Saturday, October 20, 2018

Constitution Radio Preempted by College Football Today


We will not be on the air today, but will return next week on KMET 1490-AM from 1:00 pm to 3:00 pm, Saturday afternoon.  Have a great weekend, and if you wish to catch a passed episode, feel free to visit our podcast page.

Illegal Caravan Invasion Force Storms the Border

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

They keep saying how fascist Trump is, and how racist America is, and they burn the American Flag and fly their own . . . so, why do they want to be here?

Because, thanks to our American System of Liberty based on the U.S. Constitution that they spit on, we are the greatest country in the world.  If America was what the Democrats and the hard left Hispanic base claims, they wouldn't be trying to get in . . . they would be trying to leave.

You know, like we saw when the Soviet Union and the Eastern European Bloc existed.  Defectors trying to get out of those countries because living under communism was so bad.

That's what's happening here.  They are defecting from Mexico, Honduras, etc. not because America is bad and their home of origination is so good, but because they are trying to escape a horrible situation.

Therefore, why in God's name would they come here and then demand that the United States be more like where they came from?

A part of what has made America great is that we are a melting pot where immigrants must go through a vetting process so that we are not receiving the rejects of other countries, but people who wish to be a part of the American Dream.  What we are getting with illegal aliens, for the most part, are unskilled laborers with nothing to offer other than acting as an addition to our already overpopulated welfare system, members of gangs like MS-13, criminals, drug dealers, rapists, and Middle Eastern terrorists.  I am sure there are some good people in that crowd, as well.  Hell, it may be possible (but I doubt it) that the good people outnumber the bad by a huge margin, but just the very fact that among the illegal aliens, no matter how small (or large) the percentage, are unskilled people bound to suck off our system, gang members, criminals, drug dealers, rapists, murderers and terrorists, should that not be enough reason to become more strict in our enforcement of existing immigration laws?  Should that not be reason enough to build a wall?

This is not a simple question of immigration.  When I look at the caravan currently trying to ram through the border, there is no doubt in my mind this has nothing to do with immigration, and everything to do with invasion.

They broke through the Southern Mexico fence (that's right, Mexico has strict immigration laws and a heavily guarded fence) and now they are forcing their way through Mexico, ramming through riot police, specifically to test President Trump's resolve and to act as an invasion force determined to force its way into the United States, whether we like it, or not, and despite any laws to the contrary.

Do we really want people in this country bound and determined to break our laws to get in, and force their way across the border through violent resolve?

Our National Security hangs in the balance.  This is the kind of thing we must call forth the National Guard to stand against, even if it means using deadly force . . . because we are being invaded by an unfriendly horde of invaders who don't care about our laws.

And, my friends, don't be naive.  This is not just a sudden groundswell of people who decided to come to America.  This is being orchestrated and paid for by outside sources who desire to bring about America's demise.

In short, it is a well orchestrated, well coordinated, well funded invasion, and we must not treated it as anything else.

In World War II if Nazis and Japanese warriors were storming our border, would we not have met the invaders with force?

If these people were storming your homes, breaking in the windows, and demanding that because they got into your house you must adopt them as family and provide for them, would you stand by and say, "well, gosh, they are just looking for a new home"?

We are being invaded.  The invasion force has broken into Mexico and their aim is the American border.  It is Congress's duty to call forth the National Guard (and the other armed forces if necessary . . . don't give me the Posse Comitatus argument . . . that protects against using the armed forces against citizens, not an invading force) and the Commander in Chief's responsibility to face this threat head on, and do what is necessary to protect the citizens of the United States against the invasion.

Period.

Notice in the picture at the top . . . most of them are fighting age males.

However, there's a problem.  The Democrats are excited.  They are chomping at the bit.  They can't wait for the Trump administration to use deadly force.  Then, they can call Trump a murderer, and they believe they can create an uprising against the President that will bring about his impeachment.  In short, the timing of the caravan is specifically designed to help the Democrats get into the House and Senate in massive numbers, and remove our President.  They think it's a win-win.  No stance against the invading force brings the Democrats hordes of new voters and sends a message to the next caravan to come on in.  A stance against the invading force, in the minds of the global left, criminalizes President Trump, giving them all the reason in the world to force his removal.

I can't wait to see what Donald Trump has in mind.  He always outsmarts them, and plays them, and comes out on top.  While I worry to a point, I have a feeling our President, once again, has already outsmarted the liberal left progressive commies, and now it's just a matter of the whole thing playing itself out.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Friday, October 19, 2018

Hey, Fox News, WE ARE NOT A DEMOCRACY!

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

All of them.  Tucker Carlson.  Sean Hannity.  Laura Ingraham.  The Founding Fathers never intended the United States to be a democracy, and it drives me nuts that even our so-called conservative allies love to use that word.

That said, with the leftist leanings, and alterations to our system, since its conception, we have been on a dangerous path towards becoming a democracy.

Originally, the pure direct vote of the people at the federal level was only used to put into place members of the House of Representatives.  At the State level, the governor and members of the assembly (State House of Representatives) were democratically voted into place.  At the county and municipal levels all of the major offices were voted in by the communities.

The closer the government got to the people, the more democratic it became.

U.S. Senate districts are the State borders, regardless of population, to protect the voice of the less populated States.  State Senate District lines used to be the county lines.  That vestige of being a republic was done away with by the Warren Court in Reynolds v. Sims, which demanded the lines be drawn in a more democratic manner.  The Electoral College protects us from the excesses of democracy.  This country was never intended to be a democracy, it is supposed to be a republic.  It's bad enough that the Democrats have continually rung that bell.  I hate it when I see conservatives doing the same.



-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Reagan's Joke About a Rural Republican Speech

Posted by Douglas V. Gibbs





-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Election Thoughts, Approaching Two Weeks Until Mid-Term Election

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

The time is near.  Many of the absentee ballots have already been cast.  Voters who go to the polls are trying to put together their list on how they are going to vote.  And, in California, we truly believe that this could be a life or death situation for a State that has been broiling in leftist policies for many decades.

Nationally, the Kavanaugh Effect has energized Republican voters.  The general craziness of the Democrats, with their calls for impeachment of a President who has been very successful in his first two years, calls for impeachment of a new Supreme Court Justice before he even had a chance to sit upon the bench, and their silent consent of the violence being perpetrated by groups like Antifa has been enough to not only energize a number of GOP voters, but it has been the fuel behind a mass exodus away from the Democrat Party through movements like #walkaway.

When I am confronted by a Democrat about President Trump I simply ask them, "What about the booming economy and the fact that dictators are backing off their rhetoric and are coming to the negotiating table pisses you off?"

Usually they say something like, "Obama reduced the unemployment rate more than Trump, and now the Republicans are claiming success when all they are doing is enjoying the boom that Obama began."

Really?

Historically, after a reduction in taxes, and a reduction in government regulations, a boom has followed, be it with Ronald Reagan, or Calvin Coolidge.  It's always a winning formula.  Obama, and his cronies who try to give credit to the former president for the booming economy, sound like the guy who, after trying to open a jar unsuccessfully, and then gives it to someone else who then opens it with ease, says, "I loosened it for you."

I saw an ad on television last night targeting Young Kim, a Republican running for Congress in North Orange County who used to be in the California Assembly.  The leftist ad claimed she wants to follow the Trump path of "cutting medicare to pay for Trump's tax cuts."

The tax cuts were not a loss of revenue.  They encouraged growth, and this year the tax revenues are breaking records.  Everything always seems finite and static with the Democrats.  They don't understand economics so they don't understand the complexities that go along with economics.  Therefore, all they see is the tax cuts, but they can't recognize the dynamic economic activity surrounding them.

Taxes are a big issue here in California.  The Democrats are always trying to figure out how to tax us more, while also working to control our behavior.  We have taxes on grocery bags, a proposed service tax, water tax, proposals for mileage taxes, and the highest gas tax in the country.

Repealing the Gas Tax is a huge item on the ballot.  Proposition 6 would, if approved by voters, establish a State constitutional amendment not only repealing the ridiculous gas tax and astronomical registration fees (reducing the tax and fees back down to previous levels), but because it would be a constitutional amendment, it would protect us from the Democrats simply legislating it back into existence.  Proposition 6 is doing really well, from what I hear.  I volunteer at the Republican Headquarters in Temecula three days per week, and to be honest, the number one request I get is people wanting "Yes on 6" signs.

Hiking up our taxes is also something the cities are playing with.  Largely because of a looming pension crisis, cities are scrambling to figure out how to squeeze more money out of our pockets.  Even cities with "Republican City Council Members" are calling for an increase in taxes.

In my area, over the last few years, cities have been increasing their sales tax by one percent.  Temecula, Menifee and Hemet have all chased the tax increase pot at the end of the rainbow.  Meanwhile, sales tax revenues in Murrieta have skyrocketed ... largely because people have been coming to Murrieta to shop to avoid the higher sales taxes in the other cities.  The Murrieta leadership has completely turned a blind eye to that possibility, and instead have been beating their chests claiming that sales tax revenue is up because of their incredible talent of bringing certain new businesses into the area.

Former councilmember Harry Ramos was the only one railing against the idea of a higher tax when he was in office, and suggested that instead of raising the sales tax, the city ought to spend some money to put up billboards that read, "Shop Murrieta where the sale tax is lower."

Now, the city is pushing Measure T, a hike in the local sales tax.  They are pulling out all the stops with signs and endorsements for the tax hike.

Wait, does the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) established rules allow for a city to use tax dollars to promote a ballot measure?

I'm on the ballot for school board, Trustee District 2 in the Murrieta Valley School District.  After a hospitalization, and a computer crash, I have had no time or energy to conduct any fundraisers, get signs, print flyers, or get out there and knock on doors.  It's just been one of those horrific things.  I'll probably get a decent share of votes because many people know who I am, and those folks know I am not a political club kind of candidate like my opponent who, I believe is in it to be a part of the popular political crowd.  Honestly, I am frustrated because I've been watching this school board dance and sing for the staff, without really thinking for themselves, and between the bonds, common core, and a whole slew of incredibly ridiculous rules and expenditures, I would like to get on the board to help change the whole "enslavement to the staff" mindset.  Whether or not I have a chance in this election, it's hard to say.  It's for the final two years of a four-year term after a board member passed away.  My opponent was appointed, and she's buddies with a crowd of smug arrogant leftists who claim to be Republicans.  It's enough to make me puke, but my setbacks may have knocked me out of the race.

One advantage I have is that my designation states I am a Constitutional Instructor, and I have a feeling that might work in my favor.  We'll see.

On the statewide front the battle between Gruesome Newsom and his Republican opponent, John Cox, has been interesting.  Former San Francisco Mayor, and hardcore leftist, Gavin Newsom thinks he's got it in the bag.  It's the Hillary Clinton syndrome all over again.  The Democrats believe their guy is a shoe-in, and John Cox has no chance.  The polls say so ... you know, like the polls said so about Hillary and Trump.

Most polls I see have Newsom up by about 17 points.  In a hard left State like California, the Democrats should consider that to be too close for comfort, especially when you realize they manipulate the polls so the true number is probably a lot less, and likely closer to a difference of 5 points, or so.  I'm not necessarily saying John Cox is going to win this thing hands down.  I am not as confident in Cox's chances as I was with Trump's.  But, we are a State in turmoil, and everyone knows the Democrats have had control for half a century.  Perhaps, especially in the age of Trump, the voters will realize it's time for a change in a direction towards common sense and away from the Democrat Party's high taxes and authoritarian style of governance.

I will say this.  The key is the legislature.  Regardless of who wins the gubernatorial race, we must make sure the Democrats do not get another super-majority rule over the State.  A super-majority in the California legislature would pretty much neutralize anything and everything John Cox would do as governor.  They could override every veto, and kill any suggestion he may recommend.  If Gavin Newsom wins, and there's a super-majority, the exodus from California would be staggering (even more so than it is now).  House prices would plummet, and the State would become a mega-rich or mega-poor land of sour milk and dried up honey.  The California bear would keel over.  We would have to change the nickname of California from the Golden State to the Smoldering State.

As I wrote earlier, for many Californians, they see this election as a live or die situation.

Personally, I think we will see gains in both the U.S. Senate and U.S. House of Representatives for the Republicans.  I think John Cox will make it a close race, but Newsom will edge him out.  That said, I also believe the Democrats will not only fail to achieve another super-majority, but they will lose seats in both houses.  Mark Meuser will win Secretary of State, and that will set up the next couple of elections in California to be big wins for the Republicans because as Secretary of State, Meuser will not only clean up the voter rolls, but reduce the fraud to a level that will change elections in California forever.

Oh, and Proposition 6 will win easily.

Then, as we see the prosperity continue to grow, and the economy continue to boom, Donald J. Trump will win in 2020 by a landslide, and he'll even carry the Golden State and possibly Oregon and Washington.

Washington D.C., Hawaii, New York, and a couple other northeastern States will go to his opponent.

Pence will win easily in 2024.

That's if the violence being instigated by the Democrats doesn't create some kind of nation-altering consequence in the meantime.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Thursday, October 18, 2018

Doubling Down on Their Hate

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

When President Donald Trump sent out a Tweet railing against the NFL players kneeling during the National Anthem at the beginning of football games, fellow conservatives complained about it.  They claimed it was an embarrassment that he was, as President of the United States, verbalizing his discontent about a privately owned corporation, and that his language of calling them S.O.B.s was unacceptable.  Personally, I loved the Tweet, not because of the language used, but because of the result we ultimately saw because of the firm slam of the presidential Twitter account's blitz.  The liberal left whined, and then they cried, and then they doubled down on their hate of the National Anthem, and patriotism in general.  In short, President Trump played an important part in revealing how anti-American the liberal left progressive Democrats truly are.

While they are very good at hiding it, the hard-core Democrats are socialists, and authoritarians, who despise the American System, and view the Constitution as an old, antiquated obstacle to the universalized aims they are shooting for.

The ends justify the means, according to these people, and they are willing to do anything to regain their power, keep their power, and turn America into a one-party oligarchical state ... including dismantling the rule of law, and the structure of government we have as a republic under the construction of the U.S. Constitution.

If something is an obstacle to their authoritarianism, they will twist and mangle it as much as possible, and eliminate it, if necessary.  Only their agenda matters.  The truth, common sense, and the American Way pose as roadblocks that they are willing to destroy so as to achieve their utopian collectivistic agenda.

During the Senatorial confirmation hearing for Justice Brett Kavanaugh we witnessed the liberal left, be it the politicians, media, or the protesters, all call for the end of the rule of law as established by these United States.  According to the liberal left the presumption of innocence no longer exists.  If you stand against their agenda, you are guilty by accusation, even if there is absolutely no evidence to support the hearsay claim being presented.  The accuser's testimony is believed solely on how sincere she sounds, or where her political beliefs lie.  In the case of Christine Blasey Ford, we have been told by the liberal left that she should be believed because of the horrific nature of the allegation.  To not believe her, despite the lack of evidence, is to believe that sexual harassment doesn't exist, and it means you must not believe anyone who claims to ever have been sexually assaulted, molested, or mistreated.

However, the women who accused President Bill Clinton, Representative Keith Ellison, and a growing list of Democrats who have been accused of assault against women should not believed, mainly because there is not enough evidence ... or, at least that is what we are being told.

So, thanks to the Democrat Party reaction during the Kavanaugh hearing, the Democrats have doubled down on their hate of the Rule of Law.

The Kavanaugh hearing has also revealed other things the liberal left hates.

When Hillary Clinton lost the 2016 election the liberal left began calling for the elimination of the Electoral College, a brilliant system devised to protect us from the excesses of democracy, and to ensure the States with the lowest populations maintain a reasonably effective voice in the choosing of our President.

Since they've realized they can't get rid of the Electoral College as easily as they would like, they are calling for the removal of President Trump, either through a misuse of the 25th Amendment, or through impeachment.

"Impeach 45" has become a rallying cry for many of them.

Impeachment is supposed to be a measure taken as the result of misconduct, not just because you disagree with someone politically.  That said, they are not only threatening to impeach Donald J. Trump if they gain the House of Representatives in November, they are saying they plan to impeach Kavanaugh, as well . . . not because he has committed some high crime, but because they don't like him politically.

The appointment and swearing in of Brett Kavanaugh to the United States Supreme Court was yet another political defeat for the liberal left Democrats, and it was the U.S. Senate who voted to confirm him, therefore, reasons the more radical crazies of the liberal left, the Senate must be abolished.

This is what the liberal left does.  If they don't get their way, and if something poses as an obstacle to their authoritarian plans, it must be eliminated.

If they don't get their way, they will rage and scream until either they do, or the thing that was in the way is gone.  They claim their reasoning is that whatever stood in their way is not democratic enough.

We are not a democracy.  We are supposed to be a republic - which is why those institutions exist in the first place.

Ken Norton, a Google executive, tweeted out that we should abolish the Senate after it became clear that Kavanaugh would be confirmed.
Abolish the Senate.
— Ken Norton (@kennethn) October 6, 2018
“Senators representing less than half the U.S. are about to confirm a nominee opposed by most Americans,” read a headline by The Washington Post’s Philip Bump, who wrote that the Senate violates the concept that “all men are created equal.”

I heard somewhere else where a Democrat Party talking head was complaining how in the Senate the State of North Dakota has as big a voice as New York.

That was the point.  The republic was established to protect the voice of the minority.  The Electoral College and U.S. Senate exists specifically to ensure that that larger, heavily populated cities do not dictate to the rural areas how they are supposed to run their lives.

The Framers of the Constitution never intended for this country to be a democracy, as the Democrats are calling for, and they hate them for that.  In fact, they see the Constitution as a part of a huge Republican Conspiracy, a dark plan to keep Americans from being a pure democracy.  The Constitution, after all (according to the left) is simply a remnant of the slavery era, and its principles of liberty must be killed if the people of color in this country are going to ever have the opportunity to annihilate white supremacy and white privilege.

The Democrats refuse to recognize the fact that the principles of federalism, which were designed to preserve our republic and enable it to stand the test of time, are the reason the United States has risen to the prominence it has on the world stage.  The Founders designed the American System to be exceptional, an exception to the rule, as unlike Europe and the rest of the world as possible, on purpose.  In a pure democracy the smaller States would be under the thumb of the larger States, and would be forced to succumb to the interests of the larger States.  The population centers would overwhelm the rural areas.  To protect against that, we have a republic, not a democracy.

Tyranny always rises out of population centers, and that is why the Democrats desire pure democracy.  They realize that democracy is the road to socialism, and whether they tell you or not, socialism is their aim.

The Senate, a vestige of what it is to be a republic, has become a problem for the Democrats, therefore they now hate the Senate, and as stated before, some are calling for its demise.

With Brett Kavanaugh securing a conservative majority on the Supreme Court, and a growing likelihood that Trump will have the opportunity to fill Breyer's and Ginsburg's empty seats should the Lord call them to go wherever they are going to spend eternity in the next six years, the liberal left Democrats are also beginning to consider that maybe the United States Supreme Court needs to be done away with, too.

The conservative majority on the court has the Democrats saying that the high court has been delegitimized, and if the Democrats can't use the court to overturn laws they don't like, what good is it?

The liberal left has always believed, erroneously, I might add, that the federal court system's role is to police the boundaries of our political system.  Never mind that the States are the parents who created the federal government in the first place, and that the federal system was designed to serve the States and We the People, not rule over them.

From the Framers' point of view, the final arbiters of the U.S. Constitution are the States, and We the People.  From the beginning the role of the judicial branch was expected to be the weakest of the three branches, tasked only with applying the law to the cases they hear, not interpreting the law to mean whatever they desire it to mean.

Now that the majority of justices agree with that idea, rather than using the court to shape Americanism into a utopian collective hive, the Democrats are not fond of the court, and some actually would like to see it go bye bye.

If anything should be abolished regarding the Supreme Court, it ought to be judicial review, which is the Court’s stolen power to review law and determine its validity.

With a conservative court, the Democrats might actually agree with me on that one.

The Framers originally intended that there is a separation of powers.  Only the Congress can legislate.  If the court believes a law to be unconstitutional for any reason, that belief is only supposed to be considered an opinion of the court and it is not supposed to have any impact on the validity of the law.  The legislature, however, may then review the law, and respond to the court with their decision.  Either, they could say, "Gosh, you're right, we'll make the appropriate changes" or "we'll repeal the unconstitutional law as per your recommendation," or the legislature could simply say " we understand our concerns, but we disagree, and the law will stay in place."

As for State laws on issues not authorized to the federal government by the Constitution in the first place, the federal court system shouldn't even be hearing those cases.  That list includes issues like abortion, health care, marriage, and firearms.  There is no constitutional authorization granted to the federal government on any of those issues, and per the Tenth Amendment, if those issues are not prohibited to the States, they are up to the States to decide, not the federal government, and especially not by a bunch of black robed federal judges.

The doubling down of hate goes even beyond the Senate and the Supreme Court.  Our culture, the American Culture, with its conservative and Christian foundation, has become a target for the liberal left's hate.  We already know that the liberal left hates the Constitution.  We also know that the entertainment industry hates everything that is not hard left.  But, the hate has gotten so bad that in places like Portland, Oregon we are seeing a violent side of liberal leftism that is willing to pursue extreme violence to get their authoritarian way.  They are willing to use technology to silence their opposition.  They continually voice false accusations of sexual assault against conservatives to try and get their way, even though the hypocrisy of their claims wreak to high heaven.  Congress Critters like Missouri's McCaskill hide the truth, refusing to admit that they really do want to take our guns away from us, and that they are more than happy to accept blood money from the slaughter of the unborn from Planned Parenthood; and then lie about the lies once word gets out about the lies.  They lie to the FBI, and then call for even more violence when they don't get their way.  And then, when all else fails, they are willing to give the keys of our country to foreign powers, and illegal aliens, so that they may gain more votes so that they can hang on to their dwindling power.

Why?

Because they hate the United States as it was founded, and they are willing to stop at nothing to create a utopian system of communitarianism the Framers of the Constitution never intended.

It doesn't get any more un-American than that.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Riverside County Judges and Propositions, Election 2018 Mid-Term



Wednesday, October 17, 2018

My speech in Los Angeles about Natural Rights

Posted by Douglas V. Gibbs





-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Temecula Constitution Class: Faithfully Execute


We meet each Wednesday ... I'll bring the pizza and the pocket constitutions if you'll bring a notebook and a desire to learn.

6:00 pm - 7:30 pm

Riverside County Republican Party Headquarters

Address: 28120 Jefferson Ave #205, Temecula, CA 92590



Constitution Class Handout
Instructor: Douglas V. Gibbs



Lesson 7: Faithfully Execute

He

The first word of Article II, Section 3 is “He.”  The word refers to the President of the United States.  I have actually had some people, who oppose the Constitution, tell me that the word “He” being used is evidence that the Constitution disallows women from being President.  They then argue that if a woman was to become President, because of the word “He” being used in the Constitution, anything she did in office would be unconstitutional since the Constitution does not allow women to be President of the United States.

Not necessarily.

As with other writings, such as the Holy Bible, often the word “He” may be used as a general term to represent both sexes.

In the case of the Constitution, it is conceivable, considering the mindset of the day, that the Founders did not think a woman would someday become President of the United States.  I assure you, people like John Adams and Aaron Burr were exceptions to that line of thinking.

Aaron Burr was Vice President under Thomas Jefferson, and he actually was one that proposed that there be a uniform rule across the nation that enabled women to vote.

If you look through the Constitution, there is no place in the Constitution that says women cannot vote, or run for office.  The reason women were not able to vote, or run for office, was because the States were given the authority over the rules of elections, and during that time the States did not allow women to vote or hold office.  Much of that changed in some States and territories long before the Suffrage Movement, but it took a Constitutional amendment to make the practice uniform among all States.

Therefore, the first word of Article II, Section 3, being “He,” is simply a general term.  Whoever the first female President is in the future, she will be fully entitled, upon being elected, to assume the Office of the President of the United States.

            State of the Union

“He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient.”

The State of the Union address is supposed to be as it is worded in the Constitution, a speech about the state of the union addressed to Congress by the President.  It is not supposed to be a campaign speech, it is not supposed to be a popularity speech, nor a chance to take a stab at political opposition.  The speech is simply supposed to be an opportunity for the President to give the Congress information regarding the state of the union.

The speech is also not supposed to be designed as an address to the people, either.  It was expected that the electorate would be interested in hearing the speech, and that the press would report on the speech, for it is in our interest to know what the state of the union is.  But, the specific reason for the State of Union address is to give Congress information of the state of the union.

There is an additional reason for the State of Union address should the President deem it necessary.  According to the Constitution, he may during the speech “recommend to their Consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient.”  Of course, he can do this during the normal course of his presidency, as well.  The word “recommend to their consideration” in this part of the clause gives us a clue to the limits on the powers of the President.

Article I, Section 1 reads: “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.”

This means that the authority to make law, modify law, repeal law, and strike down law - “all” legislative powers - are granted to the Congress by the States.

Article II, Section 3 says the President can “recommend” to their “consideration” such measures.  He cannot act without Congress, he cannot put measures into place “with or without Congress,” and at best he can “recommend” to Congress his own ideas regarding legislation that he would like to see Congress initiate.  The President can only “recommend to their consideration,” because he has no legislative capacity.  He cannot make Congress do anything, and he cannot act legislatively without Congress.

            Executive Orders

The President has the authority to issue Executive Orders.  An Executive Order is a proclamation.  Executive Orders began back when George Washington was President.  His Thanksgiving Proclamation was an Executive Order.  Executive Orders serve two functions.  They may be used to change the processes within the Executive Branch, because the rules of the internal workings of the Executive Branch are up to the President.  Or, an Executive Order may be used to issue a proclamation that is not legally binding.

No place in the Constitution does the document give the President the allowance through Executive Order to modify, repeal or make law.  Executive Orders have been used often in history to modify law, but that is an unconstitutional executive action.  The President does not have that kind of authority.

Since all of the regulatory agencies in the United States Government are a part of the executive branch, they are also bound by the same limitations.  Like the President, regulatory agencies cannot act legislatively.  Whenever they make a regulation that is not to directly regulate (put in good order and execute) an existing constitutional law, but to regulate an unconstitutional law, or to create a new law, it is outside the authorities granted to the executive branch by the Constitution.

On March 26, 2012, Cap and Trade auto emission legislation failed to pass through Congress. The Environmental Protection Agency began to auction greenhouse gas allowances anyway, effectively taxing emissions and regulating in a manner consistent with Cap and Trade should it have passed as a piece of legislation.

On December 20, 2010, when an Internet regulation bill failed to pass through Congress, the Federal Communications Commission announced it would regulate the Internet anyway. The FCC's new regulations controlled the way service providers may manage their network transmissions.

The regulatory agencies are under the Executive Branch, and are not a part of the Legislative Branch.  A Separation of Powers exists, limiting each branch to only the authorities granted to it, and any part of the executive branch, including the regulatory agencies, do not have any legislative authority.

            Extraordinary Occasions

“He may, on extraordinary occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them.”

What is an extraordinary occasion?  That would be an emergency, or during a time that matters are urgent.  If the President believes a matter needs to be tended to, he can compel the Congress to be in session.  In other words, it is constitutional when the President says something like, “I’m working, so Congress needs to be, too.”

An extraordinary occasion can be wartime, budget discussions, or anything else the President determines to be an extraordinary occasion.

This includes when there is a “disagreement between them (the Houses).”  The President may choose when the Houses will meet, as he feels is proper.

The President was expected to be a man of sacred honor, and it was believed he would use this authority wisely, and not in excess based on the whims of his ideology fancy.

In Article I, Section 5 the Constitution instructs that the Houses may not adjourn without the permission of the other House.  But what if they refuse to allow the other House to adjourn?  This is where the President comes in.  If, because of disagreement, the Houses won’t allow each other to adjourn, the President, if he feels it is necessary, “may adjourn them to such time as he shall think proper.”

The President can compel the Houses to convene, or adjourn, as he feels necessary, as well.

He can’t force them to make particular laws, per se, but he can make them be in session to get the work done, or take a break if he sees it as necessary.

As much as Congress has control over when they convene or adjourn, the President does have the authority if things are getting out of hand, or for whatever other reason he deems necessary, to override Congress’ decision of when to convene or adjourn.

An appropriate example would be during wartime.  The President’s war powers enable him to put the military into action.  If he feels there should be a declaration of war, would like to discuss his war plans with the Congress, or requires an apportionment of funding for the military effort, he can compel them to be in session.  He cannot force Congress to declare war, or approve of his actions, but he can ensure they are in session so that the politics of war may be discussed.

If some of the members of Congress have a problem with the actions of the President so that they refuse to convene, he can then order Congress to convene so that he may discuss with them the issues at hand.  If there are enough to qualify as a quorum, it is not necessary to compel the absent members to be in attendance.  If Congress does not meet the requirement for a quorum, and the President believes the matter to be an extraordinary occasion, he can then compel the absent members to attend.

            Receiving Ambassadors and Other Public Ministers

The President may invite important people to Washington, be they ambassadors, or other officials.  Having the Chinese leader over for a dinner at the White House, or entertaining a group of diplomats, for example, is completely constitutional.

            Regulatory Agencies

“He shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.”

This clause establishes the enforcement arm of the Executive Branch, which eventually became the regulatory agencies.

The clause is definitive in its instruction to the President regarding the execution of the laws of the United States by using the word “shall.”  The words “take Care” places an additional importance upon ensuring the laws of the United States are executed.  The word “Care” in this clause is capitalized, placing emphasis on the word in a manner that we use today with italics.  The laws must be executed with Care, and the Laws are expected to be “faithfully executed.”  Faithfully, without exception, without preferences, and without ideological interference.

Laws, under the federal government, are only valid laws, if they are constitutional.  If the laws are not made in line with the authorities granted to the federal government by the Constitution, they are not legal laws.  The executive branch shall “execute” the laws - constitutional laws.

Some people say the Executive Branch is supposed to “enforce” the laws - and in a sense that is correct.  But really, the Executive Branch is supposed to execute the laws - ensure they are carried out - Laws that were put into place constitutionally.

We are the final arbiters of the Constitution, but there are other steps along the way to ensure that unconstitutional laws don’t go into effect.  The President represents one of those checks.

When President Obama determined DOMA was unconstitutional, and decided his agencies would not execute that law, he was acting constitutionally.  The law is the law, however, and there is much discussion regarding if, considering that the President has decided the law is unconstitutional, he is compelled to ensure the law is executed.  Also, if he refuses to execute constitutional law, calling it unconstitutional, it is our responsibility that he is removed, and replaced with somebody who will execute the laws appropriately.

The constitutional check in the hands of the President is not supposed to be utilized “after” a bill becomes a law, however.  Unconstitutional laws are supposed to be caught before they get that far.  The early President of the United States vetoed bills based on the constitutionality of the bill, and not necessarily because they disagreed with it ideologically.

In 1817, when President Madison deemed a public works bill unconstitutional, he simply refused to sign the bill into law, indicating in his written reason why he vetoed the bill that the proposed law was unconstitutional.

Congress can override a President’s decision not to execute a law on the books because he deems it unconstitutional, just like they can override a veto.  The States may also enforce the law if the President refuses.  Article I, Section 8 grants to Congress the authority to “provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union.”

The reverse is also true.  If the President tries to execute law, calling it constitutional, when it is not constitutional, the States can ignore those federal laws, or nullify them.

            Officers of the United States

“… and shall commission all the Officers of the United States.”

The “United States,” as mentioned here in this final part of Article II, Section 3, does not mean The United States as a country.  The United States is mentioned often in the Constitution, and whenever the “United States” is mentioned, it means one of two things.  Either, it means “these States that are united,” or the “federal government.”  Remember, to these early Americans, who considered themselves citizens of their States before they considered themselves “Americans,” the United States meant “these States that are united,” rather than a single, nationalistic, entity.

In this particular clause the “United States” means “federal government.”

As a result of that definition, you could also say that this part of the Constitution reads: “and shall commission all the officers of the federal government.”

The Senate must give consent, as indicated in Article II, Section 2 and Article I, Section 3, to the appointment of these officers, therefore, giving the U.S. Senate (and therefore “the States” prior to the 17th Amendment) the power of oversight over the President’s choices.  This, in turn, means that any and all of the President’s czars are unconstitutional.  Officers of the United States are any office holders in the government exercising significant authority pursuant to the laws of the United States, and czars are included in that definition.

            Impeachment

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

Impeachment is a term that means “To charge with misconduct.”  Removal from office does not happen unless the official is “convicted.”  In the case of the President and Vice President, the hearings are held by the U.S. Senate.

The reasons for impeachment may be for “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

Treason is defined in Article III, Section 3 as “levying War against them (these States that are United), or adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.”

Bribery is defined as meaning the exchange of money, promises, or other things, with someone in office, in order to influence that person’s views or conduct.

The real confusion comes when we talk about the final part: “or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

When it comes to the phrase, "high crimes and misdemeanors" and the meaning of that phrase to the Founding Fathers, we must recognize the language used.

The word “high” in this context does not necessarily mean "more serious".  It refers to those punishable offenses that only apply to high persons, meaning “public officials,” or those who, because of their official status, are under special obligations that ordinary persons are not under.

For an official who was placed in office by the people, a crime offends the sense of justice of the people.  When a public official commits these crimes, they can be more serious than if the same crime is committed by a citizen, because of the trust put into the office the official holds.

One of those high crimes is Perjury, which is more than merely “lying under oath".  Under the definitions used by the Founders, perjury also means "violation of one's oath (or affirmation)".  Therefore, the President refusing to protect and defend the Constitution, could be considered perjury.

The President is bound by his oath of office in all matters until he leaves office to follow the oath of office. While he holds that office, he is always under oath, therefore his failing to uphold the oath, or lying at any time, constitutes perjury if it is not justified for national security.

An executive official is also ultimately responsible for any failures of his subordinates and for their violations of the oath he and they took, which means violations of the Constitution and the rights of persons.  The President's subordinates include everyone in the executive branch, and their agents and contractors.  It is not limited to those over whom he has direct supervision.  He is not protected by plausible deniability.  The President is legally responsible for everything that everyone in the executive branch is doing.

Impeachment and removal proceedings may then encompass a full range of offenses against the Constitution and against the rights of persons committed by subordinate officials and their agents which have not been adequately investigated or remedied.

The meaning of the phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors," was common knowledge during the time of the founding of this nation.  The phrase imports a concept in English Common Law of the word “misdemeanors” that essentially means bad behavior.

“Misdemeanors" in the language of the Founders, then, did not necessarily refer to a criminal act as many believe, but opened up the opportunity for impeachment of the President should he be guilty of gross incompetence, gross negligence, or outright distasteful actions which clearly show "malevolence toward this country and constitution, which is unabated."

The subject of impeachment was adopted from the English concept of this idea.  In England impeachment was a device to remove from office someone who abused his office or misbehaved, but who was protected by the Crown. 

James Madison said during the federal convention that impeachment ought to be used to reach a bad officer sheltered by the President and to remove him “even against the will of the President; so that the declaration in the Constitution was intended as a supplementary security for the good behavior of the public officers.”

At first, during the debates in the Constitutional Convention, the grounds for removal of the president were to be upon conviction “of mal-practice or neglect of duty” and subsequently this was changed to “Treason, or bribery.”  George Mason objected to this limitation, saying that the term did not encompass all the conduct which should be grounds for removal.  So, Mason proposed adding the term maladministration following ''bribery.''

Madison objected, believing the term to be too vague, or too general.  Mason then suggested ''other high crimes and misdemeanors,'' which was adopted without further recorded debate.

Term:

Adjourn - Suspend proceedings to a later time and/or place.

Bribery - The exchange of money, promises, or other things, with someone in office, in order to influence that person’s views or conduct.

Cap and Trade - Emissions trading; a regulatory approach to control pollution by providing economic incentives for achieving reductions in the emissions of pollutants; central control limit of amount of pollutants that can be emitted (cap), and companies are permitted to sell the unused portion of their limits to other companies who are struggling to comply (trade).

Executive Branch - The branch of government responsible for executing, or carrying out, the laws.  An executive in government can be a president, or a governor.

Executive Order - An order issued by the President of the United States that may be a proclamation, or an order to change the processes within the Executive Branch.

High Crimes - Punishable offenses that only apply to high persons, meaning “public officials,” or those who, because of their official status, are under special obligations that ordinary persons are not under.

Legislative Authority - See Legislative Powers.

Legislative Branch - Congress; the branch of the federal government that is vested with all legislative powers and consists of two Houses, the House of Representatives, and the United States Senate.

Legislative Powers - The ability to make law, modify law, repeal law, and anything else that has to do with affecting law.

Maladministration - Inefficient or dishonest administration; mismanagement.

Misdemeanors - In the Constitution the definition is bad behavior including, but not limited to, gross incompetence, gross negligence, or outright distasteful actions which clearly show “malevolence toward this country and constitution, which is unabated”; maladministration.

Nullification - State power to ignore unconstitutional federal law.

Perjury - Lying under oath, violation of one’s oath (or affirmation).

Plausible Deniability - Circumstances where denial of responsibility or knowledge of wrongdoing cannot be proved as true or untrue due to a lack of evidence proving the allegation; when high ranking officials deny responsibility for or knowledge of wrongdoing by lower ranking officials; any act that leaves little or no evidence of wrongdoing or abuse.

Quorum - Minimum number of members of an assembly necessary to conduct the business of that group.

Regulatory Agencies - Agencies within the Executive Branch tasked with executing the laws of the nation; the enforcement arm of the Executive Branch.

Separation of Powers - A division of governmental authority into three branches: legislative, executive, and judicial; division of powers between the States and federal government.

State of the Union address - A speech about the state of the union addressed to Congress by the President.

Treason - Levying war against the States, or adhering to the enemies of the States, giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

Veto - The power of a chief executive to reject a bill passed by the legislature in order to prevent or delay its enactment into law.

Questions for Discussion:

1. During what kind of circumstance can the President of the United States act legislatively?  Why?

2.  What kind of circumstances do you believe would be considered extraordinary by the Founding Fathers?

3.  What is the proper role of the Regulatory Agencies?

4.  Should failing to preserve and protect the United States Constitution be an impeachable offense?  Why, or why not?

Resources:

Jon Roland, Meaning of "High Crimes and Misdemeanors"; Constitution

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
University: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/debcont.asp

Philip B. Kurland and Ralph Lerner, The Founder’s Constitution –
Volume Four – Article I, Section 8, Clause 5 to Article VII; Indianapolis: Liberty Fund (1987)

Vincent Gioia, What is a ‘Misdemeanor’ Under the Constitution and


Copyright Douglas V. Gibbs 2015


Constitution Association Executive Board Weekly Meeting

Non-voting members, and non-members are welcome to attend, and learn about what we are doing.

Big plans, new programs, would love to see you there.

Constitution Association Weekly Meeting
4:00 pm at the Riverside County Republican Party Headquarters
28120 Jefferson Ave (at Del Rio cross-street)
in Temecula (same shopping center as Rosa's Cafe and Mr. Kabobs)

I'll have an agenda waiting for you. . .

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary