Nov 10, 2015 | Constitution, Healthcare, Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease, Ph. D
On October 26, 2015, the Pacific Legal Foundation filed a new challenge with the Supreme Court contending that ObamaCare violates the Constitution that requires all tax-raising bills to originate in the House of Representatives. They argue that it was raised by the Senate who took an unrelated House bill to aid veterans, gutted it, and replaced it with their own ObamaCare language; a charge that has not been denied.
At issue is Article I, Section 7 of the U. S. Constitution, known as the Origination Clause, that reads: “all bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives.” This means that any law, which extracts money from the American people, can only come from the House. The problem is The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, known as Obamacare, originated in the U.S. Senate not in the House as constitutionally required and is now one of the largest tax bills in U.S. History.
So why does this matter, a tax is a tax? For thousands of years governments taxed their citizens with no limits. Rulers lived lavishly off the wealth extracted from their poor subjects with little or no mercy toward them—lavish physical structures and frivolous wars of conquest were too often the norm. The Founders wisely took this power from the rich and gave it to the poor themselves by requiring that the poor, then the majority, had to consent to any taxation over them. The power to tax is the only constitutional power exclusively given to the masses. The House of Representatives was the only branch of government designed to actually represent them as it is based upon population. The Senate was to represent the states, the people only indirectly.
As far as I know the United States is the first, possibly the only, country in world history that puts its tax base with the masses who pay the taxes. It is a priceless freedom. If we are over-taxed in the United States we have chosen to be and one body alone is responsible—the House of Representatives. No tax can constitutionally originate with the President or the Supreme Court, (even if Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. says that it is okay), not even the Senate, although it can modify as on other bills once originated by the House. The House is also in charge of spending. We must not let this freedom dwindle or allow the line between the two legislative branches to be blurred into oblivion.
In the Supreme Court’s decision of June 2012, it took great pains to establish that Obamacare is not a law passed under the Commerce Clause; this is a tax they ruled. Whether a fine, as the Administration argued throughout the case, or a tax as Roberts insisted, it is an extraction of money from the masses and therefore a tax and therefore must originate from the House, not the Senate. The philosophical switch created by Roberts made the constitutional error far more glaring. By letting origin slide the House looses its clear distinction on the origin of taxes and the people their right of first approval of taxation for generations yet unborn and probably forever.
What is worse it smacks of a sloppy cover-up by then Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. Now that the Supreme Court made healthcare constitutional by deeming it a tax, it mandated a House of Representative origin rather than the Senate. A House version HR 3200 was available but Reid did not like it favoring his own HR 3962, The Patient Protection and Affordable Health Choices Act. Prior to the Supreme Courts tax ruling the tax was called a fine, not a tax, so he reasoned that it did not make any difference which legislative body originated the fine. The ruling necessitated resurrecting a bill that had passed the House first but had not been acted upon in the Senate, the Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009 HR 3590, deleting its contents and pasting in the contents of the Senate’s bill HR 3962.
The Home Ownership Tax Act was a tax providing a first time home buyer’s credit to members of the Armed Services, never mind that it had nothing to do with healthcare and now, after being deleted leaving only the empty shell, had nothing to do with the Armed Services or home buying either. The only thing that Reid kept was the original date, September 17, 2009, which now deceptively confirmed that it preceded Senate action. Accomplices to Reid were the original authors of the deleted bill: Congressman Charlie Rangel of NY, and Senator Clare McCaskill of MO. “This is the kind of morphing that reeks of illegitimacy and fraudulency,” declared The Washington Times, April 8, 2013. And it does. The level of corruption in the Democratic Party to get this thing through is almost incomprehensible.
What is worse, if Reid had indeed simply pasted in his own bill into the dead Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act, as believed and not denied, this tax bill HR 3962, the one that became Obamacare, has never actually been before the House of Representatives, the only body actually authorized to originate a tax. Obamacare may be the only revenue-raising bill in American history originated, processed, and implemented by the Senate and President alone.
Nothing could be more unconstitutional!! If left unchallenged Obamacare severely damages Article I, Section 7 of the Constitution. Hopefully the Supreme Court will protect the Constitution as first priority rather than a piece of legislation fraudulently framed and blatantly unconstitutional in numerous parts. Unfortunately the Supreme Court moves very slowly and this challenge is not likely to be resolved until 2017.
Oct 27, 2015 | Constitution, Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease Ph. D
Perhaps by the time this column is published a new Speaker of the House will have been selected and the issue resolved, for now. At present, with no member of the House wanting the job, the idea of having someone not presently a member selected by the House of Representatives is seriously being considered. Such would break a 225-year tradition and the Constitution.
