Dec 17, 2014 | Constitution, Liberty Articles, Taxes
Harold Pease, Ph. D
A new Obama executive order effectively legislates climate change. Not content with Congress’s unwillingness to legislate on climate change to his expectations, the president issued a November 1, 2014, executive order that creates a de facto legislative branch to do so. He titled it, “Preparing the United States for the impacts of Climate Change.” Neither Congress nor the scientific community is in agreement that climate change, when it is documentable, is man-made. As a result Congress is unwilling to legislate, tax and spend on this supposed problem until more confirming data is available. The President, in disagreement, seeks to make rules unilaterally as he has in other areas, despite the fact that he constitutionally is not empowered to make any law as per Article I, Section I.
This executive order begins, as do of all his executive orders, without identifying a single piece of legislation authorizing the order. It begins, “By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution (the Constitution denies the President law-making power) and the laws of the United States of America, (none are cited) and in order to prepare the Nation for the impacts of climate change by undertaking actions to enhance climate preparedness and resilience, it is hereby ordered as follows.”
In the absence of a recently passed piece of legislation authorizing the order it is little more than a presidential decree. Amazingly the multi-page decree cites eight previous executive orders, two previous Obama Memoranda’s, and his Presidential Policy Directives-21, these scattered throughout the text, as authority, in sharp contrast to executive orders of previous presidents that cited pieces of actual existing laws passed by Congress. This president makes up his own authority “on the fly” and justifies it by previously made up authority and so far Congress says nothing.
It is obvious that this de facto legislative group will make the rules and regulations with respect to everything that they interpret to have anything to do with the environment. Those areas specifically mentioned were: infrastructure, fresh water, ocean water, fish, wildlife and plants. That is a broad sweep of authority none of which can be found in Article I, Section 8, or in any amendments to the Constitution enlarging federal power or jurisdiction thereafter.
Also obvious is that the decree is aimed at maximizing federal power over local governments as well. It identifies its mission as to “identify opportunities to support and encourage smarter, more climate-resilient investments by States, local communities, and tribes, including by providing incentives through agency guidance, grants, technical assistance, performance measures, safety considerations and other programs.” Incentives and grants are mentioned and, historically, have been used as bribes to draw local governments in.
This wordage is political speak for “we plan to control you.” The normal way to control local governments, as suggested, is to offer them federal money to accomplish federal objectives which will remain federally dominated and the locals are too often more than willing to sell their jurisdiction “soul” for a few dollars. Yes, some governors and a few selected county or tribe representatives will get invitations to serve on the task force, but the numbers will never be enough to overcome the federal majority serving.
Also always present, when the federal government is involved, is the cavalier attitude that they can make “smarter” decisions than local or state governments. This, though they often live hundreds of miles away and thus do not have to live with the decisions they impose on others and this, normally by unelected, thus unaccountable, bureaucrats.
Some defending the Presidents executive order practice of making rules may suggest, naively, that such are not laws and thus okay. The Founders made no distinction between rules and laws. The fact remains that regulations and laws have in common three things, they impose a process, administer a penalty, or prohibit an activity. Congress alone can make them and has no authority to give away her exclusive power to do so, whether called a regulation or a law, nor to allow the executive branch to do it for them. The people have the right to know that every restriction imposed upon their behavior was read and voted on by three elected, thus accountable, persons—their Congressman and their two U.S. Senators.
The constitutional response of Congress to the theft of their sole power to legislate, should be threefold: 1) renounce the President’s decree; 2) the House should refuse all funding to implement the decree as per Article I, Section 7; and, 3) both houses should create a joint committee to study the executive order evolutionary process, recommending additional measures to forbid the executive branch of government Congress’s sole law-making function. If Congress does not renounce this decree, rule making in the area of climate change will be left to the President’s cronies in the de facto “Congress,” created by this executive order.
Dr. Harold Pease is a syndicated columnist and an expert on the United States Constitution.
