of the states. This did not happen. Most of the programs of the 20th Century, most policies presently advocated by the Democratic Party, and the infrastructure program advocated by President Trump, are outside Article I, Section 8 and are state prerogatives as per Amendment 10, thus cannot be implemented constitutionally without state permission. The hard truth, they lack specific constitutional authority. All six others, although now seen as “sacred cows,” are entwined with government gifting which has accelerated beyond our ability to control.
The Legislative branch was limited to only four areas of law-making power: to tax, to pay the debts, to provide for the general welfare and to provide for the common defense. These are laid out in Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 prior to the first semi-colon, so essential to the proper interpretation of Section 8. To tax needed one qualifier that such must be “uniform throughout the United States” but in the same article, Section 7, Clause 1 the power to tax was given to the House of Representative to originate. To pay the debts needed no qualifiers. But no one in the Constitutional Convention trusted Congress with a free hand in deciding the two other powers, general welfare and common defense. Either could mean anything to a power grabbing federal congress. Each of these needed eight additional qualifiers for clarity so Clauses 2-9 were the law-making powers of Congress with respect to general welfare and Clauses 10-17 respecting common defense.
The long 18-paragraph sentence (yes, sentence) ended with Congress having the power “to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers…,” those listed. Congress was never given power to make any law they thought desirable but only within four perimeters and 17 qualifiers. Section 8 is the most ignored, most abused, part of the Constitution. The hard truth, Congress was not empowered to make any law outside the 17 qualifiers without Article V permission of the states—even if every member of both houses approved.
A careful read of Section 8 reveals that the Founding Fathers gifted no individual or group. It only provided a level playing field enabling citizens to gift themselves by their work ethic and talent.
So what is the constitutional solution ending enslaving national debt? End government gifting!! Begin by initiating a bill or amendment that requires all future requests for gifting to accompany the constitutional wording that authorizes such. If such wordage does not exist the new bill cannot proceed.
Next begin to remove all existing gifting measures of the past that are not specifically identified in Article I, Section 8, Clause 1-18, or added by a constitutional amendment thereafter—even those longstanding and sacred. These should be transferred to, and entirely funded by the states as soon as possible. States that wish to retain portions of the gifting are not prevented from doing so under the Constitution as written, nor are states that wish not to do so prevented. But each state must fund their own programs.
There is hope. The Constitution can save us but only if we have the resolve to use it as written.
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.
Nov 11, 2019 | Constitution, Economy, Liberty Articles, Taxes
By Harold Pease, Ph. D
In listening to the 2020 Democratic Presidential debates or President Donald Trump’s many addresses to the American people, you would not know that we have exceeded 23 trillion dollars in debt and that to liquidate this debt $186,577 per taxpayer is due immediately (see, https://www.usdebtclock.org/). America cannot pay its existing bills.
Four trillion of this debt is from eight years of George W. Bush and nine from eight years of Barack Obama—the two biggest spending presidents in U.S. History. Obama alone doubled the national debt and accumulated more debt than all previous presidents put together. The major reason is government gifting to buy elections. Each election year more freebies are offered.
In the second democratic presidential debate held in Miami, June 28, 2019, Free healthcare . In other words, anyone in the world who comes to this continent and crosses our border, although it is against the law to do so, will be given free healthcare thereafter paid for by the American taxpayer. This one freebie, by itself, would bankrupt America, let alone free college and all the rest they have promised.
In late October, 2019, presidential front-runner Elizabeth Warren, released her Medicare For All plan. Its cost, 52 trillion dollars over ten years No such assets exist.
Democrats want everything free or subsidized— healthcare, housing, food, even free college. They can’t give away enough. Where will all that money come from?
So what is a trillion dollars? To begin with a trillion is the number one followed by twelve zeros. A trillion dollars is a thousand billion and a billion is a thousand million. This still means very little to students who count their money in fives, tens and twenties.