Those arguing for a Speaker not elected by the people do so on the basis that the Constitution does not require that the Speaker be a House member. This is true but a careful reading of the document could lead to no other conclusion. We begin with Article I, Section I: “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.” The Constitution then separates the two bodies, but common to each is that all members are elected, the House by the people and the U. S. Senate by the states. In Section 2, “The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States.”
This is followed in Section 5, “The House of Representatives,” all elected members, “shall choose their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.” If we start making exceptions for the position of Speaker, making it for the other officers as well could follow. Impeachment is the process of removing elected officers. The idea of giving someone, not elected by the peoples’ representatives, as for instance a non-member Speaker, power to remove someone who had been, runs counter to everything else that the Founders did. This logic has never been challenged, until now.
Presidential succession, with the Vice President replacing the President upon his death or inability to perform his duties, is assumed in the Constitution and established and utilized several times since. Although not in the Constitution as drafted, succession has been established since. Should the Vice President also cease to be able to function, the Speaker of the House is third in line to be president followed by the President pro tempore of the Senate—all elected offices. With all the specific requirements of the offices of House, or Senate, or President, it would be unconscionable that our Founders would allow someone not even an elected House member to be two heart beats from becoming president.
Amendment 25, dealing with presidential disability and vice presidential vacancies ratified February 1967, also may shed some light on the question. It definitely gives language to the practice of the Vice President replacing the President with his demise or succession. It also allows the President to temporarily step down should he feel incapable of fulfilling his duties and reinstate his position when he again feels able to do so. In his absence the Vice President temporarily becomes acting president. In either instance the Amendment directs him to correspond with both the Speaker of the House of Representatives (third in line for president) and President pro tempore of the Senate (fourth in line for president). These two officers of the legislative branch are also called into action should “the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments, or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office.” Imagine the Founders of Amendment 25 extending to an unelected House Speaker the power to approve or disapprove a president’s right to resume his office.
No! There exists no language in the Constitution supporting a House Speaker not elected in the same manner as every other House member, or playing a role of power over those who had the people as their constituency, or over an elected President or Vice President. But there is much constitutional language that suggests otherwise. We were unable to determine who first advanced this absurd notion but we hope that we have helped lay this question to rest.
Oct 19, 2015 | Constitution, Healthcare, Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease, Ph. D
The fact that my congressman, Kevin McCarthy, could not secure 218 Republican House votes to replace Speaker John A. Boehner, after virtually being nominated by him, did not surprise me—he earned it. He is an extremely likeable fellow and certainly a leader but he has two flaws that came to hurt him. McCarthy is first for himself, an opportunist (as his inordinately fast rise to power indicates), and second, he is for the Republican Party at all costs. Normally this is how most politicians of both political parties look at things and it has worked well for them and him, until now.
Unfortunately the Constitution is not of first consideration in problem solving and legislation, his path is strewn with compromises that weaken or damage it. In vote after vote, as with Boehner, there exist no fight in his belly to defend it as first priority, even if what they propose cannot survive the Senate or a Presidential veto. Even if programs that are not easily constitutionally defended like, Obamacare, executive amnesty, or more recently, Planned Parenthood, are left without funding. He is too easily persuaded with “we do not have the votes,” giving an automatic win without a serious fight to those who have little or no respect for the Constitution.
There are two problems with “no constitutional fight in the belly” members of Congress, first the significant weakening of the Constitution from decade to decade in its ability to protect us from ever-bigger government until the Constitution becomes irrelevant. My heavens!! The President, who has no Constitutional law making power, through executive order, makes about half of the rules by which this nation is governed, while the Legislative Branch sits on its butt whining, “We cannot push this because the President will veto it.” My point!! We have compromised freedom away to the point where soon we will have nothing left to give up.
Second, as the country, as represented by the increase of Tea Party House members elected every two years beginning in 2010, is catching on to our loss of liberty and begging the Boehner’s and McCarthy’s to stand with them, they are not. Thus the divide in the Republican Party and, whomever replaces Boehner as Speaker will inherit the same contempt if he refuses to represent, as first priority, the Constitution in future lawmaking and issue resolvement.
Ironically both received warnings of the new political awakening and things could have been much different for Boehner and McCarthy had they listened. Both attended the first Bakersfield Tea Party rally in early 2009 where between three and five thousand angry voters gathered at the Liberty Bell to protest the policies of George W. Bush and his successor Barack Obama, which appeared to be too similar and both in opposition to limited government, the Constitution and the free market. Instead of viewing the proceedings with their constituents, they separated themselves to a third story window room in a government building next to Liberty Bell. I watched them from below as I joined other prominent community spokespersons in defense of the Constitution, limited government and the free market. It was a mistake.
In his August Congressional break that followed, Congressman McCarthy addressed several hundred people at California State University, Bakersfield kindly answering every question submitted from his, mostly Tea Party constituents. When the meeting time ended he graciously stayed on the floor until everyone had an opportunity to ask his or her question. He said all the right things with respect to his total opposition to Obamacare. He would go back to Washington and kill it. Long after the meeting had ended I was able to express my fear to him that he opposed a Democratic National Health Care Plan but did not oppose a Republican National Health Care Plan. “Since the word heath, or anything like it, is not in Article I, Section 8,” I asked, “and authority not thereafter added by way of an amendment to the Constitution,” he should return to Washington D.C. and oppose either party initiating, without authority, any federal policies on health. He was noticeably disturbed and said, “He would do what is necessary.” I knew than that adherence to the Constitution was not his first concern.
Now Congressman McCarthy, you know why you could not get the needed 218 votes to become the next Speaker of the House of Representatives. You did not listen to your constituency or the wave of Americans wanting to get back to America’s basics. But I still have hope in you. If you can get beyond yourself, get beyond your party (that gave us the Environmental Protection Agency and No Child Left Behind and so many other programs not constitutionally based) and get competent constitutional advisers, some of us would like to be led by you. We need your incredible leadership skills and your friendly countenance on the side of liberty protected by the Constitution. Show us that you can be trusted to adhere to the Constitution, limited government and the free market. The movement for these things is not going away.
If you listen this time you could, in the future, become the most influential Speaker of the House in our history and one of our greatest patriots. Show some constitutional fight in your belly. This time listen to your people, honor your oath to protect and defend the Constitution, and help take back our country and Constitution before it is too late.
Oct 12, 2015 | Liberty Articles
By Dr. Harold Pease
One of the revelations that surfaced from the Umpqua Community College Massacre, the worst in Oregon history, was that the deranged gunman, (I join others in refusing to name the killer giving him desired publicity) carried enough rounds of ammunition to kill dozens more. What stopped him? He decided to kill himself when confronted with a shootout with police eight minutes into the slaughter. It takes a gun to stop a gun. Why not allow teachers and others with student responsibilities, the right to protect those under their care if they wish to?
Just one gun somewhere near the premise could have been enough, one victim told her father in the hospital. The shooter had eight minutes of unrestrained killing time before police arrived after 911 notification and before he took his life ending the massacre. If but one armed concealed weapons permit holder had been in the classrooms, or close by, he/she could have saved several minutes of indiscriminant slaughter, in this case nine lives and an equal sum of injuries. No it would not have saved 67-year old Assistant Professor Lawrence Levine, as he was the first murdered and had zero warning, but most certainly others.
This is not to suggest that every teacher must participate, only those who wish to. Hundreds of regular permit holding citizens in my county already carry concealed weapons everywhere except in gun free zones (others call “free kill zones”). Such is the same in most counties throughout the nation. Law enforcement normally see permit holders as an asset, the ultimate backup should they need extra help, and also because cops know they can’t be everywhere at the same time, as some Umpqua college students learned the hard way. Why not let them do so on school grounds as well, allowing them to be an asset of protection wherever they are? They are on the scene, care for their students, are a trusted profession in society, and, most importantly, are themselves threatened. It would cost the college nothing. Chances are every college has several concealed weapons permit holders among its faculty and staff already. Again, why not let those who wish to protect their students do so?
Permit holders are among our finest citizens. Obtaining a concealed weapons permit requires a thorough investigation, a near perfect record from law enforcement, a stated need to carry, and some training. Normally they are older more mature folks and, in the case of teachers, society already trusts their young people to them several hours a day. They are already on the scene where a policeman could not possibly be. What a deterrent to a would-be killer if he knew schools are not so vulnerable.
Gun free zones clearly do not work as most massacres in the United States happen in them. Anticipating no resistance, rather than deter, they entice killers giving them access to large groups of unprotected, good, and innocent victims—often children. Presently the only hope that a teacher, wishing to protect his/her students has is to hide them—not realistic.
In my classroom of many years, as in most, there is but one door, which opens outwardly. Everyone inside, including me, has been set up by his own government to be a victim. Turning out the light, if the classroom is not the first visited to do the killing, might trick the gunman to move on to another classroom—but this is unlikely. If this were the first classroom with no warning no one could possibly get to the door in time to lock it.
For years my only defense was to ask students sitting on the door side of the room, upon hearing gunfire from outside the room, to lineup next to the wall, remove the fire extinguisher from the wall next to a door that opens outwardly, and spray or hit the intruder as he enters. Those behind him then were to overwhelm the intruder after the distraction, but this is all that we can do and it is not enough. Since my students are young adults this could work with a lot of luck. Again, if we were a killer’s first classroom such is, in fact, a “free kill zone.” Better yet, a teacher or student with a concealed weapons permit, need only pull out a weapon from pocket or purse and fire a couple of rounds at a very surprised—then very dead—potential killer.
Elected officials, please give students and teachers a fighting chance to survive. Teachers have done nothing that should justify disarming us, or fearing us, and thus leaving us with virtually no hope of survival. You may answer, “We can’t just let anyone have a weapon of mass destruction!” You already do!! Anyone, 16 and older, can have access to an automobile, which is decidedly a weapon of mass destruction—even if he might commit crimes with it.
This brings us back to the lessons of Umpqua Community College. In this case the killer did his deed in a location that he probably supposed to be gun free and ceased his rampage of killing only when confronted with another gun. Next time let that person be a teacher or staff member with a concealed weapon, and a vested interest in his and the safety of those around him, whose immediate action would allow so many more students to live.
Oct 6, 2015 | Constitution, Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease, Ph. D
The fear generated by media use of the words “government shutdown” is amazing. The hysteria peddlers using this terminology, and the media that purposely play to it, must know these two words emit such an extreme emotional response. It appears designed to frighten the least informed against the other political party, thus the terminology.
It always involves the House of Representatives, as it alone constitutionally must approve all government spending. This normally happens every October 1st for the upcoming year. No monies are to be spent by the federal government without the consent of the peoples’ representatives. This places the people in charge of taxation. The Senate cannot initiate a tax bill but can adjust any initiated by the House.
In the present instance, calloused filmed admissions of Planned Parenthood personnel extracting body parts of aborted babies for sale, has caused many members of Congress, mostly Republican, to seek the retraction of federal funding for the organization. President Barack Obama and most Democrats want the organization funded despite the films and the President promises to veto any budget that excludes the funding.
His refusal to enact the spending approved by the people, than begins what the hysteria peddlers have called a government shutdown because he will not accept what the people’s representatives have agreed to fund, or not fund. If Congress caves to the President, as it has so often the last seven years, it is a form of blackmail. If they do not, the press that favors the President yells government shutdown and blames the Republican Party. As the left dominates a great majority of the media, excepting talk radio, it becomes public perception that the Republican Party is responsible for government shutdowns, not the President.
Moreover, the phrase essentially becomes a weapon to be used on other potential government “shutdowners.” This enables the President to have undue influence, way more than envisioned by the framers of the Constitution, in spending and undermines the sole power of the House to initiate all bills for raising revenue.
So what does a government shut down look like? Do the president and vice president resign now that the government ends? No, they stay on the job and receive full pay as before. Does Congress fly out of Washington D. C. the following day and cease to draw their pay, and the Supreme Court cease to deliberate on constitutional questions? Does the army come home and cease to protect us? NO! No, No! Do states, counties, and cities no longer function? No again, they have their own tax base and cops, prisons, and teachers remain in place. Will I still get my mail? Yes. The U.S. Postal Service functions as an independent business unit. Will I still get Social Security benefits? Yes! And food stamps? Yes. And unemployment compensation? Yes. And veterans’ benefits? Yes.
Then why the hysteria? My point exactly!! Because these two words, “government shutdown,” and the possibility of missed food stamps send the largely uninformed into frenzy, they finally awake from their stupor. They largely know nothing of the wrangling of government to protect them from themselves and oppose any proposed government diet that might reduce their daily feed. They worshipfully listen to the party and political leaders that are least likely to disturb this base.
There will never be a government shut down because none of these things will ever happen 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.
How do we know this? Because we have had 17 government shutdowns since 1977 according to the Congressional Research Service, the Reagan Administration having 8 of them alone. Because in 1979 the government was shut down for 10 days while Congress argued over a proposed salary increase for the legislative branch. Because we had a five-day shutdown between November 14 and November 19, 1995, and a second one of 21 days, between December 16, and January 6, 1996, and none of the bad things mentioned above happened. No! Not even one. In fact, the public as a whole didn’t even notice.
Then what did happen? “The Federal government of the United States put non-essential government workers on furlough and suspended non-essential services…(Wikipedia).” Essentially all went on as before except some paychecks were a few days late. Apparently the federal government does (when forced to do so) know what non-essential services are after all, and is capable of closing them if it has the will.
So at worst a government shutdown is really only a partial shutdown of non-essential services and a delay of payment for some few federal workers. So the federal government goes on a long overdue diet and gets back to the basics. Let’s call it such in the future so that we don’t frighten the less informed and they overreact?
Sep 21, 2015 | Constitution, Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease, Ph. D
Eleven debaters gathered at the Reagan Library September 16, 2015, to share their plans and visions for our future. Each extolled the virtues of Ronald Reagan and claimed to be more Reagan-like than any of their competitors. Countries discussed included Russia, Iran, China, Syria and Israel. And topics seen to be most important were mostly centered on illegal immigration, Planned Parenthood’s federal funding, and the use of marijuana. But where was the Constitution in the debate?
All were important concerns but minimized was how these and other concerns might be addressed using the Constitution—the government’s rulebook. After all, the next day, September 17th, was Constitution Day throughout the United States. This especially in light of the fact that the last four presidents, two Republican and two Democrats, largely ignored the Constitution in problem solving going far beyond its restrictive boundaries.
Liberty Under Fire carefully took note of who did and did not, use the word Constitution, or references to it, in the three-hour debate. Three: Dr. Ben Carson and Governors John Kasich and Chris Christie, never used or referenced the word. Governor Scott Walker said the word Constitution once but did not attach it to a specific part of the document. Governor Jeb Bush also used the word without attachment but a second use was attached to his support for gun rights. Senator Marco Rubio did not use the word but identified himself in support of the 2nd Amendment.
Carly Fiorina used the word twice but negated both immediately thereafter with comments clearly showing that she had no understanding of the use verses the issue. The issue was the use of marijuana and federal enforcement. One cannot be for the Tenth Amendment, which leaves all areas not specifically mentioned in Article I, Section 8 to the states alone, and advocated the existence of federal authority not in the Constitution. There exists no constitutional authority for drug enforcement on the federal level. She, Bush, and Kasich received serious negatives on their understanding of the Constitution on this point. She did reference Lady Liberty and Lady Justice but made no attachment with respect to the Constitution with either. She is no doubt sincere in her use of liberty symbols but her generalities did not demonstrate depth in what liberty and justice actually mean.
Outside the Bush and Rubio support for the 2nd Amendment, Liberty Under Fire found little hope that these seven presidential candidates would give first consideration to the Constitution in problem solving. At least three of these lacked understanding of the Tenth Amendment. This is very serious. On constitutional issues, based upon this debate at this time, Liberty Under Fire cannot recommend any of these candidates for this office.
Donald Trump is a bit of a mystery for numerous reasons. But on the issue of birthright citizenship not being in the 14th Amendment, he is spot on. In fact, in previous columns I have carefully documented how the amendments founders were specifically denying such. His only use of the word Constitution was with respect to this issue. Because this fact is not well known it is strange that a businessman who probably benefited from the common distorted belief would either know this, or so passionately defend this view. He made no other reference to the Constitution in problem solving in any other issue thus, as with the others afore mentioned, I expect to write many columns showing his subsequent violations of the document should he become president. But on this one issue he has the ear of someone who understands the Constitution, which gives me some small hope that he will continue to listen to a constitutionalist on other issues as well, but there exist no guarantees.
Three presidential candidates stand out with promise that they will use the Constitution in problem solving: Senators Rand Paul, Ted Cruz and Governor Mike Huckabee. Huckabee used the word freedom but did not elaborate. He also used the word Constitution twice but more often used constitutional references specifically citing the current threat to Amendments 1, 2 and 10. He condemned the recent Supreme Court same sex marriage decision and the attack on Kentucky clerk Kim Davis with respect to freedom of conscience in her not authorizing such marriages with her name on the certificate.
Senator Ted Cruz opened with a reference to our losing freedom. He used the word Constitution with respect to its needing defended. He regretted Justice John Roberts backing down from defending the Constitution on healthcare and same sex marriage, although Bush reminded Cruz that he had written a letter of support in the nomination of Roberts. He identified himself as for the 2nd Amendment and in his closing statement promised to defend the Constitution.
Senator Rand Paul’s opening statement identified him as one who would defend the Constitution as first concern. He used the word twice more, one acknowledging that there was no birthright citizenship in the 14th Amendment, and that we have not followed the Constitution with respect to declaring war. He cited our failure to be guided by the 10th Amendment three times, mostly with respect to the approved use of drugs in the states verses the federal government inclination to mandate a power not given it.
Although this is but a small sampling of the importance of the Constitution to the eleven presidential contenders, Liberty Under Fire fears that these indicators will not change in a year. Our bigger fear is that by then the three who really value the document will have dropped out for lack of support and that the Constitution will continue to be eroded.
