Sep 28, 2010 | Constitution
By Dr. Harold Pease
I did not celebrate Constitution Day September 17, primarily because I did not know how to do so. The Federal Government requires the college where I work to do something on that day to qualify for it’s Title IV grant for which, if people really read the document, they would find no authority.
I was asked to give suggestions. The assigned administrator and I pondered several options, none of which seemed fitting or particularly meaningful. Still, we should do something; ignorance on this document is appalling and patriotism from those under 25 seems virtually dead. Even the president was filmed recently with his hands to his side during the playing of the national anthem, expressing total ignorance, total disrespect, or both.
Nearly no one reads this document anymore. Republicans only give lip service to it, and Democrats don’t even pretend to do that much. So how shall we celebrate Constitution Day? Should we celebrate the total disregard of the list in Article I, Section 8 from which the government is limited in making laws? The Founders created the list so that government could not rule wherever it pleased as in other countries. Perhaps we could talk about the 10th Amendment, which strengthens the argument that all powers not specifically mentioned remain with the states and with the people. This is flagrantly violated almost daily by a renegade, inept, or ignorant congress.
Perhaps we should celebrate the separation of powers created by the Founders where one branch made the law, another enforced the law, and yet a third adjudicated the law—a separation that we used to honor. However, we would also have to acknowledge how the government has corrupted that separation. For the last three generations an unelected bureaucracy made most federal laws because Congress got lazy. They skirt around it by calling them “rules and regulations” instead of laws, but they still exact a punishment if a business or individual is out of harmony. Presidents make law by executive orders, many with no legislative authorization. “Signing Statements”, popularized by the Bush Administration, distort laws passed by Congress by removing portions he disagreed with. The Obama Administration created a new level of administrators he called “Czars” (purposely skirting Senate confirmation) to manage areas where no Constitutional authority exists—last count was 34. To all of this Congress remains silent to the abduction of her power. The Supreme Court also makes laws by ruling in such a way as to give existing law new meaning. Even Clarence Thomas admitted that some justices attempt to ascertain what the Founder had in mind before ruling; others he says, “just make it up.” This certainly would be an interesting presentation for Constitution Day.
Maybe we could celebrate the concept of federalism, the notion that the states handle domestic issues and the federal government handles primarily foreign issues and that they are coequal (like a marriage) neither being master or slave to the other; but this is gone. Perhaps we could celebrate the Constitutional mandate Article V that federal empowerment required the consent of 3/4ths of the states. Unfortunately, this notion of shared and equal was abandoned in the fifties and sixties, and as a result the federal government clearly rules the states; all but Arizona bow in near total obedience.
There are so many other topics one might “celebrate”, such as the distortion of the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution from an intended individual right to have a weapon, whether government approved or not, to only a collective right through a militia now interpreted as the National Guard which organization did not then exist.
The Constitution is a foreign language to most and this ignorance has resulted in our being out of harmony so long. The perversions are almost numberless. Perhaps we could celebrate Constitution Day by bussing in an assemblage of elected officials assigned to tell us how they are going to return us to the Constitution before it is too late. But how do we keep them from just giving lip service to the document instead giving self-serving speeches? Check with me next September 17. We will do something in honor of the Constitution because it is mandated; but will it be meaningful?
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.
Sep 15, 2010 | Constitution
By Dr. Harold Pease
Congress asked God for help today. In a typical workweek, Monday through Friday, prayer is said every morning in the U. S. Senate and in the U. S. House of Representatives. Each House invites and pays a Christian minister to pray each day for a week they are in session. Ministers apply for this privilege and they come from every sector of the country. This has been so since the 1st Congress in 1789 some 221 years ago and will continue as long as we are a Christian nation. Such affirms our nation’s faith in God as Sovereign Lord of this nation. This honors the historic separation of Church and State as outlined in the 1st Amendment, but not the separation of God and State, which they strongly opposed.
The tradition of prayer in government assemblages is long standing. The first recorded national prayer was given by Reverend Jacob Duche,’ Rector of Christ Church of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, in the First Continental Congress Sept. 7, 1774, even before the creation of the Articles of Confederation, our first constitution and government. Notice the intensity of their appeal to God to help them obtain their freedom from British rule.
“O Lord our Heavenly Father, high and mighty King of kings, and Lord of lords, who dost from thy throne behold all the dwellers on earth and reignest with power supreme and uncontrolled over all the Kingdoms, Empires and Governments; look down in mercy, we beseech Thee, on these our American States, who have fled to Thee from the rod of the oppressor and thrown themselves on Thy gracious protection, desiring to be henceforth dependent only on Thee. To Thee have they appealed for the righteousness of their cause; to Thee do they now look up for that countenance and support, which Thou alone canst give. Take them, therefore, Heavenly Father, under Thy nurturing care; give them wisdom in Council and valor in the field; defeat the malicious designs of our cruel adversaries; convince them of the unrighteousness of their cause and if they persist in their sanguinary purposes, of own unerring justice, sounding in their hearts, constrain them to drop the weapons of war from their unnerved hands in the day of battle!
“Be Thou present, O God of wisdom, and direct the councils of this honorable assembly; enable them to settle things on the best and surest foundation. That the scene of blood may be speedily closed; that order, harmony and peace may be effectually restored, and truth and justice, religion and piety, prevail and flourish amongst the people. Preserve the health of their bodies and vigor of their minds; shower down on them and the millions they here represent, such temporal blessings as Thou seest expedient for them in this world and crown them with everlasting glory in the world to come. All this we ask in the name and through the merits of Jesus Christ, Thy Son and our Savior. Amen.”
Even during the Constitutional Convention, prayer was referenced as a solution to the tension in the room on June 28,1787, when the patriarch of that assemblage, Benjamin Franklin, stood and said, addressing the Chair:
“I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth: that God Governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid?
We have been assured, Sir, in the sacred writings, that ‘except the Lord build the House they labour in vain that build it.’ I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without his concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better, than the Builders of Babel . . . I therefore beg leave to move—that henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven, and its blessings on our deliberations, be held in this Assembly every morning before we proceed to business, and that one or more of the Clergy of this City be requested to officiate in that Service.”
Both House and Senate prayers are recorded daily in the Congressional Record. Some prayers give council and particulars, most are fairly generic and short. All ask for the assistance of Heaven. Consider the following recent prayer given by Reverend Charles Gallagher on Aug. 10, 2010, which is typical.
“Heavenly Father, we thank you for this new day. You are the author of life. You have designed the universe and you hold it together in your hands. You govern all things. You are the ruler of the world, the supreme lawmaker.
Guide this assembly as it participates in your governing power. As it creates laws for the human order, may it always respect the laws your divine order has imposed. Let us remember that the rights of the person come not from the deliberations of men, but from the hand of God.
May this assembly always protect the life and respect the dignity of all human beings, especially those who are too weak and too small to protect themselves. We ask this through Christ our Lord, Amen.”
So Congress asked God for help today. Good! May we never forget to do so. It is the essence of our strength.
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.
Sep 8, 2010 | Economy
By Dr. Harold Pease
By mid 2008 almost everybody knew that we were in deep financial trouble. But the forces that brought it about actually began decades ago with The Community Reinvestment Act in 1977. This legislation “forced lending institutions to grant mortgages to people whose income, credit histories, and net worth would previously have disqualified them from getting such loans.”
An old adage suggests that in getting a loan from a bank the recipient must first prove that he does not need one by listing his assets. The bank uses this list to retrieve all or a portion of what is owed should the recipient default on the loan. The less invested or potentially lost the easier it is for the recipient to walk or default. Such is long standing wisdom and favors the more industrious individuals, as it should. What this means in real life is that high crime or impoverished areas of town do not attract investors as readily.
Socialists (share the wealth advocates) saw a race connection, thus injustice, when it was realized that “only 72 percent of minority applicants were approved for mortgages, versus 89 percent of white applicants.” Moral outrage followed which was resolved by legislation ”forcing lending institutions to loan money to people they would otherwise not lend to and in places where they would otherwise not put their money” (“Government Bailout,” The New American, Sept. 29, 2008, pp.11-15). This forced banks “to engage in far-riskier lending practices or receive a failing CRA (Community Reinvestment Act) grade. To avoid an ‘F’ from the CRA, which could jeopardize their viability, the banks were pressured to direct hundreds of billions of dollars in high-risk mortgages to inner-city and low-income neighborhoods. Moreover, under CRA pressure, banks would ‘hire’ radical, non-profit groups like ACORN to find them customers.”
Banks too benefited as the government organizations Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would buy these poor-quality loans, now referred to as “sub-prime” loans and take them off the banks’ books (Human Events, Oct. 13, 2008, p 8). It seemed good for everyone. I watched in horror as “kids” with little or no credit purchased homes well above their means and home prices doubled in a “fake-value” bubble. There seemed no consequence for risky behavior.
Please note: these faulty loans were brought about by government intervention and regulation, not the free market.
If a person has not repaid previous loans what is the probability that he will repay a new loan? Should exceptions be made for individuals who are non-white? Race should have nothing to do with lending. But banks insisted on giving loans anyway to meet new government race-based quotas. Politicians were loved because they had helped some live beyond their means with zero down loans. Key politicians received healthy contributions from the two government entities that kept them from exercising sufficient scrutiny over the process.
When the defaults inevitably began, investors purchasing the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac “sub-prime” bundles quickly became leery of them and stock in these two government entities plummeted in late 2008. Congress responded with The American Housing Rescue and Foreclosure Prevention Act of 2008 which raised the federal debt limit to $800 billion. The two organizations were considered to be too big to fail. Unfortunately the housing bailout did not restore confidence and property values continued plummeting at somewhere near the foreclosure rate, plus the national debt skyrocketed.
Now getting a loan for everyone is very difficult. Old businesses are retracting (laying off) to survive. Regular businesses cannot expand (hire) without growth capital. New businesses cannot be created without someone’s risk capital. Those able to risk will not do so until the storm passes and the storm is going to be with us for a while. Thanks, Congress. You flunked Economics 101.
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.
Sep 3, 2010 | Constitution
By Dr. Harold Pease
In light of the double murder in a prominent California city where two 16-year-old thugs with baseball bat and knife bludgeoned an elderly couple to death after first robbing them in the hopes of acquiring more money for their frequent marijuana habits, I wonder if this tragedy may have been avoided had the victims used a gun to protect themselves. Many crime victims are also victims to our society’s undying trust that if we are law-abiding others around us will be also, and those who are not will be dealt with swiftly by law enforcement. Such is naive, impossible, and a great American myth.
The above is played out frequently in every major city in America. Those who have and use a gun on an intruder survive and are, in fact, praised by law enforcement. Bad guys perish, leave with a wound, are frightened away and rarely return, or are held until police finally arrive. Last year a ninety-seven year old potential victim held her intruder at bay for several minutes until police could arrive.
Even with faith in the police it remains impossible for them to be on a crime scene until notified of one and even then it will take several minutes for them to actually arrive. In the meantime you are dead. This is why most crazy gunman in shopping centers or McDonald are initially taken out by off duty police officers or concealed weapons permit holders instead of on-duty police officers. Schools are different. No one has a gun so the killing continues until law enforcement arrives.
This is why you must preserve your right of self-defense and why the recent Supreme Court decision, McDonald v. City of Chicago, is so important to you. Some cities like New York, Washington D.C. and Chicago are more naive than others and have actually prohibited their residents from having handguns in their homes for self-defense, thus making their citizens hostage to the thugs and murders around them. That ended June 28,2010 when the Supreme Court ruled in McDonald v. Chicago that “the Right to keep and Bear Arms, guaranteed by the Second Amendment, extends to every city and state in America (“Victory in Chicago,” America’s 1st Freedom, Sept. 2010, pp. 32-36).”
Several philosophical assumptions prevailed in this decision. Self-defense has always been seen as a basic human right of preservation –more especially in England and America–“long before our country existed.” Due Process, which emanated from the 14th Amendment, gives preference to that which is fundamental and deeply rooted in history and tradition which self-defense clearly is. Moreover, the “right to keep and bear arms was also clearly recognized when the 14th Amendment was adopted” and one of the purposes of adoption was to “protect the freedmen after the Civil War. Descendents of ex-slaves should be overwhelmingly in support of their right to defend themselves. Finally, the 14th Amendment made the Bill of Rights applicable in all the states whereas before it was a prohibition of the Federal Government denying such basic rights, now it was a prohibition to the states from doing so as well.
Dissenting Justices were Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, John Paul Stevens, and Sonia Sotomayor, recently appointed to the Court, arguing that The Second Amendment was not a fundamental right. Some justices unconstitutionally attempted to bring to bear international law in their deliberation to which Justice Scalia brilliantly answered, “I care not a whit what passes as ‘civilized’ in England or New Zealand; let their citizens seek their own path toward freedom. In America, we have the Constitution.” I agree.
Perhaps dissenting justices would be more sympathetic to the right of self-defense if they had a burglar downstairs in their homes.
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.