One mathematician gave us a more practical way to evaluate our outstanding debt. One trillion one-dollar bills stacked atop each other (not end to end but flat) would reach nearly 68,000 miles into space—a third of the way to the moon . If so, the debt incurred under President Obama alone, $9 trillion, would reach the moon and back and to the moon again. Moreover, if you like traveling atop this stack of ones, our total $23 trillion in debt today would take you to the moon and back almost four times (See CNN News Cast, Feb. 4, 2009).
Senator Mitch McConnell gave another illustration just as awe striking. He calculated that if we spent a million dollars every day since Jesus was born we still would not have spent a trillion dollars—only three-fourths of a trillion dollars (Ibid).
I ask students, “Who gets to go without so that this debt can be paid?” “Go without!!!?” That is a concept foreign to this generation!! They do not know, and neither do their parents and grandparents who laid it on their backs. When they are told that their share to liquidate this debt is $186,577 per taxpayer —due immediately. (see USDebtClock.org), they get angry. Someone should have told them that government handouts are not free.
The 13th Amendment ending slavery has been rescinded, they are America’s new slaves. Bondage was given them before their birth, or while they were in the womb, or before they were old enough to know what it meant to be sold into slavery. The past generation wanted nice costly programs for free and were willing to sell their children to have them. Worse, the older generation is still anxious to incur even more debt on our defenseless children and grandchildren. Are we not the most debt addicted, insensitive generation in U.S. History?
The favored method to deal with this problem is print more fiat money. But expanding the money supply just reduces the value of the money that you have in your pocket. Prices go up. My Camaro bought new in 1968 cost $ 2,700. Had I instead put the money under a mattress and tried to purchase a Camaro today it would cost more than ten times that much. In this instance money has lost 90% of its value since 1968 Those on fixed incomes are robbed as surely as if a thief had lifted their wallet or purse. Those on pensions cannot receive a raise to compensate for the value loss caused by their own government.
The last president to fully pay for his government was Warren G. Harding in 1922. Thereafter all presidents added to the debt by spending more than they received. Deficits from Ronald Reagan on exceeded a trillion or more (US Debt by President by Dollar and Percentage Who Increased the U.S. Debt the Most? Depends on How You Measure It. By Kimberly Amadeo Updated November 04, 2019).
We print whatever money we want to purchase whatever we wish. Neither party is serious about stopping the debt and removing the bondage that we have imposed upon our children and grandchildren. Who cares if our debt of dollar bills stacked atop one another can go to the moon and back almost four times, or that pensions loose their value, or that we haven’t fully paid our debts in 98 years, so long as the government fills our stomachs and the new slaves pay for it.
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.
Nov 4, 2019 | Healthcare, Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease, Ph. D
Last January 2019, Americans were stunned when they heard Virginia Lt. Governor Ralph Northam (D-Va.) ex-physician casually infer infanticide after a botched abortion. After birth, he said, "the infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians & mother.” Until that moment few thought abortion could degenerate to infanticide.
But infanticide is back on the front lines in the weeks-long trial of pro-life journalists David Daleiden and Sandra Merritt of the Center for Medical Progress (CMP). They are charged with filming casual conversations of Planned Parenthood practicers in the Summer of 2015, without their permission, regarding the selling of aborted body parts. In it the desire to have the baby born with a heart beating is preferred. The two face 15 felony counts which, if convicted, could result in up to ten years in prison. Sadly, this story is mostly ignored by the national presses but LibertyUnderFire views it as a giant sign of national moral decay when a population is willing to accept infanticide at all. Many believe the wrong people are on trial.
Daleiden and Merritt argue that “California’s penal code, enacted under the California Invasion of Privacy Act, excludes any conversation that can be reasonably overheard or recorded.” (Brandon Showalter, “Daleiden hearing: Planned Parenthood staffer admits to supplying aborted body parts to broker,” Sept. 5, 2019) They also site Section 633.5 which “allows the covert taping of confidential information when collecting evidence of violent crimes.” To them abortion is a violent crime to the one being killed, more especially, babies with heartbeats outside the womb.
When fetuses are known to be for sale, measures are taken to preserve them in the best sellable condition possible. In one audio clip an “abortion consultant is heard saying that abortionists will dilate the cervix to get an intact baby if they know a researcher wants a whole body.” Another “shows a former medical director for Planned Parenthood in Los Angeles flippantly talking about prices of fetal remains while sipping wine and joking about wanting a ‘Lamborghini.’ She also spoke about adjusting abortion procedure technique to make it less ‘crunchy,’ therefore keeping baby body parts better intact” (Deborah Bunting, “Abortionist Testifies That Babies Likely Born Alive in Abortion to Harvest Their Body Parts for Sale,” Sept. 20, 2019).
But the most damning testimony came from Dr. Forrest Smith, an obstetrician gynecologist, admitting having performed at least 50,000 abortions over 25 years of practice. Called by the defense as an expert on the subject, he said that “not only did Daleiden's and Merritt's now-famous videos expose the gruesome truth about the abortion industry's trade in fetal body parts, but that things are even worse than they knew.”
Smith told the San Francisco court that “it is almost certain that some of the abortionists featured in the undercover videos deliberately altered abortion procedures in a way that both led to the birth of living babies with beating hearts, and put women at risk. The goal in these cases would be to obtain fresher, more intact organs.” Adding: “There’s no question in my mind that at least some of these fetuses were live births.”
One reason for such certainty was that the safest normal way to abort was to get in and out as quickly as possible. Changing procedures is risky to the mother. Normally one uses digoxin to stop the babies heart before abortion as that defines death. “The baby’s heart will continue to beat for six-and-a-half to seven minutes.” Most abortionists want to ensure that the baby is fully dead before extraction. Intentionally failing to use digoxin signals that they want the baby born live. Another is the over use of misoprostol which shortens delivery from three days to one by the enlargement of the cervix. This apparently is what Planned Parenthood was doing which is sometimes referred to as fetus falling or fetus expulsion—this often live.
Smith testified that “the proper standard of care for babies born alive during an abortion was to institute promptly all resuscitative care.” Adding, “If this was not done, the fetus dies by neglect.”
Dr. Therese Deisher, confirmed Smith’s testimony. “They want those babies coming out with beating hearts,” she said, adding that Smith’s testimony made it “very clear that this is intentional” (“Abortionist testifies at Daleiden hearing: ‘No question…some of these fetuses were live births,’” Sept. 18, 2019). Fetus expulsion is the easiest way to get a whole body intact and alive.
Why the importance of a beating heart to researchers? “The babies' hearts have to be harvested while still beating … as otherwise the organ would have no research value because once in ‘contracture,’ the heart's cells would no longer be capable of regenerative growth.” Institutions receiving beating hearts, like Stanford University, must immediately place them on a Langendorff perfusion machine to insure their continued beating ((Stephen Wynne, “Daleiden, Merritt trial reveals beating hearts cut from abortion survivors,” Oct. 11, 2019).
The trial is expected to continue through mid-November and the issue is not getting the coverage a “civilized” nation deserves. One thing is clear. Infanticide for profit, now more common place than imagined, would never have been tolerated by any generation in American history prior to our own.
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.
Oct 28, 2019 | Globalism, Liberty Articles
Harold Pease, Ph. D
Fallout from President Donald Trump’s pullout of 28 soldiers from Syria has brought globalist of both political parties to the front in opposition. Turkey used the pullout as an excuse to invade Syria in a centuries-old conflict between themselves and the Kurds who were paid heavily by the American taxpayer to help the United States round up the last remaining fragments of ISIS. With that done the rational for staying in Syria vaporized. Globalist networks did site as rational for withdrawal, Trump’s fulfilling a campaign promise to bring home American troops, but all networks, including Fox, failed to share the military industrial complex part of the story. This we share.
What Trump is about is the most massive change in American foreign policy in a hundred years. We will no longer fight, be wounded, die, and fund endless wars where we have little or no defensive interest. We will no longer serve as the policemen of the world or of the world governing United Nations. Globalists and globalism are out of power—at least in the Trump Administration.
This is the real reason for the three-year-long never-ending multiple impeachment attempts, started even before Trump’s inauguration. Why? Because this is the only president that could not be purchased, controlled, or at least managed, by Wall Street’s globalist special interest group, The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR).
If this is new to readers, hundreds, including previous columns of this columnist, have documented this organization’s globalist aspirations and the power it has had in all elections and administrations since its founding in 1921. The extent of one’s ignorance of this organization demonstrates the power this largely secret combination has had over education, all national medias and government.
So what did the globalist establishment medias omit from the news? That war industries profit from war, thus love war—the same message that President Dwight D. Eisenhower shared in his final address as president, January 17, 1961, warning of the dangers of the military industrial complex.
Globalists, often called the establishment or the deep state, prefer world-wide open borders, the eventual transfer of all political power to international levels, and eventually world government. National sovereignty is their enemy—thus their hatred of Trump’s America first policy. Patriots prefer freedom from excessive government, independence from any governing entity other than Congress, patriotism, and today, the Constitution as written. The choice is uncannily similar to the that of Americans in 1776 — liberty.
Trump told reporters who slammed him “for abandoning the Kurds” by removing 28 soldiers manning the border between they and the Turks. “We don’t have to fight these endless wars. Were bringing them back home. That is what I won on.”
Then he identified the real issue, “Some people—whether you call it the military industrial complex—or beyond… would like me to stay …They want me to fight forever. They do very well [financially] fighting. That is what they want to do, fight. A lot of companies want to fight because they make their weapons based on fighting—not based on peace—and they take care of [employ] a lot of people.”
Trump explained, “I want to bring our soldiers back home. We are not a police force, we are a fighting force. We are the greatest fighting force ever. I spent 2 1/2 trillion dollars over the last almost three years rebuilding our military. When I took it over it was an absolute mess. It was totally depleted.” Now, he adds, “We have the most powerful nuclear base by far in the world. We have things that we never had before.”
Continuing, “We have a great modern military but that does not mean that we are going to waste it. It does not mean that we are going to deplete it like we did before with these crazy endless wars. So, Turkey and Syria will hopefully work it out between themselves. Hopefully ISIS [prisoners] will be guarded” because “Russia, Iran, Syria, and, to maybe a slightly lesser extent, Turkey, they all hate ISIS as much as we do. And, it is their part of the world. We are seven thousand miles away (emphasis added)” (MSNBC Press Release with Italian President Sergio Mattarella. October 16, 2019).
On the same day in a subsequent press conference Trump added more, “We were supposed to be there for 30 days. We stayed for 10 years and it is time for us to come home. We are not a policing agent and it is time for us to come home .… The plan is to get out of endless wars to bring our soldiers back home. They are not to be policing agents all over the world.”
Russia and China do not have troops in other countries he argued. How many countries have American troops? “We are in 90 countries all over the world policing. And frankly many of those countries, they don’t respect what we are doing. They don’t even like what we are doing and they don’t like us.” By not having a military presence in 90 countries we will save tremendous amounts of money, manpower, and lives.
Trump is returning American sovereignty to America and all globalists hate him for it. They will do anything to destroy him. This is what the globalist media outlets have not shared. This omission was intentional.
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.
Oct 21, 2019 | Constitution, Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease Ph. D
The Constitution is presently used by both major political parties defending or opposing the House Intelligence Committee impeachment inquiry against President Donald J. Trump. Both argue their loyalty to it.
It reads: “The House of Representatives … shall have the sole Power of Impeachment,” (Art. I, Sec. 2, Cla. 5). The people place a president in power and their representatives—the House—alone initiates and formulates the charges for his possible removal. The “Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.” So one indicts, the other tries. Simple enough.
But formulating the charges does require a favorable vote of the FULL House,-not just a committee. Therein lies the rub. The House Intelligence Committee charged with finding a crime hasn’t yet found bribery, treason or any high crime, —the only impeachable offenses— but it “knows” one exists somewhere. During three years of a dozen or more attempts to impeach Trump charges crumbled from lack of documentation.
Probably the most profound statement made regarding impeachment was made by Democrat Jerrold Nadler, Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, presently engaged in impeaching Trump: “The effect of impeachment is to overturn the popular will of the voters. We must not overturn an election and remove a President from office except to defend our system of government or our constitutional liberties against a dire threat, and we must not do so without an overwhelming consensus of the American people. There must never be a narrowly voted impeachment or an impeachment supported by one of our major political parties and opposed by another. Such an impeachment will produce divisiveness and bitterness in our politics for years to come, and will call into question the very legitimacy of our political institutions” (144 Cong. Rec. HI 1786 daily ed. Dec. 18, 1998). This Nadler argued during the impeachment proceedings of Bill Clinton.
Using Nadler’s criteria Donald Trump does not pose a “dire threat” to our system of government or constitutional liberties, there is no “overwhelming consensus,” and only the Democratic Party is working for his removal. Most Americans oppose impeachment.
The Constitution give the House sole power to create the charges against a president. Additional authority is housed under past practice which in time effectively adds to the Constitution unless found to conflict with an original part of the document.
Only Andrew Johnson, Richard Nixon, and Bill Clinton have been indicted. House past practice in each has been based upon fairness. In each a vote of the full House was required to initiate an impeachment inquiry, for Nixon the vote was 410-4 and for Clinton 258-176 (See H. Res. 803, 93rd Cong. 1974 and H. Res. 581, 105th Cong. 1998). The full House participated in defining the scope of impeachment and established its rules and procedure. After the vote was taken to form an impeachment inquiry both the chair of the inquiring committee and the ranking member of the opposing party had co-equal subpoena powers to call witnesses subject to a vote of the full committee upon the request of either.
The indicted president’s council participated. It exercised the right to attend all hearings and depositions, to present evidence, to object to the admittance of evidence, to cross-examine witnesses and to recommend a witness list.
Thus far Nancy Pelosi has opposed a full House vote to authorize an impeachment inquiry as was established in previous impeachments nor has the full House been given input in “defining the scope, rules and procedures” as before. The Committee Report accompanying H. Res. 581 developed in the Clinton impeachment stated: “The full House of representatives should be involved in critical decision making regarding various stages of impeachment.”
One serious constitutional provision yet remains in our consideration of the attempt to impeach Trump—due process. This is housed in several places in the Constitution especially Amendments 5, 6, and 14. Democrat Jerrold Nadler referenced them when Bill Clinton was impeached, “the power of impeachment demands a rigorous level of due process … the right to be informed of the law, of the charges against you, the right to confront the witnesses against you, to call your own witnesses and to have the assistance of counsel” (Hearing before the Subcom on the Constitution of the H. Comm. on the Judiciary 105th Cong. 17, 1998). These have not been extended to Trump.
As Trump’s council recently wrote. “These due process rights are not a matter of discretion for the Committees to dispense with at will. To the contrary, they are constitutional requirements. The Supreme Court has recognized that due process protections apply to all congressional investigations…[even] impeachment proceedings” (Pat A. Cipollone, Counsel to the President White House, October 8, 2019).
Thus far none of the above established practices have been followed in the case of the proposed impeachment of President Trump, especially due process. No House vote and no formation of an impeachment inquiry committee after the vote. Pelosi simply asked the House Intelligence Committee, led by Adam Schiff, to assume the responsibilities and he is behaving as though his committee will do it alone including the trial constitutionally reserved to the U.S. Senate. Moreover, Schiff has been holding secret hearings of witnesses denying House Republican observers of other committees. He forcibly removed colleague Matt Gaetez .
Clearly, respecting impeachment, Democrats are sloppy with the Constitution.
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 columns, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org
