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

Tuesday, March 28, 2017

Corona Constitution Class: Concerning the States - Article IV.

Tuesday Night, 6:00 pm
AllStar Collision
522 Railroad St.
Corona, CA  92882

Constitution Class Handout
Instructor: Douglas V. Gibbs
douglasvgibbs@reagan.com
 
 
 
Lesson 09
 
Concerning the States
 
            Full Faith and Credit
 
Article IV, Section 1 begins with The Full Faith and Credit Clause.  The clause reads, "Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof."
 
In simple, modern day language, under the Full Faith and Credit Clause judgments rendered in one State are acknowledged in others; when a U.S. citizen resolves an issue within one of the States that resolution must be recognized by all other States.
 
The Founding Fathers originally intended, with the Full Faith and Credit Clause, to protect the self-government autonomy of the States, while also promoting the union of the sovereign States as well.  To do this, the Founding Fathers needed to make sure that judicial rulings in one State would be respected by all States, because otherwise there would be a substantial opportunity for abuse.  Doing so affirmed the autonomy of the individual States, while also ensuring that the states remained unified.
 
Without the Full Faith and Credit Clause, something as simple as a marriage would not be recognized outside the State where the proceeding took place.  If the married couple moved to another state, it would be necessary to marry all over again, otherwise they would still be considered unmarried.  However, thanks to the Full Faith and Credit Clause, the State that serves as the new home of the transplanted married couple recognizes the marriage contract agreed upon in the State of origin.
 
The Full Faith and Credit Clause also protects against abusive litigation.  If someone in one State sues someone and the court delivers a valid judgment in favor of the defendant, the person who filed the suit cannot file the same suit in another State against the same person.  Under the Full Faith and Credit Clause, the outcome of the suit in the first State is recognized and considered to be the final judgment.  Likewise, someone who is ruled against in litigation in a State cannot flee to another State to evade punishment, because the ruling in the first State's court is still valid in the new State.
 
As a result of the Full Faith and Credit Clause, professionals like doctors and lawyers only need to go to school once.  As they move to new States, they can apply for reciprocity in certification so that they can practice in their new location.  State privileges like drivers licenses also benefit from the Full Faith and Credit Clause, because when people move to different States, they can renew their driving licenses in the new State without having to go through drivers' education a second time, as long as the standards for licensure are similar between the two States.
 
            Privileges and Immunities
 
Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1 gives the people of each state all the same privileges and immunities uniformly in each state.  In other words, if a Texan moved to California, the Texan must be treated by California in no different manner than the State treats Californians.  A State could not pass a law keeping Texans out of their state, but letting others in.  This violates the Constitution.  A State cannot play favoritism in such a manner for any reason.  All persons must be treated uniformly in the eyes of the law.  This is the clause the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause sought to broaden, in order to ensure that the former slaves would also be afforded the same protection, privileges, and immunities.
 
            Extradition
 
Article IV, Section 2, Clause 2 provides that "A person charged in any state with treason, felony, or other crime, who shall flee from justice, and be found in another state, shall on demand of the executive authority of the state from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the state having jurisdiction of the crime."
 
Fugitives that flee a State from justice to another State will be extradited on the demand of executive authority (governor) of the State from which the person fled from.  The Constitution, in this clause, demands the extradition of fugitives who have committed "treason, felony or other crime," which means that it includes all acts prohibited by the laws of a State, including misdemeanors and small, or petty, offenses.
 
Since the word "shall" is used regarding the extradition order by the governor of the State, that means the extradition order will not be questioned.  That also means the accused cannot defend himself against the charges in the extraditing State.  The fugitive may only defend himself against the charges in the State receiving him.
 
The courts have determined that the accused may prevent extradition by offering clear evidence that he was not in the State he allegedly fled from at the time of the crime in the case, Hyatt v. People ex rel. Corkran (1903).
 
            Fugitive Slaves
 
Article IV, Section 2, Clause 3 is obsolete because of the abolition of slavery, as per the 13th Amendment.  During the era the Constitution was written, slavery remained in place, and slaves were seen as property by the States in which slavery was legal.  The Constitution, as a compromise to assure that southern States ratified the document, included Article IV, Section 2, Clause 3, as a compromise, which demanded that escaped slaves be returned to their owners in the south, even if that slave was in a northern State.
 
The Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 supported this clause of the Constitution, hoping to ensure under penalty of law that the slaves were in fact returned should they turn up in the north.  Northern States were refusing to return escaped slaves, and the federal government refused to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act and the Constitution, creating, in the minds of the Southern States, a constitutional crisis.
 
Nullification is often blamed for its part in the onset of the American Civil War.  Those that argue that nullification was a part of bringing about the War Between the States will argue that the Southern States were guilty of nullifying perfectly reasonable federal laws.  In reality, the Southern States did not nullify any federal law.  It was the northern States that actively nullified federal law.  They nullified The Fugitive Slave Act by ignoring the legislation, and refusing to abide by it.  However, since The Fugitive Slave Act was constitutional, the nullification of the law by the northern States was unlawful, and unconstitutional.  Threatened by the fact that the northern States were ignoring constitutional law, the federal government was refusing to enforce the law, and anti-slave candidate Abraham Lincoln had won the presidential election without even being on the ballot in the South, eleven southern States withdrew from the union in 1860.
 
            New States
 
Article IV, Section 3, Clause 1 gives Congress the authority to admit new States.  If a new State is formed within the borders of an existing State, from a portion of an existing State, or by combining two States, then the State legislatures of all States affected must also get involved.  This provision came into play is when West Virginia was formed from part of Virginia during the Civil War.  The Virginia State legislature had to approve the formation of the new State of West Virginia before the new State could claim it was a separate sovereign State.
 
In California, there has been a number of recommendations for breaking up the large State, from a 2014 suggestion of forming six States from the former Golden State, to thirteen counties that threatened to secede in 2010 as suggested by a local politician.  If any of these plans for new States out of the existing State of California had an opportunity to follow through with their threat, the approval process would still need to go through the existing California State Legislature.  The loss of taxation, and representation in Congress, would probably convince the legislature to deny losing any portion of their State to the formation of a new State.
 
            Territories and Federal Property
 
Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2 gives the Federal Government "power over the territory and property of the United States."  Territories like Puerto Rico fall under this clause, treating the territories not as individual sovereign states, but as territories under the control of the U.S. Government.  Territories still enjoy a certain amount of autonomy, but ultimately, their governance falls under the authorities granted to Congress.  Washington DC also falls under this clause, which means that Congress has authority over the functions of the city.  In reality, Washington DC was supposed to only be the seat of government, and was not supposed to contain any residencies.  Many of the framers envisioned Washington DC as being a thriving commercial center.
 
            Border Security and Insurrection
 
Article IV, Section 4 reads, "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government," meaning that each State may have its own constitution, as well as a representative government based on the rule of law.
 
The second part of Article IV, Section 4 provides that the United States "shall protect each of them [the States] against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence."
 
The Federal Government, according to the final clause of Article IV, must protect each State from invasion, which, in line with the Necessary and Proper clause of Article I, Section 8, is a firm directive to the federal government to keep the national borders secure so as to protect the States from foreign invasion.  If executive agencies fail to take the actions necessary to secure the border in order to protect the States from invasion, the militia can be called into service by either the Congress, or the governor of the State being invaded, in order to repel the invasion.
 
The Federal Government, in this clause, is also tasked with quelling domestic violence.  This part of the clause refers to insurrection, and it is likely the writing of this clause was directly influenced by the occurrence of Shays' Rebellion in 1786.
 
Terms:
Extradite: The surrender of a person charged with a crime by one state or country to another state or country.
Full Faith and Credit: In the context of the U.S. Constitution, Article IV, the phrase is defined as requiring all States in the U.S. to recognize and give effect to the legislation, public records, and judicial decisions of other States in the United States.  Full Faith and Credit also means: An unconditional commitment to pay interest and principal in debt, usually issued or guaranteed by the U.S. Treasury or another government entity.
Nullification: State power to ignore unconstitutional federal law.
Questions for Discussion:
1.  What kind of issues does the Full Faith and Credit Clause affect in today's American society?
2.  How does the Full Faith and Credit Clause protect the autonomy of the State, while protecting their unity?
3.  For what kind of crimes may a person be extradited for?
4.  The northern States believed the Fugitive Slave Act to be a bad law, even though it was Constitutional, and believed that they had a right to nullify it because they perceived it to be immoral.  The Federal Government failed to enforce it, possibly for the same reasons.  How did this make the Southern States feel, and how did this action contribute to the secession of the Southern States?
5.  The federal government is tasked with the duty of protecting the States against invasion.  How does this affect the issue of illegal immigration?
Resources:
Doris Kearns Goodwin, Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of
Abraham Lincoln; New York: Simon & Schuster Paperbacks (2005)
Hyatt v. People ex rel. Corkran, 188 U.S. 691 (1903) ("We are of opinion
that, as the relator showed...he was not within the state of Tennessee at the times stated in the indictments found in the Tennessee court, nor at any time when the acts were, if ever, committed, he was not a fugitive from justice within the meaning of the Federal statute upon that subject...")
Joseph Andrews, A Guide for Learning and Teaching The Declaration of
Independence and The U.S. Constitution - Learning from the Original Texts Using Classical Learning Methods of the Founders; San Marcos: The Center for Teaching the Constitution (2010).
Madison's Notes Constitutional Convention, Avalon Project, Yale
University: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/debcont.asp
Philip B. Kurland and Ralph Lerner, The Founder's Constitution -
Volume Four - Article I I, Section 8, Clause 5 to Article VII; Indianapolis: Liberty Fund (1987)
Thomas J. DiLorenzo, The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham
Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War; Roseville, California: Prima Publishing, a division of Random House (2002)