Dec 8, 2014 | Constitution, Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease
Sadly the only two political parties covered by the establishment news are lining up along party lines with respect to President Barack Obama’s extending amnesty to about 5 million illegal aliens instead of with the U.S. Constitution which clearly leaves all law-making to Congress alone. Republicans do correctly use the word unconstitutional when describing this action but somehow never came to the same conclusion when Republican presidents also used executive orders to make law. As such their arguments appear somewhat hollow. Only those who hold both parties to the Constitution can make this case.
Democrats avoid the word unconstitutional, which Republicans openly use, because they know that they would lose because the wordage executive order, or anything like unto it, is not found in the Constitution. They prefer using the word legal. Legal and constitutional can be opposite. Adolph Hitler legally exterminated over 6 million Jews because he first made it legal to persecute them. By the time persecution included extermination no one dared resist him. Replacing Congress as the sole law-making body on the federal level was, for 150 years, not legal because it was not constitutional and everyone adhered to that measurement instrument.
Initially executive orders were largely inter-departmental directives. They were never to have the force and effect of law as only Congress was allowed to make federal law (Art. I, Sec. I, Clause I). The President was to execute the law of the legislative branch, not make or alter it himself.
On a rare occasion a newly passed law needs a statement of implementation by the president. For example, President Washington was directed by Congress to create Thanksgiving Day as a national holiday. His executive order doing so stated their request and his selection of the last Thursday of November as that day. An executive order implementing a single, recently passed (within weeks), law of Congress is constitutional. Very few of the executive orders of today fit the George Washington and constitutional model.
During the 20th Century the temptation for presidents to restrain themselves to this model was too great. Beginning with Theodore Roosevelt, the Progressive Era decidedly tried to go around the Constitution. Presidents, fearing rejection of Congress on something that they wanted, and not having a specific single act of Congress authorizing their action, began gluing pieces of ancient laws together—some decades old—and initiating an executive order from these. Congress should have proceeded with impeachment as presidents were usurping their clear constitutional jurisdiction but didn’t, largely because members of Congress, based upon party loyalty, protected their own constitutional abuser.
It was Richard Nixon, during the 1970’s, that found the burden of gluing pieces of ancient laws together to make an executive order too much work and simply issued them without it. Impeachment should have followed on this issue alone but didn’t. Presidents from his time to ours have continued the practice of making executive orders simply presidential decrees as dictators do, effectively creating new laws without any pretense of actual constitutional authority. Each expansion of executive power, often with tortured logic as in Obama’s Executive Amnesty, becomes the rational for even greater expansion by a future president under the guise of past practice.
So it comes to this. Democrats defending the President cannot use the word constitutional because his action is decidedly not. They confuse the public by using the word legal because previous perversions of previous presidents have made it “legal” because Congress did not protect its sole right to make all federal law by voiding all EO’s, at the time, not consistent with their law-making jurisdiction.
Democrats remind us that Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, and Bill Clinton have all done the same thing. This is only partially correct. That each have made law by executive order is true but none have done so openly and defiantly in the face of opposition of the leadership of both houses of Congress and in defiance of existing law. None did his executive order after the American people soundly rejected his policies in an election no more than three weeks before. And none did an executive order after having told the American people more than two dozen times on different dates in multiple places that he had no constitutional authority to do so, even arguing at one time that he would have to be an emperor to do so. Obama’s perversion of executive orders is one of the worst and must not be allowed to stand as the new model for future presidents or Congress will have effectively voided itself as the sole law-making authority.
Dr. Harold Pease is a syndicated columnist and an expert on the United States Constitution.
Dec 1, 2014 | Constitution, Immigration, Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease, Ph. D
November 16, President Obama announced his executive amnesty in a live address to the nation. After the American people soundly rejected his policies on November 4th, he had the audacity to address us in prime time fashion defiantly rejecting existing law and placing himself above Congress on immigration law. This, after he argued more than two dozen times on different dates in multiple places that he had no constitutional authority to do so, even arguing at one time that he would have to be an emperor to do so. He knows precisely what he is doing to the Constitution. Such action makes him a threat to the document and to liberty.
