Wednesday, December 12, 2018

Temecula Constitution Class: First Amendment

Tonight, 6:00 pm, Wednesday, December 12, 2018
Temecula Constitution Class
Riverside County GOP HQ
28120 Jefferson Ave.
Temecula, CA

Constitution Class Handout
Instructor: Douglas V. Gibbs
Lesson 13
The First Amendment
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
            Freedom of Religion
The first part of the 1st Amendment addresses religion. The frame of reference of the Founding Fathers was Europe, and more specifically, England. In Europe, a movement to reform the Church began in 1517, influenced by Martin Luther's critiques of the Roman Catholic Church. The movement led to the Protestant Reformation. After the Pope denied the King of England the permission to divorce his wife, the English king created the Church of England, and established himself as head of the church, so that he may grant to himself the allowance to seek a divorce. In England the Church of England greatly influenced the centralized governmental system, and the politicians greatly influenced The Church. There was no separation between powers of the king and the church, a problem that revealed itself with the 1559 Act of Uniformity. According to the Act of Uniformity, it was illegal to not attend Church of England services. A fine was imposed for each missed Sunday and holy day. Penalties also existed if one decided to have church services not approved by the government, which included arrest, and larger fines. The problem, the Founding Fathers reasoned, was not faith in God, but the establishment of a State Church. Therefore, to protect the governmental system from the influence of religion, while also protecting the various religious sects from a government that may give preferential treatment to an established religion, the Founders determined that the federal government must not establish a state religion (Establishment Clause).
The second part of that clause, however, was clearly designed to protect the various religious exercises by Americans from the government by instructing government to not prohibit the free exercise of religion.
Freedom of religion was a big deal with those early Americans. The importance of religious freedom during that time period is common knowledge. Even the textbooks in today's public school system reveals the Pilgrims first came to the New World in search of religious freedom.
Through the passage of time secular forces in our society have worked to undermine the first clause of the 1st Amendment. Americans have been conditioned to believe in a concept known as the Separation of Church and State. The concept has determined the church is to have no influence, no matter how subtle, on government for any reason. Therefore, reason the secularists who support the modern concept of the separation of church and state, any mention of God in the same breath with the federal government is in direct violation of the 1st Amendment.
To understand the error of the concept of Separation of Church and State in today's society, we must go back and discover the origination of the idea. The truth demands we recognize the language used in the writings of the Founders, as well as grasp the history of the colonies - including a series of letters between the federal government and the Danbury Baptists of Connecticut, culminating in the letters to Thomas Jefferson after he became President of the United States after the Election of 1800.
Each of the colonies began as a collection of like-minded religious folk who wanted freedom for their religion (not necessarily freedom of all religions). In Jamestown, in 1610, Dales Law mandated the Jamestown colonists to attend Anglican worship. The law went so far as to have provisions against criticism of the church. Violation of Dales Law could even lead to death. The Puritan Colonies to the north had similar laws, even setting up their governments in accordance with Puritan Law. Connecticut was one of those Puritan Colonies, and in 1639 the colony enacted "The Fundamental Orders of Connecticut." The law set Connecticut up as a theocracy, disallowing non-Puritans from holding office. The government was the church, and the church was the government.
The practice of religious preference was not limited to Connecticut. All of the States enforced established religions, except Pennsylvania and Rhode Island.
Though Pennsylvania was largely a Quaker dominated State, William Penn believed that religion should be free from state control, so Pennsylvania did not persecute non-Quakers. However, in Pennsylvania, in order to hold office, you still had to be a Christian.
Rhode Island, founded in 1636 as a colony, was based on the principle of true religious liberty, and took in folks who were trying to escape the religious persecution of the other colonies.
Connecticut's Puritan dominated landscape included a group of Baptists in Danbury, Connecticut who were tired of being treated like second class citizens.
Thomas Jefferson drafted the Virginia Act For Establishing Religious Freedom in Virginia, and with James Madison's assistance, finally got it enacted into law in 1786. After many letters to President Adams that resulted in no assistance, the Danbury Baptists were excited about Jefferson winning the presidential election in 1800. Finally, they would have someone in office who would help them in their fight for religious freedoms in Connecticut.
The Danbury Baptists wrote to Jefferson to congratulate him for his win, and to appeal to him for help. Thomas Jefferson responded with a letter that carries the line, "a wall of separation between church and state," which has become the source from which the infamous concept of Separation of Church and State was eventually derived.
The Founding Fathers desired that Americans be free to worship as they wished, without being compelled by government through an established religion. The key, however, is that they not only did not want the federal government compelling a person through laws regarding religion, but the government shall not "prohibit the free exercise thereof."
Thomas Jefferson, as indicated in his letter to the Danbury Baptists, and his other writings, was against the government establishing a "State Church." However, he also believed that men should be free to exercise their religion as they deem fit, and not be forced to follow a government mandate that may prohibit religion.
The Danbury Baptists were concerned over local religious freedoms, but Jefferson was clear, the federal government could not mandate anything in regards to religion. It is a State issue, and the Danbury Baptists needed to address the issue themselves through their State government. Jefferson's reference to a wall of separation was an explanation that the federal government cannot prohibit the free exercise of religion for any reason, including on public grounds, but if a State was to prohibit the free exercise of religion, or establish a state church, it was an issue that must be resolved at the State level.
            Freedom of Speech and Freedom of the Press
The point of including in the Bill of Rights the freedom of speech, and of the press, was specifically designed to protect political speech, though other speech is protected by this clause as well. The Founding Fathers believed that freedom hinged on the freedoms of political speech and the press. Benjamin Franklin wrote in the Pennsylvania Gazette, April 8, 1736, regarding the American doctrine behind freedom of speech and of the press:
"Freedom of speech is a principal pillar of a free government; when this support is taken away, the constitution of a free society is dissolved, and tyranny is erected on its ruins. Republics and limited monarchies derive their strength and vigor from a popular examination into the action of the magistrates."
James Madison in 1799 wrote, "In every State, probably, in the Union, the press has exerted a freedom in canvassing the merits and measures of public men of every description which has not been confined to the strict limits of the common law."
            Freedom of the Right of the People To Peaceably Assemble, and to Petition the Government for a Redress of Grievances
The right to peaceably assemble means that citizens may peacefully parade and gather, and demonstrate support or opposition of public policy. This part of the 1st Amendment is closely tied to Freedom of Speech, guaranteeing one's ability to express one's views by freedom of speech and the right to peaceably assemble.
The need to protect the right to peaceably assemble was not a new concept during the Constitutional Convention. Before the Bill of Rights, the Declaration and Resolves of the First Continental Congress declared on October 14, 1774:
The inhabitants of the English colonies in North-America, by the immutable laws of nature, the principals of the English constitution, and the several charters or compacts, have the following rights: They have a right peaceably to assemble, consider their grievances, and petition the king: and that all prosecutions, prohibitory proclamations, and commitments for the same are illegal.
In 1776, Pennsylvania's declaration of rights guaranteed peaceable assembly. Pennsylvania was the first State to recognize this right.
Originally, the right to assemble was considered less important than the right to petition. Now, many historians consider the two to be equally important, and to actually complement each other.
The Founding Fathers felt that the right to assemble, and petition the government for a redress of grievances, were important keys to protecting States' Rights, and the rights of the people, from the federal government. The need to assemble, to come together and share common beliefs and act upon those beliefs, is what began the drive for independence, and ultimately what led to the American Revolution. The right to assemble and petition the government for a redress of grievances, the Founding Fathers believed, was one of the primary tools available to the citizens in their drive to stop tyrannies before they could take hold.
The right to peaceable assembly provides the opportunity for all citizens to participate in America's political life and in the electoral process. A recent example of this inalienable right in action is the Tea Party Movement. The Tea Party rallies are peaceful assemblies. These rallies are protected by the Constitution when they are for a lawful purpose, are conducted in an orderly manner, and publicize some type of grievance. Many groups and organizations use assembly as a way to show support for an idea, or dispute, as characterized by the Tea Party.
1559 Act of Uniformity - In Britain it was illegal not to attend Church of England services, with a fine imposed for each missed Sunday and holy day. Penalties for having unofficial services included arrest and larger fines.
Protestant Reformation - Movement of the Church Reform begun in 1517 that was influenced by Martin Luther's critiques of the Roman Catholic Church. The movement led to the formation of the Protestant Christian groups.
Separation of Church and State - Distance in the relationship between organized religion and the nation state.
Theocracy - Form of government in which a state is as governed by religion, or by clergy who believes they are under immediate divine guidance.
Questions for Discussion:
1. How does today's definition of the separation between church and state differ from the attitude towards religion by the Founding Fathers?
2. Why did the Danbury Baptists appeal to Thomas Jefferson for help?
3. Why do you think that the Founding Fathers believed that our freedoms hinged on the freedoms of political speech and the press?
4. What are examples of the people peaceably assembling in protest?
Danbury Baptist Association's letter to Thomas Jefferson, October 7,
Jefferson's Final Letter to the Danbury Baptists, January 1, 1802:
Joseph Andrews, A Guide for Learning and Teaching The Declaration of
Independence and The U.S. Constitution - Learning from the Original Texts Using Classical Learning Methods of the Founders; San Marcos: The Center for Teaching the Constitution (2010).
Philip B. Kurland and Ralph Lerner, The Founder's Constitution -
Volume Five - Amendments I-XII; Indianapolis: Liberty Fund (1987).
The Declaration and Resolves of the First Continental Congress declared
on October 14, 1774, U.S. History dot org:
Thomas Jefferson, The Virginia Act For Establishing Religious Freedom,
Copyright 2015 Douglas V. Gibbs

Pelosi, Schumer, Hate of Trump on Display in White House

By Douglas V. Gibbs
Author, Speaker, Instructor, Radio Host

Ronald Reagan learned the hard way when the Democrats reneged on deals they made together.  The Democrats are making sure Donald Trump understands before there are any misunderstandings.

You can't trust the Democrats.

In a White House meeting, Pelosi and Schumer's hate towards the GOP President was on display, front and center.

Divided govt on display...

-- Political  Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Tuesday, December 11, 2018

Corona Constitution Class: Federal Supremacy

Tuesday Night 6:00 pm at AllStar/CARSTAR Collision
522 Railroad St., Corona, CA

Constitution Class Handout
Instructor: Douglas V. Gibbs

Lesson 11
Debt and Supremacy
            Prior Debt
Article VI begins with "All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation."
The first clause of Article VI legally transfers all debts and engagements under the Articles of Confederation into the new government. This is not only the debts and engagements by the United States Government under the Articles of Confederation, but also includes all debts of each of the several States. After ratification of the Constitution, each and every State would be debt free, and all debt would be held by the federal government. This condition, according to the Constitution, would be the last time the States would legally be in debt. In Article I, Section 10, the Constitution forbids the States from issuing bills of credit.
Alexander Hamilton, the first Treasury Secretary, suggested that the United States should remain in perpetual debt. Maintaining a perpetual debt, he explained, would be a mechanism that could assist in holding together the union, since States would be unlikely to secede when they are responsible for a part of the national debt.
Thomas Jefferson disagreed with Hamilton. He recognized the necessity to maintain the ability to borrow, and the need for credit, but found a national debt to be a potentially dangerous proposition.
"Though much an enemy to the system of borrowing, yet I feel strongly the necessity of preserving the power to borrow. Without this, we might be overwhelmed by another nation, merely by the force of its credit." -- Thomas Jefferson to the Commissioners of the Treasury, 1788.
"I am anxious about everything which may affect our credit. My wish would be, to possess it in the highest degree, but to use it little. Were we without credit, we might be crushed by a nation of much inferior resources, but possessing higher credit." -- Thomas Jefferson to George Washington, 1788.
"Though I am an enemy to the using our credit but under absolute necessity, yet the possessing a good credit I consider as indispensable in the present system of carrying on war. The existence of a nation having no credit is always precarious." -- Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1788.
"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. I know that to pay all proper expenses within the year would, in case of war, be hard on us. But not so hard as ten wars instead of one. For wars could be reduced in that proportion; besides that the State governments would be free to lend their credit in borrowing quotas." -- Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1798.
"I sincerely believe... that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity under the name of funding is but swindling futurity on a large scale." -- Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1816.
"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks...will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.... The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs." -- Thomas Jefferson in the debate over the Re-charter of the Bank Bill (1809)
"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies." -- Thomas Jefferson
"... The modern theory of the perpetuation of debt has drenched the earth with blood, and crushed its inhabitants under burdens ever accumulating." -- Thomas Jefferson
            The Supremacy Clause
Article VI, Clause 2: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
Perhaps one of the most misunderstood and misapplied clauses of the U.S. Constitution, the Supremacy Clause has been used in line with the concept of Federal Supremacy. Federal Supremacy is a concept our first Chief Justice, John Jay, believed in. During his stint on the Supreme Court Jay worked feverously to establish broader powers for the courts, and to transform the federal government into a national government. He quit the Supreme Court after failing, pursuing an opportunity to be governor of New York.
Chief Justice John Marshall spent his 36 years on the Supreme Court attempting to establish, and expand federal supremacy, and largely succeeded. Marshall is embraced by statists as the one to develop federal supremacy in his opinion of the Mcculloch v. Maryland case in 1819 where the Court invalidated a Maryland law that taxed all banks in the State, including a branch of Alexander Hamilton's creation, the national Bank of the United States. Marshall held that although none of the enumerated powers of Congress explicitly authorized the incorporation of the national bank, the Necessary and Proper Clause provided the basis for Congress's action. Marshall concluded that "the government of the Union, though limited in its power, is supreme within its sphere of action."
During the 1930s, under Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the Court invoked the Supremacy Clause to give the federal government broader national power. The federal government cannot involuntarily be subjected to the laws of any state, they proclaimed, and is therefore supreme in all laws and actions.
The legally, and commonly, accepted definition, as a result of the courts and the persistence of, regarding the Supremacy Clause, is that all federal laws supersede all State laws.
The commonly understood definition of the Supremacy Clause is in error. To understand the true meaning of this clause, one must pay close attention to the language used.
If the federal government has a law on the books, and the law was made under the authorities granted by the States in the United States Constitution, and a state, or city, passes a law that contradicts that constitutional federal law, the federal government's law is supreme based on The Supremacy Clause. However, if the federal law is unconstitutional because it was made outside constitutional authority, it is an illegal law, and therefore is not supreme over similar State laws.
An example of the federal government acting upon the assumption that all federal law is supreme over State law is when the medical marijuana laws emerged in California in 1996 after the passage of Proposition 215. Though I do not necessarily agree with the legalization of the casual recreational use of marijuana, and believe "weed" should be heavily regulated like any other pharmaceutical drug if being used for medicinal purposes, the actual constitutional legality of the issue illustrates my point quite well.
California's law legalizing marijuana for medicinal purposes was contrary to all federal law that identified marijuana as being illegal in all applications. Using the commonly accepted authority of the federal government based on their definition of the Supremacy Clause, federal agents began raiding and shutting down medical marijuana labs in California. However, there is no place in the U.S. Constitution that gives the federal government the authority to regulate drugs, nor has there been an amendment passed to grant that authority to the federal government. From a constitutional point of view, then, the raids on medical Marijuana labs in California were unconstitutional actions by the federal government.
The Supremacy Clause applies only to federal laws that are constitutionally authorized. Therefore, federal drug laws are unconstitutional. As a result, California's medical marijuana laws are constitutional because they are not contrary to any constitutionally authorized federal laws.
Language plays an important part in the Constitution, and The Supremacy Clause is no different. The clause indicates that State laws cannot be contrary to constitutionally authorized federal laws. For example, Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 states that it is the job of the U.S. Congress to establish an uniform rule of naturalization. The word "uniform" means that the rules for naturalization must apply to all immigrants, and to all states, in the same way. If a state was to then pass a law that granted citizenship through the naturalization process in a way not consistent with federal law, the State would be guilty of violating the Supremacy Clause.
In the case of Arizona's immigration law, S.B. 1070 in 2010, the argument by the federal government that Arizona's law is contrary to federal law was an erroneous argument. Assuming, for just a moment, that the federal government has complete authority over immigration (which is not true since immigration is one of those issues in which the federal government and the States have concurrent powers), Arizona's law would then need to be identical to federal law. And in most ways, the Arizona law was similar to federal immigration law. The only difference was that Arizona's law disallowed racial profiling.
The federal government's argument when the United States Department of Justice filed a lawsuit against the state of Arizona in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona on July 6, 2010, was that the law must be declared invalid because it interfered with the immigration regulations exclusively vested in the federal government. Therefore, a State cannot enforce immigrations laws if the federal government decides not to, nor can a State pass law regarding an issue that the federal government has sole authority over. In this way, Arizona was considered to be acting "contrary" to the federal government.
Article I, Section 9, Clause 1, and Article I, Section 10 in the final clause, provides that States hold concurrent authorities regarding immigration, and securing the border. Therefore, the federal government's argument that they held sole authority over the issue was in error.
Eric Holder, when he filed the lawsuit in the U.S. District Court also acted unconstitutionally because in Article III, Section 2, the Constitution states that all cases "in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction." Since the case was the United States v. Arizona, the case, constitutionally, could only be filed with the United States Supreme Court.
The language in Article VI, Clause 2 reveals clearly that only laws made under the authorities granted to the federal government have supremacy. Article VI, Clause 2 reads, "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
The clause establishes three things as being potentially the supreme law of the land. First, "This Constitution." Second, "Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof." And Third, all Treaties made, or which shall be made."
"This Constitution" is the supreme law of the land. Understanding that first part of the clause is easy.
The second one has a condition attached to it. "Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof."
In pursuance thereof? In pursuance of what?
Of "This Constitution."
Therefore, if a law is not made "in pursuance" of "This Constitution," then the law is an illegal law, and cannot possibly be the supreme law of the land. Unconstitutional laws are not the supreme law of the land, which reveals that all federal laws are not the supreme law of the land. Illegal law made outside the authorities granted by the Constitution of the United States cannot legally be the supreme law of the land.
After "pursuance thereof" in the clause, a semicolon is used. The semicolon separates "Treaties" from the "Laws of the United States." The separation by the semicolon means that "in pursuance thereof" applies to "Laws of the United States," but not to "Treaties." This means that treaties not in line with the principles of the Constitution can be accepted as the supreme law of the land.
The concern over treaties was not great, because the Senate was the voice of the States, and the States are the final arbiters of the Constitution. If the States are willing to ratify what would be considered an unconstitutional treaty, they must be given the chance. Therefore, "in pursuance thereof" does not apply to treaties.
The importance of this part of the Supremacy Clause revealed itself during Jefferson's Louisiana Purchase in 1803. As discussed in Article I, Section 8, Clause 17, the federal government does not have the authority to buy or own land unless it is purchased from a State, by the consent of the State legislature, for the purpose of needful buildings. The details of the Louisiana Purchase did not fit Article I, Section 8, Clause 17's requirement. To get around that, President Thomas Jefferson negotiated the Louisiana Purchase with France through treaties. Since treaties were ratified by the States through the Senate, it kept the States involved in the process, and made the purchase the law of the land even though technically it was not constitutional.
            Oath or Affirmation to Support This Constitution
Article VI, Clause 3 indicates that all elected officials are bound to support the Constitution by oath or affirmation. An oath is to God, and an affirmation is not a sworn oath to God. This was offered because the Founding Fathers recognized that not everyone believed in God, and that there were some religions that believed swearing to God to be a sin.
The final clause of Article VI also states that there shall be no religious test to serve. This was not the case inside the States. This was a provision only required of the federal government. At the State level, established churches, and religious tests were the norm. The Danbury Baptists in Connecticut appealed to President Jefferson because they felt they were being mistreated by the Puritans. The Baptists felt they were being treated like second class citizens in a State dominated by the Puritan Church. Jefferson replied that the federal government could not help them. It was a State issue.
Alexis de Tocqueville observed when he visited the United Sates in the 1830s that religious freedom had truly come to The States. In America, the politicians prayed, and the pastors preached politics, yet neither controlled the other. He concluded America's greatness was a result of the good in America, coining the term American Exceptionalism.
Concurrent Powers - Government powers shared by the State and the federal government.
Exceptionalism - The condition of being exceptional or unique; the theory or belief that something, especially a nation, does not conform to a pattern or norm.
National Bank - In the United States, a bank chartered by the federal government authorized to issue notes that serve as currency; a bank owned and administered by the government, as in some European countries.
Oath - A solemn sworn declaration, or promise, to a deity (God), to fulfill a pledge.
Supremacy Clause - Clause in the Constitution that indicates that all federal laws, and treaties, passed under the authorities granted by the Constitution, are the Supreme Law of the Land
Questions for Discussion:
1. What was the common opinion by the Founding Fathers regarding a perpetual national debt?
2. What limitations on national debt did the Framers of the United States Constitution consider?
3. It is a common belief in today's society that all federal laws are supreme to all State and municipal laws. Why is this belief wrong?
4. How does the Supremacy Clause enable Nullification?
5. Why does the Constitution offer the opportunity for both oaths, and affirmations?
John Taylor, New Views of the Constitution of the United States; Washington City: By Way and Gideon
Joseph Andrews, A Guide for Learning and Teaching The Declaration of Independence and The U.S.
Constitution - Learning from the Original Texts Using Classical Learning Methods of the Founders; San Marcos: The Center for Teaching the Constitution (2010).
Madison's Notes Constitutional Convention, Avalon Project, Yale
Philip B. Kurland and Ralph Lerner, The Founder's Constitution -
Volume Four - Article I I, Section 8, Clause 5 to Article VII; Indianapolis: Liberty Fund (1987)
Sam Cornell, The Other Founders: Anti-Federalism and the
Dissenting Tradition in America, 1788-1828; Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press (1999)
Copyright: Douglas V. Gibbs, 2015

Monday, December 10, 2018

Dirty, Nasty Politics

By Douglas V. Gibbs
Author, Speaker, Instructor, Radio Host

➽Hollywood politics use censorship to silence conservative opposition . . . Kids killing each other in “The Hunger Games” with swords and spears and killer bees? PG-13. A zombie witch in the “Suicide Squad” wearing a lacy bikini gets her heart ripped out in the finale? PG-13. But the faith-based action movie “The Reliant” which has no foul language, no nudity, no torture, no glamorized violence or gore or zombies or orc beheadings or anything near “R” rated violence? R Rating!!! What prompted the “R” rating? The MPAA’s explanation is vague and inconsistent, but most likely, a scene wherein a 12-year-old skillfully uses a handgun to defend his sister from the villain.

➽Democrat environmental policies making people sick . . . Hand dryers suck in fecal bacteria and blow it all over your hands, study finds

➽Why isn't Barack Obama behind bars? . . . 'Deep State' Obama Asked Trump to Help Cover Surveillance Abuse

➽Why isn't Barack Obama being tried for treason against these United States? . . . Obama lied on Iran and attempted to undermine United States policy by funneling billions through the Euro. Now, Congress may be coming after him... Where is the media on this?!

➽Hillary Clinton is bitter, and has no class . . . At George H.W. Bush funeral Hillary, when the Trumps sat down, after they were acknowledged by the Obamas and Bill, continued to stare straight ahead, refusing to acknowledge that her 2016 challenger had sat down five seats away.  Hillary also snubbed First Lady Melania Trump. Mrs. Trump waved in the direction of the Clintons as she sat down, but was tossed only a bitter glare and slight nod by Hillary.

➽Not that Michelle Obama has any more class than Hillary . . . Michelle Obama: I'll "Never Forgive" Trump

➽Why aren't the Clintons behind bars? . . . After the White House, the money-grubbing raged on, with the Clintons making over 700 speeches in a 15-year period, blithely unconcerned with any appearance of avarice or of shady special interests and foreign countries buying influence. They stockpiled a whopping $240 million. Even leading up to her 2016 presidential run, Hillary was packing in the speeches, talking to the Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries, the American Camp Association, eBay, and there was that infamous trifecta of speeches for Goldman Sachs worth $675,000.

➽How did the kid socialist from New York win her congressional election? . . . Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is so stupid, she's undermining Obamacare.

➽Ocasio-Cortez impervious to facts . . . Ocasio-Cortez’s claim that health insurance companies essentially act as “death panels” for choosing to cover certain treatments and not others is a highly erroneous, reckless comment.

➽Even in California the Democrats are willing to use voter fraud to keep their power . . . Democrats stole congressional seats in California.

➽California Democrats even found a way to make electoral cheating legal . . . California Democrats rewrite the voting rules in their favor (ballot harvesting)

➽How is it that the Democrats are getting away with so much voter fraud? . . . California’s Rigged Election Process is Coming to America

➽Racist and Hate Crime Deception becoming more common among lefties . . . "Hate Crime" Hoax: Drake University Student Kissie Ram Admits to Sending Racist Notes to Herself & Others

➽After Pearl Harbor, we went to war. After 9/11 we welcomed the enemy into our country with open arms . . . Mall of America now a Sharia Space

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Friday, December 07, 2018

Violent Riots Break Out in Greece

By Douglas V. Gibbs
Author, Speaker, Instructor, Radio Host
While France burns, Greece has decided to go into riot-mode, as well.  However, Greece is not protesting environmental tyranny.  Their violence in the street erupted so as to mark the tenth anniversary of a 'police brutality' killing of a 15 year old kid who was gunned down by officers in 2008.

Athens was ablaze as riot police and rioters faced off in the streets.  The police had batons and tear gas flying when protesters decided the best way to show their anger about violence was to begin throwing petrol bombs and fireworks.

Other clashes broke out during demonstrations in the northern city of Thessaloniki, with police firing tear gas and stun grenades at protesters after being pelted with stones and petrol bombs.

In France they are calling for revolution.  In Greece they are calling for peace and safety from the cops.  In both cases, the way they decided was best to achieve peace was through violence.

Yeah, makes sense.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Day of Infamy, 77 Years Later: Pearl Harbor

By Douglas V. Gibbs
Author, Speaker, Instructor, Radio Host

December 7, 1941 changed America. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt called it, "A date which will live in infamy." Americans were stunned that an enemy would dare attack America's shores. The horror of the surprise attack on Pearl Harbor, Hawaii that would bring the United States into World War II served as a uniting event, bringing Americans together for a single cause: To defeat the monsters that attacked America.

The Japanese Empire killed over 2,400 Americans in and around Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. 1,177 of those deaths were those who died aboard the USS Arizona battleship. That was 77 years ago, and though many people in today's society know nothing about the attack, or couldn't even tell you the significance of December 7th if asked, the memory of that day lives on in those that were alive when America was attacked.

For many who lived through World War II, everyday during the war, in their heart, was December 8th. Most veterans I have talked to who served in World War II said it was the attack on Pearl Harbor that sent them to the military recruiting offices to join the war, and fight for America.

Women joined the factories to work as builders of aircraft and other war machines. They planted "Victory Gardens" to grow their own vegetables, as many items were in short supply partly due to the war effort, and partly due to the Great Depression.

It became a moment in history that united a country after over a decade of pain as America worked to get beyond the crippling economic depression that had waged its own war against America since 1929.

Pearl Harbor survivors, and World War II veterans, are nearly all gone. Only a handful remain.

As with the terror attacks on 9/11, no one should forget the stunning attack on American soil at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. Though the memories are fading, and the importance of that day is being forgotten by some, for many it still remains a date which will live in infamy. It is our duty to never forget.

Forget History, and it will repeat itself.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

French Violence over Climate Change Deception

By Douglas V. Gibbs
Author, Speaker, Instructor, Radio Host

IFrance, the riots continue.  The arrested seem to be primarily members of the younger generation.  Some wonder if this is some kind of new French Revolution.  A coup?   The violence has forced the closure of the Eiffel Tower and over 89,000 security forces have been deployed.  Some of the French Police have removed their helmets, and are joining the protesters.  The thing is, this is not a leftist protest.  This is not a bunch of Muslims causing havoc for their Islamization of Europe cause.  This is a backlash against the leftist establishment that even has some of the protesters chanting Trump's name!  President Macron's approval rating is in the basement, and he has all but disappeared.

The protests began over the cost of fuel, which is basically rising due to a carbon tax.  Remember that Paris accord that Trump pulled out of?  The consequences of the environmentalist policy is not so popular now that it is eating into everyone's pockets.

As a result, Macron's administration has surrendered.  The French government, under the pressure of the violence, has suspended the wildly unpopular fuel tax, for six months at least.

The leftists in Europe have egg on their face over this.  They've been lobbying for every climate change tax they can muster.  The French, in fact, have a delegation doing exactly that right now, advocating for every tax, mandate and control the UN can think up, at COP 24, the UN climate conference in Poland.

The thing is, the liberal left policies are economy-killers, and the citizens, once it reaches their pocket books, don't like it.  

Poland, where the current climate conference is being held, is heavily dependent upon coal.  Over three quarters of Polish electricity is generated using Poland’s ample supplies of Europe’s best quality coal.  Coal has one of the highest energy densities of any fuel in common use, matching or surpassing gasoline, diesel and natural gas, and blowing away ethanol.

For Poland, coal means a way of life, and freedom. The realistic alternative to coal for Poland is not variable wind and solar, but dependence on Russian natural gas. Going back under Russia’s thumb is the last thing any Pole with a sense of recent history will tolerate.

It's a surprise, knowing Poland's coal dependency and desire to keep their liberty away from the iron fist of Russia, that the environmentalist wackos even considered having their UN climate change conference in Poland in the first place.

Take away their coal, and Poland might become a matchstick on the verge of violence, as well.

Environmentalism not only kills economies, it kills people.  The fierce wildfires in California, where the death toll continues to rise as hundreds of people remain missing and likely dead from the Camp Fire that wiped the entire town of Paradise off the map, are largely due to environmentalism and the man-made climate change lie.  Laws like the National Environmental Policy Act and the Endangered Species Act, according to Rep. Tom McClintock, R-Calif., “have resulted in endlessly time-consuming and cost-prohibitive restrictions and requirements that have made the scientific management of our forests virtually impossible.”
These laws, and others like them, have drastically reduced the amount of forest thinning and controlled burns that used to effectively keep wildland from becoming a danger to people and property. 

“One problem for landowners is disposing of deadwood. Dozens of biomass facilities that burn tree parts that can’t be used for lumber have closed due to emissions regulations and competition from subsidized renewables and cheap natural gas,” wrote The Wall Street Journal.

Also in California, Ron Stein provides a cogent example with his excellent piece on California’s high speed rail project which now is headed to cost upwards of forty billion dollars! All for a rail line no one really wants to ride because the environmentalists want to get everyone out of their cars and into trains.

The consequences of environmentalism and the false doctrine of man-made climate change are slamming harsh realities in the faces of people everywhere.  The problem is, people don't realize how destructive those policies are until the destruction begins slamming into place.

Climate Change is a natural phenomena.  All of the allegations regarding man-made global warming and cooling is a bunch of phooey.  25 NASA Scientists have proclaimed so.  And a recent climate change report is so wildly out of proportion, you can't help but notice what the Climate Change con-artists are doing is basically using the Hitlerian strategy right out of Mein Kampf of "a big lie."  If the lie is crazy enough, and large enough, people will believe it because they can't imagine anyone willing to tell such a huge whopper.

Despite how massive it is, the whole thing is a great big lie.  It's all a scheme for wealth and power.  But, until we suffer from the ill effects of the progressive madness being forced upon us, it seems nobody is willing to admit the lie is going on or that it is destructive in the long run.  Then, people die, economies die, and then rioters appear screaming, "hey, this is all a big lie."

Isn't that what conservatives have been saying all along?

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Thursday, December 06, 2018

Islam's Political Infiltration

By Douglas V. Gibbs
Author, Speaker, Instructor, Radio Host

We are at war and we don't seem to realize it.  The Axis Powers in this war, however, are troops without uniforms, and ideologues without insignia.  Globalists, Progressives and Islam are hammering us from all sides, fueling illegal alien invasions, and tapping away at our political infrastructure bit by bit.  In wars past we accepted the responsibilities of moral and political leadership which demanded plainly that we fight against those who mean to destroy us, and against those who seek global domination.  We fought against Germany, Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire (Islamic Caliphate) in World War I.  We fought against Nazi Germany, the fascists of Italy, and the imperialists of Japan in World War II.  We fought against communism in Korea, Vietnam, and The Cold War.  We recognized the enemy, and we fought against them (and eventually defeated them in all cases, though the political aspect of The Cold War made it seem unwinnable until the Berlin Wall fell).

Now, we face similar enemies, and in fact, deadlier enemies, and seem to not recognize that the enemy is there.  The enemy tells us "death to America," and the enemy has attacked us countless times, and yet we find it hard to believe that they are serious in their desire to defeat us.  In World War II the Nazis infiltrated us.  They were swarming through Hollywood and our political ranks.  In The Cold War the communists were even more successful in their infiltration, and despite the end of the war, the infiltration remains.  They have simply changed their names to Progressives, and Globalists.

The third enemy in our current war are also infiltrating us, and somehow, we don't seem to be concerned.  Worse of all, they are doing it openly, and instead of recognizing it for the attack against us that it is, we shy away from saying anything, and in fact are welcoming the enemy in our midst.

According to The Washington Standard, Muslims won four federal seats (three congressional, one attorney general), thirteen State seats, eight county seats, nineteen municipal seats, and six judicial seats in the 2018 Mid-Term Elections.  In short, followers of Islam, the political ideology that masks as a religion and continuously calls for the death of America, is not compatible with the U.S. Constitution, demand the death of all Jews and the destruction of the State of Israel, and seek world domination under a totalitarian Islamic caliphate won a total of 50 political offices in the United States.  Let me rephrase that.  Fifty Muslims took an oath to uphold and defend the United States Constitution, even though their belief system is completely opposed to everything our Constitution offers, and the principles our Constitution was founded upon.

For a full breakdown of the seats won by Muslims . . .

Could you imagine if Nazis were winning seats in our country during World War II?

Could you imagine if openly communist candidates were running, and winning, in the United States in such numbers during The Cold War?

Islam makes more babies than we do, so they intend to eventually kill us off through demographics.  But, they also vote in greater numbers than we do . . . because they have an agenda.  They have a war tactic to follow through with, and they are nearly all participating.

95% of Muslim voters participated in this year’s midterm election.
• 78% of Muslim voters primarily voted for the Democratic Party candidates and 17% for Republican Party candidates.
• 46% of Muslim voters consider themselves liberal on social issues, while 35% consider themselves conservative.
• 43% of Muslim voters consider themselves fiscally conservative, while 40% consider themselves liberal.
• 26% of Muslim voters who primarily voted for Democratic candidates perceived themselves as being conservative on social issues. Moreover, 36% perceived themselves as being fiscally conservative.
• 68% of Muslim voters thought Islamophobia and anti-Muslim sentiment in the U.S. increased while 17% thought it decreased in the past year.
• 78% of Muslim voters who primarily voted for Democratic Party candidates thought Islamophobia increased in the past year. Conversely, only 33% of Muslim voters who primarily voted for Republican Party candidates thought Islamophobia increased in the past year.
• 53% of Muslim voters became more interested in politics since the 2016 presidential election, while 34% maintained the same level of interest in politics and 13% became less interested in politics.
• 55% of Muslim voters have become more actively involved in politics and/or civically engaged since the 2016 presidential election, while 45% have not.
• Out of those Muslim voters who have become more actively involved in politics and/or civically engaged since 2016 presidential election:
• 20% have primarily donated money to a political or social campaign.
• 25% have primarily donated their time by volunteering with a local charity or civic-minded or religious organization.
• 18% have primarily donated their expertise by using their skills and/or network to advance social/political engagement.
• 37% have primarily been involved in another way.

The agenda is in place.  The invasion is in full swing.  Infiltration into our political system is moving along the way they want.  And Americans are too worried of offending the people who say "death to America" that we are letting them do it, and we are actually cheering them on as they solidify their iron fist upon our culture.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Disease at the Border

By Douglas V. Gibbs
Author, Speaker, Instructor, Radio Host

In 2014 when reporters asked me why I was participating in the protests against the busloads of illegal aliens being brought into Murrieta, California, which eventually we turned the buses around, my response was that my granddaughter had come down with hand-foot-and-mouth disease, and when the doctor said he didn't understand why there was a sudden spike in the disease in the area, I knew immediately what was going on.  After being interviewed by a number of news networks, Al Jazeera America told me there was no known correlation, essentially telling me it was all in my head.  They, then, essentially accused me of being a racist by asking me if I was "against immigration, or against Hispanics?"

"Neither," I replied.  "My wife was born in Mexico, immigrated here legally, naturalized in 2007, and is more conservative on this issue than I am."

In other words, she was talking about building a wall long before Donald Trump was, except hers would have gun turrets, a mote, and alligators.

Here we are, four and a half years later, and the illegal alien issue has become violent, deadly, and an invasion in the form of a caravan slamming against America's southern border.

Every country in the world has a duty to guard their borders for the same reason we check who is at the door before we open it when someone knocks.  We lock the doors of our houses, and we carefully vet who we allow in our houses not because we hate everyone that comes to our porch, or lives outside our homes, but because we love everyone on the inside and we wish to protect them from the potential dangers that lurk beyond our front porch.  The reality is, there are bad people out there, and it doesn't matter what the percentage of bad people there are out there, the very fact that they are out there gives us a good enough reason to put locks on our doors.

The sovereignty of my home demands that I take the proper actions to ensure my home is safe from outside invasion.

Our country is our home.  The border is our front door.

Statistically, the influx of illegal aliens challenge our sovereignty, hurts our economy with lowering wages and higher public assistance dollars being spent out of our tax dollars, and on top of all of that, many of those claiming they have a right to raid our country are arriving with diseases we have eradicated for the most part on this side of the border.  According to The New American, when sifting through the caravan of Central Americans pounding on the border at Tijuana, "at least 30 percent of them are sick with communicable diseases they might spread to Americans in schools, hospitals, welfare and employment offices, and other public places."

We are talking serious disease.

"A third of the 6,000 or so in Tijuana [are] coughing and breaking out in blisters...That’s because the diseases many of the migrants carry are deadly — or can be."

"Out of 6,000 migrants currently residing in the city, over a third of them (2,267) are being treated for health-related issues," Fox News reported.

Officials have confirmed that among those diseases are tuberculosis, AIDS, and chickenpox.

They are also crawling with bugs.  At least 101, Fox reported, carry lice and “skin infections” like "scabies."

And that can lead to a typhus epidemic.

According to the Centers for Disease Control, the body louse is the vector for the typhus bacterium, Rickettsia prowazekii.

“Epidemic typhus is spread to people through contact with infected body lice,” CDC says. It noted the disease is uncommon these days, although “epidemic typhus was responsible for millions of deaths in previous centuries.” But cases continue to occur, in areas where extreme overcrowding is common and body lice can travel from one person to another.”

The Benito Juarez Sports Complex, where the migrants are housed, is one such overcrowded area: 6,000 are packed into an area meant for 1,000.

Another disease is chagas, which is spread by blood-sucking triatomine bugs:

"These blood-sucking bugs get infected by biting an infected animal or person. Once infected, the bugs pass T. cruzi parasites in their feces. The bugs are found in houses made from materials such as mud, adobe, straw, and palm thatch. During the day, the bugs hide in crevices in the walls and roofs. During the night, when the inhabitants are sleeping, the bugs emerge. Because they tend to feed on people’s faces, triatomine bugs are also known as 'kissing bugs.'"

Some eight million people in Mexico, Central America, and South America have it, and most don’t know it.

Officials also worry about a hepatitis outbreak because of the filth in the Benito Juarez Sports Complex. “The location also has only 35 portable bathrooms,” Fox reported. “A sign reading ‘No Spitting’ was put up, as coughing and spitting by migrants are rampant in the shelter.”

When it comes to tuberculosis, many of the migrants carry a particularly virulent form of TB that is resistant to multiple antibiotics.

Last year it was reported that 37,684 immigrants with TB entered the United States between 2005 and 2009. The most, 24.1 percent, or 9,098, came from Mexico. Another 1,154, or 3.1 percent, came from Guatemala, while 853, or 2.3 percent, came from Honduras, where the migrant invasion began.

482 of those cases were the multi-drug resistant cases.

MDR TB is a pressing concern, CDC reports, because “it is resistant to ... the two most potent TB drugs ... used to treat all persons with TB.”

Another 2,000 migrants are headed for Tijuana, making quarters tighter, and body to body contact more common at the sports complex where they are gathering.  If the 33-percent figure for sick migrants in Tijuana now holds true for those on the way, the town will be faced with another 660 very sick people.

And that's just talking communicable diseases.

What about the criminals.  Murderers.  Rapists.  Gang members.  Jihadists.

We saw the violent rock throwing at the border, and the complete disregard for the law.

When Candidate Donald Trump said that these kinds of people were among the illegal alien population in 2016, he was called a racist, and "anti-immigrant."

The thing is, Trump was right.

U.S. Federal agents arrested a convicted murderer who was attempting to enter the U.S. illegally while a member of the caravan. The Daily Caller reports:
U.S. authorities arrested a Honduran national who illegally entered the United States after joining the migrant caravan and who is a convicted murderer, DHS announced Friday. 
“Border Patrol agents arrested a convicted murderer from Honduras Saturday night after he illegally entered the United States with other members of the migrant caravan,” DHS said, adding that the man was arrested along with three others while trying to illegally enter the United States.
DHS continued: 
“Agents discovered documents indicating one of the men, 46 year-old Miguel Angel Ramirez, was recently released from prison in Honduras. Ramirez later admitted he was arrested and convicted for murder in Honduras and was released just four months ago … The San Diego Sector Border Patrol’s Foreign Operations Branch corroborated the man’s admission with the Honduran Consulate in Los Angeles and discovered that Ramirez served 16 years in a Honduran prison for his crime.”
We need to put up the wall, and vet who comes in.  There is nothing wrong with turning away people who want to come into the country who are not good for the country.  I get it.  If I lived somewhere else I would want to be here, too.  But, our system can only handle so many coming in, and if they don't add to the melting pot, and instead take away from our society without contributing through government assistance because they are low skilled, or have no interest in assimilating into our culture, we can't admit them.

You wouldn't let them into your house, so why should we let them into our country?

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

MTRA Christmas Event

Wednesday, December 05, 2018

Temecula Constitution Class, Tonight: Intro to the Bill of Rights

Tonight, 6:00 pm, Wednesday, December 5, 2018
Temecula Constitution Class
Riverside County GOP HQ
28120 Jefferson Ave.
Temecula, CA

Constitution Class Handout
Instructor: Douglas V. Gibbs
Lesson 12
Bill of Rights: Introduction to, and Incorporation of
Introduction to the Bill of Rights

The Bill of Rights does not guarantee your rights, nor was it designed to allow the federal government to protect your rights. The language used in the first ten amendments is clear. The 1st Amendment begins, "Congress shall make no law..." The 2nd Amendment ends with the words, "...shall not be infringed." The 3rd Amendment begins, "No Soldier shall..." The key phrase in the 4th Amendment is "shall not be violated." The entire Bill of Rights was designed to confirm what the first seven articles had already established. The federal government was granted only certain authorities, and for the purpose of clarity, the Bill of Rights was written to reinforce the concept that the federal government has no business infringing upon the rights of the people. The federal government is not charged with protecting those rights, or guaranteeing those rights, anywhere in the Bill of Rights. The first ten amendments were written to tell the federal government, "Hands off, do not touch, thou shalt not."
The concept that the federal government exists to guarantee our rights, or protect our rights, emerged after the ratification of the 14th Amendment. The Civil War Amendment tasked the federal government with ensuring the newly emancipated slaves were treated fairly, and that their rights were protected - even at the State level. In an effort to capitalize on that idea, the courts got involved to ensure that the former slave States behaved. The southern States, the North was convinced, could not be trusted, and often the South confirmed the lack of confidence the Union States harbored with laws designed to get around the new restrictions placed upon them.
After the American Civil War, the three amendments proposed and ratified to protect the emancipated slaves were specifically designed for the purpose of ensuring the newly freed slaves were treated equally in the eyes of the law. Statism, however, seized upon the ideas planted by Congressman John Bingham, and through the courts worked to weave an intricate tapestry that would change the culture of the United States from a union of voluntary members, to a nation of states joined in an unbreakable union. The country no longer resembled the union of sovereign states it had once been, and instead became a nation held together by the statist consequences of the ravages of war.
The federal government telling States what they can and can't do regarding our rights opens a Pandora's Box the framers of the Constitution never intended to be breached. By allowing the federal government to dictate to the States what they can and can't do regarding rights, even with the best of intentions, the precedent is established allowing federal control. A federal government that can force a State to behave in an acceptable manner can later dictate to a State to follow a federal mandate designed to reduce your access to your rights.
As President Gerald Ford once wisely said, "A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have."
A significant segment of the Founding Fathers believed the Bill of Rights to be unnecessary. The first seven articles of the U.S. Constitution were written in such a way that the concerns of the Anti-Federalists had been addressed, but they still feared that the federal government would compromise the natural rights of the citizens if a Bill of Rights was not included in the Constitution.
The Constitution was written in a manner that allowed the new federal government only the authorities granted to it by the Law of the Land. Regarding arms, for example, the possession of guns was never an issue granted to the federal government in the first seven articles of the U.S. Constitution, therefore the federal government had no authority to restrict guns in any way, shape, or form. The Anti-Federalists, however, did not believe the federal government would abide by the limitation of authorities placed on the United States Government, and demanded that a Bill of Rights be written. Failure to provide a Bill of Rights, indicated the Anti-Federalists, would result in a failure of those States dominated by Anti-Federalists to ratify the new Constitution.
The Framers of the Constitution, understanding that without the critical approval of the Anti-Federalists, the new Constitution would never be ratified, agreed to include a Bill of Rights. James Madison was asked to gather the amendments to be proposed and potentially ratified by the States, and use them to write a Bill of Rights.
Originally, there were a large number of amendments proposed, but the final proposal that went to the States for ratification was narrowed down to twelve amendments. Only ten were ratified. Of the remaining two, one regarding apportionment remains unratified, and the other became the Twenty-Seventh Amendment in 1992.
The debates over the adoption of the Constitution found the Anti-Federalists fearful that as drafted, the Constitution created a central government that may have the opportunity to become a tyranny. These fears were based on the memory of the British violation of basic civil rights before and during the American Revolution. With past British tyranny as a frame of reference, the Anti-Federalists demanded that a "bill of rights" be written that would clarify without question the immunities of individual citizens. Though the amendments of the Bill of Rights were not proposed until 1789, several state conventions during their ratification conventions ratified the Constitution with the understanding that the amendments would be offered.
One of the fears regarding the proposal of the Bill of Rights was that by trying to protect specific rights, it might imply that any unmentioned rights would not be protected. It was believed by many that as a result, the Bill of Rights was actually unnecessary, for in the British system of common law natural rights were not defined, nor quantified. Adding a Bill of Rights to the Constitution may actually limit the rights of the people to those listed in the Constitution. As a result of this argument, included in the Bill of Rights is the Ninth Amendment, which indicates that rights not enumerated would also be protected.
Another argument against the Bill of Rights is that the ten amendments muddy the waters of the Constitution, because the first seven articles were designed to grant authorities to the federal government, and if an authority is not granted, the federal government does not have that power. The Bill of Rights tells the federal government what it cannot do. This enables those who oppose the Constitution to claim that the Constitution does not only grant express powers. By focusing on the Bill of Rights, the opposition responds to constitutional challenges with the question, "Where in the Constitution does it say the federal government can't do that?" Considering the Bill of Rights was not even necessary, this provides unnecessary ammunition to those that oppose the Constitution.
Anti-Federalists - Opposed to formation of a federal government, particularly by adoption of the Constitution of the United States.
Arms - Weapons, firearms; a gun that may be used for protection of property or as part of a militia.
Bill of Rights - The first ten amendments of the U.S. Constitution; a formal summary of those rights and liberties considered essential to a people or group of people.
Common Law - The part of English law that is derived from custom and judicial precedent rather than statutes, able to be changed by the whims of the governed, or their representatives.
Enumerated - Counted or told, number by number; reckoned or mentioned by distinct particulars.
Questions for Discussion:
  1. Why does the Constitution offer the opportunity for both oaths, and affirmations?
2.   Why did some of the Founding Fathers consider the Bill of Rights unnecessary?
3.   What did the Anti-Federalists think of the creation of the federal government? Why?
4. Why were the Founding Fathers willing to add the Bill of Rights even though they believed the
      amendments to be unnecessary?
Joseph Andrews, A Guide for Learning and Teaching The Declaration of
Independence and The U.S. Constitution - Learning from the Original Texts Using Classical Learning Methods of the Founders; San Marcos: The Center for Teaching the Constitution (2010).
Philip B. Kurland and Ralph Lerner, The Founder's Constitution -
Volume Five - Amendments 1-12; Indianapolis: Liberty Fund (1987)
The Charters of Freedom: The Bill of Rights, National Archives and
Records Administration:
Incorporation of the Bill of Rights
The Bill of Rights was originally intended to be applied only to the federal government. Even the most ardent opponent to the originalist view of the Constitution concedes that it is commonly understood that originally the Bill of Rights was not intended to apply to the States whatsoever. The text of the U.S. Constitution does not necessarily clearly exhibit that the Bill of Rights was only intended to apply to the federal government, but a deep study of the text of the first ten amendments, and the various writings of the Founding Fathers on the topic, reveals without a doubt that the Bill of Rights was indeed originally intended to only apply to the federal government.
Though even the most ardent opponent of the United States Constitution will admit that the Bill of Rights was originally intended to only apply to the federal government, the rule of inapplicability to the States was abandoned by statists after 1868, when it became argued that the 14th Amendment changed this rule, and served to extend most of the Bill of Rights to the States.
The section of the 14th Amendment that has been interpreted to extend the Bill of Rights to the States comes from the second sentence of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment, which reads:
"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Through a series of court rulings, the Supreme Court has changed the Constitution by applying parts of the Bill of Rights to the States. The process over the time period since the ratification of the 14th Amendment which works to apply the Bill of Rights to the States through court rulings and written opinions is called "The Incorporation of the Bill of Rights."
The Bill of Rights was originally not meant to be a guarantee of individual freedoms at all, but a limitation of federal authority against our God given rights. In other words, the Bill of Rights was not written for the people, but for the federal government as a means of telling the federal government what it cannot do in regards to our unalienable rights.
Why not apply these amendments to the States as well?
The States already had a Bill of Rights in their own State Constitutions (and those that did not have a constitution yet, did include a Bill of Rights later). The Founding Fathers were confident that the people of the States could control their own State officials, and would be involved in their local governments. The people did not fear their local governments acting in a tyrannical manner similar to the potential of a centralized government system. Their fears were of the new and distant central government.
Originally, parts of the first amendments proposed by James Madison did in fact address the States, seeking to limit the State governments with provisions such as, "No state shall violate the equal rights of conscience, or the freedom of the press, or the trial by jury in criminal cases." The parts of the Bill of Rights that sought to be applied to the powers of the States, however, were not approved by Congress, and therefore were not a part of the proposed amendments to the States.
The Bill of Rights was understood, at its ratification, to be a bar on the actions of the federal government. Prior to the incorporation of the Bill of Rights to the States by the courts as based on their interpretation of the 14th Amendment, the Bill of Rights did not apply to the States, and was never intended to be fully applied to the States.
The argument used, despite original intent, that the Bill of Rights must also apply to the States is based more on philosophy, than historical evidence. One of the philosophical standpoints used is that if the specific rights given in the Bill of Rights are based on the more general rights to life, liberty, and property which in turn are considered to be God-given and unalienable, then State governments do not have the authority to infringe on those rights any more than can the federal government.
The argument, however, simply suggests that the Bill of Rights ought to apply at the State level, not that it originally did.
If the Bill of Rights originally only applied to the Federal Government, and over time has changed to be something that was applicable on the State level through court decisions, the reality is that the Constitution itself has never allowed the Bill of Rights to be applied to the States. The change was done by judicial means, meaning that the Constitution has been changed by judicial activism. The problem, however, is that according to the Constitution, the only way to change the Constitution is through an amendment process. Therefore, the incorporation of the Bill of Rights to the States occurred unconstitutionally.
This returns us to the argument that the 14th Amendment is the source and authority of the incorporation of the Bill of Rights to the States. The Supreme Court's first ruling regarding the scope of the 14th Amendment, and if the amendment enables the Bill of Rights to be applied to the States, was rendered in the Slaughterhouse Cases just five years after the ratification of the 14th Amendment in 1868. A five to four vote by the high court interpreted the Privileges and Immunities Clause to be the authority they needed to enforce The Bill of Rights against the States. Subsequent cases also used the 14th Amendment as an authority for incorporation. During the early twentieth century a number of court cases, using the arguments referencing the 14th Amendment, began selectively incorporating some of the specific provisions of the Bill of Rights while rejecting the incorporation of others.
The courts, through this process of incorporating The Bill of Rights to the States, have changed the Constitution through unconstitutional means, and against original intent. As originally intended, all provisions in the U.S. Constitution apply to the federal government, unless otherwise noted. The Bill of Rights was originally intended to apply only to the federal government, and if we are to remain in line with the original intent of the Founding Fathers, State sovereignty must remain protected by that original intent.
Congressman John A. Bingham of Ohio was the primary author of the first section of the 14th amendment, and it was his personal intention the Bill of Rights be applied to the States as well. His argument was that it was necessary in order to secure the civil rights of the newly appointed slaves. However, most of the representatives during the five months of debate on the floor of Congress argued against incorporating the Bill of Rights to the States, and so when the amendment was agreed upon for proposal, the majority of those involved intended for the 14th Amendment to not influence how the Bill of Rights was applied. In the beginning, the courts ruled that the Amendment did not extend the Bill of Rights to the States. It was after the realization that Black Codes were emerging in the South that the courts decided for the purpose of protecting the civil rights of the emancipated slaves, they would begin to apply parts of the Bill of Rights to the States.
Black Codes - Laws put in place in the United States after the Civil War with the effect of limiting the basic human rights and civil liberties of blacks.
Incorporation of the Bill of Rights - The process through court rulings based on the interpretation of the 14th Amendment to apply the Bill of Rights to the States.
Judicial Activism - When judges violate the Separation of Powers through their rulings; when a judge rules legislatively by modifying or striking down a law using the unconstitutional authority of judicial review.
Original Intent - Original meaning of the United States Constitution as intended by the framers during the Federal Convention of 1787, and the subsequent State Ratification Conventions.
Originalist view of the Constitution - View that the Constitution as written should be interpreted in a manner consistent with what was meant by those who drafted and    ratified it.
Questions for Discussion:
1.   Why is the originalist view of the Constitution so important?
2.   How have Statists changed the Constitution through the courts over the last two hundred years?
3.   What is the only legal way to change the Constitution?
4.   Why is the Bill of Rights not a guarantee of individual freedoms?
5.   From where do our rights come from?
6.   How did the Black Codes play a part in the incorporation of the Bill of Rights?
14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: Civil Rights (1868), Our
Documents dot gov:
Intent of the Fourteenth Amendment was to Protect All Rights (argument
supporting incorporation of the Bill of Rights to the States), Constitution dot org (2000):
Joseph Andrews, A Guide for Learning and Teaching The Declaration of
Independence and The U.S. Constitution - Learning from the Original Texts Using Classical Learning Methods of the Founders; San Marcos: The Center for Teaching the Constitution (2010).
Philip B. Kurland and Ralph Lerner, The Founder's Constitution -
Volume Five - Amendments 1-12; Indianapolis: Liberty Fund (1987)
Richard L. Aynes, On Misreading John Bingham and the Fourteenth
Amendment (1993):
The Fourteenth Amendment and Incorporation, The Tenth Amendment
Center (2010):
To Whom Does The Bill Of Rights Apply?, Lew Rockwell dot com
What is the Bill of Rights?, About dot com Civil Liberties (argument
supporting incorporation of Bill of Rights to the States:
Copyright 2015 Douglas V. Gibbs