Aug 9, 2011 | Constitution
by Dr. Harold Pease
The only power the president has with respect to making law is his signature or the veto of law passed by Congress, or threat thereof. That veto power requires that he return the bill with “his objections” for reconsideration which Congress can override by a two-thirds vote. He may also suggest an area needing the attention of Congress in his State of the Union Address. That’s it! Everything else is pure fabrication on his part to more fully empower himself.
So what are so-called “Signing Statements” used extensively by President George W. Bush and now President Barack Obama who once condemned them? These two words are not in the U.S. Constitution nor is there anything that could suggest this practice. Instead of using one of only two options provided by the Constitution and sending objectionable parts back to Congress for reconsideration, he has created a more powerful third option, that of signing into law the bill excluding the parts that he disagrees with thus undermining the veto power. Signing Statements also have the effect of enabling him to give his own separate spin to the law that is not that of the 535 individuals who created it. One person alone was never given such power. Unless immediately challenged by the Congress his will be the interpretation used by future Congresses, as well as by the Supreme Court, when related issues resurface. In essence he openly refuses to enforce the law he just signed despite his oath to do so. Kings with parliaments never had it so good.
Candidate Obama understood how the practice violated the Constitution and empowered the president when he said: “Congress’s job is to pass legislation. The president can veto it, or he can sign it. But what George Bush has been trying to do as part of his effort to accumulate more power in the presidency, is he’s been saying ‘Well, I can basically change what Congress passed by attaching a letter saying, I don’t agree with this part, or I don’t agree with that part. I’m going to choose to interpret it this way or that way,’” He continued, “That’s not part of his power. But this is part of the whole theory of George Bush that he can make laws as he’s going along. I disagree with that. I taught the Constitution for ten years. I believe in the Constitution.” Then he promises not to do the same thing were he to be elected president. “And I will obey the Constitution of the United States. We’re not going to use signing statements as a way of doing an end run around Congress” (“Obama Signing Statement: Despite Law, I Can Do What I Want on Czars,” by Jonathan Strong, April 15, 2011).
Candidate Obama was right to be so condemning of President Bush who “issued more than 100 such statements signaling that his administration would not carry out congressionally approved provisions on a range of issues, from barring the use of torture to requirements that the executive branch report certain information to Congress.” Ultimately a bipartisan panel of the American Bar Association “decried Bush’s use of signing statements as a serious threat to the rule of law, saying it ran contrary to the system of presidential vetoes and congressional overrides created by the U.S. Constitution” (Exercising his Power or Venturing into Congressional Turf? By Louis Jacobson, July 24, 2009, St Petersburg Times Politifact.com).
So with this Constitutional clarity and solemn promise we would not expect to find President Obama doing the same thing. Wrong! To date he has done so 18 times (Signing Statements Still Controversial, by David G. Taylor, July 27, 2011, St Petersburg Times Politifact.com). His justifications for doing so are filed with the same legalese as are those of his predecessor he condemned. The fact remains that he violates the Constitution as well—only he, unlike his predecessor, cannot claim ignorance in doing so. Having instructed the Constitution he knows the damage that his activity does to the separation of powers as well as empowering him to alter law.
Why does such continue and what is the solution? Because of the plague of political parties that George Washington warned would, in effect, cause us to be more loyal to them than to the principles of the Constitution. Republicans excused Bush and Democrats excuse Obama. The practice will continue to alter the Constitution until our loyalty returns to the Constitution and we threaten impeachment to anyone tampering with it whether a Bush or an Obama. It is time to do so.
Dr. Harold Pease is 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 has taught history and political science from this perspective for over 25 years at Taft College. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.
May 13, 2011 | Constitution
by Dr. Harold Pease
Seemingly everyone asks me what I think of Osama bin Laden’s death. Of course I am delighted but my pause bothers them. Where do I start? Have you an hour? Mostly questions yet unanswered. I know so little!! But those asking me know less but they seem not to be bothered by this. I always want all sides and in this action there are so many. Most see it as an act of real leadership and they unquestioningly believe the President’s every word even though there is little so far that is confirmed independent of him or his people. Would they be so believing were it President George W. Bush? After the first thirty documents I need yet another thirty and possibly another after that before I can “know” with clarity—rarely certainty. But it is my profession to question, then question again. The following are the things that bother me most.
Where did the president get the authority to invade another country and assassinate or kidnap someone without its permission or knowledge? Certainly not in the U.S. Constitution!! Even if done in this country, his authority to do so would be constitutionally questionable. Some remember that this was not the first attack on an individual ordered by a president of the United States. President George Bush kidnapped President Manuel Noriega of Panama, brought him to the United States and had him convicted on U. S. drug smuggling charges. Last I heard a very defiant Noriega is rotting in some Georgia federal prison. Then as now, I ask where are the Constitutional grounds?
Throughout world history this action would be considered an act of war. Had we done this to China or Russia this would be World War III. Were either of them to have done the same to us, missiles from us would have been fired on them the next day. Perhaps it is the $16 billion that we give Pakistan each year that keeps them meek. Notice that they have said that they will not tolerate a repeat of this in the future. Certainly Pakistan’s sovereignty was violated but in a very real sense so was it also of every little country in the world. All are left to fear that the same could happen to them.
Then too, I wonder what the Muslims think of our supposed religious sensitivity to their faith. What I can gather, so far, is that sea burial is for those who die at sea not for those killed on land than taken to the sea. Moreover, the preferred burial is on land and by the family. I understand that his schism of faith prefers unmarked graves and little notoriety. I sympathize with the view that we did not wish to leave radical followers with a sanctuary but don’t they already have one in the residence from which he was taken or couldn’t they still create one as we did when we created the grave of the Unknown Soldier? Was there a Muslim of religious authority present to make certain that everything was done or said in the Muslim way? Everything seemed so rushed. Too rushed! There was no time to ask any country whether it would receive the body so why not just say so rather than falsely suggest that the sea burial was because no country would receive the body. One might ask but who cares, this guy deserved nothing because of what he did. I too do not believe that he should be treated as a religious man but it’s the pretense at sensitivity that I suspect and am offended by.
Was there really any intention of taking him alive? I am not convinced. Would he not be a treasure trove of secrets to destroy al Qaeda through intensive interrogation? Why not let him feel what others with him felt at Guantanamo Bay? A bullet is a too easy and quick way out, allowing him to die as a martyr for Allah. Would he not have suffered more by remaining alive for a time, and tried for his crimes against humanity? Anticipating execution is part of the punishment.
Finally, I wonder about the timing. In political science we learn about media frenzies when all the media drop previous stories and rush like piranhas to the new fresh meat. Many media frenzies like earthquakes or tsunamis’ are unpredictable, others not so. In either case, other stories are dropped. I teach my students to always look for who is in charge of the timing and what other stories, previously important thereafter are ignored or buried, in this case the slaughter of civilians in Syria, Donald Trump’s 10 point lead in the republican presidential race, and the so-called “birther” issue. One of his wives said that he had not left the residence for five years. For months we had a CIA team in place a short distance from him watching the property day and night. Could this event have been scheduled a week before or a week later? It did boost the President’s sagging popularity by at least 9 points, but dare I mention these things?
All this said, I find no reason not to believe that everything went down just as the President said, still time has taught me to turn every stone before determining finality, and that for both republican and democratic presidents. So when I pause in my reply I just need a little more time for the finality that others have so early.
Dr. Harold Pease is 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 has taught history and political science from this perspective for over 25 years at Taft College.
May 4, 2011 | Constitution, Economy, Tea Party
Dr. Harold Pease
When President George W. Bush left office the national debt was about $10 trillion—the highest in our history and a serious, unacceptable problem. Today, two and a-half years later, it exceeds $14,340 trillion. We are on the eve of destruction, as Barry McGuire sang in his 1965 anti-war hit “Eve of Destruction,” and both parties are responsible.
The President wanted to spend $3.7 trillion this year. Our total income for the year is about $2 trillion so that would leave a deficit of $1.7 trillion which will be added to the $14 trillion that is already placed upon the backs of our children and grand children. I am having difficulty understanding why this isn’t a sell-out to them.
In fiscal responsibility both parties flunked Economics 101 and proved themselves inept. Spending, even if money does not exist to be spent, is the drug addiction of both parties, although presently amplified by the Democrats, as never before in U.S. history. The printing presses are already going full steam as the Federal Reserve gave itself power last December (with presidential knowledge) to devalue your savings by printing and distributing $600 billion by June 1, of this year. We are on a course neither party fully is willing to stop. The time has come for the states, under Article V of the Constitution, to take charge and do so. The only answer to avoiding financial collapse is a balanced budget amendment and it must be enacted ASAP as Congress and the President are out of control.