This is the biggest affront to the Constitution and the separation of powers doctrine since FDR attempted to pack the Supreme Court February 5, 1937, so as to control it, because it rightfully declared so much of what he did unconstitutional. President Obama’s rule changes violated two parts of the Constitution, the separation of powers between the three branches of government housed in Articles I, II, and III, and his responsibility to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed,” as noted in Article II, Section 3. These are serious, even impeachable, violations and should be challenged.
Americans now must depend on Congress to defend itself for posterity against executive tyranny. Senate Majority Leader-Elect Mitch McConnell must publicly denounce this executive takeover of their sole right to make all law (Article I, Section I) by rejecting, until the President rescinds his unconstitutional decree, every single nomination or appointment that the President puts forward for the next two years— except for critical national security positions. To do otherwise would be too weak a response to the President’s extreme power grab.
The House of Representatives, presently led by John Boehner, must follow with a public condemnation of executive tyranny with the announcement that they cannot, and will not, fund the President’s attempt to confiscate their sole power to make all law.
This power grab is not without his having warned us. In his recent State of the Union Address he boldly threatened to replace the legislative branch of government by doing it alone, through executive orders, if they did not do as he wished and in a timely fashion. Such is unprecedented and totally unconstitutional. Today, through the perversion of the executive order process, presidents makes half as many laws (decrees if you prefer) as does the Legislative Branch—about three a week. The practice is killing liberty and making Congress irrelevant.
President Obama told the United Nations General Assembly on September 24 2014, “On issue after issue, we cannot rely on a rule-book written for a different century,” presumably referencing the U.S. Constitution. The obvious dig on being restricted to a document “written for a different century,” shows a definite lack of respect for the Constitution that he swore by oath to “preserve, protect and defend” (Article 11, Section 1). Ironically the Constitution is designed to harness presidents just like him, and his predecessor George W. Bush, but it will never work if the party in power runs interference for their own constitutional abuser.
Taking over Congress’s law making function in Obama’s case is intentional. He must know that it is based upon human nature and natural law, which do not change from century to century. Man and governments are still beset by the same sins as expressed in all ages. There will always be those that wish to rule over others. Government will always attempt to grow its power. There will always need to be a list of the things governments can do and they will always need to be harnessed to that list. There will always need to be a division of power. And there will always be those who wish to use the force of government to redistribute the wealth so that they can, in effect, purchase elections by “gifting” voters. The magic of the Constitution is that it, outside defense, does not distribute benefits to anyone.
These are the reasons that it is said to be outdated by those who wish to take from us our liberties. President Obama’s problem with the Constitution is that it designedly restricts him from doing whatever he pleases and thus his belittling and embarrassing comment about it before the world. The “rule book written in a different century” is still as relevant as before. What we need today are presidents and legislators that love and use it as first consideration instead of party. In this quest we are embarrassingly in short supply in both political parties.
Noticeably absent this time in protecting the Constitution, with respect to the 200-plus year process of making law, is the Democratic Party. Some even defend him. To my many friends therein, don’t you realize that by letting your party distort this process to get a gain that you face a Republican president unilaterally doing the same thing to you down the road using the same arguments that you now use to protect Obama? Can’t you see that the rule of law was to protect all of us and that the Constitution must remain pure or one day neither party will have it? The Constitution must be above party. This is why all elected officials swear an oath to protect and preserve it.
Dr. Harold Pease is a syndicated columnist and an expert on the United States Constitution.
Nov 21, 2014 | Liberty Articles
By Harold W. Pease
Many of us think about the tragedy in Dallas 51 years ago this month. Last May I visited the Texas School Book Depository on the corner of Houston and Elm Streets in Dallas, Texas and read the government’s inscription on the wall of the building, “On November 22, 1963, The building gained national notoriety when Lee Harvey Oswald allegedly shot and killed President John F. Kennedy from a sixth story window as the Presidential motorcade passed.” The word allegedly grabbed me, as it was an admission that even the government was not certain, without some level of doubt, that Oswald did the deed or acted alone.
