May 5, 2014 | Constitution, Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease Ph. D
Perhaps the most offensive display at the Bundy Ranch Standoff was the posting April 1, by the BLM representatives of a sign FIRST AMENDMENT AREA for protestors. This coming days before the standoff certainly demonstrated their foreknowledge of impending opposition. An expandable red plastic three-foot-high wall encircled the area. In other words, those verbalizing disagreement with the BLM’s heavy-handed confiscation of Bundy cattle could only express themselves within this restricted area or risk being arrested.
Such was offensive to participants who promptly added to the sign “1st AMENDMENT IS NOT AN AREA” and thereafter refused to do their protesting where allowed by the government. Besides the area was too far away from the action causing the protesting. A sympathizer posted on the Internet a map of the United States with the words FREE SPEECH ZONE written over the length of the nation from California to South Carolina; this was the Founders interpretation and reverenced as so until more recent times.
Dave Bundy was the first to be arrested for taking video footage from a state highway of BLM agents rounding up his family’s cattle refusing to remain in the restricted area. Video footage now available showed that armed snipers had their guns trained on the family during the incident. Family members were told that they, “had no first amendment rights except for up by the bridge where they had established an area for that.” One does not have to wonder why the Bundy ordeal attracted freedom buffs from as far away as Connecticut.
I first heard of free speech zones during the George W. Bush Administration when there were so many demonstrations against invading Iraq. College campuses initiated the zones in what appeared to be designed to intentionally limit opposition. They were always too small and if more than one zone were allowed they were separated, seemingly to minimize the size of the opposition. A nephew, in San Francisco demonstrating against the war, was arrested because he could not fit within one of the small circles. He and hundreds more, also unable to fit within the approved dissent areas, were taken to warehouses somewhere in the city and housed until all were processed. He was confined for three days. The slow processing he considered intentional punishment for his dissent. I have spoken out against these 1st Amendment areas since. They do not exist in a free country.
The First Amendment clearly states that, “Congress shall make no law… abridging… the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” Since Congress is the only entity that can make law as per Article I, Section 1 of the Constitution and since they have never passed such a law; the Executive Branch has no authority to “pen” dissent.
Unfortunately such has been altered by recent court decisions “stipulating that the government may regulate the time, place, and manner—but not content—of expression,” hence the origin of free speech zones—decidedly a court perversion. “Though free speech zones existed in limited forms prior to the Presidency of George W. Bush; it was during Bush’s presidency that their scope was greatly expanded” (Wikipedia). After September 11, they were common. President Bush used the Secret Service to make certain such were not near where he might speak or pass by, a procedure closely emulated by President Barack Obama. Dissent is therefore noticeably reduced and less likely to be filmed. If such had been used against Martin Luther King, Jr. the Civil Rights Movement may never have gotten off the ground. Those refusing to dissent only in the government’s “proper” areas are charged with disorderly conduct, resisting arrest, or trespassing. If the approved dissent areas are far from the president (some a half mile away) he may never know that the people are unhappy with him.
For the Bundy friends and neighbors, the governments “First Amendment Area” had the same shape and similarity as a cattle pen where the people would be cordoned off and neutralized. How can this be seen as petitioning the “Government for a redress of grievances?” No government! This is nothing more than a ploy to reduce dissent and the more regimental that you are, as in the case of the Bundy Standoff, the more you will use it. Court approval or not it is clearly unconstitutional. The Founders would have called it tyranny.
May 5, 2014 | Constitution, Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease, Ph. D
Anyone the least bit familiar with the Constitution and its early history knows that, despite lip-service to it, neither political party follows it, nor do any of the three branches of government actually limit themselves to their specific articles in it. All three operate outside the carefully crafted cages to which they were assigned. So how do we get the federal government back to servant rather than master? Well-meaning conservatives, and Mark Levin in particular, are wrong in their push for a new constitutional convention for the following reasons.
To begin with, why argue to get what you already have? It is a far weaker argument because it implies uncertainty on your part that you already have it. The federal government is already limited by the existing Constitution: Congress to a precise list in Article I, Section 8. The President is limited to a list housed in Article II, Sections II and III. The Supreme Court is limited to eleven types of cases most with but appellate (limited by Congress) jurisdiction and only two totally free of the restrictions of Congress called original jurisdiction. All other power was reserved to the states as per Amendment 10 of the Bill of Rights. Again, to argue that we need additional amendments to get the federal government to abide by what was already understood as their limits of power is to argue to get what we already have.
An argument within the Constitution is much easier to make than asking that three fourths of the states accept something new and somewhat foreign to them. Three-fourths of the states is a big number and takes many years to acquire, and in a nation somewhat constitutionally illiterate is likely to fall short of the states needed. Meanwhile, the case for living within the Constitution can be made today because a majority of the people was taught some level of reverence for it. Showing them how the federal government has strayed from clearly cited restrictions in the document is a much easier case to make.
The argument that we have already unsuccessfully tried to keep the federal government within constitutional bounds is legitimate. But to suppose that a George W. Bush or a Barack Obama will stay within the bounds of new amendments when, with impunity, each has violated those amendments in existence is as naive as believing that more gun control laws will cause the criminals to turn in their guns.
A new Constitutional Convention potentially exposes everything that we already have placing everything at risk. Where is the basis for faith that the new “Founders” will not tamper with established basics? Three Twentieth Century amendments seriously damaged previously sacred foundation points of a republic: the 16th gave the federal government unlimited resources to spend in areas not listed as their function in Article I, Section 8 and the states lined up with alms bowls in hand for the grants. The 17th removed State influence and consent in lawmaking thus irreparably damaging the concept of federalism so critical to limiting the power of the federal government. The 18th outlawed the consumption of alcohol in the nation for ten years giving the government the right to tell its people what they can drink.
Some argue that we can limit the extent of change in a new convention. It is well to remember that the original delegates to the Constitutional Convention were not authorized to dump the Articles of Confederation, but did, exposing everything that then existed. Can Levin and others guarantee that that could not happen again? No!
Why would we suppose that new founders will have an equal to, or superior, understanding of natural law upon which the Constitution was based? We assume that the states will be anxious to get their powers restored to them but where is the basis that they see such a need? Do not almost all elected federal government personnel first serve in state legislatures then abandon the state perspective when they reach Washington DC?
Finally, the enemies to limited federal government yearn for a constitutional convention as well. They want everything dictated from Washington DC—an all-powerful government. Such groups as Wolf-Pac, AFL-CIO, Code Pink, Progressive Democrats of America, and the forty-five political action organizations funded by George Soros (New American, April 7, 2014, p. 18) are just waiting for the opportunity to empower themselves and government more fully. Who can promise that they will sit idly by while we further limit their ability to manage us?
Holding to the Constitution with exactness is our only real secure way to take back our country. Our weapons are the limiting clauses of the Constitution and Amendment 10 of the Bill of Rights. Political parties have failed us. Encouraging our people to become Constitutionalists first is a better approach. As tyranny grows so will support for our cause. Mr. Levin and other conservatives, please don’t risk losing everything by an ill-conceived constitutional convention. The answer is to make the government abide by what they have by oath promised and, when needed, carefully craft new amendments one at a time, as for example a balanced budget amendment.
Apr 20, 2014 | Constitution, Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease, Ph. D
The most important question with respect to the Bundy Ranch Standoff remains unanswered. Why does the federal government own Nevada? It does not own New York or Virginia or Massachusetts. Cliven Bundy says that the state of Nevada owns the contested land. The Bureau of Land Management clearly considers the property the federal governments; hence the 200 snipers posted on the property and the tasing of the Bundys for resisting when the feds confiscated their cattle. Who is right?
But the problem isn’t Nevada’s alone where government owns 87.7 % of the land leaving private ownership of the state at but 12.3 %. The percentage of land owned by government exceeds fifty percent in Alaska (98.5), Idaho (63.8), Oregon (52.6), and Utah (63.6). Indeed, the federal government claims to own a third of all the landmass in the United States (Inventory Report on Real Property Owned by the United States Throughout the World, published by the General Services Administration, page 10). Government owns almost half of California (47.5). Basically the federal government did not give western states all their land when they qualified for statehood. States were so excited to get coveted statehood that they went along with the conditions despite the confiscation of, for most in the West, at least a third of their land.
States wanting their confiscated land returned, so as to be on equal footing as with 19 sister states who actually own their land, call their long-term bid to do so the Sage Brush Rebellion. Equality between states was established by giving them equal representation in the U.S. Senate, thus the assumption of the Founders was that property would follow. Without it they are not on equal footing and instead may be more servile to the federal government than states that own themselves. This could negatively affect our system of government known as federalism as states collectively serve as a check on federal overreach. This check is impaired when the federal government owns part or most of their land.
But this is not the most serious violation of the Constitution. The Founders understood that the size of land holding was proportionally related to the perceived size of the federal government and they intentionally wanted that perception small. The Federal government was permitted to have but 10 square miles for a federal capital. The only other land that they could acquire had to be for military purposes as specified in the common defense clause of the Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 which reads: “and to exercise like Authority over all places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the same shall be for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock Yards, and other needful Buildings.”
Any new acquisition, outside the capital, had (1) to be purchased, (2) have the consent of the State Legislature where the land exists, (3) and be for military purposes. None of these constitutional requirements were met with respect to any of the states cited above although some military bases do exist in most of them. Nor have there been any additional amendments to the Constitution authorizing additional federal ownership of land as required for any additional federal power. Constitutionally there exists no federal land or Bureau of Land Management or even public land.
Again, in the case of the Bundys, the land in dispute was not purchased by the federal government, did not receive the consent of the Nevada State Legislature for sale to the feds and is not for military purposes. The fact that the federal government acquired it fraudulently in the first place, or that both political parties have ignored this part of the Constitution for over a hundred years, does not make federal confiscation now constitutional. Constitutionally Bundy has more right to be there than does the Bureau of Land Management. Still, his stand is not practical given our long-term departure from the document and to get back to the Constitution some may do jail time, as have others like Martin Luther King, Jr. Freedom has never been cheap.
Having someone willing to stand, Sage Brush Rebellion states now should seize this moment to remind the federal government that they too want their land back. If they stand together now it is more probable than ever that it will happen. One suggestion for Governor Brian Sandoval of Nevada is to declare the contested property Nevada’s and have Bundy begin paying Nevada for grazing rights. Taking back this infinitesimal amount of the whole that is claimed by the federal government will set the stage for more acquisitions later. The governor would become an instant hero in the western states. That would diffuse the standoff between citizen and federal government moving it to the state instead where it belongs. Why is a citizen (in this case Cliven Bundy) having to make the case for a state? The governor would give strength to two objectives—returning fraudulently acquired land to the states and getting back to the Constitution.
Mar 30, 2014 | Constitution, Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease, Ph. D
On March 11, 2014, President Barack Obama, designated the Point Arena-Stornetta Public Lands a national monument, setting aside 1,665 acres of a pristine Northern California coastline for future generations, thereby keeping a promise made in his 2014 Cabinet meeting and Inaugural Address. “We are not just going to be waiting for legislation in order to make sure that we’re providing Americans the kind of help that they need. I’ve got a pen, and I’ve got a phone. And I can use that pen to sign executive orders and take executive actions and administrative actions that move the ball forward….” Some have dubbed this his nullification of Congress speech.
But where in the Constitution is authority for him to take land from a state and claim it for a national monument or park? A look at Article II, wherein his powers are listed, identifies no such power. He has but eleven powers: 1) “Commander in chief of the army and navy of the United States” including the militia when called into actual service of the United States; 2) supervise departments (cabinet), each presumably established by the Congress (George Washington had but four); 3) grant reprieves and pardons; 4) make treaties with the help of the Senate; 5) with Senate help appoint positions established by law such as ambassadors, ministers and judges; 6) fill vacancies “during recess of the Senate;” 7) make recommendations to Congress on the state of the union; 8) convene both houses on special occasions and handle disputes with respect to convening; 9) receive ambassadors and other public ministers; 10) make certain that “laws be faithfully executed;” and, 11) “commission all the officers of the United States.”
Simply stated the president has two supervisory powers over existing organizations and two shared powers with the Senate, otherwise he pardons, recommends, appoints and entertains. That is it! Notice the absence of the words executive order, or anything like unto it. He has no law-making or land acquisition powers.
Constitutionally land acquisition is left only to Congress as per Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 that leaves the federal government propertyless with but two exceptions, 1) ten miles square for a capital, and 2) for common defense. Clause 17 is the last of eight qualifiers defining common defense and allows the federal government additional land acquisition provided three stipulations are met. Those are: such land had to be purchased by the federal government (not just confiscated), receive the consent of the state legislature where located, and had to be for military purposes. President Theodore Roosevelt, who first violated this part of the Constitution by creating Yosemite National Park, should have been impeached for four reasons. The power to acquire land did not belong to the executive branch, the federal government did not purchase it, the California State Legislature did not give consent, and it was not for military purposes. Likewise President Barack Obama had no authority to acquire land, did not purchase the pristine California coastline, did not obtain the consent of the California Legislature and it was not acquired for military purposes. That presidents have followed Roosevelt’s clearly unconstitutional practice does not make it constitutional.
This is not an argument that governments should not set aside our most pristine portions for the enjoyment of those not yet born, but only that they do so constitutionally. One departure from the Constitution invites yet another until the document is not “sacredly obligatory on all” as warned George Washington in his famous Farewell Address. At any time a state, county, or city may create a park or monument or, we could have properly amended the Constitution through Article V to enlarge the land acquisition powers of the federal government but, my point, we did not. The Constitution is designed to harness the federal government from doing whatever it pleases, in this case, confiscation of property.
Presidents, in law-making through executive orders, have empowered themselves to the point of “kingship” with their worshipful, unchallenging, party followers (whether Democrat or Republican) quite willing to look the other way as this office grows beyond its ability to be efficient. At any time a president could remind the people of his real constitutional powers but he will not as that would drastically reduce his power that is beginning to look limitless. We must return to the constitutional powers of the President as outlined in Article II, only adding to them by way of amendment as described in Article V—no exceptions! In the case of land acquisition there is no place for his pen.
Mar 24, 2014 | Healthcare, Liberty Articles, Taxes
By Dr. Harold Pease
Vladimir Putin’s “forced” annexation of the Crimea invites memories of Adolph Hitler’s annexation of Austria. Both absorbed their weaker neighbor with over 96% of their vote.
With unemployment and interest rates at 25% in 1938, Austria was in deep depression and “people were going from house to house begging for food.” Kitty Werthmann, whose story I summarize, remembers her mother cooking a big kettle of soup and baking bread to feed her staving neighbors, about “30 daily.” The Communist Party and the National Socialist Party, two conflicting varieties of socialism, were fighting each other. The Germans, under Adolf Hitler, promised an environment of no crime, full employment, a high standard of living, and happiness. Austrians “became desperate and petitioned the government to let them decide what kind of government they wanted.” The Austrian government could not deliver these conditions, so 98% of the population, believing the lies, “voted to annex Austria to Germany and have Hitler for our ruler.” When this happened, the people danced for joy in the streets for three days.
Almost immediately law and order returned and “everyone was employed” in government created jobs, but what followed under fascist socialism was pure hell. In return for believing the empty promises, education was nationalized and freedom of religion in public education ended. Crosses in the predominantly Catholic schools were “replaced with Hitler’s picture hanging next to a Nazi flag” and prayer, replaced with singing praises of Germany. “Sunday became National Youth Day with compulsory attendance.” If their children were not present, parents were threatened first with “a stiff letter of warning,” then with a $300.00 fine, and then with jail. The day consisted of two hours of political indoctrination followed by sports and fun. The children loved it but “lived without religion.” Having no moral compass, illegitimacy flourished. “Unwed mothers were glorified for having a baby for Hitler.”
Men and women had equal rights under Hitler. They found out what that meant when workloads were equal, making no distinction on the basis of sex. When the war came in 1939, the draft was compulsory for both sexes and women served on the front lines as well. Many became “emotional cripples because they just were not equipped to handle the horrors of combat.” Kitty Werthmann continues, “When the mothers had to go out into the work force, the government immediately established child care centers. You could take your children ages 4 weeks to school age and leave them there around-the-clock, 7 days a week, under the total care of the government. The state raised a whole generation of children. There were no motherly women to take care of the children, just people highly trained in child psychology. By this time, no one talked about equal rights. We knew we had been had.”
Under Hitler’s socialism everyone was entitled to free handouts, such as food stamps, clothing, and housing. Healthcare was socialized as well, free to everyone. “Doctors were salaried by the government. The problem was, since it was free, the people were going to the doctors for everything. When the good doctor arrived at his office at 8 a.m., 40 people were already waiting and, at the same time, the hospitals were full. If you needed elective surgery, you had to wait a year or two for your turn. There was no money for research as it was poured into socialized medicine. Research at the medical schools literally stopped, so the best doctors left Austria and emigrated to other countries.” Of course, to pay for this benefit for the less productive, “the tax rate had to be raised to 80% of our income.”
When the war started, a food bank was established. “All food was rationed and could only be purchased using food stamps. At the same time, a full-employment law was passed which meant if you didn’t work, you didn’t get a ration card, and if you didn’t have a card, you starved to death.” Socialism now controlled life and death by controlling who ate.
Small businesses were intentionally over-regulated out of business leaving the government owned large businesses the only ones existing. “We had consumer protection. We were told how to shop and what to buy. Free enterprise was essentially abolished.” Moreover, “farmers were told what to produce, and how to produce it.” To prevent the population from revolting, guns had long since been registered, then outlawed, and freedom of speech ended as well. “Anyone who said something against the government was taken away.”
Hopefully, the Crimean’s who recently “voted” for Russian annexation will fair much better than the Austrians did in 1938, as Hitler was a tyrant. Unfortunately some say Putin is as well.
Mar 16, 2014 | Constitution, Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease, Ph. D
The December 19, 2014, death of a SWAT team member, using the ever more popular practice among law enforcement of No-Knock Warrants, brings to the front the need for a reassessment of this warrant. Such enables the police to enter ones home fast, presumably to confiscate illegal substances before they are destroyed. With upwards of 60,000 of these happening each year from only 3,000 in 1981, perhaps it is time we squared this practice with the Constitution, especially in light of its serious escalation.
Hank McGee, who shot and killed a SWAT team officer because he thought those breaking through his front door were robbing thugs, was acquitted by the Burleson County Texas grand jury. He acted in self-defense. Although he was lucky and not killed in the exchange of gunfire, this is not the case with others having the same thing happen to them. In 2006, Eighty-year-old Kathryn Johnson, with similar fears, unloaded several rounds wounding three officers before they killed her. She too was not running a drug house as had been alleged. Nor was Tracy Ingle of Little Rock, Arkansas, two years later, when he tried to defend himself with an unloaded gun from what he thought to be entering thugs. Later after four bullets had been discharged into his body and several others into the wall, the gunfire ended. Surrounding police referred to him as Michael. “My name’s not Mike,” he answered before passing out from his wounds. They had the wrong house and man (SWAT Team Member Killed Using No-Knock Warrant, The New American, March 3, 2014). Ismael Mena, a Mexican immigrant, also the wrong man and wrong address, unlike Ingle who lived, was killed in a no-knock raid. Jose Guerena, presuming home invasion, was shot 22 times. The safety on his gun was still on when found dead. He hadn’t fired a shot.
Certainly these are not normal cases but when intruders break in your door a reasonable person would not first assume that they are friendly. He would grab his gun. This is why initial murder charges against Hank McGee were dropped in the Texas County. In light of a recent Los Angeles robbery ring of 15 led by two former police officers “which used fake no-knock raids as a ruse to catch victims off guard,” today, even if the police announce themselves as the police, uncertainty may justifiably still exist (Wikipedia). With the recent passage of the National Defense Authorization Act authorizing the military to kidnap and remove to Guantanamo Bay, without trial and for indefinite detention, anyone the President, or his military, suspect as being terrorists (not defined), the government should expect citizens to fire back. When uncertainty exists with respect to who the good guys and bad guys are coming through his door—often in the middle of the night unannounced and uninvited—how could it not be self-defense?
It is hard to believe that the Framers of the Constitution had in mind either the police or the military busting through our doors unannounced with guns blazing, as was the case in the examples just cited. This was essentially what the British were doing prior to the Revolutionary War with their general search warrants. The Fourth Amendment to the Bill of Rights prohibited such from ever being reinstituted. It reads: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
The home is the most sacred of all places, the place where we sleep for approximately eight hours a day and are the most vulnerable. Where children often reside. It is very difficult to believe that No-Knock Warrants cause the people to be more secure in their persons or houses. And although a judge, and not the police or military, decide what is reasonable, it is hard to imagine this kind of entry as ever being reasonable unless the suspect is in the act of committing a life or death crime. The dead on both sides make that case.
So what if the drugs are flushed down the toilet by those not law abiding because the police knocked first? When weighed against the police losing their reputation as being first a friend and protector of the people, it pales in comparison. In a free society one should not have cause to fear the police or military.