Copyright: Douglas V. Gibbs, 2015

California Reduces Funding for Los Angeles School with "too many whites"

By Douglas V. Gibbs
AuthorSpeakerInstructorRadio Host

In California not only do the left coast political leaders believe that white privilege exists, but also being "too white" must be punished.  Proof?  At a middle school in the Los Angeles Unified School District the school is under the threat of losing funding because the Walter Reed Middle School in North Hollywood has a local white student population that exceeds 30 percent of the total.

The funding lost would have enabled the school to continue to hire more teachers and have smaller classes, but to qualify, the student body must be 70 percent or higher of Hispanics, blacks, Asians and other "non-Anglos". White families have been moving in, so, over the last two years that percentage has fallen beneath the 70 percent level, meaning Walter Reed no longer qualifies for those extra funds.

Now, because of the news, parents fear that class sizes will increase as the number of teachers and other school personnel likely decreases.

The funding rule falls under a court-ordered integration program that has been in place since 1978.  It's an affirmative-action-style rule that essentially is an insult to non-white populations, with a message that says non-whites need extra help because they are not capable of keeping up on their own.

The reality is that the loss of funding will force the school district to pursue various cuts, though those spending cuts have not yet been announced.

Critics argue that the rule is racist and does more harm than good.  I see it also as a constitutional issue.  Doesn't Article IV. and the 14th Amendment, of the Constitution call for equality under the law?  Why is it that in the mind of the Democrats it's okay to have a rule that says too many whites creates unequal treatment under the law?

Are those non-white populations speaking in concert with the Marxist pigs in George Orwell's Animal Farm, proclaiming that some people are more equal than others?

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

On the Edge of 3 Million Hits

By Douglas V. Gibbs
AuthorSpeakerInstructorRadio Host

The number of hits per day is accelerating. . . and we are on the edge of hitting 3 million


Almost there.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Monday, March 27, 2017

March Madness: Kentucky Snowflakes Riot After Loss

By Douglas V. Gibbs
AuthorSpeakerInstructorRadio Host

The younger generation can't handle losing.  Loss causes them to throw temper tantrums.

Successful people will tell you that they learned how to become successful by learning how to fail.  Failure is a part of our growth process as humans.  Failure is a reality we must learn to accept, and learn from, so that we can move beyond it.

The generation of participation trophies, however, doesn't understand that. . . and as a result, they are not prepared for it.

Sunday Night, in the NCAA Tournament, with less than a second left on the clock, a North Carolina player (Luke Maye, who got a standing ovation during his Monday classes) sank a jumper to give North Carolina a 75-73 win over the University of Kentucky - sending North Carolina to the Final Four.

While I will not say that all Kentucky students are snowflakes, a large number of Kentucky University snowflakes rioted following the loss.  They lit things on fire, and they stomped their feet like children while chanting “f--k UNC”.

Police had to show up in riot gear to contain the situation, put out the fires, and send the students home.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Quotes that Caught My Attention at the CRA Convention in Fresno, CA

By Douglas V. Gibbs
AuthorSpeakerInstructorRadio Host

I spent Friday, Saturday and much of Sunday in Fresno at my first California Republican Assembly convention, and I wrote down a few quotes by speakers that caught my attention...

Jim Patterson, California State Assemblyman, "We can save California...we've been through this before...it will take tough decisions...history comes to people who are prepared and ready...stay the course, keep the faith, keep working, elections matter, ideas have consequences...Margaret Thatcher said, 'First you win the argument, then you win elections'...we are on the side of the argument that wins...we can do it again...what America has done in life, historically, time after time, has echoed in eternity.  And we have an obligation to be the salt and light that changes hearts and minds and wins the argument and wins the election, and changes history for the better...Winston Churchill: Never, never, never, never, ever give up."

Shannon Grove, a three-term assemblywoman who is now seeking a State Senate seat, said, "The body of Christ needs to engage in the civic arena."

Tim Donnelly, California State Assemblyman and former candidate for Governor of California, "My journey has been to give God the Glory."

Jim Shoemaker, CRA Vice President, San Joaquin County Republican Candidate for various local offices, "Remember, we wear the armor of God."

Supervisor/Vice Chair of the California Republican Party, Kristin Olsen, "...to get much more assertive, and much more aggressive, in exposing the failures of the Democrat Party in our State of California; and the childish tirades that Senator Gaines has been talking about, that has been happening literally since the day after the election."

Spencer Sims of the South Los Angeles Inglewood Republican Assembly, after riding his bicycle from South Los Angeles to Fresno, "That was a long ride.  I might not ride back."  He rode the train back.


-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Sunday, March 26, 2017

California Republican Assembly Convention, Fresno, Rundown

By Douglas V. Gibbs
AuthorSpeakerInstructorRadio Host

I have been a member of the California Republican Assembly, through my local Murrieta-Temecula Republican Assembly unit, for a number of years.  For the last couple years I've been on the MTRA's board.  This year, for the first time, I was able to attend, and be a voting delegate at, the annual convention. I purchased a full registration including all programs and all meals, and rode up to Fresno from Murrieta with a couple other folks from my local unit, and stayed in the same hotel room with two folks from my local general area.  I learned a lot, participated in quite a bit, and then was nominated by my unit president, Bob Kowell, to be the 28th District Director, which would make me a part of the State's organizational board.  The approval was done by caucus, and I am excited to have yet another responsibility to help me accomplish the daunting task of influencing California politics, and perhaps one day flipping the State back to a right-of-center foundation.

I chronicled the weekend the best I could on my Facebook page, and so the following is based on that after the first two links are from this website:

On my way to CRA Convention


Saturday, March 25, 2017

No Repeal of Obamacare Debacle: GOP Failed Trump

By Douglas V. Gibbs
AuthorSpeakerInstructorRadio Host

"We must, indeed, all hang together or, most assuredly, we shall all hang separately." -- Benjamin Franklin

The Republicans failed on the replacement for Obamacare, and it has given Nancy Pelosi and her gang of Democrat Party leftists reason to celebrate.  The media is loving it.  Understand, however, Donald Trump is not the failure here, it is the fearful Republicans who are so worried about politics that they've failed to do what they are there to do. . . repeal an unconstitutional law completely.  Screw replacement, pass a one page bill repealing the whole thing.  When people cry about lost healthcare, remind them that the States have their own healthcare safety nets. . . which, by the was, is constitutional.  Not recommended, but constitutional.  The Affordable Care Act, they say, will collapse if left to die on the vine, but until then federal money will continue to funnel through it because Paul Ryan and the fearful Republicans blew it, couldn't get their act together, and refuse to simply repeal the unconstitutional law.

I wonder if they can even get Gorsuch through confirmation in the Senate?

What is with these Republicans?

We gave them the House in 2010.  We gave them the Senate in 2014.  Now they have the White House, and the Republican Congress still acts like they are in the minority.  I know what a minority looks like, I live in California. Democrats, in this State, have a supermajority.  There is nothing the GOP can do about any of the socialist leftist madness going on here in this State.  I believe we can flip this State, while most think it is a lost cause. No wonder they think that. We can't even get something simple and obvious like repealing Obamacare done when we hold both Houses of the U.S. Congress and the White House. What in the heck is the problem, here?

Failure.

The Republicans have failed Trump, and they have failed the American People.

Trump wants to drain the swamp, and that has to include the staffers, bureaucrats, Democrats, and apparently, an enemy faction in the Republican Party who refuses to do what is right, conservative, and constitutional.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Constitution Radio: In the Hands of Guests

Constitution Radio with Douglas V. Gibbs airs Saturdays at 1:00 pm to 3:00 pm Pacific. 

Constitution Radio on KMET 1490-AM is hosted by Douglas V. Gibbs and Alex Ferguson, but Doug is in Fresno at the California Republican Assembly Conference, so Jan of the Banning-Beaumont-Cherry Valley Tea Party will be hosting, along with Alex and Dennis Jackson (Bravis Corporation and Enemies Within movie).

Listen online at www.kmet1490am.com, or catch the podcast on our SoundCloud Page. Videos of episodes are posted on www.youtube.com/douglasvgibbs. Guest call in number during the live program is 951-922-3532.

I will try to call in if I get the chance...

American Liberty leads to American Opportunity.

-----------------------------

Here's today's AllStar Collision Big Stories of the Week:

- Sanctuary Cities Violate Supremacy Clause

http://politicalpistachio.blogspot.com/2017/03/sanctuary-cities-violate-supremacy.html

http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/266126/opponents-border-security-and-immigration-law-michael-cutler

- London Parliament Terror Attack

http://politicalpistachio.blogspot.com/2017/03/london-parliament-terror-attack.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZgG0p6eBBY&feature=youtu.be

http://pamelageller.com/2017/03/london-mayor-used.html/

- North Korea Wants to Nuke America

http://politicalpistachio.blogspot.com/2017/03/north-korea-dreams-of-nuking-america.html

- Trump to Merkel: Pull Your Weight in NATO

http://politicalpistachio.blogspot.com/2017/03/trump-to-merkel-pull-your-weight-in-nato.html

- Repeal, Replace, What's the Problem with Getting Rid of Obamacare?

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/house-republicans-pull-health-care-bill-house-floor-n738281

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_CONGRESS_HEALTH_OVERHAUL?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2017-03-24-05-52-03

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/325581-gop-rushes-to-vote-without-knowing-full-impact-of-healthcare-plan

http://dailysignal.com/2017/03/21/house-conservatives-obamacare-repeal-bill-still-needs-major-changes/

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/23/us/politics/trump-health-care-bill-regrets.html?_r=0

http://dailysignal.com/2017/03/22/conservative-house-freedom-caucus-could-block-obamacare-plan-from-passing/

http://dailysignal.com/2017/03/22/what-constituents-are-telling-conservative-lawmakers-about-gop-health-care-bill

CRA Convention: Day 1

By Douglas V. Gibbs
AuthorSpeakerInstructorRadio Host

The convention thing is new to me.  As much as I am involved in local and national politics, I've never had the opportunity to be a part of a convention, be it of a political party, or an organization like the California Republican Assembly.  On this trip, however, I am a voting delegate, and the President of my local unit is going to nominate me for a district officer position.

Check-in was a breeze. I am kind of a paranoid person when it comes to whether or not others are as attention oriented as I am, so to be safe, I had brought my printed receipts for the convention.  No fear was necessary. Not only was my name on the list, despite my deep down fears, but my name tag was laying right there on top.  Easy to find, easy to issue, and away I went.

Meeting people was fun, though it was refreshing that I bumped into at least twenty people I already know, many from Orange County and Los Angeles, thanks to my public speaking thing I do. At the board meeting I learned quite a bit, but I could see how people could get bored - making the term "board meeting" a double-entendre.

The reception was kind of funny.  Free drinks for those seeking alcohol.  I had one beer before dinner, and a glass of white wine after dinner - marking Friday Night as a day of the year in which I drank more than usual.  As my joke goes, I have more fingers than beers I drink per year.  I don't mind a cold beer or a Margarita, every once in a while, but I am not one to indulge in alcohol very often.

The dinner was pretty good, though our lunch at Le Roy's in Monrovia on the way was much better.  Le Roy's, by the way, was packed.  Good food, low price, great environment.

Jim Patterson, a local State Assemblyman, was the speaker, and gave a very good "never give up" speech that was heartening to a Republican crowd here in California who lives under the reality that the Democrats have a super-majority, and run this State like it is a single party totalitarian socialist utopia.  I met him after the event to shake hands, to thank him for such a great speech, give him a business card, and tell him I am friends with one of his conservative colleagues, Melissa Melendez.

The entertainment during dessert was a local Elvis impersonator, and local candidate for Congress.  Republican, of course.  He was fun, entertaining, and coming from me whose mother cried excessively when Elvis Presley died in the seventies, I have to say the guy was pretty good.

Day two will begin with breakfast in a little while with a couple of my colleagues, one of which is Kevin who is pictured in the image to your right with the red tie (picture taken on election day, 2016). Then, the fun begins.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Conservative Voice Radio: The Good Fight

Conservative Voice Radio


Join host Douglas V. Gibbs, Author, Speaker, Instructor, Radio Host and members of the Banning-Beaumont-Cherry Valley Tea Party www.bbcvteaparty.net Glenn, Jan and Diane as they provide you with a modern day Paul Revere's ride through the political stories of the week...

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

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

Here's this morning's topics:

→ Obamacare Battle: Democrats misleadingly lie according to the Washington Post as Conservative members resist Ryancare/Trumpcare.

→ Coordinated Assault Against Donald Trump
  • Democrats call for investigation of all Republicans
  • FBI's Comey says he won't investigate Trump's leaks
  • Investigation of Russian influence on election
→ Redlands Rail Project

→ Trump to Merkel: Pull your financial weight in NATO

→ Should teachers in California be exempt from income tax?

→ Trump's Challenges
  • Trump Challenging Agenda 21 and Climate Change
  • Trump Challenging U.N. Human Rights Council

Friday, March 24, 2017

London and Belgian Attackers and Sudden Jihad Syndrome

Posted by Douglas V. Gibbs
Author, Speaker, Instructor, Radio Host

Turns out the London Parliament attacker was Muslim...

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3162970/london-terror-attack-terrorist-named-khalid-masood-westminster-latest/

So was the French-Tunisian attacker in Belgium...

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3161430/antwerp-belgium-man-arrested-drive-crowd-london-attack/



-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Maryland School Rape by Illegal Alien

By Douglas V. Gibbs
AuthorSpeakerInstructorRadio Host

Inside Rockville High School in the State of Maryland a 14-year-old girl was brutally gang-raped by two boys, ages 17 and 18.  It's bad enough that the rape happened in the first place, but the real ticker is that the rapists are illegal aliens.  What did Maryland think was going to happen with their "sanctuary" policies in place that they have?

"I'm very mad. I can't believe this is happening in my kids' school,” said a parent who identified herself only as Liz. “There are a lot of people here that maybe don't belong here. They haven't been checked out and I really need to know that my kids are safe."

“I know that if this country enforced the laws that are already on the books those two young men would not have been here and this rape, this horrendous rape, would not have occurred" said another Montgomery County parent.

At Rockville High School older students are often in the same classes with the younger classmates because of their language deficits.

"This is not an issue that we're going to move to the political level, although a lot of people want to do it,” said Jack Smith, superintendent of Montgomery County Public Schools. “The fact is, these students were not in the same class, but many students between the 9th and 12th grades are in the same classes, in the same band class, in the same world language class, same play after school."

Robin Ficker, an attorney who attended the meeting, said officials do not seem to grasp the situation.

“The mood was simply, 'cover our reputation,'” Ficker said. "There were long speeches from the principal, from the superintendent, from others who were associated with them explaining why this could never have happened when it did. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound to cure it.”

The community is one of several in Maryland considering formal adaptation of sanctuary status which would put them at odds with federal immigration laws, and immigration enforcement.

“You have young adult males that really do not have our culture and you are putting them in the same classroom as our 14-year-old girls and they are saying, 'There is nothing we can do about that – sorry,'” said community member Theresa Rickman.

Montgomery County Public Schools has a "don’t ask, don’t tell" policy regarding illegals in the school system.”

“We do not conduct background checks on any of our students. There is no provision in the law for that,” said Montgomery County Public Schools spokesperson Gboyinde Onijala, “We have students in our district that are US citizens that commit crimes and/or come to our schools with criminal records.”

When asked why the school district is resisting calls to examine its policies with regards to illegal immigrants, Onijala turned on the questioner.

“The U.S. Supreme Court… requires that schools not take any action that may discourage participation or exclude students based on their immigration status," Onijala said. "It is appalling that Fox News and others are insisting on making this a conversation about immigration when the focus should be on the victim… This is a crime that could be committed by anyone—white, black, Asian, Hispanic, documented and undocumented.”

Montgomery County, with a population of 1 million, voted overwhelmingly for Hillary Clinton on Election Day. More than half its residents identify themselves as black, Hispanic, Latino, Asian, Pacific islander, or an ethnicity other than non-Hispanic white, according to the 2010 census.

The Trump administration has promised to crack down on illegal immigration during his time in the White House, and Homeland Security has made clear that just about any immigrant in the country illegally could be deported.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

On my way to CRA Convention

By Douglas V. Gibbs
AuthorSpeakerInstructorRadio Host

I am a longtime member of the California Republican Assembly.  As a member of the board of the Murrieta-Temecula Republican Assembly (my local chapter of the organization) I am going up to Fresno for this year's annual convention.  This is my first time to attend it.  My son's family (who lives in my house with me) and my wife said adios to me this morning.  I will be returning Sunday Night.

CRA 2017 Convention

82nd Annual CRA Convention – March 24-26, 2017
DoubleTree by Hilton
Fresno Convention Center
2233 Ventura Street, Fresno, CA 93721
(559) 268- 1000










Tomorrow's radio program, Constitution Radio with Douglas V. Gibbs on KMET 1490-AM, will air during its usual two-hour slot, 1:00 pm to 3:00 pm, but the hosts will be Jan and Glenn from the Banning-Beaumont-Cherry Valley Tea Party.

I will try to call into the show, if I can.

I will give you a report on how the convention went right here on Political Pistachio after I return.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Sanctuary Cities Violate Supremacy Clause

By Douglas V. Gibbs
AuthorSpeakerInstructorRadio Host

It has always fascinated me that the liberal left progressives regularly use the Supremacy Clause as an excuse for the unconstitutional control the federal government wields over the States, but when the Supremacy Clause is actually violated, they suddenly ask about States' Rights and disregard the presence of the Supremacy Clause in the U.S. Constitution.

President Obama used the Supremacy Clause against Arizona S.B. 1050, that State's immigration law, saying that if the federal government chooses not to enforce immigration law, as per the Supremacy Clause, the States cannot have laws contrary to that federal inaction.  Never mind that in Article II, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution the President is instructed to "faithfully execute the laws of the United States."

The federal government uses the Supremacy Clause when it comes to Abortion, as well, telling the States they cannot outright ban abortion because it would be a violation of Roe v. Wade, despite the fact that the authority over the murderous procedure is not granted to the federal government anywhere in the Constitution, and the federal courts have no constitutionally granted powers to legislate (make law).

However, when sanctuary cities and potentially sanctuary States pass laws that calls for their "right" to harbor federal fugitives who have broken federal immigration law by crossing the border illegally, the Supremacy Clause is tossed aside, forgotten, and suddenly the Democrats who normally decry State Sovereignty begin to demand, "what about States' rights?"

Current federal immigration laws require certain protocols and procedures to be followed if someone is to enter the United States as an immigrant.  The manners of these procedures were established in order to protect the receiving population, to ensure that those coming into this country are not ill with diseases that could infect residents of the United States, and that the entrants are not dangerous to the American Public as can be determined by their past history regarding criminal activity, terrorist associations or drug cartel involvement.  In short, we have immigration laws to protect those who already live in the United States from dangerous persons that may try to insert themselves into the immigrant population.

The authority for Congress to write laws regarding the prohibition of "any" persons for "any" reason into the United States is provided in Article I, Section 9 of the United States Constitution.  In that clause the Congress is granted the authority to prohibit the "import" of persons (the authority to outlaw the Atlantic Slave Trade), and to prohibit migrants (of their choice, regardless of country of origin or choice of religion) from immigrating into the United States, as of 1808.  Prior to the enactment of immigration laws pursuant of that clause the States held all immigration authorities.  Due to the Naturalization Clause in Article I, Section 8, the U.S. Congress was already issuing immigration and naturalization acts that were essentially geared towards the language defining who immigrants, and citizens, were, prior to 1808.

The assault of State Sovereignty was swift.  The unconstitutional idea of federal supremacy over "all" State laws was reinforced repeatedly by Chief Justice John Marshall, who single-handedly created our system of case law, which, from a leftist's point of view, allows judges to "interpret" and tinker with the Constitution through their own ideological whims.  However, nothing in the Constitution provides for judicial review, nor federal supremacy over "all" State laws.  When it comes to the judges, their job is to "apply" the law to the cases they hear, but if they feel the law is unjust or unconstitutional, the judges may render an opinion indicating what their beef with the law is, but only the legislators have the authority to make law, modify law or repeal law (Article I, Section 1).

The Supremacy Clause is located in Article VI, Clause 2.  It reads: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

Perhaps one of the most misunderstood and misapplied clauses of the U.S. Constitution, the Supremacy Clause has been used in line with the concept of Federal Supremacy. Federal Supremacy is a concept our first Chief Justice, John Jay, believed in. During his stint on the Supreme Court Jay worked feverously to establish broader powers for the courts, and to transform the federal government into a national government. He quit the Supreme Court after failing, pursuing an opportunity to be governor of New York.

Chief Justice John Marshall spent his 36 years on the Supreme Court attempting to establish, and expand federal supremacy, and largely succeeded. Marshall is embraced by statists as the one to develop federal supremacy in his judicial opinions, the primary case being Mcculloch v. Maryland in 1819 where the Court invalidated a Maryland law that taxed all banks in the State, including a branch of Alexander Hamilton's creation, the national Bank of the United States. Marshall held that although none of the enumerated powers of Congress explicitly authorized the incorporation of the national bank, the Necessary and Proper Clause provided the basis for Congress's action. Marshall concluded that "the government of the Union, though limited in its power, is supreme within its sphere of action."

During the 1930s, under Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the Court invoked the Supremacy Clause to give the federal government broader national power. The federal government cannot involuntarily be subjected to the laws of any State, they proclaimed, and is therefore supreme in all laws and actions.

The legally, and commonly, accepted definition, as a result of the courts and the persistence of, regarding the Supremacy Clause, is that all federal laws supersede all State laws.

The commonly understood definition of the Supremacy Clause is in error. To understand the true meaning of this clause, one must pay close attention to the language used.

If the federal government has a law on the books, and the law was made under the authorities granted by the States in the United States Constitution, and a State, or city, passes a law that contradicts that constitutional federal law, the federal government's law is supreme based on The Supremacy Clause. However, if the federal law is unconstitutional because it was made outside constitutional authority, it is an illegal law, and therefore is not supreme over similar State laws.

An example of the federal government acting upon the assumption that all federal law is supreme over State law is when the medical marijuana laws emerged in California in 1996 after the passage of Proposition 215. Though I do not necessarily agree with the legalization of the casual recreational use of marijuana, and believe "weed" should be heavily regulated like any other pharmaceutical drug if being used for medicinal purposes, the actual constitutional legality of the issue illustrates my point quite well.

California's law legalizing marijuana for medicinal purposes was contrary to all federal law that identified marijuana as being illegal in all applications. Using the commonly accepted authority of the federal government based on their definition of the Supremacy Clause, federal agents began raiding and shutting down medical marijuana labs in California. However, there is no place in the U.S. Constitution that gives the federal government the authority to regulate drugs, nor has there been an amendment passed to grant that authority to the federal government. From a constitutional point of view, then, the raids on medical Marijuana labs in California were unconstitutional actions by the federal government.

The Supremacy Clause applies only to federal laws that are constitutionally authorized. Therefore, federal drug laws are unconstitutional. As a result, California's medical marijuana laws are constitutional because they are not contrary to any constitutionally authorized federal laws.

Language plays an important part in the Constitution, and The Supremacy Clause is no different. The clause indicates that State laws cannot be contrary to constitutionally authorized federal laws. For example, Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 states that it is the job of the U.S. Congress to establish an uniform rule of naturalization. The word "uniform" means that the rules for naturalization must apply to all immigrants, and to all States, in the same way. If a State was to then pass a law that granted citizenship through the naturalization process in a way not consistent with federal law, the State would be guilty of violating the Supremacy Clause.

The language in Article VI, Clause 2 reveals clearly that only laws made under the authorities granted to the federal government have supremacy. Article VI, Clause 2 reads, "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

The clause establishes three things as being potentially the supreme law of the land. First, "This Constitution." Second, "Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof." And Third, all Treaties made, or which shall be made."

"This Constitution" is the supreme law of the land. Understanding that first part of the clause is easy.

The second one has a condition attached to it. "Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof."

In pursuance thereof? In pursuance of what?

Of "This Constitution."

Therefore, if a law is not made "in pursuance" of "This Constitution," then the law is an illegal law, and cannot possibly be the supreme law of the land. Unconstitutional laws are not the supreme law of the land, which reveals that "all" federal laws are not the supreme law of the land - only the ones which are made in pursuance of the United States Constitution. Illegal law made outside the authorities granted by the Constitution of the United States cannot legally be the supreme law of the land.

The reverse is also true.  If a federal law is "in pursuance" of "This Constitution," then it is the supreme law of the land, and the States cannot legally have laws contrary to it.  Immigration laws, as we have already discussed, prohibiting persons from entering the United States for any reason (and executive orders executing those laws as well, for that matter) are completely constitutional, therefore, the States cannot have laws contrary to those immigration laws.  Sanctuary City and Sanctuary State laws are not only in violation of the Supremacy Clause, but are in direct violation of federal law by allowing the harboring of federal fugitives.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary