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

Thursday, May 25, 2017

Quebec police tear down anti-sharia election posters

by Douglas V. Gibbs
AuthorSpeakerInstructorRadio Host


-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Temecula Constitution Class: Establishing the Executive Branch

Temecula Constitution Class, Thursday Night at 6:30 pm at Faith Armory, 41669 Winchester Road 
Constitution Class Handout
Instructor: Douglas V. Gibbs
Lesson 5: Establishing the Executive Branch
Article II, Section 1, Executive Power Established
Article II establishes the Executive Branch.  The Founding Fathers were anxious regarding the creation of the office of the executive because they feared that a leader with too much power had the potential of being tyrannical.  Many of the founders even argued that there should not be one executive, but many, so that they may serve as checks against each other.  Their concerns were well placed, if one considers that their frame of reference was the authoritarian king of the British Empire.
Despite their fears, they knew that the authorities of the president under the Articles of Confederation were too few, leaving the office of the president much too weak to adequately serve the union.  The founders were looking for a strong leader that also recognized the limitations on the authorities of the federal government as granted by the States through the articles of the Constitution.  The best model for the presidency was a simple choice.  Article II was written, some believe, with George Washington in mind.
Article II, Section 1, Clause 1 states that the powers of the executive are "vested."  This word, as we learned when we went over Article I, Section 1, carries a meaning similar to that of the word "granted."  Vested means "legally transferred."  The President's authorities are powers given to him through a legal transfer of authorities.   The powers vested to the Executive Branch were granted by the States.
The founders understood that whenever there is a "leader," there is a struggle for power.  America has been no different.  The office of the president has increased its powers over the years, mostly through unconstitutional means.  The Founding Fathers sought to limit the powers to the executive.  Among those limitations of powers is also a term-limit.  The executive is limited to a term of four years, as is the Vice President.
Election
The election of the President and Vice President is not accomplished by direct election.  Appointed electors vote for the President and Vice President.  The electors were originally appointed by the States during the early elections of American History.  The formula for determining the number of electors is determined by taking the number of Representatives and Senators the State is entitled in Congress, and combining those two numbers.  This method of indirect election is also known as The Electoral College, which was designed in this manner specifically to protect the United States against the excesses of democracy.
After the 2000 election, where the winner of the popular vote was denied the presidency because he did not win the fight for electors, questions regarding the Electoral College arose.  It was only the fourth time in history such an event occurred.  To find precedents resembling the 2000 election one has to go back to the 19th century, to the elections of 1888, 1876, and 1824.  Those were the only elections in American history prior to the election in 2000 where a winner in the popular vote was denied the presidency through the Electoral College system.
Recently, there has been a number of officials promising to introduce legislation to abolish the Electoral College, claiming that it no longer serves a good purpose in modern politics.  The reasoning of these folks that oppose the Electoral College suggests that the United States should simply allow the popular vote of the American people be followed every four years when we elect our president.
A number of Americans have voiced their agreement with this opinion, arguing that the individual running for President receiving the most votes should win.  An indirect election such as the Electoral College, argue these folks, is simply unfair and undemocratic.  In other words, they believe the American political system should operate as a direct democracy.
The Founding Fathers purposely did not make this country a democracy.  The United States is a Republic, equipped with checks and balances at all levels of government, including the voting process.  Democracies were proven, according to the founders, to be failures.
John Adams was quoted to say, "Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There is never a democracy that did not commit suicide."
Thomas Jefferson said, "The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not."
The founders are not the only historical figures to recognize that a democracy opposes liberty.
Karl Marx once said, "Democracy is the road to socialism."
Karl Marx, the father of communism, understood that the implementation of a democracy is a necessary step in the process of destroying our Constitutional Republic. Once the people are fooled to believe that they can receive gifts from the treasury rather than achieve for their livelihood, they will continually vote in the people who ensure the entitlements continue to flow. Eventually, this mindset becomes the majority. This group then changes over time from an involved and informed electorate to a populace that lacks the understanding of the principles of liberty and can easily be manipulated into believing that sacrificing individual liberty in exchange for social justice and security is a price that we must be willing to pay.  A group that is dependent upon the government in such a manner, then, is prime to vote into power a tyranny.  Eliminating the Electoral College would make it easier for these members of our society to vote into office those that promise more entitlements.
Once the majority of the voters in a Democracy become the recipients of benefits from the Federal Government, the government achieves unchecked power, and may then violate the property rights of the productive members of society in order to provide benefits to the non-productive members of society. This is best characterized in the "tax the rich," or "redistribution of wealth," scheme we are now seeing emerge as the rally cry by the current administration.  The founders called this method a "scheme of leveling."
The founders were aware of this danger, which is why they established our system of government, and the electoral college, in the manner they did.  A true democracy becomes "mob rule," and the principles of liberty become a target for elimination.
"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine." -- Thomas Jefferson
In order to preserve our Constitutional Republic it was imperative for the vote of the people to be indirect, except when it came to voting for their representatives in the House of Representatives.  The Founding Fathers divided power as much as possible, including the power of the vote.
Originally, the State Legislatures appointed the electors that cast their votes in the Presidential Election. That changed in 1824 when all but six states decided the electors should to vote in line with the popular vote.
U.S. Senators were initially appointed by the State Legislatures, which ensured the voice of the States was present in the federal government. That changed in 1913 with the 17th Amendment, which transferred the vote for the U.S. Senators to the popular vote.  The 17th Amendment took away from the States their representation in the federal government.
The Founding Fathers divided the voting power as they did partially because if the power to vote for president, the House, and the Senate all fell to the people, and if the people were fooled by some political ideology that wished to destroy the republic by fundamentally changing the American System, a tyranny could be easily voted into control of all parts of the government without any checks present whatsoever. When the majority of voters are uninformed in such a manner, and are given the full voting power, tyranny is inevitable.
Winston Churchill understood the dangers of trusting an uninformed electorate with the capacity to govern. He was quoted as saying, "The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter."
The elimination of the Electoral College would take away the voice of the smaller states, give the election of the President to the seven largest metropolitan centers in the United States, and lead America even closer to becoming a democracy.
Democracy is a transitional governmental system that ultimately leads to tyranny. This was true in the days of the French Revolution no less than it is true today.
While democracy lasts it becomes more bloody than either aristocracy or monarchy...Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There is never a democracy that did not commit suicide. -- John Adams
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner" -- James Bovard
Our country is not a democracy. Our nation was founded as a constitutionally limited republic.  The indirect election of the President through the Electoral College reflects that truth, and the Electoral College is one of the last vestiges of the system of checks and balances as they apply to the voters.
Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 indicates that the Congress may determine the time and day the electors are chosen, and give their votes.  The day they vote for President and Vice President, according to this clause, will be the same day nationally.  The rules for the popular election, if you will remember from Article I, are to be established by the State legislatures.
Eligibility
Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 states that the eligibility for President includes the requirement that the individual be a natural born Citizen.
Notice that the Constitution says a natural born citizen, "or" a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution.  This was to ensure that anyone alive at the time of the adoption of the Constitution who was a citizen was eligible, and anyone born after the adoption of the Constitution had to be a natural born citizen to be eligible.  The word "or" gives us a clue that there is a difference between "natural born citizen," and "citizen."
Some people will use the Fourteenth Amendment as an argument regarding the definition of natural born citizen.  The Fourteenth Amendment says, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
The Fourteenth Amendment, in this clause, as it states, only addresses "citizenship" - not the concept of being a natural born citizen.  Therefore, it does not apply when discussing the concept of natural born citizenship.  The clause was written as it was to protect the citizenship of the children of the emancipated slaves.  The word "jurisdiction" was placed in that clause to mean "full allegiance."  There was a fear during that time, as there had been during the founding of this nation, of divided allegiance, or divided loyalties.
Natural Born Citizen is not defined in the Constitution primarily because it was common knowledge.  People understood what the term "Natural Born Citizen" meant.
Today we have a number of terms that are understood without needing to be defined.  One of those terms is "fast food."  Without needing a definition provided, most people know what "fast food" is.  That does not mean the term will be readily understood by some historian of the future.  He may ask himself, when he comes across that term in our literature, "Why is it their food was fast?  Did it run quickly away from them?"  To understand what "fast food" meant to us, he may have to refer to a number of writings before he finally comes across the definition.
One of the sources the Founding Fathers used when it came to establishing the definition of "Natural Born Citizen" was Vatell's "Law of Nations."
Vatell's Law of Nations is mentioned once in the Constitution in Article I, Section 8, Clause 10, and it is capitalized - which suggests the mention of the Law of Nations to be a proper noun, thus supporting the argument that it is a direct reference to Vatell's writings.
Recently, it was discovered that George Washington failed to return a couple library books to the New York City Public Library.  One of those books was Vatell's Law of Nations.  Washington checked the book out in 1789, shortly after the Constitutional Convention, probably because of the heavy influence the definitions in Vatell's Law of Nations played on the writing of the U.S. Constitution.
Benjamin Franklin owned three copies of the Law of Nations - two for the convention, and one for his personal use.  He received those copies from the editor, Dumas, in 1775.
Vatell's Law of Nations Section 212 indicates that to be a Natural Born Citizen both parents must be citizens at the time of the birth of the child.  As with the Fourteenth Amendment, there was a fear of divided allegiance.
Vetell's Law of Nations required also that the child be born on American Soil, but if you read further down the section addresses other possibilities. The Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1790 confirmed the definition not requiring the child to be born on American soil, but still requiring that both parents be American citizens at the time of the child's birth.  The section in the Naturalization Act of 1790 I am referring to specifically reads: "And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States."
Note that the fifth word, citizens, is in the plural, which means it requires both parents to be citizens at the time of the birth of the child in order for the child to be a "Natural Born Citizen."
Article II also establishes that in order to be eligible for the presidency the candidate must be at least the age of 35.  This requirement, reasoned the founders, would ensure that the immaturities of youth had passed away.  Along with a relatively mature age, the Constitution indicates that the president must also have been a resident of the United States for the last fourteen years.  This, once again, was a guard against divided loyalties.
The Vice President must also meet all eligibility requirements.  In the 18th century the Vice President was the second place winner in the election, and therefore had to be eligible because he was originally running for President.  Now, the Vice President is elected as a part of the presidential ticket.  However, to ensure it was clear that the Vice President also had to be eligible for the presidency, especially since he was next in line for the presidency should the Office of President be vacated, the 12th Amendment ends with a sentence that demands the Vice President is eligible for the presidency.
In Case of Death
Article II, Section 1, Clause 6 was changed by the Twelfth Amendment.  This clause established the rules in case of the death of the President while in office.  The clause gave the Office of the President to the Vice President in the case of death.  The ambiguity of the clause, however, created confusion.  In the case of President Benjamin Harrison who died after only 30 days in office, it created a constitutional crisis.  The officials of that time did not know what to do.  When old Tippecanoe died, he was succeeded by his Vice-President John Tyler, but since no President had died in office before, no one was quite sure how Presidential succession worked. The Constitution stipulated that the Vice-President should become the new President, but it was not clear if the Vice-President should be considered a "real" President, or if he only "acted" as President. The Tyler administration made it clear that Vice-Presidents who became President after the death of the elected President should be treated as legitimate Presidents.
The Twelfth Amendment later addressed the problem with more specified rules.  Later, succession was resolved once and for all with the ratification of the 25th Amendment in 1967.
Compensation
Article II, Section 1, Clause 7 allows for the President to be compensated for his service as President of the United States.  This salary is not to be increased or diminished while the President serves.  The President, according to this clause, is also not allowed to receive any other governmental salary from the federal government during his term as President.  In George Washington's First Inaugural Address, he announced that he would accept no salary as President.
Oath or Affirmation
In the final Clause of Article II, Section 1, the Oath or Affirmation for the Office of President was established.
The reason for the clause indicating Oath "or" Affirmation was because an Oath is to God, and an Affirmation is not.  The founders understood that not all Americans believe in God, therefore an option needed to be available for non-believers.  Affirmation was also included as an option because there were some Christians that believed swearing to God to be a sin. Offering the opportunity to "affirm" gave these Christians an opportunity to take the affirmation of office without compromising their religious beliefs.
Note that the President is expected, according to the text of the oath or affirmation, to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.
You will also note that placing one's hand on a Bible is not in this Article.  The placement of a hand on a Bible while reciting the Oath or Affirmation was something that George Washington chose to do, and it has been a tradition ever since.
Terms:
Democracy: A form of government in which all citizens have an equal say in the decisions that affect their lives. Such a system includes equal participation in the proposal, development and passage of legislation into law.
Electoral College: A body of electors chosen by the voters in each state to elect the President and Vice President of the U.S.
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.
Leveling: Moving money from one group of people to another by raising and lower taxes accordingly in an effort to achieve economic equity in society.
Republic:  Form of government that uses the rule of law through a government system led by representatives and officials voted in by a democratic process. The United States enjoys a Constitutional Republic.
Questions for Discussion:
1.  Why didn't the Founding Fathers make the President a king?
2.  How does the Electoral College ensure fairness for the minority States?
3.  What is the difference between a democracy and a republic?
4.  Why did the Founding Fathers divide the voting power?
5.  How is "citizen," and "natural born citizen," different?
6.  Why were the Founding Fathers concerned about divided loyalty?
7.  How does the eligibility requirements ensure that the President, especially as Commander in Chief, holds full allegiance for the United States?
8.  How was the way the Vice President was chosen in the 18th century different from how the Vice President is chosen today?
Resources:
Alexander Hamilton, The Law of Nations and the U.S. Constitution, http://east_west_dialogue.tripod.com/vattel/id4.html
Associated Press, "Hillary Clinton Calls for End to Electoral College," CBS News (2009) http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2000/11/10/politics/main248645.shtml
George Washington, The First Inaugural Address of George Washington, The Avalon Project - Yale University (1789/2008) http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/wash1.asp
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
Marjorie Kehe, "How George Washington racked up a $300,000 fine for overdue library books," Christian Science Monitor, http://www.csmonitor.com/Books/chapter-and-verse/2010/0419/How-George-Washington-racked-up-a-300-000-fine-for-overdue-library-books
Mountain Publius Goat, "Law of Nations, 1758 law book defines Natural Born Citizen," Kerchner (2008) http://www.kerchner.com/protectourliberty/goatsledge/20081212%20Law%20of%20Nations.pdf
Ron Paul, "Hands Off The Electoral College," Lew Rockwell (2004) http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul226.html
Ron Paul, "The Electoral College vs. Mob Rule," Lew Rockwell (2004) http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul214.html
Sean Rooney, "The Death of President William Henry Harrison," Associated Content (2008) http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/518591/the_death_of_president_william_henry.html?cat=37
Copyright Douglas V. Gibbs 2015

In Recognition of American Patriots on Memorial Day

By Capt Joseph R. John, May 25, 2017: Op Ed # 350

Each year on Memorial Day we honor American Patriots who gave the last full measure of devotion in service to the Republic, so their fellow Americans could live their lives in freedom. 

Today and every day, we honor American Combat Veterans who gave up their tomorrows, and we honor members of the US Armed Forces, who are often separated from their loved ones for long periods of time, as they go into “Harm’s Way”, 

The nation also solemnly honors Gold Star families for their loss, those families feel the loss of their loved ones daily!  

Today and every day, we also honor all Veterans who served in the defense of the Republic.  At one point in their lives, Veterans wrote a blank check made payable to “The United States of America” for an amount “up to and including their lives”.  America owes them a debt of gratitude that can never be repaid!

In the memory of members of the US Armed Forces who lost their lives in service to the Republic, we share the below listed link, with its moving video, that demonstrates how Americans came together to honor selfless American Patriots.




Copyright by Capt Joseph R. John.  All Rights Reserved.  The material can only posted on another Web site or distributed on the Internet by giving full credit to the author.  It may not be published, broadcast, or rewritten without the permission from the author.  

Joseph R. John, USNA ‘62
Capt    USN(Ret)/Former FBI
Chairman, Combat Veterans For Congress PAC
2307 Fenton Parkway, Suite 107-184
San Diego, CA 92108



Then I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, “Whom shall I send, and who will go for Us?” Then I said, “Here am I. Send me!”
-Isaiah 6:8

Lawsuit Filed Against Pro-Islam Policy Of San Diego School Board

by Douglas V. Gibbs
AuthorSpeakerInstructorRadio Host

Local activists and friends of mine have been all over this (We the People Rising in particular) and I am so proud of them for being an influence.



-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Tonight: Temecula Constitution Class: Executive Branch Introduction

I expect to see all of you there tonight!

Temecula Constitution Class, Thursday Night at 6:30 pm at Faith Armory, 41669 Winchester Road 

Instructor: Douglas V. Gibbs
 
 
 
Lesson 5: Establishing the Executive Branch
 

Geert Wilder's American Freedom Alliance Speech

By Douglas V. Gibbs
AuthorSpeakerInstructorRadio Host

I had the wonderful opportunity to watch the following speech live at the American Freedom Alliance Heroes of Conscience Dinner last Sunday Night at the Hilton in Universal City.  The event honored David Horowitz as this year's recipient of the Heroes of Conscience Award, Philip Haney as the recipient of this year's inaugural American Freedom Award, and the event had Geert Wilders from the Netherlands as the keynote speaker.  I am a fellow of the AFA.

I appreciated the fact that Mr. Wilders pulled no punches. . .



-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Wednesday, May 24, 2017

The Waning Days of Trump Derangement Syndrome

By Douglas V. Gibbs
AuthorSpeakerInstructorRadio Host

The Washington Times reports that the raging snowflakes, and the foaming at the mouth by Americans of the Democrat Party persuasion, from a psychological viewpoint, may be coming to an end.
During the 2016 presidential election, there was much talk in the press about “pre-election stress disorder,” “post-election stress disorder,” “collective stress,” “election anxiety,” “Trump trauma” and other conditions found among Americans who were dithering over the election itself, and the unexpected victory of President Trump. 
Therapists offered advice. Democrats ramped up angry rhetoric. Safe spaces were all the rage. So what’s the prognosis these days — over 17 weeks into Mr. Trump’s presidency?
None other than the American Psychiatric Association has polled the nation on the subject of toxic politics. Here’s what they found: 
“Americans are split on whether they are anxious about the impact of politics on their lives (51 percent are, 49 percent are not),” reports the organization. “However, relatively few, 16 percent, say they are extremely anxious and that number is fairly consistent among all age groups, income levels, and among Caucasians, blacks and Hispanics. 
“Democrats reported heightened levels of anxiety about the impact of politics on daily life — 62 percent of Democrats are extremely/somewhat anxious about the impact, compared to 44 percent of Republicans,” the APA said. 
The group also found that Americans are edgy about a few other things.
The speech in Saudi Arabia helped.  Afterward, my Democrat Party acquaintances were stunned.  Who was that guy who gave that speech?  It couldn't have been the hated Donald Trump.

The speech was one thing the liberal left press could do nothing about, and so the real Trump, not the one they had been painting with broad strokes of a very biased brush, took full advantage.  He received praise for the speech from both sides (well, the WaPo was not happy, along with many in the leftist media, and MSNBC was showing soccer during his speech).

Even the hardcore nutcake politicians are backing off with their "impeachment" calls.

I am not holding my breath when it comes to the conservative nevertrump crowd, or the radical wing of Marxists in the Democrat Party (well, okay, perhaps that segment is larger than we thought), but the average person, I think, is saying, "You know, maybe the anger has been a little over the top.  That speech was not what I expected."

That said, people like Maxine Waters, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi (and the rest of the crazy crew) will continue to flip out and try and sabotage Trump's presidency.  Their Marxist agenda is too important for them to let up on it.  In the case of Obama, the evidence he was illegal spying on Americans is piling up, and him trying to upstage Trump by coincidentally visiting Europe at the same time is a story that recently broke.

Oh, and there's still no evidence of Trump's campaign colluding with the Russians during the election. . . because it's all a load of poppycock used as a desperate last ditch attempt by the Democrats to get their power back.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Trey Gowdy ► It's Right Here! Proof Hillary Clinton & FBI Are Corrupt!

By Douglas V. Gibbs


-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Tommy Robinson in Manchester: The Politicians Have Sold Us Out

By Douglas V. Gibbs
AuthorSpeakerInstructorRadio Host




-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Why Jihadis Attack Concerts

By Douglas V. Gibbs
AuthorSpeakerInstructorRadio Host



-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Manchester Attack and the Tolerant Killer

By Douglas V. Gibbs
AuthorSpeakerInstructorRadio Host



-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Tuesday, May 23, 2017

Corona Constitution Class: States' Rights

Tuesday Night, 6:00 pm
AllStar Collision
522 Railroad St.
Corona, CA  92882
Constitution Class Handout
Instructor: Douglas V. Gibbs
 
 
 
Lesson 16
 
Rights and State Sovereignty
 
A Protection of Rights Not Enumerated, 9th Amendment
The Bill of Rights was created to appease the Anti-Federalists, but many of the Framers envisioned possible dangers in its creation.  In fact, Alexander Hamilton in Federalist Paper #84 suggested that there existed the possibility of misinterpretations that may place the rights of the people in danger from an overpowering federal government.  In Federalist #84 Hamilton suggested that government may create exceptions to powers not granted, and argue the power exists because it is not denied by the Bill of Rights.  In other words, because the Constitution was designed to grant authorities, and those not listed are not granted, the Bill of Rights muddies the waters because those amendments tell the federal government what it can't do.  Furthermore, many of the delegates in the Federal Convention of 1787 argued that the Bill of Rights is unnecessary, because prior to the creation of the Bill of Rights, the federal government was not given the authorities by the first seven articles over any of the issues listed in those first ten amendments in the first place.
 
Regardless, the Anti-Federalists demanded the inclusion of the Bill of Rights in the Constitution, or they would not ratify the document.  Needing the support of the Anti-Federalists in order for the Constitution to be made law, the Founding Fathers that were at odds with the creation of the Bill of Rights compromised, and James Madison was given the task to write out the Bill of Rights based on proposals received from the several States.
 
Hundreds of proposed amendments were offered by the States.  Only twelve were considered.  Ten were ratified by the States during that time period.  Answering concerns of the Founding Fathers that the federal government may interfere with rights not enumerated by the Bill of Rights, the 9th Amendment was included as one of those ten.
 
The Founders expected the people to protect their own rights through self-government.  With freedom comes responsibility, therefore the people, when it came to their rights, should be governed by their conscience, not government.  This concept tasked the people, with their individual judgment, to be civil, and to not encroach on one another's freedoms.  If citizens were guilty of violating someone else's rights, the civil court system in each State would address the issue.  Local courts were controlled by juries, and left all issues regarding rights at the local level.
 
The very notion of the federal government putting itself into a position of encroaching on the rights of the people was seen as tyrannical, and dangerous.  After all, how could a centralized, far removed, governmental power that is unfamiliar with local customs and laws properly administer private rights issues?
 
The problem presented by the Bill of Rights, however, is that by listing specific rights that the government shall not infringe upon, many of the founders believed that would open up the opportunity for the federal government to "interpret" the Constitution to mean that all other rights not listed are fair game.  Therefore, the wording of the 9th Amendment was carefully fashioned to enable the reader to recognize its intent.
 
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
 
In other words, the government cannot "deny or disparage" any rights, even the ones not listed in the Bill of Rights, because our rights are given to us by God.  This does not give the federal government the authority to guarantee our rights, however.  To allow a central government to force lower governments to abide by the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights is to open the door for government to later dictate to the lower governments other actions they would have to take regarding rights.  Since rights, as the Declaration of Independence reveals, are "self-evident," as well as individual possessions, the authority to resolve disputes regarding rights remains at the local level.
Terms:
Anti-Federalists - Opposed to formation of a federal government, particularly by adoption of the Constitution of the United States.
 
Bill of Rights - The first ten amendments of the U.S. Constitution; a formal summary of those rights and liberties considered essential to a people or group of people.
 
Federal Government - System of government in which power is distributed between central authority and constituent territorial units.
 
Federalist Papers - Series of essays written by John Jay, James Madison, and Alexander Hamilton defending, and explaining the principles of, the Constitution in order to encourage the New York Ratifying Convention to decide to ratify the Constitution.
Questions for Discussion:
1.  Why were the Anti-Federalists so worried about the creation of the federal government through the Constitution?
 
2.  Who gives us our rights?  Why is this significant?
 
3.  What are the dangers of enabling the federal government to "interpret" the Constitution?
 
Resources:
 
Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Paper #84, Avalon Project, Yale
University: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed84.asp
Joseph Andrews, A Guide for Learning and Teaching The Declaration of
Independence and The U.S. Constitution - Learning from the Original Texts Using Classical Learning Methods of the Founders; San Marcos: The Center for Teaching the Constitution (2010).
Philip B. Kurland and Ralph Lerner, The Founder's Constitution -
Volume Five - Amendments I-XII; Indianapolis: Liberty Fund (1987).
 
State Sovereignty
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
 
The 10th Amendment was designed to restrict federal powers from encroaching on State authorities.  The article states that any powers not given to the federal government by the Constitution, and any powers not prohibited to the States, belongs to the States.
 
We must remember that originally all powers belonged to the States, a concept known as Original Authority.  In order to create a central government, the States granted some of their powers to the federal government so that it may function in the manner necessary to protect, preserve, and promote the union.  The States, in Article I, Section 10, are denied powers that would be in conflict with the federal powers granted.  However, since the States originally maintained all powers, any authorities not granted to the federal government, nor denied to the States for the purpose of enabling the federal government to do its job, were retained by the States.
 
The 10th Amendment was also designed to correct the problems that arose through the creation of the Bill of Rights.  By the Bill of Rights being composed in such a manner that the first ten amendments tell the federal government what it cannot do, the worry was that the argument in support of unconstitutional activity by the federal government would entail the argument, "Where in the Constitution does it say the federal government can't do that?"  Such an argument by the central government may open up opportunities for the federal government to compromise Americanism, and fundamentally transform into a big government tyranny.
 
The Constitution was designed to grant authorities to the federal government so that it may function in the manner originally intended.  The powers granted to the federal government are the only authorities the federal government has.  If the powers are not enumerated, the federal government does not have those authorities.  The 10th Amendment was written to remind us that even though the first eight amendments tell the federal government it "shall not infringe," the rule of the Constitution is that all federal powers are enumerated in the Constitution, and if the power is not granted to the federal government, nor denied to the States, the authority remains with the States.
 
This article was written to support State Sovereignty.  It is the Tenth Amendment to which one must first go when debating States' Rights.  The amendment clearly states that all federal powers are enumerated, and the remaining unlisted powers, if not prohibited, belongs to the States.
 
James Madison makes a clear argument in support of the concept of State Sovereignty in Federalist #45: ". . . each of the principal branches of the federal government will owe its existence more or less to the favor of the State governments. . . The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined.  Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.  The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce. . . The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.  The operations of the federal government will be most extensive and important in times of war and danger; those of the State governments in times of peace and security. . ."
 
The States serve in a manner similar to that of parents.  The people, through their States are the parents of the federal government, but the petulant child is not only acting in ways never authorized, but the parents, through representation, and other means, have determined for themselves that they have no ability to rein in the out of control creation.  The 10th Amendment reveals the reality that the States are sovereign, and that the federal government has only limited powers.
 
When breaking down the language of the Tenth Amendment, the previous articles of the Constitution become clear.  It is in the Tenth Amendment that the principles of a limited government are most clearly articulated.
 
The concept that the Constitution was designed not to tell the federal government what it cannot do, but to tell it what it can do, is presented clearly in the first portion of this amendment.  Powers not delegated to the federal government by the Constitution are not authorities granted, meaning that the federal government is limited to only the powers enumerated by the Constitution.
 
Some powers, despite the fact that original authority of all powers belongs to the States, are prohibited to the States.  The authorities prohibited to the States are those that, if the States had those powers, may interfere with the federal government's task of protecting, preserving, and promoting the union.  The list of powers prohibited to the States, any amendments doing the same notwithstanding, are located in Article I, Section 10.
 
The word reserved was chosen carefully for this amendment.  "Reserved" is used rather than the word "granted," because the States are not granted any powers by any source.  All of the powers already belonged to the States from the beginning.  Any powers the States did not grant to the federal government, nor decide to prohibit to themselves through the Constitution, remain with the States.  The presence of the word "reserved" reveals that fact.  Reserved, in the context of this article, also means "To hold for their own use."
Terms:
 
Americanism - A philosophy of freedom that actively seeks less government and more personal responsibility.
Original Authority - Principal agent holding legal authority; initial power to make or enforce laws; the root authority in government.
 
Reserved - Kept for another or future use; retained.
 
State Sovereignty - The individual autonomy of the several states; strong local government was considered the key to freedom; a limited government is the essence of liberty.
 
States' Rights - The authorities of the States over local issues, and other issues, that are not directly related to the preservation of the union or are considered as federal issues.
 
Questions for Discussion:
 
1.  Why was it important to ensure the federal government did not encroach on State authorities?
 
2.  What did Madison mean when he wrote, "the federal government will owe its existence more or less to the favor of the State governments."
3.  Why is it important that the enumerated powers limit the authorities of the federal government?
4.  How does the fact that the States have original authority in regards to all powers bring into perspective the relationship between the States and the federal government?
 
5.  Why was the word "reserved" used in the Tenth Amendment, rather than granted?
 
Resources:
 
About the Tenth Amendment, Tenth Amendment Center:
http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/about/about-the-tenth-amendment/
Definition of Enumerated, 1828 Webster's Dictionary:
http://1828.mshaffer.com/d/search/word,enumerate
Definition of Reserved, 1828 Webster's Dictionary:
http://1828.mshaffer.com/d/search/word,reserved
James Madison, The Federalist Papers #45, Avalon Project, Yale
University: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed45.asp
Joseph Andrews, A Guide for Learning and Teaching The Declaration of
Independence and The U.S. Constitution - Learning from the Original Texts Using Classical Learning Methods of the Founders; San Marcos: The Center for Teaching the Constitution (2010).
Philip B. Kurland and Ralph Lerner, The Founder's Constitution -
Volume Five - Amendments I-XII; Indianapolis: Liberty Fund (1987).
Thirty Enumerated Powers, Tenth Amendment Center:
http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/historical-documents/united-states-constitution/thirty-enumerated-powers/
 
 
Copyright 2015 Douglas V. Gibbs

$400 Billion for California Socialized Medicine, according to Melissa Melendez

https://www.facebook.com/douglasvgibbs/posts/
10155252226514933?comment_id=
10155252354054933&noti
f_t=feed_comment&notif_id=1495548177350341
By Douglas V. Gibbs
AuthorSpeakerInstructorRadio Host

As the Trump administration works with Congress to weaken, and hopefully eventually repeal Obamacare, California has decided that will not work for the Democrat super-majority of the State, and have decided to chase the Marxist dream of socialized medicine themselves.  According to Melissa Melendez, the price tag is $400 billion, at least half of which will need to come from taxpayers.

The communist “single-payer” system would allow everyone in the State to receive "free" healthcare (of course, we know nothing is "free"), including illegal aliens and visitors from other States.  The new communal health care system will chase out of the State of California the producers who are expected to fund most of this with the increased taxes and other related skyrocketing costs, which will starve the system of funding, and then it will really get ugly.

California will become Detroit, or Venezuela, but at a State level.

The State-killing law was proposed by hard left Senators Ricardo Lara, D-Bell Gardens, and Toni Atkins, D-San Diego.

The projected costs turn out to be much higher than the  $180 billion in proposed general fund and special fund spending for the budget year beginning July 1.

The Democrat's analysis says employers currently spend between $100 billion to $150 billion per year, which could be available to help offset total costs (along with a diversion of much of the funding they pay to Workers' Compensation Insurance), but that number will dwindle quickly as the mass exodus of businesses (large and small) out of the State quickens under the hostile conditions (and the death of the businesses who cannot handle the increased economic burden) - especially when  you consider that the money employers spend now on employee packages are designed to either attract the best employees, or shopped real low to keep the cost burden as low as legally possible -but now it will become nothing more than a tax that they cannot shop, or choose, based on their preferences, and will likely be higher in the long run than what they were spending on insurance packages in California before the destructive law, or what they would be spending in other States if they departed from the Soviet Socialist Republic of California.

Senate Bill 562 is designed to overhaul California’s insurance marketplace, reduce overall health care costs to individuals, and expand coverage to everyone in the State regardless of immigration status or ability to pay.  All private insurers will be driven out of the State, and the State government would be the “single payer” for everyone’s health care through a new payroll taxing structure, similar to the way Medicare operates.

The tax burden on workers would be tremendous and put many of them in a position to choose between paying their light bill or food, and the wealthier residents will be fleeing as quick as possible to escape the added financial burden.

Lara and Atkins say they are driven by the belief that health care is a human right and should be guaranteed to everyone, but that is a false definition of what a right is supposed to be (especially when it comes to health care).

Rights are not supposed to be guaranteed.  If you read the writings of the Framers of the Constitution and the negative language in the Bill of Rights regarding federal authorities regarding our rights, you discover that the Founding Fathers accurately believed that the greatest threat to our rights is government, and the idea of natural rights revolves around the idea that government has no authority to infringe upon our access to our rights.  Our rights are our possession, and it is none of government's business when it comes to any interference or laws regarding our rights, unless those laws are local, and necessary for the proper functioning of an orderly society.

Along with the loss of funding as businesses exit California, the program will also reduce the quality of health care in California, because the paycheck for being in the medical industry would be reduced to whatever the State of California is willing to pay, and in the sudden desperate necessity to cut corners because funding from healthy individuals and businesses will be leaving the State, the pay for medical workers will drop to lows that will make it so that the talented medical workers will leave the State, and nobody new will want to replace them.

“A single-payer system is massively, if not prohibitively expensive,” said Nick Louizos, vice president of legislative affairs for the California Association of Health Plans.

“It will cost employers and taxpayers billions of dollars and result in significant loss of jobs in the state,” the Chamber of Commerce said in its opposition letter.

Republican-led efforts to repeal and replace Obamacare at the federal level is fueling the leftist Democrat political support for the California socialized universal health care bill, but the destruction the law will create if it passes and becomes law will be the final straw that will finally kill California as a major economic player, and cause a reduction in "legal" population as people flee so great that the State will no longer be a factor in federal politics or the electoral college.  Bankruptcy will be the least of California's worries.  The State will become a scene from the annals of history during the Great Depression, except in the case of California, the way to escape the misery will simply be as easy as moving to a different State.

A socialized medicine law in California will result in a population boom in all of the surrounding States, and likely bode well for Texas as the few conservatives remaining in California will flock to the Lone Star State in droves.

The bill is before the California State Senate, and needs approval by June 2 if it is to advance to the Assembly.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary