Jul 22, 2012 | Constitution, Immigration, Take Action
By Dr. Harold Pease
What follows are six major changes to traditional constitutional procedure that have happened the past six months, none of which through the change process required in Article V of the Constitution, but each will adversely affect the distribution of power in this country and how we define liberty in the future. This time period could very well be the most radical six-month period of constitutional change in U.S. history. Should we be concerned with, or worse, frightened by, our own government?
We begin on New Years Eve with the President signing into law the 600-plus pages National Defense Authorization Act which, among other things, authorizes the military to seize and transport U.S. citizens from U.S. soil to Guantanamo Bay on the presumption that they are terrorists. The threat of potential indefinite incarceration without recourse to lawyer, judge and trial is unconscionable in a free society. The new law ends the writ of habeas corpus found in Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution and Posse Comitatus protection (protection from ones own armed forces). It also lays waste to much of the Bill of Rights, notably Amendments 4, 5, 6, and 8. Its intimidation potential will impact free speech, press, and assembly as well. Local law enforcement is essentially bi-passed.
Then in February, The National Operations Center (NOC), a part of The Department of Homeland Security, released its “Media Monitoring Initiative” giving itself permission to “gather, store, analyze, and disseminate” data on millions of users of social media, primarily Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube. So far they appear less concerned with the information on the average Joe or Jane, although all is kept just in case, as they deal with unmanaged journalists and bloggers. These are defined as those who use “traditional and/or social media in real time to keep their audience situationally aware and informed,” such as myself. Targeted are those who post articles, comments, or other information to popular web outlets. It is a clear violation of the 4th Amendment in the Bill of Rights.
In March we saw and heard Joint Chief of Staff Chairman General Martin Dempsey and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, each, in testimony given to the Senate Armed Services Committee, inferred that the authority that they depended upon for military purposes came not from Congress, as required in the U. S. Constitution, but from unelected UN or NATO authorities. Disbelieving what he heard, Senator Jeff Sessions repeatedly inquired in different ways only to be given the same answer.
Also, on March 16, President Barack Obama issued his National Defense Resources Preparedness Executive Order authorizing the Executive department to take-over, in case of a national emergency, all civil transportation, including the “movement of persons and property by all modes of transportation … within the United States.” Other things specifically listed to be under his sole control were: all forms of energy, all farm equipment, all food resources, all food resources facilities, all health resources, and all water resources (Section VIII). “National emergency” was never adequately defined. Nor was it explained why the president needed near dictatorial power in a national emergency and had not in crisis heretofore or when this dictatorial power would end. The Order makes The National Security Council and Homeland Security Council the policy-making forum—not Congress.
In June, frustrated by his inability to get through Congress a law on immigration he favored, and tired of making law the constitutional way, President Barack Obama, openly defied Congress and the Constitution on June 16, 2012, by ordering a like measure to that previously defeated, implemented anyway. In a news conference he outlined the general parameters of his “Dream Act” but specifics came from a six-page Memorandum from John Morton, Director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (See FEA Number 306-112-0026), to enforcement personnel, which essentially advised ignoring existing immigration law. Although our empathy goes out to the children of illegals raised in the United States, is it now permissible for future presidents to make law and defy the authority of Congress?
Finally, despite the clear wordage of the Constitution that “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives,” the Supreme Court essentially wrote new law by its ruling, in June, on National Health Care. Even Justice Anthony M. Kennedy referred to it as “vast Judicial overreaching” or “Judicial legislation.” So is it now okay if the Court attempts “to force on the nation a new act?”
So, with respect to these six major changes in traditional constitutional procedure occurring the last six months, should we be concerned with, or frightened of, our own government? How can we not be? Think of all the power taken by, or hand delivered to, the office of President. What event awaits us when such will be used? Unless Congress is willing to reverse the above six items, it may very well be making itself, and the Constitution, irrelevant. You can help by refusing to support any candidate who is not aware of, and is actively against, any of the six constitutional procedure changes noted above.
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.
Jul 9, 2012 | Constitution, Healthcare, Taxes
By Dr. Harold Pease
With respect to the Supreme Court’s ruling on National Health Care, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy said that the court majority “regards its statutory interpretation as modest. It is not.” Then, noticeably disturbed by the ruling, added. “It amounts to a vast judicial overreaching. It creates a debilitated, inoperable version of health care regulation that Congress did not enact and the public does not expect.” He called it “judicial legislation” and accused Chief Justice John Roberts of trying to “force on the nation a new act.”
Judicial activism is when a law of Congress is interpreted by the Supreme Court in such a way as to give it new meaning. George Washington warned us in his Farewell Address of the inclination of government to do so. “Let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed.” Usurpation, in his day meant twisting things around to extract meaning that was initially not there.
So what did Justice Roberts twist or legislate that changed the National Affordable Healthcare Act (Obamacare) as passed by Congress? At the top of the list, his rewrite called it a tax when Congress never passed it as a tax and the political party passing it, and their President, Barack Obama, emphatically resisted any description of it as such. Rich Lowry, a political commentator, said it best. “Obamacare as passed by Congress had a mandate to buy health insurance and a penalty for failing to comply. Obamacare as passed by the Supreme Court has an optional tax for those without health insurance. Obamacare as passed by Congress required states to participate in a massive expansion of Medicaid, or lose all their federal Medicaid funds. Obamacare as passed by the Supreme Court makes state participation in the Medicaid expansion optional.” In short, “Obamacare as passed by Congress didn’t pass constitutional muster. Obamacare as passed by the Supreme Court didn’t pass Congress” (The Umpire Blinks, by Rich Lowry, The Corner, National Review Online, June 29, 2012).
Judicial Legislation or Activism is not new. The desire for the Court to “legislate” through decisions expressed itself more fully the last sixty years as it attempted to “right” perceived wrongs instead of sending the faulted legislation back to the legislative branch for correction by the peoples’ representatives. By altering legislative law it has moved into state prerogatives such as education, state residency requirements, and imposed federal standards of procedure on local police to name but a few. In broadening its power base, far beyond Constitutional restraints, it has almost destroyed the idea of two co-equal governments, one federal the other state, known as federalism.
In the National Affordable Healthcare Act the Supreme Court has effectively retrained further encroachment (mutilation) of the Commerce Clause but opened wide the interpretive door that the federal government can control anything it taxes. So, does this mean that if the federal government wishes to control free speech, press, assembly, religion, guns, or any other activity, it first simply levies a tax on that activity? Apparently judicial legislation creates a “need” for additional judicial legislation. God help us!!
We must return to our foundation the U.S. Constitution as written, without all the judicial or executive alterations that go beyond this document. According to Article I Section I, “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.” There is no authority for either of the two other branches of government to make law—any law; and law made by Congress is specifically listed in Article I, Section 8 where 18 clauses identify the powers of the federal government. So, even Congress cannot make any law they like. The issue of health is not noted and is therefore, as per Amendment 10, entirely a state issue. The Supreme Court majority ruling ignored this long-term clarity and instead chose to violate the document they are charged with upholding.
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.
Mar 17, 2011 | Constitution, Healthcare
By Dr. Harold W. Pease
On February 16, 2011, the Idaho State Legislature passed a bill by an overwhelming 49-20 vote nullifying, in its state, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act popularly referred to as “Obamacare.” Is it Constitutional to say no to the Federal Government when a state believes a Federal Mandate to be unconstitutional? Eleven other states appear prone to do the same thing. The Tea Party movement largely supports the nullification doctrine. Twenty-eight states have sued the federal government for having exceeded its Constitutional power, but Idaho is the first state to say, “no will do.” Can they do so?
Such has never been presented to the Supreme Court but the issue has two historical precedents. Thomas Jefferson in 1798 attempted to nullify The Alien and Sedition Acts created by his Federalist Party predecessors. These raised residency requirements for citizenship from 5 years to 14. Moreover, the law allowed the president to deport “dangerous” foreigners during times of peace and imprison them during times of hostilities. Anyone defaming or impeding government officials, including the president, was subject to heavy fines and/or imprisonment. Jeffersonians objected on the basis of the unreasonable empowerment of the president and the attack on the First Amendment, particularly freedoms of speech and press. They too said, “no will do.” The Supreme Court never took the case, largely because the bill was design to last only until 1801, (Federalists did not want it used against them should they lose the next election) thus the issue remained unresolved.
Next to use the Nullification Doctrine was South Carolina with respect to the 1828 “Tariff of Abominations,” believed by them and neighboring states to be unconstitutional. Opponents to it declared it to be “null and void” within their border and threatened to take South Carolina out of the Union if Washington attempted to collect custom duties by force. President Andrew Jackson prepared to invade the state. A compromise Tariff of 1833 gradually lowered the tariff to acceptable levels and the issue faded away; again with no Supreme Court ruling.
When the Founding Fathers created the Constitution they recognized two co-existing governments known as Federalism: one, the federal government, to function primarily externally, the other, the states, to manage internal functions. Like a marriage they functioned—neither being master nor slave. Of the two only the federal government was restricted in its functions by a list of 17 specific powers found in Article I, Section 8. The Founders knew that all national governments like to grow. The states were left unrestricted. To make doubly sure that this limitation on the federal government was permanent the States insisted on having a Bill of Rights included in the Constitution as a condition of their acceptance of it. Amendment 10 reads, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution…are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.”
Unfortunately for power-hungry federal politicians, the word health is not in Section 8, nor has it been added to the Constitution by way of amendment through Article V, which is the process for “change that you can believe in,” and thus it is devoid of Constitutional authority. If we are to follow the Constitution as intended, and not make a mockery of it, health related question are state functions at best and cannot be moved to a Federal jurisdiction without a 3/4th affirmative vote of the states as per Article V of the U.S. Constitution. Idaho has every right to say, “no will do” and more states should do the same.
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.
Mar 10, 2011 | Constitution, Healthcare
Dr. Harold W. Pease
“We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it,” said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi March 8, 2010, before the passage of the National Health Care legislation. It turns out that buried deep within the 2,700 page bill there exists funding to the tune of $105 billion dollars built into it to the year 2019, including five billion for this year alone. Is funding beyond the length of time a member is elected to serve constitutional? Definitely not!!
Why would they do this? The planners knew that given the length of the bill (more especially the several hundred pages injected the night before the final vote) that it would not be read. They also knew, given the massive Tea Party rejection of ever more government in our lives, that it was not popular and that they might lose control of the House in the November 2010 elections making possible the refunding of Obamacare. Whether Americans are in support of the Bill or not this has to go down as the most deceitful piece of legislation in American History. Every lawmaker who did not read it fully should be fired in the next election and everyone who did, and let this kind of hidden funding pass, rejected as well.
What is wrong with it outside the massive indebtedness passed to our children and grandchildren who are already slaves to a debt of over 14 trillion dollars? It also seriously damages the Constitution as well. Article I, Section 7, requires that “All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives.” All spending is also taxing. Spending necessitates taxing or inflating the currency which is also taxing. This was placed in the Constitution to insure that the people were never over taxed as it is the nature of all governments to grow and doing so necessitates taking more money from the people. All taxing bills would also have clarity and transparency as such. The idea of hiding a tax measure, more especially guaranteeing funds for eight years into the future (literally added in the middle of the night as mentioned), would have been foreign to the Founders.
Section 8 of the same Article, Clause 12, defines a spending limit of two years for money financing war. “To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years.” The reason for the two-year limitation on this, and everything else, is that members of the House of Representatives are elected for two-year terms renewed only if they continue to reflect the will of the people. They have no constitutional legitimacy to force the extraction of tax monies past the time they legitimately represent the people—two years.
The $105 billion assures the implementation of the 159 new federal bureaucracies created by the bill no matter what the people or any future Congress feels about it. This appears to be intentionally designed to bypass Congress’s normal appropriations process and to keep the next Congress from undoing their work. Once these bureaucracies are in place it is nearly impossible to undo them, as the thousands of new bureaucrats in place will be highly motivated and vocal to prevent their dismantlement. The 112th Congress, the House of Representatives in particular, must act immediately specifically identifying and defunding each program one-by-one before any already allocated funds are spent and before moving on to any other business. This is that critical. Goliath grows bigger everyday and will forever eat increasingly more out of the taxpayer’s pocket.
For the 111th Congress to extend its’ jurisdiction for an additional eight years, in effect reducing the power of the next four Congresses, is unconscionable. By not challenging this precedent, established by a Constitutionally rogue Congress, it could be used by other Congresses in the future. This must not be permitted. This may well be the most corrupt Congress in U. S. History—certainly one of the most damaging to the U. S. Constitution. The 112th could be second if it does not reassert its power and return to the constitutional appropriations process.
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.