Most serious scholars on the assassination view the Warren Commissions review of the data with great skepticism (some with contempt) especially in light of its numerous omissions, as for example the testimony of Dr. Charles Crenshaw who placed Kennedy in the coffin at Parkland Hospital and testified years latter that the neck wound had been tampered with to look like an exit rather than an entry wound. An entry wound would have proved more than a single assassin and provoked more investigation. Also, why did they seal the unpublished portion of their findings for 75 years?
Finally, thirteen years later The United States House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) in 1976 concluded that “President John F. Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy.” They, like the Warren Commission, did their investigation mostly in secret. Unbelievably they too sealed their evidence for 50 years under Congressional rules. Withholding evidence feeds conspiracy theories. As the years fly by, and new data surfaces from the hundreds of books on the subject, it is increasingly more difficult to dismiss, as an accomplice, Lyndon Baines Johnson and his CIA/FBI friends.
My journalist friend, Don Clark, has personally read most of the 2000 books on the subject and is a noted speaker on the assassination. He told an audience in San Francisco that while the government has not, or will not, pursue the subject, private investigators have done so and we do not have to wait for the sealed records. He has a recommend list of “must reads” on the subject and they follow.
First, get the directors cut of the motion picture JFK by Oliver Stone. Despite the profanity the “movie contains more spoken words, more script, than any film in history.”
Second, On the Trail of the Assassins by Jim Garrison (a former FBI agent) treats Oswald’s time in New Orleans and four government agents identified as “handlers” that seemed to “shadow” him.
Third, read JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters. A stunning piece of original research published in 2008, by James Douglass.
Fourth, read MARY’S MOSAIC: The CIA Conspiracy to Murder John F. Kennedy, Mary Pinchot Meyer, and Their Vision for World Peace, by Peter Janney. The work published in 2012 found that the author’s own “CIA father, was among the conspirators orchestrating the deaths of Kennedy and his friend Mary Pinchot Meyer. The latter’s death is also “in a veiled way” in the recent movie, An American Affair.
Fifth, read JFK: The CIA, Vietnam, and the Plot to Assassinate John F. Kennedy, by Air Force Colonel L. Fletcher Prouty, who served at the time of Kennedy’s death, as the key liaison between the Pentagon and the CIA.
Sixth, tying together many loose ends the following three books will help. Revealing the secret links between the most powerful law firm in Texas and the criminal rise to power of Lyndon Johnson is Blood, Money, & Power: How LBJ Killed JFK by Barr McClellan. LBJ: Mastermind of the JFK Assassination by Phillip Nelson. Texas in the Morning by Lyndon Johnson’s long-time mistress, Madeline Duncan Brown “takes you to the meeting the night before the assassination. She reveals the identities of the men in that room. She shares the story of Lyndon Johnson coming late to the meeting, then emerging in a fury, grabbing her by the arms so hard it hurt, and swearing in a rage, ‘After tomorrow, those goddamn Kennedy’s will never embarrass me again—and that’s not a threat, that’s a promise!’ ”
In light of decades of intensive reading, Clark poses the question, “Was it devious, desperate Lyndon Johnson, the viper in the nest, the Brutus to Kennedy’s Caesar, who with the help of J. Edgar Hoover had blackmailed his way onto the 1960 presidential ticket, who knew he was about to be dumped from the 1964 ticket, who knew he was about to be indicted and probably go to prison for his probable role in the Bobby Baker and Billy Sol Estes scandals, whose lifelong lust and endless scheming for the presidency would stop at nothing to get to that office, least of all murder?” Perhaps it is time to speak the unspeakable and be more inclusive of the new data in our history tests.
Dr. Harold Pease is a syndicated columnist and an expert on the United States Constitution.
Nov 17, 2014 | Constitution, Immigration, Liberty Articles
Harold Pease, Ph. D
President Barack Obama acted as though he was unaware of the overwhelming rejection of his policies, which he had insisted were on the ballot this election, in one of the largest mid-term election defeats in the last 100 years. He came out of the gate with a renewal of his long-time threat of legalizing illegal immigration by himself through executive order before the end of the year. He referred to it as taking “care of business.” “I can’t wait another two years,” he defiantly threatened Congress.
Both branches of Congress returned their own warning if he made law independent of them. The new Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell countered that his doing so would be comparable to “waving a red flag in front of a bull.” House Speaker John Boehner warned, “When you play with matches, you take the risk of burning yourself—and he’s going to burn himself if he continues to go down this path.”
There is nothing more clear nor basic in the Constitution than the separation of federal power into three branches, one to legislate, yet another to execute that law, and a third to adjudicate possible violations, when contested, of that law—a division of power held “sacred” until the last few decades. The Constitution reads: “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”(Article I, Sec. I).
The Executive Branch has no authority to make law—any law!!!! Executive Orders are constitutional only when they cite a single, recently passed law of Congress, where that law needs a statement of implementation by the executive branch. Presidential Directives, a type of Executive Order, differs only in defining how that law, passed by Congress, will be implemented. Neither type is to alter, or defy, law formerly passed by Congress.
For years some in Congress have been working on what is called the Dream Act that would extend amnesty and place millions of illegal immigrants on a course toward full citizenship. Lacking popularity, twice it has failed to get the majority vote of both Houses of Congress required by the Constitution thus leaving existing immigration law unchanged; once, between 2008-2010, when the President’s party controlled everything except the Judicial branch. He had his chance and was unable to even sell it to his own majority party.
A president can only suggest a need for new law in his State of the Union Address, and either sign or veto a law passed by Congress, which then, if vetoed, must be overridden by a vote of 2/3rds of both Houses to become law. That is it. Candidate Obama understood this when first ran, he said, “Congress’s job is to pass legislation. The president can veto it, or he can sign it.” This is the law of the land and the Constitutional procedure violated by Barack Obama, as President, June 16, 2012, when, failing to get a favorable vote from Congress on legalizing illegal immigration, openly defied Congress and the Constitution by ordering a like measure to that defeated, implemented anyway. Thousands of illegals avoided deportation as a result.
This is the most open case of contempt for Congress and the Constitution and the President knew it. In March 28, 2011, he said, with respect to the idea of nullifying Congress on the deportation issue. “The notion that I can just suspend deportations just through executive order, that’s just not the case, because there are laws on the books that Congress has passed.”
So why did he “flip-flop” and knowingly violate the Constitution? Obama saw an inept Congress that has not placed any restraint on his previous unconstitutional executive orders. He brilliantly also saw a way to “buy” the Hispanic vote. If the Republicans resisted he had a powerful campaign issue. His argument for the violation, “It is the right thing to do.” But this has nothing to do with the fact that he usurped the powers given only to Congress, and in the most contemptuous way possible, and established a precedent for the continued nullification of Congress. Moreover, he also violated his oath of office to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States”(Article II, Sec. 1, Clause 8). His failure to do so was “a high crime,” an impeachable offense, which action should have been introduced with bipartisan support with 100 signatures in the Senate and 435 in the House. This issue should have been that clear but unfortunately party loyalty is higher than constitutional loyalty. Will he defy Congress again?
The “waving red flag” mentioned by Mitch McConnell and the “playing with matches” noted by John Boehner should refer to the full use of impeachment powers by the House and the Senate if the President attempts to nullify existing law by his executive order. Democrats too must recognize that executive orders making law weakens the sole power of Congress to make all law and places us on the road of government by decree or edict of one man. We must choose the Constitution over party. How does a president’s defiance of Congress differ from what a king or dictator does? It doesn’t. The Constitution is there to protect all parties and all citizens from arbitrary and caprices rule. Please let it work.
Dr. Harold Pease is a syndicated columnist. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.
Nov 4, 2014 | Constitution, Liberty Articles
Harold W. Pease, Ph. D
Earlier this month President Barack Obama said that, although he was not on the ballot, “make no mistake, these policies are on the ballot — every single one of them,” referring to Democratic senators refusing to allow the President to campaign with them in their states. A few days later he added, “The bottom line is though, these are all folks who vote with me; they have supported my agenda in Congress.” He referred to them as “strong allies and supporters.” Essentially he made it clear that a vote for a Democrat, any Democrat, is a vote for Obama and his policies. This was so six years ago when the unpopular George W. Bush was president as well and is so in every election when a president is not on the ballot. Mid-term elections are always a reflection of a presidents policies. Few, if any, Democratic incumbent members of the House or the Senate have voted less than 80% for Obama.
My point, mask it however they wish to keep unhappy Obama Democrats with their party. A vote for the Democratic Party is a vote for Barack Obama. It is also true that a vote for every member of Congress is a vote for or against holding to the Constitution as intended. Like the president the Constitution is always on the ballot.
So, what constitutional principles are on the ballot? Let us begin with the reality that all governments like to grow. The more decision making power they assume the less is left at lower levels of government or to the individual. Governments view everything in a way to extend their power. Either the government comes to control the people or the people control it. The Constitution advocates limited government. Personalizing it, “Are you voting for people, parties, propositions, or measures that grow government?” To prevent the growth of government all power not listed in Article I, Section 8, or identified in a subsequent amendment, was left with the states and the people (Amendment 10). “Is your national candidate or party willing to stay within the limits just referenced?” If not you must dump him or her or, at the very least, pick the one least likely to grow government.
Does your local candidate understand that part of his/her duty is to resist federal growth and will do so, and likewise, resist the tendency to grow his own office as well? Will he turn down federal “bribe money” to enhance federal control over local control. Will he/she work to keep decision-making power as close to the people as possible and away from federal bureaucrats?
Remember Thomas Jefferson said, “The best government is the least government.” It’s not that there is no government. You govern yourself constantly rather than allowing others to do so. It used to be called freedom.
Has your candidate offered any evidence that suggests that he/she supports the free market that made us the most prosperous nation on earth and in history and eliminated poverty in American for those able and willing to work? Will he/she work to protect the free market from the mountains of new rules and regulations emanating from federal and state regulators suffocating it, or are they more likely to add to them?
What is his/her stand on fiscal responsibility? Somebody has to repay our approaching 18 trillion dollar debt—eight of which accumulated under President Obama and his party. Someone has to stop the three to four billion dollar additions per day to this national debt before we fiscally collapse. Which of your ballot options is most likely to advocate solutions that reduce these amounts?
The free market, limited government, and fiscal responsibility are basic constitutional principles. The only type of federal government authorized by the Founders was decidedly a limited one. The Founders overriding philosophy of government, if it could be penned into one sentence, was, “never elevate to a higher level that which can be resolved at a lesser level.” This applies to city, county and state governments as well. When these limitations are not understood, the federal government is constantly tempted to steal authority from the states or counties as per its confiscation of environmental, health, and education issues, which are constitutionally 100%, state issues. States should use the Tenth Amendment to protect themselves from federal intrusion. Is this the understanding of the people that you choose to place in authority over you?
City, county, and state leaders, you are our buffer from the federal government taking from you your areas of jurisdiction. They have done so for many years because you were complacent in it, or, ignorant of the Constitution. You have placed us in the position that your understanding of the document must be known before we place you in power. Our only hope now is to find leaders with Constitutional fire in their bellies to undo the precedents that you have created. All issues on the city and county level are directly or indirectly constitutional issues. We expect you to know, and abide by, the document that you swore to uphold.
If the President’s incumbent Senators running for office are running away from him and attempting to deceive the people that what they offer is different from his, perhaps we should be running from them. The fact is that neither they nor their Republican opponents have followed the Constitution very closely. Still, the Constitution is on the ballot every election and we the voter must find those candidates that will keep their election pledge to “preserve, protect and defend” it.
