Jan 29, 2018 | Constitution, Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease, Ph. D
A newspaper editor recently wrote of the difficulty in finding a columnist expressing the constitutional viewpoint. I was impressed that he was making his way through the Federalist Papers and considered it a good read. Probably not one in twenty today can identify what it is or how it came about.
Today the Federalist Papers would be too deep a read for most college students—even many law school pupils. But it houses the thought processes and debates behind the Constitution, the document that caged the natural tendencies of man more than any governing document in world history. An understanding of the Constitution without this resource is not possible. And because the Constitution is based upon natural law, which does not change, it applies in all generations and in all societies.
Constitutional principles were once taught at every level of education and stories of the sacrifice of our Founders frequently recited with admiration. Today few schools teach these principles in grade school and fewer still in high school. In college U.S. History and Political Science classes the Constitution is tucked in the back of textbooks as an appendix, hence few actually read it. The history of the Constitution’s origin is housed in a chapter but constitutional principles seemingly have only informational value.
Some colleges or universities have courses on the Constitution for political science majors but almost without exception, students are not required to actually read it, heavy emphasis is given instead to case law. The same is true in law school. Original intent is hardly mentioned. Law schools provide our attorneys and our judges, most with too little on original intent. One rogue Supreme Court decision can effectively destroy large chunks of the Constitution and almost no one notices or cares. Too few understand that the Supreme Court is not the supreme law of the land over the Constitution. The Founders would have never permitted nine justices to destroy foundation principles.
Sadly, I never met one having a Ph. D in U.S. History or Political Science who, to get the degree, actually was required to read the U.S. Constitution in full. Nor have I met a lawyer having to do so either. Case law yes, loads of it, but not the Constitution in full or natural law upon which it is based.
If colleges give no emphasis to constitutional study how can we expect the student to do so either? Several years ago U.S. News and World Report reported a study showing that most Americans could not pass the constitutional questionnaire for citizenship, so constitutionally illiterate are we. This document is only of minimal value to journalism or communication majors as well. But these professions serve as information filters in our newspapers, magazines, or radio or television news programs.
The media has divided citizens into two warring groups liberals and conservatives, lumping constitutionalists and libertarians with conservatives, traditionally both major groups problem-solve primarily by increasing federal power without specific constitutional authority (if the document is properly understood) and pretends that there exist no other viewpoints. Rarely is original intent allowed into the debate. But the Constitution is the law of the land and all in authority swear an oath to preserve it.
Barack Obama, violated the constitution more than any president in our history with George W. Bush second. The Tea Party movement, primarily constitutionalists, rose up in 2009 as much against George W. Bush, a conservative, as against the incoming president Barack Obama, a liberal. It used to matter if a president did not carefully follow the Constitution. Today both Democrats and Republicans defend their president routinely when he violates it. Donald Trump certainly is no constitutionalist although, thus far, he has followed it more closely than any previous president the last 28 years.
Of the two major political parties the Democrats rarely cite the document and seem almost to have contempt for it. In fact, most of what they propose is easily argued to be outside the Constitution. They used to defend major parts of the Bill of Rights but I do not see much of that anymore. Republicans sometimes carry the document on their person but do not hold to it and thus much of what they propose is also outside of the Constitution but they do use the word Constitution more than do Democrats, if that means much.
This generation knows that the Constitution was a good thing, probably should be revered, at least historically, but they know little of the principles housed therein and have no idea how to vote to get back to it. This they will never get from the media, political party, or, it seems, not even the institutions of learning—only private study. That my new editor would find it difficult to find columnists that express the constitutional viewpoint is easily understood, as is the fact that newer columnists, lacking this understanding, are far more likely to express views in opposition to it.
Constitutional illiteracy is almost universal to the point that those qualified to defend the Constitution as designed are becoming extinct. Students are not likely to defend it if they never experienced it being defended. A real danger exists that if too few know or value its principles we will lose it—perhaps we already have. Some say it is no longer relevant for our times. They are so wrong.
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.
Jan 29, 2018 | Constitution, Economy, Liberty Articles
Harold Pease, Ph. D
We’ve had 19 government “shutdowns” since 1977 according to the Congressional Research Service. Some say the weekend “shutdown” just passed may not be the only one this winter because nothing was resolved in the so-called “Schumer Shutdown,” which only extended funding for three-weeks until February 8, ironically what the Republicans first proposed.
Last year Democrats were going to “shutdown” the government if the budget included any border wall funding so President Donald Trump, to avoid such, removed the funding proposal. But a government shutdown is never as bad as portrayed and, in fact, may be a good thing.
In the spring we normally get a budget, which is always higher than the last budget. In the fall we normally get a debt ceiling increase (74 since March 1962) because we could not stay within the budget increase. We raise it every year to accommodate our need for a “fix.” Congress sadly never says no. Does anyone really believe that our debt-addicted government will ever stop the addiction on its own?
Fully a third of our population do not earn all their bread by the sweat of their brow but vote to get the government to take it from someone else’s labor and give to them. We are told that those receiving food stamps are now a third of our population having doubled under President Obama’s watch.
Yes, we have a two-class society—those primarily taking, others primarily maker. Takers will always vote for the party and politicians who promise them more. When that number exceeds 51 percent we will never escape the takers and will have effectively made the making class the new slaves. Some believe takers are close to becoming the majority. Of course some taking groups are necessary as is the military.
Generally in previous “shutdowns” the political parties often reverse position and trade the speeches used in the previous “shutdown.” But the outcome is always the same. The Federal government put non-essential government workers on furlough and suspends non-essential services. Essentially all went on as before except some paychecks were a few days late. Apparently the federal government does know what non-essential services are after all, and is capable of closing them when it has the will.
But nobody this time is warning us: that the increased expenditures add to the national debt, that interest on it increases $5,849 per second, that interest annually increases it by $184 ½ billion, that debt as a percentage of GDP in 106.48%, that each citizen would have to pay $63,191 today to pay that off, and that we are on a fast track to bankruptcy (nationaldebtclocks.org). Our spending addiction has given our children and grandchildren a 20 ½ trillion dollar debt. I like government “shutdowns” because they lessen the national debt and reduce big government by reducing non-essential governmental employment. I lived through all 19 “shutdowns” and only knew one family affected with a delayed paycheck.
Granted it is painful to curb our appetite, but the longer we wait the more painful, drastic, and life threatening it becomes. Most of the programs cut in the “shutdowns,” were not areas of clear constitutional authority as defined in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, so in time such cuts should become permanent or be subjected to the Article V amending process for appropriate authority. With virtually no exceptions getting back to the limits of the Constitution is the only way to deal with our bi-partisan debt addiction.
A budget must always first involve the House of Representatives, as it alone constitutionally must initiate all government spending. “All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives” (Article I, Sec. 7, Clause 1). This places the people in charge of taxation, and thus spending, because the House is designed to represent the people and initially the Senate was to represent only the states view—this is why we have two legislative branches. The Senate cannot initiate a tax bill but can adjust any initiated by the House.
The hysteria peddlers using government shutdown terminology, and the media that purposely play to it, must know this emits an extreme emotional response. Moreover, the phrase becomes a weapon to be used on potential government “shutdowners.” It appears designed to frighten the least informed against the other political party, thus the terminology. This enables the media to have undue influence in spending and undermines the sole power of the House on this issue.
Why then the hysteria? Because the possibility of missed handouts by a “shutdown” sends the largely dependent or ill informed into frenzy as they oppose any proposed government diet that might threaten their daily feed. They worshipfully listen to the party and political leaders that are least likely to disturb the gift giving.
There will never be a government “shutdown” short of an overthrow of the government from within, the collapse of our financial structure (which is becoming ever more likely due to our obsession to live beyond our means), or a successful invasion from without. So cease the media frenzy and subsequent over-reaction.
Thus at worst a government “shutdown” is really only a government slowdown or closure of non-essential services and a delay of payment for some few federal employees. So the federal government goes on a long overdue diet and gets back to the basics, which is what most want.
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.
Jan 15, 2018 | Constitution, Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease, Ph. D
Some think that the Bundy’s got off scot-free when U.S. District Judge Gloria Navarro dismissed cases against Cliven and sons Ammon and Ryan and co-defendant Ryan Payne and accused their prosecutors, the government, of willfully withholding evidence from Bundy lawyers in violation of the federal Brady rule thus denying them due process. She referred to it as “flagrant prosecutorial misconduct” and set the defendants free “with prejudice” preventing the government from trying them again on this case.
Navarro was referring to some 3,300 pages of evidence showing, among other things, government surveillance of the Bundy’s on the ranch days before the standoff and FBI logs documenting their activity at the ranch in the days prior to, both supporting the Bundy claim of self-defense. The governments having tactical teams and multiple video cameras positioned around the ranch certainly justifies this argument. Also excluded were records showing the presence of government snipers (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=90LtLwXXnp4) during the standoff necessitating some few Bundy supporters, taking positions with their rifles aimed at the snipers should agents open on the Bundy’s.
So what price did the Bundy’s pay for defending the Constitution and freedom? Cliven Bundy certainly felt it high: “I have been a political prisoner for more than 700 days.” Let’s review the story of Bundy justice.
Ranchers throughout the West had been grazing their cattle on open land for centuries before the land was made territories in a process emanating from the Articles of Confederation preparatory for statehood when population requirements, defined by the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, were met. Once met land within a state boundary belonged to the new state. Under the Constitution there exists no provision for federal land within state boundaries outside Article I, Section 8, thus no federal Bureau of Land Management (BLM). This is the constitutional and Bundy position. The federal government found it profitable to withhold 87.7% of Nevada from the state and THEIR federal courts justified this position. The Bundy’s did not, and continued to graze their cattle where their forefathers had always grazed them without paying federal fees.
The BLM began to slaughter and bury Bundy cattle and confiscated hundreds more to sell to pay the federal fees. They also placed numerous FBI and BLM agents on Bundy property without their permission to watch family movements. Word got out and hundreds arrived to aid the Bundy’s in keeping their cattle. Agents created First Amendment areas for those opposing their actions and some few voicing it in non-designated areas were thrown to the ground, Tased, and threatened with arrest. The alarm went out. The cattle were released when armed neighbors and friends, some from out of state, outnumbered agents.
Next Ammon and Ryan Bundy assisted Oregonians in their land issues the federal government claiming 52.6% of their land. In particular the Hammond’s, who also suffered abuse by the BLM when a fire on their property accidentally burned adjacent BLM land. The Hammond’s served time for the fire than a year later were rearrested by federal agents when a federal judge concluded that they had not served enough time—double jeopardy. Bundy boys participated in the 40-day take-over of the then vacant Malheur National Wildlife Refuge facility in protest.
While driving to Burns, Oregon to negotiate with agents with a view of mitigating the occupation the truck driven by Lavoy Finicum was fired upon. Ryan was wounded in the arm, and Finicum exited the truck with his hands up, was shot three times in the back and killed. The three passengers endured almost five minutes of gunfire before they were allowed to exit, believing that agents also would kill them. A recording inside the truck records occupants begging God to save them (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pLIUDBrU9Cs).
Eight months later in a Portland jail cell Ryan was awaken at 5:30 a.m. and taken to a “secret” hearing in the basement, no time to contact his lawyer. On the way he was beaten by three guards suffering a dislocated wrist, broken thumb, and head bruised and cut open. Presumably the prosecution wanted the evidence of the bullet received while Ryan was approaching the FBI roadblock removed, with no witnesses other than themselves, they could contest the vehicle being fired upon prior to the roadblock. According to Ryan’s wife Angie, they would not allow pictures of the procedure and no paperwork regarding the removal would be given him. His refusal to agree to the “secret surgery” was the probable reason for the beating. In October 27, 2016 the Bundy boys were acquitted of all charges with respect to the Wildlife Refuge facility occupation but the killing of Finicum remains outstanding.
Finally Bundy justice must include the cost of litigation, presumably thousands, and prison time already served for several of at least a year and a half. The separation from family and friends and the cost of motel, travel, and meals for the family to see their incarcerated husbands and fathers weighs in somewhere. And, how does one put a number on the emotional price all participants paid until January 8 thinking that family members and friends are more likely to be incarcerated the rest of their lives than not. I told Ryan that I am willing to write about freedom and the Constitution, even suffer to some extent, but he was beat up, wounded, and risked being locked up for decades 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.
Jan 15, 2018 | Liberty Articles, Taxes
By Harold Pease, Ph. D
How many times have I heard said, “The rich need to pay their fair share?” But they already pay almost all of the federal income taxes while the “poor” receive government checks. A quick check with the Congressional Budget Office reveals that the top 20% of wage earners pay over 90% of all federal income taxes while the bottom fifth get more from the federal government than they pay to it. Normally around 45% of adults pay no federal income taxes. The top 40% normally pay it all. This does not change in the new Trump Tax Plan.
What I have written is not found on any news network or newspaper left of center. Why, because communism, socialism and liberalism, of which the left is comprised, share a hatred for the rich (some call it class envy) and believe in income equality as a major tenant of the faith. The government cannot give to anyone that which it has not first taken from someone else. The graduated income tax notion, first published in the Communist Manifesto by Karl Marks and adopted in full by the progressives in this country over a hundred years ago, historically destroys the rich but also in time impoverishes everyone except the ruling elite.
Those on the left normally go ballistic with the above and quickly change the wording from “federal income taxes” to “taxes” (dropping the word federal) noting, mostly correctly, that illegals and other low income peoples pay state and local taxes, perhaps as much as a fifth of their income. These however, are mostly required “use” or purchase taxes, not based upon income levels. Imagine a store having different prices for the same item based upon ones ability to pay. Actually, it is the only fair tax, as one cannot get the gasoline, food or etc. without paying the taxes associated with it. Please note, this column is about federal income taxes not state or local taxes, which are paid entirely by those considered rich by the bottom two-income classes.
Simply stated the bottom fifth of wage earners get more from the federal government than they pay in taxes to it. Such “government transfers” (handouts) come in many forms: food stamps, medical and housing subsidies, and various other subsidized programs including income and child tax credit programs—some tuition credits.
How can this be fair to the class that is forced to help pay their bills? Why shouldn’t the “poor” pay their fair share especially since a large portion of the total is funneled back to them in welfare and the nation is nearing bankruptcy with nearly $21trillion in debt as a result?
We have the normal three solutions in dealing with this debt: tax more, inflate more, and cut more. We could double our taxes but that will destroy our incentive and resources to create jobs. We could inflate the dollar making every dollar already earned worth less as we have done for over 100 years. But that robs those on fixed incomes and seriously damages the lower classes who don’t have the money to purchase gold or silver to ensure the value of what they have saved. Or finally, we could cut the free or subsidized “non-essential” programs and live within our means. But no recipient considers his “gifted” program non-essential.
I suggest a fourth solution? We are becoming a two-class society—those who pay federal income taxes and those who do not, with the non-tax payers still receiving generous subsidies from the pockets of those who do—some say “makers versus takers.” Worse, those who are federal taxpayers are denied these same benefits their less productive neighbors receive. We all have able-bodied friends who choose not to work. How often do we hear of friends who won’t work because they get enough on unemployment or that they might, in fact, make less by working?
Most use federal services in some way? As compassionate as we wish to be with the money of others, in fairness shouldn’t all be required to pay federal income taxes? Even the widow paid her mite in the New Testament and was subsequently praised (not excused) for having done so by Christ himself.
All “freebie” benefits that the “poor” received during the preceding year should be added to their salary in this calculation. When they know this up front they may elect to opt-out of the benefit so that it doesn’t put them in a higher tax bracket. When the “poor” pay federal income taxes they are vested in the system and hypothetically more responsible. When they do not the issue of taxation on the federal level becomes meaningless to them. “So what if taxes are raised, it does not affect me!”
When the non-federal income taxpayer class (presumably the poor) reaches 51% of the population they become the majority class and will never reduce the taxes on the “rich,” which will always be defined as anyone making more than they. The working taxpayer class becomes the new slave class. Eventually when the “rich” are destroyed as a class, as happened in the U.S.S.R. under socialism, all become slaves and poor. With everyone participating in the tax burden, it is harder to gain support for tax raising issues, thus saving billions and the payment of taxes by non-taxpayers, the “poor,” help reduce the national debt.
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.
Dec 19, 2017 | Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease, Ph. D
Those wishing to destroy or remove Christ from Christmas prefer “Winter Break” or “Happy Holidays;” the same is true of “Easter Break” to “Spring Break.” This language reduces the connection to Christ, the reason for both. Proponents argue that this terminology is advanced so as not to offend non-believers who sometimes choose to be offended but it offends those of us who are believers.
The songs of the birth of Christ blanket the earth resulting in more love, more giving, more kindness, more caring and sharing, more thought for others, indeed more of everything that is good. Why would anyone wish to remove this influence? Non-believers might say that society could have all this without Christ. Really!!— As evidenced by the other eleven months??? I do not think so!! Christmas has an unexplained magic to it unlike any other time of the year.
I first noticed the unusual effects of Christ at Christmas as a13-year-old boy milking my neighbor’s cow while he was away. The experience was repeated on the following days also. It was a mostly opened shed, very cold at six a.m. in the morning with icy patches of unmelted snow still on the ground. The sky was lit with a thousand stars demonstrating the immensity of space and of the enormous domain of God. I was happy for no identifiable reason. This was the key—happy for no identifiable reason. And songs of the birth, especially “Silent Night,” played in my mind as I squeezed out the milk from the cow into an open bucket below. I felt all the virtues identified above seemingly all at once and I knew that this season and this little baby was much more than just special. He had to be God. I felt so warmed. I now am long passed just believing.
Others feel this warmth too as it is so plentifully spread over the earth as though by angels spreading angel dust. Santa is a nice guy, mostly for children, but made-up. Christ is not. Non-believers have to notice this unexplained special feeling or choose to deny it. Also easily noticed is that this special warm feeling is pretty much gone by New Year’s Day.
It is okay not to know as I know. I respect the holidays and sacred days of others but I do DEMAND my own. Of all the founders of other religions and faiths, some of which may have been impressive, none was born in a lowlier place—in a manger where cows fed—because his parents, though with child, lacked the distinction to merit something better. None was introduced into the world by a heavenly choir sung to lowly shepherds who were the first invitees to the birth of this king, possibly the only time that happened in history.
No other founder could read the unexpressed thoughts of others. None fed thousands with a few fish or loaves of bread. None walked on water. None of them replaced a severed ear fallen to the ground, simply by returning it to the head of his enemy. None of them healed the sick, made the lame walk, the deaf hear, and gave sight to the blind. Indeed He was the gift to the downtrodden, infirmed, and sinners.
No other founder could forgive sin itself. None restored life to someone who had been dead for days. None but Christ raised himself from the dead. None of them!!! None were said to be perfect. He wronged no one. None, while in the greatest agony of excruciating pain, from one of the cruelest types of torture then known, forgave his afflicters “for they knew not what they did.” All these manifestations were seen by many, sometimes thousands, of witnesses. No one but God does these things.
The Wise men from afar knew of his birth in the “writings” of the stars and came to visit bringing incense, frankincense and myrrh, gifts of great value. Legends of Native Americans speak of his birth and cite stories of a white God coming to them with new plants and foods and the same healing powers as expressed in the Old World. The Aztecs called him Quetzalcoatl, the Mayans Kukulcan and in Peru, Viracocha, in Brazil, Sume, in Columbia, Bochica. Time stopped and thereafter was counted as AD, rather than BC, in both the old and new worlds. Identify another founder of religion who had this kind of influence in the world.
Christ left the most profound political problem solving formula known to mortals. “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” Such would end most, if not all, problems between humans and governments. He commanded to first love God and then others as “ourselves.” For non-believers, who may contest Christ’s Godhood, can you dispute this wisdom?
Again, why take this special feeling and moment from Christians, or belittle it, or choose to offend me by expressing all this as simply “Winter Break” or “Happy Holidays.” Yes, offend me!! And most assuredly, please understand why I might retort, to someone giving me this greeting, bringing home my point, Merry CHRIST-mas. Yes, it is all about Christ, so be offended if you choose to be or be warmed with the unexplained magic of the season with the rest of us!!
Why would we not want to keep Christ in Christmas? Merry CHRIST-mas to all!!
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.
Dec 18, 2017 | Constitution, Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease, Ph. D
According to the media members of Congress of both major political parties are dropping like flies to a fly-swatter in a barn: Senator Al Franken, Congressmen John Conyers, Ruben Kihuen, Blake Farenthold, Joe Barton, Trent Franks, Alcee Hastings, in the last 30 days. All are accused of sexually abusing women, some recent, some years ago. The Constitution deals with misbehaving members of Congress when followed fully.
Unfortunately with the disclosure of these seven also came the exposure of the existence of a secret funding source for members of Congress accused of sexual harassment and other work-place discretions created under the Congressional Review Act of 1995. Since 1997, the fund has paid at least $15 million to settle complaints. Congressman Blake Farenthold is the first member of Congress confirmed to have benefited from it receiving $84,000 in taxpayer dollars in 2014 to settle a sexual harassment lawsuit with a former aide. We will have many other disclosures to rise to the expenditure of $15 million. A fund to potentially hide immoral, possibly illegal, activities is completely unconstitutional. It also removes a deterrent to transgression.
So how does the Constitution deal with misbehaving members of Congress? It begins with the morality of the electorate. John Adams, a Founding Father and 2nd president of the United States, identified the first principle of a republic where a king does not dictate good or evil, but the participants in that government bridle their “human passions” through “morality and religion.” left unbridled, he said, they “would break the strongest cords of our Constitution.” He ended a lengthy paragraph on the topic with, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
At least nine other Founders expressed similar opinions. George Washington in his “Farewell Address” wrote: “Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports . . . And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion.”
In their time none denied the relationship between morality, religion, God and justice. When morality is situational, as it seems to be for so many today, this link is broken and one depends upon his own wisdom alone. There is no “appealing to the Father of lights to illuminate our understanding,” as expressed by Benjamin Franklin in the Constitutional Convention. As Washington once said, “Government is like fire, a dangerous servant and a fearful master.” Unprincipled government can do much damage as it has to the Constitution for years.
We expect those we elect to govern to have strong moral fiber and to have their human passions fully bridled. If they are still struggling with the base, hedonistic, animalistic and adulterous elements of themselves, such as is reported of these members of Congress, how can we expect them to make laws for the people based upon righteousness and justice? How can they discern such?
So the first constitutional principle is the election of persons to govern who demonstrate moral fiber. Moral bankruptcy usually starts long before one is a member of Congress. Al Franken demonstrated this by his choice of material as a professional comedian. Women complained of the sexually abusive behavior of John Conyers decades ago. Once this is known and confirmed, he should not be reelected. When the people themselves are morally bankrupt and do not care about the philandering of their favorite, as in the second election of President Bill Clinton, then such, as Adams said, breaks “the strongest cords of our Constitution.” Returning to the principle of electing only those with strong moral fiber, and zero tolerance for those who do not, will eliminate most, if not all, predatory behavior in Congress.
Once manifested two parts of the Constitution come into play to isolate the damage. Each House is to be the judge “of the Elections, Returns and Qualification of its own Members” making certain that it is the will of voters and that will was fairly derived (Article I, Section 5, Clause 1). But neither House can constitutionally rejudge behavior that is known to voters addressed during the campaign after the expression of the people, should any of the seven run and win in 2018.
Also, each House may “punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member” (Article I, Section 5, Clause 2). In this they deal with behavior occurring after being seated such as sexual harassment. So let the Ethics Committee of both houses deal with the accused.
But the Constitution has one more check. At least six of the seven accused of sexual abuse face their constituents in eleven months to be judged by them and reseated or not. Their best behavior is likely pending that outcome. Let these two constitutional filters do their work not media trials that only serve the vengeful and are too politicized to be fair.
If the above does not end predatory sexual behavior in Congress the Constitution can be said to be broken, as Adams said, at least on curbing immorality of its leaders. The disclosures are serious; still, we need to be reminded that there are 535 members of Congress and most bridle their “human passions” but the seven, who presumably do not, are seven too many.
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.
