DOUGLAS V. GIBBS <---------->RADIO <---------->BOOKS <---------->CONSTITUTION <---------->CONTACT/FOLLOW <---------->DONATE

Sunday, July 31, 2016

John Kerry: Air Conditioners

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

Secretary of State John "the Chin" Kerry has gone a step further than Barack Obama in their war against natural climate change that has nothing to do with humanity's activities (the proof is indisputable).  In fact, we are now in the midst of a cooling trend . . . that is being caused by natural cycles.  In support of the mythological concept of man-made climate change, Barack Obama said not long ago that Climate Change was a greater threat than terrorism.  To prove he's a bigger idiot and able to lie much bigger, John Kerry doubled down, saying that using your air conditioner is as dangerous as ISIS.

Well, well, if an air conditioning unit is as big a threat as ISIS, why doesn't he have all air conditioning removed from all US State Department property?  Hey, if they are going to say these things, shouldn't they be setting an example?

There's a petition to sign to request they get rid of their A/C units.  Seriously.  It got over 33 thousand signatures.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

The Sanctity of Life, Constitutionally

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

With consistency, beautiful and undeviating, human life from its commencement to its close, is protected by the common law. In the contemplation of law, life begins when the infant is first able to stir in the womb. By the law, life is protected not only from immediate destruction, but from every degree of actual violence, and, in some cases, from every degree of danger.” ― James Wilson

THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE, after explaining that people are “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,” enumerates three of those rights, with life listed first. It reads, “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

Since 1973’s Roe v. Wade ruling there have been nearly 60 million abortions in the United States.

The definition of what a right is comes from the concept of Natural Law. Jefferson penned Natural Rights as being “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.”  In the final sentence of the Declaration of Independence, the signers articulated the importance of God when it came to their endeavors. “And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.”

Divine Providence is defined as, “The care and superintendence which God exercises over His creatures.”

The sanctity of life, and the existence of a Creator, are intimately intertwined. The greatest of God’s granted rights to humanity is life.

The destruction of life is among the goals of the Alinsky tyrant. If life is devalued, so is individuality. Without individuality, the person becomes nothing more than a mindless automaton, a generic worker for the state. However, to destroy life openly would never be acceptable, so the strategy by statism must be first to desensitize the public’s attitude towards death, and then dehumanize the people so that they believe they are nothing more than animals who have no right to hope for more than mere existence.

A culture of death has emerged in our modern political environment.

Abortion has become an issue the liberal left statists are willing to violently defend. The statists are adamant about continuing federal funding for the slaughter of over a million babies per year.

In California, in order to attempt to overpower the opposition, pro-life pregnancy centers are being required to advertise abortion clinics. The radical, pro-abortion law took effect in December of 2015. AB775 is known as the Reproductive Freedom, Accountability, Comprehensive Care and Transparency (FACT) Act. (www.breitbart.com/california/2015/05/26/california-passes-bill-forcing-pro-life-centers-to-push-abortion). The law in California bullies pro-life non-profits, demanding that they promote abortions, or be punished by the full force of law.

The pro-abortion law affects about 150 pro-life non-profits, forcing them to choose between advertising abortions or facing fines of up to $1,000 if they do not comply.

A number of centers are refusing to abide by the law. Some cities, in support of their local pro-life pregnancy centers, have even passed ordinances declaring they would not enforce the new State law.

The idea of compelling death upon an organization that champions life may not seem that big of a deal to some people. Society, as a whole, has been successfully desensitized to casually accept unnatural death. Late term abortion is gaining wider acceptance, and even post-birth abortion is being considered with no more than a shrug. Planned Parenthood was exposed for participating in the sale of baby organs while America was approaching the 2016 Presidential Primaries. Not only did the leftist establishment attempt to justify the gruesome activity as benefiting the common good, but then turned against the film-maker who exposed Planned Parenthood’s illegal practices with all legal guns blazing.

As the pro-abortion argument goes, in the beginning abortion was a simple procedure sought by young women, or teenagers, hoping to eliminate an unwanted pregnancy so that the reality of life with a baby would not interfere with the woman’s future plans. To these people, babies are seen as “mistakes,” or “punishment.”

As time has passed abortion has become nothing more than another means of birth control, expanding the practice into other age groups. In a discussion with the executive director of a pro-life pregnancy center, Janette Chun of Birth Choice Temecula, I asked if she knew why her records showed the age group of those seeking abortions are older than in the past. She told me it was partially due to the emergence of the “morning after pill,” which allows young women to purchase abortion in a pill over the counter immediately after having a sexual encounter that they fear may result in pregnancy.

A doctor who volunteers his time at a pro-life pregnancy center told me that the problem is “these young women pop the morning after pill like they are tic-tacs, not realizing all of the side effects that accompany these drugs.”

With the liberal left statist’s strategies of desensitizing death in full swing as it is in our present day society, it is no wonder that gunmen find it perfectly fine to stroll right into gun-free zones and start blowing people away.

The murder of the pre-born is being equated with women’s health. Women are being convinced that turning against their own children and slaughtering them in the womb is somehow a healthy thing to do.

The goal of tyranny is to convince the public to let go of their individualism. Their humanity is flawed, therefore, their humanity must be denied. If human life has no more value than that of an animal, people can be controlled, and even killed, by the government without as much as the fluttering of an eyelid by members of society who have come to believe such atrocities are necessary for the benefit of the collective. Individualism, as far as the statist tyrants are concerned, must be shed. Life is an illusion. To consider life to be a right is to stand against the state, and that cannot be allowed. The good of the community supersedes any personal right of an individual, when government is ruled by a statist tyranny – even one’s right to life.

In today’s political environment, two of the primary issues dealing with life is abortion, and euthanasia. Both practices can be beneficial to a statist tyranny, and destructive to a system of liberty. The first can be used to control the birthrate of undesirable populations as a part of a eugenics strategy. The latter can be useful to remove members of society who are no longer useful to the overall functioning of the collective.

The federal government has no expressly granted constitutional authority to be involved in the issues of abortion, or euthanasia. The right to life, as with all other rights enumerated, or not enumerated (but, covered by the Ninth Amendment) in the Bill of Rights, is a State issue. Congress shall make no law regarding abortion or euthanasia, and our right to life shall not be violated by any action by the federal government.

Protecting the sanctity of life is a battle not only to save lives, but to preserve the very foundation of the American System we enjoy. While saving lives is an important goal, the battle must also be viewed in a long-term manner. The right to life is a spiritual, political, and cultural war that contains many fronts – and on all of those fronts, perception is the key.

Unfortunately, the pro-life movement has created an image of angry protesters shoving morbid signs depicting dead babies in the faces of frightened young women. Pro-life advocates are viewed as doctor killers, and people who support planting bombs at abortion clinics, killing the personnel inside. Therefore, protests in front of abortion clinics by people with angry faces and carrying signs with shocking imagery is no longer the best approach to take. The foundation of our reasoning is not anger, anyways. Why would we use violence as a tool to stop the violence against the unborn? It’s like slapping your child to get them to quit slapping their sibling. The message sent is a mixed one that cannot be properly understood.

The pro-life movement is about saving lives, so it must also be about saving the mother’s emotional life, as well. The concern over the sanctity of life is one born of love, so the message and the actions of the pro-life community needs to convey that message. We love those unborn people losing their lives, and we should also love the ones who were adversely affected by the decision to end the lives of unborn babies. Therefore, in addition to a pro-life war department, there must also be a voice of love department that is geared towards aiding pregnant women and their children, and providing aid and counseling to assist those women after they have decided to go through an abortion.

We may be appalled that these women had an abortion, but we should also understand that after an abortion it is then that they need our prayers and counseling most.

The “other side” of the issue is populated by many different kinds of people. The leaders, the proponents of death who truly believe that abortion and euthanasia are good for society, are normally the same people who support Marxism, and are normally the people who have an issue with God. They are the warriors who encourage abortion, and use legislation and court decisions to further their cause. It is those folks who our “pro-life war department” must engage with on the political and spiritual battlefields. They are the “enemy,” and engaging with them is necessary to alter the framework of the liberal left statist movement from a political point of view. The cultural front of the war, however, cannot be filled with the same strategies we use on the political and spiritual battlefield. On the cultural front the tactics must be adjusted to the task at hand. We must be ready to listen, and learn what it was that led the person to seek the solution of abortion. Then, we can pocket that intelligence report, and use it to create new fronts against the cultural causes, rather than simply battling the symptoms.

On the political front, I would hope that the issue would return to the States where it constitutionally belongs, and that the States would, one by one, outlaw abortion and euthanasia across the board. However, reality dictates that a bulk of the population has been trained to believe the propaganda supporting the culture of death. Therefore, our victories may not always be as large and effective as we would like them to be. Sometimes we have to settle for what is politically possible. “Politics is the art of the possible.” -- Otto Von Bismark.  Rather than being viewed as concession, sometimes small advances must be viewed as a step in the right direction.

Chief Justice Blackmun, in his opinion of the Roe v. Wade ruling in 1973, also offered us language that should assist in our battle to change the legal landscape regarding the issue of abortion. He wrote, “We don’t know when life begins.”

In the 14th Amendment the language 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.”

Based on Justice Blackmun’s offering regarding when life begins, if it can be legally determined that personhood begins at conception, which would mean that all unborn babies are “persons”, all of the arguments the opponents of the U.S. Constitution use to support their position on abortion will become null and void. Roe v. Wade, and any other instances of case law or legislation supporting the practice of abortion would no longer be valid.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Austin, Texas Shooting Claims One Life

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

An unidentified gunman has killed one, wounded three.  The fatality was a woman in her 20s.  The three injured were also women.  The early morning shooting happened as people were departing nightclubs in Austin's downtown area at about 2:15 am.  The shooter fired into a crowd of people.  The gunman is also believed to be in his 20s.

Another confrontation led to a shooting at a parking garage.  Shortly after the shots were fired, bystanders tackled the shooter.  The second shooting is unrelated to the first, according to police.

The suspect who opened fire in the parking garage was transported to a hospital for injuries he suffered when bystanders subdued him. There were no reports of anyone being struck by bullets in that incident.

As usual, the liberal left Democrats will chalk this up as being yet another example of why we need gun control.

Disarming law-abiding citizens for the actions of a few nutcases would be like taking away everyone's driver's licenses because there are a few drunks on the road.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Liberty Fading

By Douglas V. Gibbs
AuthorSpeakerInstructorRadio Host

With time things wither away.  We lose our youth, our friends, and our things.  As with life, liberty has grown old, and is at risk of being forgotten and tossed aside.

Thus, is the reality of the cycles of time.  In history we can see that systems of liberty always begin with courage and virtue, only to wither away under the assault of tyrants and complacency.  The Roman Republic became an empire, and the Saxons gave way to King George and the Fabians.

Tyranny is not something people wish for, nor do they desire it.  Tyranny creeps in incrementally, guided by a mask of progress, encouraged by hopes of change.  Darkness is behind the tyranny, but it never originally reveals its true form.  Darkness would never be accepted if we knew it was darkness, so it reveals itself as an angel of light, a wonderful thing that is for the common good and the good of the community.

We adjust as our freedoms are taken away, not even aware that it is happening.  The government says it is benevolent, it is taking control of certain aspects of our lives for our own good, because among us exists greedy and malevolent individuals.  Individualism cannot be trusted, we are convinced, so the collective community must be our priority.  We are willing to sacrifice just a little freedom to keep our children safe.

Speech becomes limited not by government, but by a changing culture.  Then, as violence escalates, the right to protect oneself against tyranny is confiscated.  Opinions are fine, the faithful are told, as long as you keep them inside four walls. . . and until the government decides those four walls are a part of its dominion as well.  Dissent is hate, and hate is unpatriotic.  But, don't worry, majority rules, as the majority seeks to vote away the rights of the minority.  Mob-rule becomes mob-violence.  They may not wear brown shirts, but they sure act like it.

Armored vehicles and a federalized police become necessary to protect us from the rage of manufactured crises.  As Benjamin Franklin warned, "Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom.  As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters."

By the blaze of fire, and invisible chains we don't even know we wear, liberty becomes a distant memory because we abandoned the eternal vigilance necessary to stave off the assault, not recognizing it as tyranny because we were told it was for the good of the community.  It was fair.  It was moral and not hateful.

God-given rights have become government defined.  We lie within prison walls without realizing the bricks were ever placed.  Our clergy hid, our patriots were silenced, and tyranny told us that their chains are a new form of liberty.  To be free we must be forced to achieve it through governmental means.  Man must be forced to be free by the guiding wisdom of a ruling elite.

We have withered.  We have lost our will.  We have allowed our complacency to place our liberty at risk.  Therefore, our liberty is fading.

As William Cullen Bryant wrote in his piece, The Antiquity of Freedom, "O Freedom! close thy lids in slumber; for thine enemy never sleeps, and thou must watch and combat till the day of the new earth and heaven."

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Hard Left Library of Congress

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

A couple of weeks ago, while nobody was looking, with a lot of help from the Republican Party, the U.S. Senate confirmed Carla Hayden as the new head of the Library of Congress.  She is the first woman and the first black to serve as librarian of Congress.  Congratulations, it is a historic event.

Except. . .

Carla is, according to Hans von Spakovsky, a senior legal fellow at The Heritage Foundation, “an unqualified, far-left progressive.”  Yet, the vote was an incredible 74-19 to confirm her.  Prior to this appointment Carla D. Hayden led Baltimore’s public library system.

All 19 senators who voted no on Hayden are Republicans.  Six of the seven senators who did not vote were also members of the GOP.

Critics said Hayden falls short of the scholarly credentials traditionally expected of the nation’s librarian of Congress.

“Hayden has made a name for herself in the far-left community as a radical activist,” the conservative group Concerned Women for America wrote to the Senate before that vote. “This position is not one for radical activism, but for academic honesty and integrity.”

The Library of Congress controls the nation’s Copyright Office as well as the Congressional Research Service. The library also provides members of Congress with legal advice.

Hayden’s background indicates she is a political activist who could compromise the library’s neutrality and integrity.  In his cynical statement nominating Carla Hayden to be librarian of Congress, President Obama cited her race and gender as her major qualifications, hoping that would immunize her from scrutiny.

Hayden opposes the Children’s Internet Protection Act, signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 2000, which is aimed at protecting children from viewing illegal and obscene material at a public, federally funded, library.  In an on-camera interview, Hayden said she “spearheaded” the American Library Association’s “efforts to overturn” the legislation.

In 2003, Hayden also crossed swords with then-Attorney General John Ashcroft over the Patriot Act when the American Library Association opposed a provision allowing federal authorities to inspect library borrowing records to identify potential terrorists.

“This is someone who clearly believes you should have uncensored access to pornography in public libraries, and that’s the person the Republicans and Blunt (Sen. Roy Blunt, R-Mo.) want to rush through,” von Spakovsky said, adding:

Blunt is acting like the de facto leader of the Democrats in the Senate. He’s taking on the role of [Minority Leader] Harry Reid, and he’s acting like a Democrat and doing Obama’s bidding on this nominee when there’s no Democratic pressure for this nomination.

Blunt not only defied the advice of Concerned Women for America and other conservative organizations, von Spakovsky said, but “accelerated the nomination at every stage.”

With a progressive hard left loony-tune in this position, does that place at risk the record keeping of history in America?  Will certain titles now be banned, or disallowed because they are conservative in nature?  The IRS targeted conservatives, so I see no reason why Hayden won't.

President John Adams signed legislation creating the Library of Congress on April 24, 1800. In 1802, President Thomas Jefferson signed a law establishing the post of librarian of Congress.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Saturday, July 30, 2016

San Diego Cop Killers

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

In San Diego, California, a second person has been taken into custody regarding the fatal shooting of a police officer, and the wounding of a second officer.

The primary suspect who is allegedly responsible for the killing of Officer Jonathan DeGuzman and wounding Officer Wade Irwin has been identified as Jesse Michael Gomez, 52.

The second person was arrested on an outstanding warrant hours after a SWAT team surrounded a home Friday morning, but officials warn he was only a "potential suspect."

"At this time we have not determined if [the person in custody] is involved in the murder of Officer DeGuzman and the attempted murder of Officer Irwin," San Diego Police Chief Shelley Zimmerman said Friday afternoon.

DeGuzman, who was fatally shot, was married and a father of two.

The suspected shooter received a gunshot wound to the upper torso.

Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump tweeted that "it is only getting worse. People want LAW AND ORDER!"

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Obamacare Co-ops Collapsing



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

The failure of Obama's Affordable Care Act is not being reported by the mainstream media.  For conservatives the failure of Obamacare is no surprise.  The leviathan Obamacare law was written with a purpose.  It was designed to fail so that the federal government would be expected to save the system with socialized medicine.

Since 2013, 16 co-ops that were launched with federal tax dollars have collapsed.

The claim by the Democrats was that Obamacare would create competition in the health insurance industry, and a part of that attempt to create competition was to be through the co-ops, or consumer operated and oriented plans.

Of the original 23 co-ops, only seven remain.

As the co-ops have collapsed, the cost of health care has skyrocketed.  As a result of the other co-ops failing, the cost of doing business among the remaining co-ops is going up, and that will result in an even greater increase in the cost of premiums.

The government claims that nonprofit insurers keeping their costs down during the beginning years of Obamacare’s implementation to attract customers is a part of the cause of the increase in rates, but that is a false claim.  Obamacare has placed so many restrictions and regulations on the industry, that to maintain a reasonable profit margin the insurance companies have been forced to raise their rates.

Obamacare, to survive, has also been sucking money out of the Medicare and Medicaid Services.  The proper way to have helped the healthcare industry to drop prices was not government intrusion into the industry, but an elimination of many of the government controlled restrictions. . . such as disallowing insurance companies from selling across State lines (which is unconstitutional anyway).

The remaining seven co-ops will fail.  It's not a matter of "if," it is a matter of when.  And, insurance companies will also begin to fail.  The monetary losses they are experiencing is already in the hundreds of millions of dollars, with UnitedHealth Group expecting to lose $1 billion from its exchange business in 2015 and 2016 combined.  Obamacare was designed to destroy the private health insurance market.

Then, after all of the co-ops are gone, and a few insurance companies fight to keep their noses above water, as planned, the federal government under the control of the Democrats (or at least that is what the Democrats assume will be the case) will have to swoop in and save the health care industry by instituting socialized medicine (as originally intended).

To control costs, health care will become rationed.  Terminal illnesses will be left untreated, and the elderly who are no longer considered beneficial to the collective will be given end-of-life options.

Hence, among the reasons the upcoming election is so important.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Constitution Radio with Douglas V. Gibbs: Democrats Exposed

Constitution Radio with Douglas V. Gibbs KMET 1490-AM, www.kmet1490am.com
Saturdays, 1:00 pm ... if you miss the program, listen to the archived podcast HERE.

Host Douglas V. Gibbs (Author,SpeakerInstructorRadio Host) will be joined by co-host Alex Ferguson (www.conservativecannonade.org).

Special Guest: Tom Lineaweaver, former Republican, Independent running as a write-in candidate for President.  He ran for Governor of Pennsylvania in the last election.  Claims to be the most constitutional candidate running.


After the Book of the Week, and the Constitution Quest Question of the Week, we will then discuss the AllStar Collision Big Stories of the Week. . .

3. Democrat Convention versus Wikileaks





2. Congressional Central America Caucus: Treason


1. Baltimore Mosby's Political Narrative



Text Messages Reveal Mosby's Political Narrative

By Douglas V. Gibbs
AuthorSpeakerInstructorRadio Host 

The race-baiters of the liberal left will do anything to support their narrative about racism in America. . . even if it means lying and using deception to make it so.  The agenda follows the Hegelian Dialectic perfectly.  Create a problem (racism in the U.S.), create opposition (Black Lives Matter) and then create a solution (big government interference, more laws, prosecution against those who dare to get in the way).

The racial division rising up in this country has been manufactured, politically driven by the liberal left Democrats.  While President Obama ran way back in 2008 as the guy who can unite America, he has set us back fifty years in race relations.

When Barack Obama first burst on the scene for President of the United States, he was being hailed as a constitutional professor.  We were told he taught the Constitution, so if anyone was going to get us back on track with the United States Constitution, it was Mr. Obama from Illinois.  Curious, I looked him up, and found that Obama did indeed lecture regarding the Constitution at the University of Chicago - but what he lectured on not only was hidden from the public view, but sums him up nicely.

At the University of Illinois, Community Organizer Barack Obama lectured on how to use the 14th Amendment to create racial division.

Fast forward to 2016, after years of riots, racial discontent, police shootings, and the emergence of Black Lives Matter.  Among the triggers of racial discord has been the accusation that the police are targeting blacks.  The death of Trayvon Martin in 2012 got the narrative blazing hot, followed by the shooting of Michael Brown by white police in Ferguson, Missouri (which launched the Ferguson riots), and Freddie Gray's questionable death allegedly by the hands of the police in Baltimore.  The City of Baltimore, like Ferguson, erupted into violence, and the local attorney general, Marilyn Mosby was determined to make sure a political narrative was followed blaming the police for Gray's death. . . no matter what the evidence suggested.

Conservative pundits picked up on the problem immediately.  Evidence leaned towards the idea that Freddie Gray's injuries, and his death, were self-imposed.  Nonetheless, Mosby's office pursued the prosecution of six police officers, claiming Freddie Gray's death was their fault, and the fault of our American System.

Black Lives Matter, the liberal left media, and the Democrat Party all rallied behind Mosby, supporting the politically driven case because success would be a boon for their "America is racist" and "the police are dangerous" narratives.

Text messages are emerging revealing the political nature of Mosby's prosecution, and how a misleading narrative was presented to the Grand Jury in the first place.

Since the cases went to court, the lack of evidence made Mosby's prosecution look laughable and incompetent.

Former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy said on "The Steve Malzberg Show" that the "whole case was really a travesty."

"It's a tragedy not just for the police officers who've been wrongly charged in this case, but also at a time when homicides hit a record number last year in Baltimore — and even nonfatal shooting are up 72 percent — what [Mosby] has done is create a climate where cops have to worry about whether they're going to be prosecuted for doing their job," he charged.

Not one charge Marilyn Mosby brought against any of the Baltimore police officers named in the Freddie Gray case has been upheld. Mosby is 0 for 3 in cases brought before the court, and the other three cases have been dismissed, making her score a resounding 0 for 6.

We've known all along the Baltimore cases against six police officers in the Freddie Gray death were politically motivated, and all about the narrative.  Now, according to the Baltimore Sun, there are text messages to prove it.

The text messages were between the police investigator and the attorney for the prosecution, and they raise some very serious questions.

The text messages, which are time/date stamped as most are, are completely counter to what is being said by Marilyn Mosby.

The lead detective, Dawnyell Taylor, said she had handwritten case notes from the prosecutors indicating they were going to charge the officers in the Freddie Gray case no matter what the officers said or where the evidence led.

Taylor said she was handed a narrative by the prosecution that she read to the grand jury regarding indictments of the officers. 

Taylor said, “As I read over the narrative it had several things that I found to be inconsistent with our investigation. I thought the statements in the narrative were misquoted.”

Taylor also said that when the jurors began to ask her questions, the prosecutors intervened before she could respond.  “They did not intend for me to answer any questions because all of my answers would obviously conflict with what I had just read to them.”

Marilyn Mosby now claims that those case notes were written “after the fact” in order to undermine the prosecution’s case.

Mosby said, “Lead detectives that were completely uncooperative and started a counter-investigation to disprove the state’s case by not executing search warrants pertaining to text messages among police officers involved in the case, creating videos to disprove the state’s case, without our knowledge, creating notes that were drafted after the case was launched.”

Still and all, on the day that Taylor testified before the grand jury, on the same day the grand jury voted to indict the officers, Taylor sent a text message to the deputy state’s attorney almost identical to her case notes.  “I did not feel comfortable reading that script before we discussed it and I swore to it. I’m find with finding the facts but between us I believe we omitted key things from their combined statements.”

The deputy state’s attorney then tried to have Detective Taylor removed from the case entirely, but she wasn’t successful in her endeavor.

The text messages now coming to light back up what the lead investigator, Dawnyell Taylor, has been saying about the prosecutors.

ConservativeTribune.com goes further in their observation.  "Text messages obtained by the attorneys for the six policemen on trial for the death of Freddie Gray show that the office of Baltimore State’s Attorney Marilyn Mosby may have committed perjury in preliminary motions filed in the case."

Perjury?

According to the attorneys, they have phone logs and text messages from April 27 that show that one of Mosby’s prosecutors was “judge shopping” to find a friendly judge to issue a warrant.

In a new twist, the officers involved in the Freddie Gray case are suing Marilyn Mosby.

This is what happens when the liberal left has a narrative, and they can't get the facts to cooperate.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Conservative Voice Radio: Democrat Party's Veil Removed

Hosted by Douglas V. Gibbs, AuthorSpeakerInstructorRadio Host and members of the Banning-Beaumont-Cherry Valley Tea Party www.bbcvteaparty.net Jan and Diane - Glenn isn't with us this week.

Saturdays, 8:00 am, Conservative Voice Radio, KMET 1490-AM

Listen live at www.kmet1490am.com or listen later at the podcast page.

Today's Topics:

  • WikiLeaks Creates Havoc in Democrat Party
  • Democrat National Convention Headlines. . . no mention of Isis, no U.S. Flags, Waste, Fraud, Podium Wall, Bill Clinton Rattled by Lewinski
  • Democrat Racism and GOP Diversity
  • Day 2 Pressure to add American Flags
  • Corey Booker's Speech
  • Hemet Measure E
  • Hillary's America, Dinesh D'Souza
  • Tim Kaine as Hillary's V.P. Pick
  • MSNBC Rachel Maddow: Audience Sensibilities
  • Bill Maher's Language
  • Sanders' protesters: Lock Her Up
  • Europe's Muslim Violence
  • Angela Merkel's Absolute Surveillance State
  • National Security at the Border - Islamic Violence is Here
  • Giving Protesters Room to Destroy
  • Getting America Back to a Healthy Spot
  • Increase of Violent Crime, Anger

Friday, July 29, 2016

Europe's Escalating Muslim Problem

By Douglas V. Gibbs
AuthorSpeakerInstructorRadio Host

As the population of Muslims in Europe increases, the frequency of problems associated with Islam has also been increasing.  While the appeasers of leftism are doing what they can to assure everyone that Islam is misunderstood, and to believe terrorism has any connection to the Koran is racist, they are being killed by the violent hand of Muslims.  Their cultures and laws are also changing.  This is what Islam does.  As the percentage of population increases, Islam becomes emboldened, and dangerous.

Swedish Women Urged to Wear Headscarf - Or Be Raped

Multiculturalism invites extremism to take advantage of the situation, to grow its influence, and to become violent when the opposing culture shows weakness.  Islamism is driven by the Koran, and it is a totalitarian system designed to do exactly what Nazism was geared towards.  With deception, Islam has been able to infiltrate their enemy, using hijrah (jihad by immigration).

In Sweden there has been an incredible wave of sexual attacks by Muslims in the country.  The Muslim population advocates rape and violence against infidel women, in Sweden.  Muslims have stickers advocating violence against women.  "Women who do not wear the veil are asking to be raped," one of the stickers said in English. Another one had "No democracy. We just want Islam" written over an image of radical Islamists.

As the government continues their politically correct agenda, the Swedish media is beginning to debate the issue.

Sweden has 65 "no-go zones" where the Muslim ghetto is not even visited by the police.  These areas are regarded as a hotbed of crime and Islamism and have been recognized as chief "suppliers" of terrorists for the numerous conflicts in the Middle East, with at least 300 Swedish nationals leaving the country to join ISIS.

The problem of harassment and sexual violence against women has also been a tender spot for traditionally feminist Sweden. Swedish public baths continue to be afflicted by obnoxious groping incidents, despite efforts from female vigilantes. Swedish summer festivals were plagued by a wave of sexual assaults.  Swedish police are now considering establishing women-only zones as the only viable solution against violence - giving Islam exactly what it wants.

When these attacks occur, they are usually reported as being by "Swedes," for fear of creating fear and hate against Muslims in the country.

'London is next': ISIS threaten attacks on world’s major cities

After the French priest being murdered by two Muslim teens, security has been increased in Britain's 47,000 churches in response.  A ‘heightened concern’ is in place regarding the risks to the Jewish community.  Police have warned Britain’s Christians to be on alert amid fears they could be targeted by ISIS jihadists.

The killing in Normandy was the first known attack claimed by ISIS inside a church in the West after the terrorist organization compiled hit list of places of Christian worship.

ISIS has warned that Washington and London are next on the list of target cities.

ISIS has been urging its followers to attack other French churches targeting what they called ‘Christian crusaders’.

Some in France are prepared to kill Islamism.

After passing the one year anniversary of the Iran Deal, we know that Iran can't be trusted, and is likely also funding the assault against the West.

From the beginning, the nuclear deal with Iran was a bad one. President Barack Obama claimed it would make the world “safer and more secure.” Over the past year, a review of Iran’s behavior should give little assurance to anyone not drinking the White House Kool-Aid that the U.S. is the one in the driver seat.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Goodbye to an Old Friend

By Douglas V. Gibbs
AuthorSpeakerInstructorRadio Host

I have only owned a few automatic transmission cars in my life.  I have always preferred a manual transmission.  I joke with my friends, "If you aren't pressing a clutch and shifting gears, you are not really driving."  I learned how to drive in an old Buick Opel back in the early eighties.  It, too, was a stick.

The Corolla pictured at the top-left of this article was purchased in 1997.  It's a '95, and when we bought it the miles were around 40,000.  My wife had been looking for a Corolla with a manual transmission and no power windows or locks.  We weren't making much money, but we needed a car, and Toyota had already proven to us to be long-lasting and dependable.  Prior to the car, I drove an old blue Toyota pickup, stick shift of course, putting nearly 300,000 miles on that thing before selling it to a friend of mine.

In 1997 we had gone to a number of dealers seeking a car for about $10,000, but all of them were around $14,000.  Finally, after visiting every Toyota dealer in the area, we found an ad for a Corolla at about $12,000 at a Nissan dealership in Temecula.  We went down there, and they still had the car.  We had $10,500 in cash on us, and we did not want to get a loan.  After haggling, finally my wife said, "ten-five out the door, or we walk away."

We drove the car off the lot, fully paid for, including tags.

Over the years that car has been to Arkansas, Oregon, Nevada, and all places in between.  It was our family car when the kids were young, and it became my work car when our kids moved out and the construction industry took a dump in 2008.  The grand total after nearly twenty years under our ownership is 297,000 miles in total.

Last Fall, the car finally began to show its age, and it began to sputter.  In December it failed to pass Smog.  After we figured it all out, with getting a new catalytic converter, exhaust manifold, two new struts, and an axle, the final cost, even with my friends doing the work, to repair the car was going to be more than $1,200.  That's a lot of money I don't have to keep a car on the road that might be worth $500 after it's all fixed up.

Plus, with a recent back injury, it was becoming more and more uncomfortable to drive a manual transmission.

By God's Grace, we have a 1998 Camry on the driveway, with an automatic transmission.  As for the Corolla, it was picked up today by pick-a-part.  I watched as my old friend was towed away.  You know, I don't normally place sentimental value on inanimate objects, but in this case, I have to admit I was sad to see the ol' car go.  I'll miss it.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

The Treason of the Congressional Central America Caucus

By Douglas V. Gibbs
AuthorSpeakerInstructorRadio Host

On the website of Norma Torres, a Democrat member of the United States Congress from Southern California, is an article bragging about the Congressional Central America Caucus meeting with Juan Orlando Hernandez, the President of Honduras.  The purpose of the meeting was to followup regarding a letter signed by 77 other Members of Congress calling on President Obama to grant Temporary Protected Status to individuals from Honduras, El Salvador, and Guatemala who are now in the United States illegally.

The Congressional Central America Caucus was founded by Representative Torres on February 24, 2016. It currently consists of 34 Members of Congress and is co-Chaired by Representative David Valadao (R-CA).

A reader of Political Pistachio sent me the information, and asked if there is a constitutional argument that can be used in response to what Torres and her cohorts are doing.

Before I answer whether or not the federal government's refugee program is constitutional or not, let's get a full overview of the issue of immigration so that we are fully informed when I get to the answer of the question.

When asked about the U.S. Constitution and Immigration, we first want to go to Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 where the Constitution gives the power to Congress "To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization." This clause gives Congress the authority to ensure that the rules for naturalization are uniform in all of the States. While reasoning that Constitutional authority over naturalization exists for the U.S. Congress, it does not necessarily mean they have all authorities regarding the immigration issue. Immigration is a concurrent issue, meaning that both the States, and the federal government, have certain authorities regarding it. Since Congress does have the authority to ensure there are uniform rules for naturalization, it would make sense that the U.S. Constitution allows Congress to also determine how the immigrants can come into our country in the first place, or at least who they can reject certain persons by rule of law.

Article I, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution gives Congress the authority to "prohibit" the "migration... of such Persons" with legislation. Notice, there is no authority to force the States to accept any particular persons. Congress has exercised the authority to prohibit persons from entering the country a number of times. In particular, during World War II legislation was passed to prohibit Germans, Italians and Japanese from immigrating into the United States. The United States was not being insensitive, or racist. We were at war with the countries these people were coming from, so it made sense. Simply put, we were unable to, through vetting, to truly separate the good from the bad. It might be interesting to note that both houses of Congress during that time period had a Democrat majority, and President Roosevelt was also a Democrat.

Democrat President Jimmy Carter also signed a bill restricting immigration. In his case, it was people from Iran during the Iran Hostage Crisis.

Article IV, Section 4 reads: "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against
domestic Violence."

The question that arises, then, is whether or not illegal immigration is an invasion, and does the
influx of illegal aliens lead to domestic violence in the States?

The American Heritage College Dictionary defines "invade" as:

1. To enter by force in order to conquer
or pillage.

2. To encroach or intrude on; violate.

3. To overrun as if by invading; infest.

4. To enter and permeate, especially harmfully.

In the same dictionary the third definition of "invasion" reads: "An intrusion or encroachment."

By entering illegally, which means the potential immigrants broke American immigration laws, illegal aliens are entering by force, and are violating the laws to do so. Illegal entry into the United States, especially by specific groups, falls clearly within the realm of invasion.

If Article IV, Section 4 tasks the federal government with protecting the States against invasion then it is the duty of the federal government to protect and secure the borders, and to not invite members of enemy factions into the country through any special programs. It is also the federal government's job to ensure only people who have properly navigated the immigration process enter this country.

The reasons behind the authorities given to Congress and the federal government that they must "prohibit" such persons, and secure the border are because it is the federal government's job to protect Americans from an invading force, or persons who may seek to cause harm to our country. Yet, as shown by the Members of the Congressional Central America Caucus who have been meeting so that they may grant Temporary Protected Status to individuals from Honduras, El Salvador, and Guatemala in the United States, these Congressional members are not seeking to protect the American public by prohibiting persons from coming into this country who may pose a danger, but instead are encouraging those people to come to the country, and are doing it without the consent of the States (which ranks among the reasons the 17th Amendment has been so dangerous), and without consideration of the danger these persons may pose to our society.

In fact, the actions by the Congressional Central America Caucus could be considered treasonous, since, if illegal aliens are indeed an invading force, and gangsters and terrorists may be mixed into the population of those being welcomed, these Congress-critters are giving the enemy "aid and comfort" (Article III, Section 3).

Not all aliens from Central America seeking refugee status are Central Americans. Among those seeking to cross into the United States are sleeper terrorists, drug cartel associates, and other persons who seek to destroy the United States.

The reality is, whether our government is willing to recognize it or not, we are in a war against terrorism committed by the Islamic Jihad, and we are in a war with the drug cartels who have been threatening to spread their madness into our country. Also, in reference to what the Congressional Central America Caucus is doing, and sanctuary cities for that matter, U.S. Code, sections 1324 and 1325 considers it a felony to be "concealing, harboring, or sheltering illegal aliens," as well as violating the Immigration and Naturalization Act sections 274 and 275 which reads similarly. Illegal entry into the United States - entry without inspection - is a misdemeanor, according to INA section 275, (8 USC Section 1324). Repeated illegal entry is a felony.

Are the entry into this country by people being shipped in by the federal government, and encouraged by groups like the Congressional Central America Caucus, accompanied by proper administrative processes including a complete immigration inspection?

Furthermore, the federal government is not specifically authorized regarding the administration of these persons once they are within the borders of any particular State. Prior to the Constitution, the States held all authorities on all issues. Amendment 10 states that if an authority is not granted to the federal government, nor prohibited to the States, it's a State issue, and a State responsibility. Therefore, once an alien is inside a State, if that person is not a citizen, the State has the authority to administer as it sees fit regarding that person. And, if the State wishes to refuse the person from being a part of their population, the State has that authority.

A person who disagrees with my assessment may argue that Article IV, Section 2 and the 14th Amendment both require all persons to be treated equally, entitling them to all privileges and immunities. When these folks argue that point with me, I carefully point out that the clauses specifically apply to "citizens," as is carefully articulated in each of the two clauses.

I get it. We hear it all the time. We are all descendants of immigrants. I believe that the strength of this country is largely derived from the fact that we are a melting pot. However, immigration with the purpose of following the law, and going through the proper administrative processes because the immigrant wishes to assimilate into the American culture is one thing; purposeful violation of the law by crossing the border illegally or being shipped in under the guise of being a refugee is a crime against the U.S. Constitution no matter how you slice it. For the federal government to encourage such behavior, and even assist that kind of behavior, is unacceptable. The United States prides itself in being a nation that follows the rule of law, and to pick and choose which laws to follow, or to ignore the Constitutional authorities given to the federal government and to refuse to protect this nation against invasion is, in a word, irresponsible - and in some circles may be considered treasonous.  The Founding Fathers would certainly think so, anyway.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Thursday, July 28, 2016

Temecula Constitution Class, Tonight, Judicial Branch

Temecula Constitution Class, Article III, Judicial Branch, Continued... Join us tonight at Faith Armory in Temecula
Temecula Constitution Class
Thursdays, 6:30 pm
Faith Armory
41669 Winchester Road
Temecula, CA  92590

Constitution Class Handout
Instructor: Douglas V. Gibbs
douglasvgibbs@reagan.com



Lesson 08

Judicial Branch

Establish Justice

The United States Constitution was written to establish a federal government for the United States of America. Article III establishes the federal court system. Article I, Section 8 gives the Congress the power to "constitute tribunals inferior to the supreme Court." Given the power to establish these courts, Congress also has the authority to do away with any of these inferior courts. This power of Congress is repeated in Article III, Section 1 during the first sentence.

When reading Article III, one must keep in mind the fact that the article was specifically written to affect the federal court system, not the state courts. The authorities contained within this article, and the restrictions thereof, are to be applied to the federal courts, not the state courts. One must also bear in mind, as one reads this article, the additional limits placed on the federal courts by the 11th Amendment. No case against a state by citizens of another state, or by the citizens or subjects of a foreign state, shall be heard by a federal court.

In other words if citizens of a State sues a State, or foreign government sues a State, the case can't go to the federal courts. The highest that case can go is the State Supreme Court. These limitations placed upon the court system by the 11th Amendment were proposed by the people (House of Representatives) and the States (Senate), and finally ratified by the States, in order to better control a federal court system that was attempting to compromise State Sovereignty. Judges, the lesson of the 11th Amendment shows us, are not the wielders of the rule of law. They are not the powerful men of honor when it comes to the law. The guardians of the rule of law are the people, and the States. The courts had proven that they can become an enemy of the law, proclaiming that their rulings are the rule of law, but as the 11th Amendment reminds us, the judges are merely men, and their system is the rule of man attempting to manipulate the law through their rulings. For their bad behavior, the people and the States judged them, and further limited them with a new constitutional amendment.

Good Behavior

The conventional understanding of the terms of federal judges is that they receive lifetime appointments because no time restriction is placed upon them in the Constitution. The only limitation on term placed upon the judges can be found in Article III, Section 1 where the Constitution states that judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, "shall hold their offices during good behavior." Conventional wisdom dictates that bad behavior is defined as unlawful activities.

The definition of bad behavior is not limited to only illegal activities. Judges take an oath to preserve, protect, and defend the United States Constitution, which is the Law of the Land. Bad behavior, then, from the point of view of the Founding Fathers, may also include unconstitutional actions, or failure to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution.

Impeachment by Congress may be used if a judge acts in bad behavior. If a judge refuses to attend the hearing at the behest of the United States Senate, the federal marshall may be used to retrieve the judge, and compel them to stand before Congress to answer for their bad behavior. Congress is the check and balance against the courts, not the other way around.

Limits

The powers of the federal courts "shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority."

The federal courts, in other words, may hear all cases that fall within their authority. These cases are regarding those in which the federal government has authority, be it by laws passed within the authorities granted to the federal government by the Constitution, or regarding issues related to treaties made that have been signed by the President and ratified by the U.S. Senate. The courts may not hear cases that are regarding issues not within the authorities of the federal government.

A recent example would be the flurry of federal court rulings against State laws defining marriage as between a man and a woman. In California, the State's attempt to protect the government definition of marriage was with Proposition 8. The proposition changed the State Constitution to read that marriage is between a man and a woman. Marriage is not an issue that falls under the authorities of the federal government as expressly granted by the Constitution, nor is the issue of marriage prohibited to the States. Therefore, as per the authorities granted, and not granted, in line with the 10th Amendment, the government authority over marriage is reserved to the States. Since the issue of marriage is a State issue, the case should not have gone beyond the State Supreme Court. The federal courts hearing the case regarding Proposition 8, or any of the State laws regarding marriage, are acting unconstitutionally. The governors of these States, whose marriage laws were overturned by an activist federal court system, have the right to disregard all rulings by the federal courts on this issue. The action of ignoring the rulings is a type of nullification, and States have the right to nullify unconstitutional laws or actions by the federal government..

Other limitations have been placed upon the federal courts as well. The 11th Amendment changed the intent of Article III. As limited as the courts were supposed to be, the Founding Fathers realized the courts weren't limited enough, and as a result, the 11th Amendment wound up being ratified in 1795. The 11th Amendment was encouraged by a federal case called Chisolm v. Georgia (1793).

Chisolm v. Georgia (1793)

An increasing problem with federal intrusion on the States via the federal court system culminated in the case of Chisholm v. Georgia in 1793, which eventually led to the proposal, and ratification, of the 11th Amendment. A citizen of South Carolina sued the State of Georgia for the value of clothing supplied by a merchant during the Revolutionary War. After Georgia refused to appear, claiming immunity as a sovereign state, as per the Constitution (Article III, Section 2) the federal courts took the case. The judges in the court system tended to embrace a nationalist view of the federal government, and their nationalist point of view encouraged the judges to deem that in the Chisolm v. Georgia case, Georgia was not a sovereign state, therefore the Supreme Court entered a default judgment against Georgia. What ensued was a conflict between federal jurisdiction and state sovereignty that reminded the anti-federalists of their fears of a centralized federal government consolidating the states, and destroying their right to individual sovereignty.

Realizing that the clause in Article III gave the federal courts too much power over state sovereignty, Congress immediately proposed the 11th Amendment in order to take away federal court jurisdiction in suits commenced against a State by citizens of another State or of a foreign state. This is the first instance in which a Supreme Court decision was superseded by a constitutional amendment, and evidence that the founders saw the legislative branch, and the States, as being a more powerful part of government over the federal judiciary.
Authorities

The 10th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America states that the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, or prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. The federal courts are included in that, as being a part of the United States federal government. As a result of the nature of how federal authorities are granted, the federal court system can only hear cases that fall within the constitutional authorities for the federal government.

When one understands the importance of protecting state sovereignty, and that the courts are supposed to be very limited in their scope and power, Article III becomes much simpler to understand.

As stated earlier in this section, the first sentence of Article III, Section 2, reads: The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States (which are only supposed to be passed if they are within the authorities granted by the Constitution), and Treaties made . . .

Notice the phrase, "arising under this Constitution." If the case is not involving the federal government as one of the parties, or is not regarding an issue that falls under the authorities of the U.S. Constitution, the federal courts can simply not take the case. The State Supreme Court, in those cases, is the highest court the case can go to.

Judicial Review

Federal judges maintain that the federal courts have the power of judicial review, or the power to determine the constitutionality of laws. In response to the judicial urgings for the powers to judge the extent of the federal government's powers, in the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions of 1798, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison warned us that giving the federal government through its courts the power of judicial review would be a power that would continue to grow, regardless of elections, putting at risk the all important concept of the separation of powers, and other much-touted limits on power. The final arbiters of the Constitution are not the courts, argued the Founding Fathers who supported the foundation of limiting principles of the U.S. Constitution. The power of the federal government must be checked by State governments, and the people. The States and the People are the enforcers and protectors of the U.S. Constitution.

In today's society it is commonly accepted that one of the roles of the federal court system is to interpret the Constitution, and issue rulings determining the constitutionality of laws. The Constitution does not grant this authority. The power of Judicial Review was given to the courts by themselves.

The first attempt to establish "Judicial Review" as an authority to the federal court system was through the Judiciary act of 1789, but the authority allowing the United States federal courts to hear a civil case because the plaintiff has alleged a violation of the United States Constitution, federal law, or a treaty to which the United States is a party, was limited to only the United States Supreme Court. The lower federal courts, at this point, were not allowed hear cases questioning the federal government's "federal question jurisdiction." Anti-federalists, and Jefferson Republicans immediately railed against the legislation, arguing that legislation cannot determine authorities granted.

The Federalists, in an attempt to allow the lower courts to wield the power of judicial review, briefly created such jurisdiction in the Judiciary Act of 1801, but it was repealed the following year. Unable to establish the federal court system as the final arbiters of the United States Constitution through legislative means, the Federalists turned to the courts themselves to drive into place the controversial authority.

During John Adams' final moments in the presidency, he appointed a whole host of "midnight judges" (appointing 16 Federalist circuit judges and 42 Federalist justices of the peace to offices created by the Judiciary Act of 1801) in the hopes of retaining federalist control of the courts as Jefferson's Democratic-Republicans gained control of the Congress, and Jefferson himself accepted the presidency.

Thomas Jefferson's Democratic-Republicans were appalled by the appointment of the Midnight Judges, recognizing the stacking of the courts as a desperate attempt by the Federalists to try and continue Federalist influence despite their election loss. In Jefferson's view, the Federalists "retired into the judiciary as a stronghold . . . and from that battery all the works of Republicanism are to be beaten down and destroyed."

While Adams was still in office, most of the commissions for these newly appointed judges were delivered. However, unable to deliver all of them before Adams' term expired, some of them were left to be delivered by the incoming Secretary of State, James Madison. Jefferson ordered them not to be delivered, and without the commissions delivered, the remaining new appointees were unable to assume the offices and duties to which they had been appointed to by Adams. In Jefferson's opinion, the undelivered commissions were void.

One of those appointed judges was a man named William Marbury. He sued, and the case worked its way up to the Supreme Court. After all of the dust settled, on February 24, 1803, the Court rendered a unanimous (4-0) decision that Marbury had the right to his commission, but the court did not have the power to force Madison to deliver the commission. Chief Justice Marshall wrote the opinion of the court, and in that opinion he wrote that the federal court system has the power of judicial review. Rather than simply applying the law to the cases, Marshall decided, based on case law and precedent, that the courts have the authority to determine the validity of the law as well. This opinion, however, went against all of the limitations placed on the courts by the Constitution.

One of the most obvious fundamental principles of the Constitution is the limitations it places on the federal government. The Constitution is designed not to tell the federal government what it can't do, but to offer enumerated powers to which the authorities of the federal government are limited to. The powers are granted by the States, and any additional authorities must also be approved by the States through the ratification of any proposed amendments. It takes 3/4 of the States to ratify an amendment. The congressional proposal of an amendment, with the ratification of that amendment, in the simplest terms, is the federal government asking the States for permission to a particular authority.

The power of Judicial Review, or the authority to determine if laws are constitutional, was not granted to the courts by the States in the Constitution. The courts took that power upon themselves through Justice Marshall's opinion of Marbury v. Madison.

The federal courts are a part of the federal government. The Constitution was designed to limit the authorities of the federal government by granting only a limited number of powers. Judicial Review enables the federal government, through the courts, to determine if the laws that the federal government made are constitutional. In other words, the federal government, through Judicial Review, can determine for itself what its own authorities are.

The idea that the federal court system has the authority to interpret the Constitution, and can decide if a law is constitutional or not, is unconstitutional, and is simply an attempt by those that believe in big government to gain power, and work towards a more centralized big federal governmental system.

Original Jurisdiction

In Article III, Section 2, Clause 2 the Constitution reads: "In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction."

What this means is that in all of those above listed cases, the federal appellate courts cannot take the case. Such cases must bypass the federal appellate system, and go straight to the Supreme Court. Since one of those stipulations is in regards to cases "in which a State shall be a Party," that means that the case "U.S. v. Arizona" where the federal government sued Arizona to block the State's immigration law, was unconstitutional. It was unconstitutional for the inferior federal courts to hear the case. The Supreme Court had original jurisdiction. Therefore, when the district court ruled in July of 2010 on the case, and struck down parts of the Arizona immigration law, not only did that court not have jurisdiction to hear the case in the first place, but the very act of striking down portions of the law was unconstitutional. After all, Article I, Section 1 grants the legislative branch all legislative powers, and those powers would include the ability to strike down law. The courts were not vested with any legislative powers, and therefore cannot strike down laws, or portions of laws.

Trial by Jury

Article III, Section II, Clause 3 sets up the right to a trial by jury, except in the cases of impeachment.

This clause also requires that a trial must be held in the state where the crime was committed. If the crime was not committed in any particular state, then the trial is held in such a place as set forth by the Congress.

Treason

Article III, Section 3 defines treason, as well as the granting of the power by the Congress to declare the punishment. When the Constitution says that "no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attained," it means that the punishment cannot be inherited or passed down (corruption of blood), nor shall the person be denied due process (attainder).

Corruption of blood also means that all inheritable qualities are destroyed, and the Founding Fathers did not believe this English practice should be an American one.

No forfeiture meant that despite treason, the properties of the person could not be forfeited to the government. The property would remain as property of the individual, or remain with family. Even when it came to the despicable act of treason, the founders believed that the individual should be able to retain certain rights.

Terms:

Corruption of Blood: Punishment inherited or passed down, all inheritable qualities are destroyed.

Judicial Review: The unconstitutional authority of the federal courts to review law, interpret the Constitution regarding laws, and then determine the constitutionality of laws.

Original Jurisdiction: In the Constitution the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction on some cases, which means the case must proceed directly to the Supreme Court, and the high court must make a determination on whether or not to accept the case.

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

Questions for Discussion:

1. How would life in the United States be different if there was no federal court system?

2. Why did the Founding Fathers limit the authorities of the federal courts?

3. How has Judicial Review changed our system of government?

4. Why do you think the Supreme Court has Original Jurisdiction over some cases?

5. In what ways is the presence of a Judicial Branch important?

Resources:

Draft of the Kentucky Resolutions (Jefferson's Draft), Avalon Project, Yale University:http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/jeffken.asp

Madison's Notes Constitutional Convention, Avalon Project, Yale University:http://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/debcont.asp

Virginia Resolution - Alien and Sedition Acts, Avalon Project, Yale University:

Copyright: Douglas V. Gibbs, 2015