All state constitutions except Vermont’s require a balanced budget in their spending. Such parameters within their borders make it easier for them to say “no!!” to new spending without also raising taxes. Basically one spends only that which is received.
The Constitution does not have a balanced budget amendment largely because of the Founders attitude that only gold and silver would be the medium of exchange in the states as expressed in Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution. This would automatically inhibit governments’ temptation to first create and then inflate paper money. We got off track rather quickly and by 1797 Thomas Jefferson wrote in irritation, “I wish it were possible to obtain a single amendment to our Constitution. I would be willing to depend on that alone for the reduction of the administration of our government; I mean an additional article taking from the Federal Government the power of borrowing. I now deny their power of making paper money or anything else a legal tender” (Thomas Jefferson, Letter to John Taylor of Caroline, November 26, 1798; reproduced in The Writings of Thomas Jefferson v. 10, edited by Lipscomb and Bergh).
A Constitutional amendment to restrict the federal government from further enslaving our children with debt could come from either the states or the Congress. Since 1975 thirty-two states have petitioned Congress proposing a balanced budget amendment. Two more, are needed to complete the 2/3rds requirement of Article V in the Constitution forcing the ratification process. This process necessitates the acceptance of 3/4ths of the states which, with the flagrant abuse of our money supply on the part of the federal government, should be a given. The beauty of this is that a spending addicted president, whether republican or democrat, is by-passed. No signature is sought and no veto power can be exercised. So states let us get two more states on board.
Congress was one vote short of passing a proposal for a Balanced Budget Amendment in 1997 but interest waned until the Tea Party Movement reinvigorated the demand. The Senate presently has a good amendment under consideration. Outside of war or an “imminent and serious military threat to national security,” Congress and the President must submit a balanced budget. It has an 18 % spending cap. To exceed this for one year requires a 2/3rds approval of both Houses for “a specific excess.” Declared war, or “an imminent and serious military threat to national security,” also allows excess of the 18% but the excess must again be specific. The bill requires 2/3rds of both Houses for any tax increase and forbids the raise of the debt ceiling without a 3/5th of both Houses vote. Finally, it gives the government 5 years to get their fiscal house in order before the balance takes affect (Human Events, April 11, 2011, p. 13).
The Founders gave us two paths to constitutional change, the Congress, and should they fail, the states which could by-pass them. Would one of you finally come through for the people, or do you both wish to continue to leave us on the eve of destruction?
Dr. Harold Pease is 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 has taught history and political science from this perspective for over 25 years at Taft College. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org
Apr 26, 2011 | Economy, Taxes
By Dr. Harold Pease
Lets see if I have this right. The President wanted to spend $3.7 trillion this year. Our total income for the year is about $2 trillion so that would leave a deficit of $1.7 trillion which will be added to the $14 trillion that is already placed upon the backs of my children and grand children, some not born yet.
Democrats wanted to cut $6 billion from this deficit, and thought that a hefty amount, leaving only $1.64 trillion for my children and grand children to make up latter, raising the national debt to over $15 trillion by years end. Not to be outdone, Republicans in the House and Senate wanted to reduce the budget by $61 billion leaving only $1.09 trillion to borrow from Communist China or elsewhere to be added to the $14 trillion national debt, making it in excess of $15 trillion by the end of this year. Democrats pat themselves on the back for taking a cup of water out of the Pacific Ocean and Republicans gloat when taking a mere bucketful of water from the same ocean.
So the parties went to war over the issue and compromised at $38.5 billion, which still leaves us in excess of $15 trillion in debt by years end. Well-done guys! Your final agreement was about the equivalent of a one-day deficit reduction. I am having difficulty understanding why this wasn’t a sell-out to my children. In fiscal responsibility both parties proved themselves inept.
We have the normal three solutions: 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. But that will rob those on fixed incomes and seriously damage the lower classes who don’t have the money to purchase gold or silver to ensure the value of what they have saved. Yet the Federal Reserve did just that last December when they, with President Barack Obama’s authorization, began printing and distributing $600 billion, all by June 1, 2011. Or finally, we could cut half the free or subsidized “non-essential” programs and live within our means. That is the most realistic as long as it isn’t “your” program that is cut.
Dare I suggest a fourth solution? The Internal Revenue Service just revealed that 45% of U. S. households paid no federal income tax last year and the year before it was 47% who had not. Are we becoming a two-class society—those who pay taxes and those who do not, with the non-tax payers still receiving generous subsidies from the pockets of those who do? Worse, those who are taxpayers are denied these same benefits their less productive neighbors receive. We all have able-bodied friends who chose 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?
Why should anyone be exempt? Don’t we all use federal services in some way? In fairness shouldn’t we require everyone to pay federal income taxes even if less for the poor? Why do we assume that they should be exempt? 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 then the issue of taxation becomes meaningless to them. “So what if taxes are raised, it does not affect me!”
When the non-taxpayer class (presumably the poor) reach 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 do. The working tax payer 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,” helps reduce the national debt.
Dr. Harold Pease is 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 has taught history and political science from this perspective for over 25 years at Taft College.
Apr 20, 2011 | Constitution
By Dr Harold Pease
Donald Trump’s recent assertion that he isn’t convinced that President Barack Obama was born in the United States but hopes that he can prove that he was, took the lid off a story that has laid under the table too hot for the establishment news to touch for years. Those even hinting such could be the case are normally met with the word ”birther,” designed by proponents to cause the inquirer to shutter in shame as did the vampire to the cross in mythical horror stories, or to the anti-communist confronted with the word McCarthyism in the 1950’s. That one word is seemingly their only answer and defense. Properly discredited, without an ounce of evidence presented to the contrary, he proceeds no further and is silenced, which is the intent. But what if it is true?
Just because the media will not touch this story does not make it not believed. Arizona, also not convinced, just passed a law requiring that to be placed on the ballot in their state those running for elected office must first show a birth certificate proving citizenship; at least 12 other states are sure to follow. If this happens, and the President cannot do so, he may not be on the ballot in perhaps a fourth of the states in the 2012 election very likely ensuring his defeat. Such a law is also under consideration in the House of Representatives.
One’s citizenship is an important constitutional question since citizenship is mandated as a requirement for the highest office in the land. If the Constitution is not enforced when violated the requirement is weakened or destroyed by past practice and anyone in the world can be our president. The Constitution clearly mandated that only one of our own could be our president. If citizenship cannot be proven than Obama must vacate the seat making Joe Biden President.
So here is what we know. Barack Obama does have a Certificate of Live Birth. Contenders say that this is not the same as a Birth Certificate because such is always embossed with the seal of the state of issuance and signed by a recognized authority of that state. Obama’s certificate, they maintain, has no signature and Xerox copies cannot prove embossment. Moreover they argue, that his Certificate of Live Birth also demonstrates evidence of having been tampered with. In Obama’s defense some states only issue Certificates of Live Birth, so in those states this is their birth certificate.
Obama’s paternal grandmother reportedly told her pastors that she was present at Obama’s birth in Kenya. The two pastors reportedly have signed affidavits to that fact. Moreover, his mother enrolled him as a student in Indonesia where such enrollment necessitated renouncement of citizenship in any other country (The New American, November 24, 2008, p. 8). It is also contended that his religion at that time was listed as Islam. It is not disputed that Obama attended school in Indonesia for four years but clarity on the other issues remain lacking.
Obama has refused to release his medical records or records from Occidental or Harvard College. Contenders say that the reason he cannot do so is because they would demonstrate that he received financial aid on the basis of having applied as a foreign student. Releasing his college records should put this allegation to rest but the president still will not do so further feeding the argument that he may have something to hide.
One must also note that there exists some false reporting on the contenders (or those posing to be contenders) side. This is not helpful as it discredits honest sources. Snopes.com had to declare as false a story alleged to be from AP insisting that a forced release of Obama’s Occidental College transcripts two weeks ago, did verify the above allegation. No such AP release exists. This does underscore the need for clean investigative reporting or a bi-partisan congressional review.
That said, apparently there are a vast number of others, besides Donald Trump, who “are not convinced President Barack Obama was born in the United States but hope that he can prove that he was,” despite the establishment medias,’ seemingly deliberate, attempt to villainize anyone suggesting such with the word “birther” rather than investigate the claims. Lets put this story to rest for both Obama and his accusers.
Dr. Harold Pease is 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 has taught history and political science from this perspective for over 25 years at Taft College.
