Thursday, May 24, 2018

Temecula Constitution Class, 14th Amendment

Temecula Constitution Class, Tonight, 6:30
Faith Armory, 41669 Winchester Rd., Temecula, CA

Constitution Class Handout
Instructor: Douglas V. Gibbs

Lesson 18
The Civil War Amendments 13, 14, and 15
The End of Slavery

Prior to the Civil War, any federal legislation related to slavery dealt with the importation of slaves. Aspects of slavery inside State lines were considered a State issue.
Article I, Section 9, Clause 1 abolished the Atlantic slave trade, and the United States Government intervened militarily to ensure the law prohibiting the importation of slaves was enforced. The Framers of the Constitution believed that in order to ensure the southern States did their part in ratifying the Constitution, while remaining consistent with the concept of the federal government only having authority over external issues, and disputes between the States, they could not abolish slavery nationally through the articles presented by the Constitution. A large number of delegates at the federal convention in 1787 desired the immediate abolition of slavery, but the fear was that the southern States would not only refuse to ratify the Constitution, but that they would refuse to remain a part of the union, eventually succumbing to attacks from Florida and absorbed into the Spanish Empire.
A proposed amendment to abolish slavery during the American Civil War finally passed the Senate on April 8, 1864, by a vote of 38 to 6, but the House did not approve it.
When the proposed amendment was reintroduced by Representative Ashley, President Lincoln took an active role in working for its passage through the House by ensuring the amendment was added to the Republican Party platform for the upcoming Presidential elections. Lincoln's efforts, combined with the result of the War Between the States, ensured the House passed the bill on January 31, 1865, by a vote of 119 to 56.
The 13th Amendment was ratified into law on December 6, 1865.
Terms:
Atlantic Slave Trade - Started by the Portuguese, but soon dominated by the English, the Atlantic Slave Trade was the sale and exploitation of African slaves by Europeans that occurred in and around the Atlantic Ocean from the 15th century to the 19th century.
War Between the States - The Civil War was fought from 1861 to 1865 after Seven Southern slave States seceded from the United States, forming the Confederate States of America. The "Confederacy" grew to include eleven States. The war was fought between the States that did not declare secession, known as the "Union" or the "North", and the Confederate States. The war found its origin in the concept of State's Rights, but became largely regarding the issue of slavery after President Abraham Lincoln delivered the Emancipation Proclamation. Over 600,000 Union and Confederate soldiers died, and much of the South's infrastructure was destroyed. After the War, Amendments 13, 14, and 15 were proposed and ratified to abolish slavery in the United States, and to begin the process of protecting the civil rights of the freed slaves.
Questions for Discussion:
1. Why wasn't slavery abolished at the founding of this nation?
2. Why did the House of Representatives not originally approve this amendment?
3. How has the abolition of slavery affected this nation since the ratification of the 13th Amendment?
Resources:
Congressional Proposals and Senate Passage Harper Weekly. The
Creation of the 13th Amendment. Retrieved Feb. 15, 2007
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).
Citizenship, Civil Rights, and Apportionment
            Citizenship Clause
The 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution failed in 1866 after the southern States rejected the proposed amendment. After a second attempt to ratify the amendment, it was adopted on July 9, 1868. The ratification of the 14th Amendment occurred after the federal government began to govern the South through a system of military districts. Some historians question the validity of the ratification of the 14th Amendment because it is believed by these historians that the southern States ratified the amendment under duress, and pressure applied by the northern governorships in each of the southern States during the early part of the Reconstruction Period.
The first clause of the 14th Amendment is known as "The Citizenship Clause." The clause was intended to ensure the children of the emancipated slaves, as well as the newly freed slaves, would be considered citizens without any room for argument. The clause reads:
"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."
This clause has been misinterpreted to mean all persons born in the United States are automatically citizens, which is not the case. The defining term in this clause that enables the reader to recognize that citizenship needs more than just being born on American soil reads: "subject to the jurisdiction, thereof."
To understand the term jurisdiction, one may go to the debates on the congressional record of the 14th Amendment. In those debates, and in articles of that time period written to explain the intent of the language of the amendment, one finds that "full jurisdiction" was meant to mean "full allegiance to America." The intention was to protect the nation against persons with divided loyalties.
The writers of the 14th Amendment wished to follow the importance of "full loyalty" as portrayed by the Founding Fathers. As far as the founders were concerned, there could be no divided allegiances. They expected citizens to be fully American.
Despite the defeat of the Confederacy in the American Civil War, the emancipated slaves were not receiving the rights and privileges of American citizens as they should have been. The former slaves were present in the United States legally, and because they were here legally they were "subject to the jurisdiction thereof," but they were still not receiving any assurance of equal protection under the law.
The Civil Rights Act of 1866 was created in the hopes of correcting the problem. Some of the language in the Civil Rights Act of 1866 states, "All persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States. ... All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, penalties, taxes, licenses, and exactions of every kind, and to no other."
The definition of "persons within the jurisdiction of the United States" in that act was all persons at the time of its passage, born in the United States, including all slaves and their offspring, but not having any allegiances to any foreign government.
Michigan Senator Jacob Howard, one of two principal authors of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment (Citizenship Clause), noted that its provision, "subject to the jurisdiction thereof," excluded American Indians who had tribal nationalities, and "persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers."
Senator Howard's responses to questions regarding the language he used in the Citizenship Clause were recorded in The Congressional Globe, which are the recorded transcripts of the debates over the 14th Amendment by the 139th Congress:
Mr. HOWARD: "I now move to take up House joint resolution No. 127."
The motion was agreed to; and the Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, resumed the consideration of the joint resolution (H.R. No. 127) proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
"The 1st Amendment is to section one, declaring that all persons born in the United States and Subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside. I do not propose to say anything on that subject except that the question of citizenship has been fully discussed in this body as not to need any further elucidation, in my opinion. This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country."
Senator Howard even went out of his way to indicate that children born on American soil of foreign citizens are not included.
Clearly, the framers of the 14th Amendment had no intention of freely giving away American citizenship to just anyone simply because they may have been born on American soil.
The second author of the Citizenship Clause, Illinois Senator Lyman Trumbull, added that "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" meant "not owing allegiance to anybody else."
The full quote by Senator Trumbull:
"The provision is, that 'all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.' That means 'subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.' What do we mean by 'complete jurisdiction thereof?' Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means."
Trumbull continues, "Can you sue a Navajo Indian in court? Are they in any sense subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States? By no means. We make treaties with them, and therefore they are not subject to our jurisdiction. If they were, we wouldn't make treaties with them...It is only those persons who come completely within our jurisdiction, who are subject to our laws, that we think of making citizens; and there can be no objection to the proposition that such persons should be citizens."
Senator Howard concurred with what Mr. Trumbull had to say:
"I concur entirely with the honorable Senator from Illinois [Trumbull], in holding that the word 'jurisdiction,' as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, whether exercised by Congress, by the executive, or by the judicial department; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now."
Based on these explanations by the writers of the clause, then, it is understood that the intention was for those who are not born to American citizens to have no birthright to citizenship just because they simply were born inside the borders of this country.
The courts have interpreted the Citizenship Clause to mean other things, but we must remember that the Constitution cannot be changed by the courts. Changes to the Constitution can only be made by amendment (Article V.).
It was through the progressive actions of the Lincoln administration in the American Civil War, and the actions of the courts to incorporate the Bill of Rights to the States, that America ceased to be "The United States Are," and became a more nationalistic "The United States Is."
            Privileges and Immunities Clause
The next clause, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States," was expected to protect the newly emancipated slaves from local legislation that may treat them differently. This clause was a direct response to the Black Codes, laws passed in the States that were designed to limit the former slaves from obtaining all of the freedoms they thought they had been guaranteed.
The Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment prohibits state and local governments from depriving persons of the proper due process of law. The right to a fair trial was to be extended to all persons, including the emancipated slaves.
            Due Process Clause and Equal Protection Clause
The Due Process Clause, and the Equal Protection clause, have been the subject of debate since the language written by Congressman John Bingham, the principal author of the later part of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment, was first penned. Bingham believed the federal government should use all national tools available to ensure the southern States behaved as instructed. Bingham repeatedly stated his belief that the Fourteenth Amendment would enforce the Bill of Rights against the States, but the majority of the members of Congress present did not concur with his muddled and inconsistent argument.
Author Raoul Berger, in his book Government by Judiciary, discussed whether the 14th Amendment should be construed to enforce the Bill of Rights against the States. Relying on the analysis of Professor Charles Fairman in his published article, Does the Fourteenth Amendment Incorporate the Bill of Rights?, Berger concluded that Bingham was a "muddled" thinker whose views should be discounted. Berger agreed with Fairman that the framers of the 14th Amendment did not intend it to enforce the Bill of Rights against the States. Berger rejected even selective incorporation, arguing that the Amendment's framers did not intend that any of the first eight amendments should be made applicable to the States through the 14th Amendment
Antislavery activists largely supported Bingham's conclusion that that Bill of Rights must be applied to the States, and such application must be enforced by the federal government. Though the Bill of Rights was originally intended by the Founding Fathers not to apply to the States, and with less than a centuryt since the American Revolution and the writing of the Constitution behind them, Bingham's supporters contended that local jurisdiction over cases regarding an individual's rights could no longer be allowed because the southern States could not be trusted to be fair to the newly emancipated slaves.
Bingham's call for an incorporation of the Bill of Rights to the States established the concept that all people's rights are supposed to be protected by the federal government. The Founding Fathers did not apply the Bill of Rights to the States from the beginning because giving that kind of power to a potentially tyrannical federal government carries with it many pitfalls. As the quote by Gerald Ford goes, "A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have." Nonetheless, despite the dangers of a central government dictating to the States regarding their laws regarding individual rights, because of the mistreatment of the former slaves by the Southern States, the Privileges and Immunities Clause, the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause, have been commonly interpreted to mean that the Bill of Rights is applicable to the States.
Since the Incorporation of the Bill of Rights did not take hold as a result of the 14th Amendment, as the statists that supported Bingham's position had desired, the federal courts stepped in and took pursuit. Pursuing a nationalist agenda, the courts disregarded the original intent of the Framers of the Constitution, as well as the conclusions of the Congress regarding the 14th Amendment, and began to selectively incorporate the Bill of Rights to the States, beginning with the Slaughterhouse Cases just five years after the ratification of the 14th Amendment in 1868. A five to four vote by the high court interpreted the Privileges and Immunities Clause as the authority to enforce The Bill of Rights against the States. Subsequent cases also used the 14th Amendment as an authority for incorporation.
The courts, through this process of incorporating The Bill of Rights to the States, have changed the Constitution through unconstitutional means, and against original intent. As originally intended, all provisions in the U.S. Constitution apply to the federal government, unless otherwise noted. The Bill of Rights was originally intended to apply only to the federal government, and if we are to remain in line with the original intent of the Founding Fathers, State sovereignty must remain protected by that original intent.
The attitude of the southern States, and their refusal to treat the former slaves fairly led to a perceived need for clarification and enforcement by the federal government, which led to the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, and eventually to the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s.
A separate but equal doctrine existed for more than fifty years, despite numerous attempts to ensure blacks enjoyed full rights and privileges of citizenship.
In modern politics, laws continue to test the limits of the Equal Protection Clause. While the clause was intended to make sure that everyone is treated equally under the law, politicians supporting the Affordable Care Act have handed out exemptions to members of Congress, and some individuals or corporations, allowing those that receive the exemptions to be treated differently under the law.
            Apportionment
Section 2 of the 14th Amendment altered the rules for the apportioning of Representatives in the Congress to the States. The enumeration was changed to include all residents, while also calling for a reduction of a State's apportionment if it wrongfully denies any adult male's right to vote.
For fear that the former slaves would support the Republicans, southern Democrats worked feverishly to dissuade blacks from voting. Section 2 addressed this problem by offering to the southern States the opportunity to enfranchise black voters, or lose congressional representation.
            Consequences of Insurrection
Section 3 of the 14th Amendment prohibits the election or appointment to any federal or state office of any person who had held any of certain offices and then engaged in insurrection, rebellion or treason. A two-thirds vote by each House of the Congress could override this limitation. The interest was to ban the service of any members of the Confederacy that refused to renounce their participation in the Confederacy.
            Public Debt as a Result of the War
Section 4 of the 14th Amendment confirmed the legitimacy of all United States public debt appropriated by Congress. The clause also indicated that neither the United States nor any State would pay for the loss of slaves or debts that had been incurred by the Confederacy. This clause was to ensure that all States recognized the validity of the debt appropriated by Congress as a result of the war, while bonds secured by the Confederacy in order to help finance the South's part of the war "went beyond congressional power."
Political battles over the debt ceiling in 2011 and 2013 encouraged some politicians to argue that the "validity of the public debt" clause outlawed a debt ceiling, because placing a limit on federal spending interferes with the duty of the government to pay interest on outstanding bonds and to make payments owed to pensioners (such as Social Security). The clause in the 14th Amendment addressing the validity of the public debt, however, was never intended to be a general clause to be used by future administrations, but a specific clause only addressing the debt accrued as a result of the American Civil War.
            Enforcement
The final clause of the 14th Amendment authorizes Congress to "enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article." Federal intrusion upon the States, however, has been a long-time fear by those that support the concept of State Sovereignty. The question regarding enforcement was addressed in the Civil Rights Cases of 1883, where the opinion of the Supreme Court interpreted Section 5 of the 14th Amendment to mean that "the legislation which Congress is authorized to adopt in this behalf is not general legislation upon the rights of the citizen, but corrective legislation".
In a more recent case, City of Boerne v. Flores, 1997, the Supreme Court ruled that Congress's enforcement power according to the last clause of the 14th Amendment is limited to only enacting legislation as a response to a "congruence and proportionality" between the injury to a person's 14th Amendment rights and the means Congress adopted to prevent or remedy that injury.
Court interpretation of the Constitution can be a dangerous practice, and we must remember that any interpretation of the Constitution offered by the courts in a ruling are merely opinions. The final authority regarding the definitions of Constitutional law resides with the people, through their States. Any allowance of the courts to fully define the Constitution at the whims of the judges opens up the opportunity for the courts to change definitions for ideological purposes, resulting in a judicial oligarchy, rather than a constitutional republic driven by the consent of the governed, and the self-evident standards of Natural Law.
Terms:
Black Codes - Laws put in place in the United States after the Civil War with the effect of limiting the basic human rights and civil liberties of blacks.
Constitutional Republic - Government that adheres to the rule or authority of the principles of a constitution. A representative government that operates under the rule of law.
Equal Protection Under the Law - Laws must treat an individual resident or citizen in the same manner.
Incorporation of the Bill of Rights - The process through court rulings based on the interpretation of the 14th Amendment to apply the Bill of Rights to the States.
Jurisdiction - Full loyalty, a condition in which all foreign allegiances have been released; not owing allegiance to anybody else.
Military Districts - Districts created in the seceded states (not including Tennessee, which had ratified the 14th Amendment and was readmitted to the Union), headed by a military official empowered to appoint and remove state officials.
Nationalist - An advocate of Nationalism.
Natural Law - Unchanging moral principles regarded as a basis for all human conduct; observable law relating to natural existence; birthright law.
Original Intent - Original meaning of the United States Constitution as intended by the framers during the Federal Convention of 1787, and the subsequent State Ratification Conventions.
Public Debt - National debt; the financial obligations of a national government resulting from deficit spending.
Reconstruction Period - Period following the American Civil War during which the United States government began to rebuild the States that had seceded from the Union to form the Confederacy, lasting from 1865-1877. During Reconstruction, the federal government proposed a number of plans and committed large amount of resources, to the readmittance to the union, and the rebuilding, of the defeated Confederate States.
Separate But Equal - Various laws designed to undermine the 14th Amendment requirement that former slaves be treated equally under the law, contending that the requirement of equality could be met in a manner that kept the races separate. The result of these laws was a generally accepted doctrine of segregation throughout The South.
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.
United States are - These States that are united; a group of sovereign member States in America voluntarily united into a republic.
United States is - Nation of the United States containing a number of States similar to provinces ruled over by a centralized federal government.
Questions for Discussion:
1. How might have the governors of the military districts influenced the ratification of the 14th Amendment?
2. Does the Citizenship Clause have anything to do with Natural Born Citizenship? Why?
3. Why was Congress concerned with the threat of divided allegiance?
4. Did the 14th Amendment eliminate laws like the Black Codes, as intended?
5. How is it that despite the original intent of those that voted for the 14th Amendment that the Bill of Rights not be applied to the States most of the first ten amendments have been applied to the States anyway?
6. What pieces of legislation since the ratification of this amendment have been passed in order to ensure that the Equal Protection Clause is properly enforced?
Resources:
Congressional Globe, 39th Congress (1866) pg. 2890: Senator Jacob
Howard States the Intent of the Fourteenth Amendment Published in the Congressional Record, May 30, 1866.
Civil Rights Act, The - April 9, 1866,
http://www.tedhayes.us/CVR_civil_rights_act_of_1866.htm
Doris Kearns Goodwin, Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of
Abraham Lincoln; New York: Simon & Schuster Paperbacks (2005)
Frank J. Williams, Judging Lincoln; Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press (2002)
John F. Marszalek, Sherman: A Soldier's Passion for Order; New York:
Vintage Civil War Library (1993)
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).
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)
William S. NcFeely, Grant; New York: W.W. Norton & Company
(1981)
Voting Rights
The 15th Amendment was designed to protect the voting rights of all citizens, regardless of race, color, or if the voter had previously been a slave or indentured servant. As stated in the amendment, this article applies to both the federal government, and the States.
As the third reconstruction amendment, the 15th Amendment faced another challenge that was unexpected. In some States the requirements were that all voters and candidates must be Christians. As originally written, the amendment would require these States to change their rules regarding the manner of elections. Realizing the ratification of the amendment may depend on the support of the States with Christianity requirements regarding elections, the amendment was revised in a conference committee to remove any reference to holding office or religion and only prohibited discrimination based on race, color or previous condition of servitude.
Democrat Party created militias, like the Ku Klux Klan, continued to try and intimidate black voters and white Republicans. The federal government promised support, assuring that black and Republican voters could both vote, and serve, in confidence. When an all-white mob in the Battle of Liberty Place attempted to take over the interracial government of New Orleans, President Ulysses S. Grant sent in federal troops to restore the elected mayor.
President Rutherford B. Hayes narrowly won the election in 1876. To appease the South after his close election, in the hopes of gaining their support and soothing angry Democrats, President Hayes agreed to withdraw the federal troops who had been occupying the South since the end of the Civil War. The hope was that the southern States were ready to handle their own affairs without a need for any interference from the North.
In the process, President Hayes also overlooked rampant fraud and electoral violence in the Deep South, despite several attempts by Republicans to pass laws protecting the rights of black voters and to punish intimidation. Without the restrictions, voting place violence against blacks and Republicans increased, including instances of murder.
By the 1890s many of the southern States had enacted voter eligibility laws that included literacy tests and poll taxes. Since the black population was normally steeped in poverty, the inability to afford the poll tax kept them from voting in elections.
It took nearly a century for the promise of the Fifteenth Amendment to finally take hold. The ratification of the 24th Amendment in 1964, which eliminated poll taxes, and the passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, served to ensure that blacks in the South were able to freely register to vote, and vote without any obstacles.
Terms:
Poll Tax - A tax levied on people rather than on property, often as a requirement for         voting.
Questions for Discussion:
1. Why was the wording of the Fifteenth Amendment changed to not include discrimination based on religion?
2. Why do you think the Democrat Party played a part in forming the Ku Klux Klan?
3. Why did President Hayes withdraw federal protections against racial discrimination in the South?
4. How did poll taxes enable the Southern Democrats from keeping Blacks from being able to vote without violating the Constitution?
5. Why do you think it took nearly a century for the promise of the Fifteenth Amendment to be realized?
Resources:
Congressional Globe, 40th Cong., 3d Sess (1869) pg. 1318
Foner, Eric, Reconstruction: America's Unfinished
Revolution, 1863-1877; New York: Harper Perennial Modern
Classics (2002)
Gillette, William, The Right to Vote: Politics and the Passage of the
Fifteenth Amendment; Baltimore: John Hopkins Press (1969)
Copyright 2015 Douglas V. Gibbs

Democrats Stand Against Solutions

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

Benito Bernal is running for Congress in California's 29th Congressional District as a Republican.  He is the only Republican in his race, running against two Democrats, a Green Party candidate, and a "non-partisan" candidate (which I guess means, in that last candidate's case, that they really don't stand for much of anything).  Benny is pro-life, pro-free market individual who stands against everything the liberal left has to offer.  Oh, and he used to be a Democrat.  In fact, he had climbed the ladder to Democrat leadership in the State of California.  He remained a leader in the party of the donkey, until one day he learned the truth.

In a meeting with his fellow Democrat Party leaders, Benny asked a simple question.  "We keep complaining about all of these problems, but why don't we actually solve them?"

The room went quiet.  Every conversation stopped, and all eyes were on Mr. Bernal.  Finally, one of the leaders spoke up, and to everyone's amazement who hears this story, he decided to speak honestly.

"If we were to solve the problems that plague our society, what would we run on in the next election?  Besides, do you realize how many government jobs rely on the existence of those problems?  Do you realize how much federal money we get regarding those problems?"

Problems in society creates the perfect scenario for power and wealth in the government sector, and the politicians like it that way.

Solutions are discussed to the public, but never implemented because to keep the middle class and lower economic rungs of the ladder on the plantation, the problems must continue in perpetuation.  We must depend upon the government to tend to the consequences of the problems, they believe.  Otherwise, why would we need them in power?

In Tim Donnelly's book, "Patriot Not Politician" he discusses what he calls "The Quiet No."

He explains, "You may be wondering why you do all the work to elect someone to office, and then they fail to represent you after a few months or a few years in office.  I had always wondered about this phenomenon, and then I learned firsthand.  The monied interests who make up the political power class have an army of individuals who are expert in the art of seduction...legions of these experts made contact with me...She was so attractive and so good at what she was doing, that she made you feel as if you were the most interesting person alive.  In the course of our meeting, she kept asking me questions about my race, how I won it and told me how amazing it was...I wanted to believe that I was this special, amazing and brilliant person because it was intoxicating.  When someone who is gifted in the art of seduction turns their charms on you, it's hard not to be seduced...she made everyone feel this way because it was her job...What the establishment does is work overtime in the beginning to make you feel special, to make you feel important, and to figure out what makes you tick.  Their goal is to develop a relationship with you, so that you become dependent upon them.  For some people it's about being part of the club - being respected - being on the inside.  For others, it's about raw power and ambition, and knowing that the powerful monied interests are the key to that career path...All you have to do is sell your soul.  That is if you have one.  A lot of people get into politics and they talk a big game, say all the right things but the truth is - they never meant any of it.  It was just a means to an end.  It's just the path of least resistance - human nature.  That's why so many of them are easily bought...re-election is much easier if you just play the game."

I titled this article "Democrats Stand Against Solutions," but perhaps a more accurate title would have been "The Political Class Stands Against Solutions."  Or, perhaps, "The Establishment Stands Against Solutions."

In reality, the most appropriate title would have been, "The Politicians Stand Against America."

Power and position, and the wealth that comes along with it, are more important than anything else to these people.  That's why President Trump is hated so much.  He is a viable threat to the game.  He not only cannot be conned into the "quiet no" described by Tim Donnelly, but Trump has decided it is time to shatter the whole mess, and the deep state that goes with it.

A GOP prison reform bill has emerged in Congress.  The Democrats should be all excited.  The Republicans are hardly ever willing to chase after Democrat led efforts to reduce minimum sentencing, improve federal prison conditions, or buy into the rehabilitation scheme that allegedly is designed to ease a prisoner's return into society as a functional law-abiding citizen.  Trump and the Republicans have suddenly offered exactly what the Democrats have been waiting for (or claim to be waiting for). The House has passed the First Step Act that would authorize $250 million in new funding for prisoner-reentry programs, ban the shackling of pregnant inmates, and expedite early release for elderly inmates and those who earn “good time” credits during their sentences.

Yet, the Democrats are split on the bill, and only roughly half of them threw in their support for the bill.  Some members of the media claim their reluctance to go along with it stems off of their hate for Trump, and willingness to go against something that normally they would embrace has turned in a different direction for fear of agreeing with Trump on anything.

I believe it may go deeper than that.

For many politicians it is easier to be louder when they are in the minority.  However, once they gain a position where they have the power to present solutions, they whimper into the corner fearful to actually do what they claim they stand for.  We saw that with the Republicans, didn't we?  During Obama's reign the GOP was unified in their resolve to repeal Obamacare, yet when they had the chance last year with a majority and a President of the United States willing to sign such a bill, they cowardly rejected full repeal and began monkeying with the idiotic idea of "fixing Obamacare."

It's like being offered a bicycle, and someone hands you a dog turd, but then they promise they can fix the turd so that it is more like a bicycle.

Is it possible that the GOP regarding Obamacare, and the Democrats regarding prison reform, are revealing a slight glimpse into the truth?

They don't want solutions.  What would they run on in the next election if the problems (that they created through governmental policies, mind you) go away?  Do you realize how many jobs and massive flows of cash are created by these problems?

Liberal left policies do not bring about solutions, and in fact their policies create more and larger problems.  San Francisco has become one of the world's worst disgusting slums as a result of hard left policies, yet the California legislators in Sacramento are doubling down on those kinds of policies.  Do they wish for the whole State of California to go down in complete ruin?  Have they learned nothing from Detroit, Venezuela, or San Francisco?

The policies, while destructive to society, are popular to the purveyors of cultural Marxism.  In addition to giving them something to run on (promises to clean up the streets of San Francisco, promises of creating new needle programs and rehabilitation programs for drug users, promises to help the homeless, blah blah blah), which creates government jobs to handle each crisis, it also provides more excuses for them to figure out how to get more money out of the taxpayers.  Plus, in addition to all of that, their policies attract more power through the creations of new voting blocks (such as illegal aliens, and their emotionally distraught supporters).

That's why they hate Trump so much.  He's a businessman who doesn't play these games.  He's known for making things happen, producing solutions, and cleaning out the trash.  He's disrupting their whole game with his promises to drain the swamp.  He's exposing them for who and what they are, and they are panicking.  They have been willing to fix our elections with fraud to keep people like him out of office.  They do not wish for their game to end.  The power and money must flow, no matter what.  The truth, and someone like President Trump, threatens to create solutions, and they just can't have that.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Wednesday, May 23, 2018

GOP Works to Roll Back Unconstitutional Banking Regulations

Douglas V. Gibbs

If this gets through, economic growth will be further unleashed. . .

http://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/congress-dodd-frank-rollback-frees-up-regional-banks-for-big-opportunity-2018-5-1025148070


-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Yes, Many of Illegal Aliens are Animals . . . Especially MS-13

Posted by Douglas V. Gibbs

The left knows what the context was, but they are out to do anything, twist anything, to convince you to hate Trump...



-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Tuesday, May 22, 2018

Liz Wheeler discusses AB 2943's Attempt to Ban Bible in California

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



Remember how in a Twilight Zone "The Obsolete Man" the banning of the Bible was predicted?  Not only are there no more books allowed (for they are obsolete) in the episode, but the character played by Burgess Meridith pulls his Bible out of a safe . . .



The leftists' agenda is tyranny in the highest order.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Corona Constitution Class: Natural Rights and the Tenth Amendment

Tuesday Night Constitution Class In Corona, CA
6:00 pm
AllStar/CARSTAR Collision
522 Railroad Street
Corona, CA
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

Defending the Rule of Law: Constitution Association Annual Dinner, 2018


https://www.facebook.com/events/381527312367278/

https://www.eventbrite.com/e/2018-constitution-association-annual-dinner-meeting-tickets-46179764920

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

California Republican Exposes Cultural Deviancy

By Douglas V. Gibbs

Republican Candidate for Congress Jazmina Saavedra is facing accusations of discrimination against transgender individuals after her “videotaped harassment of atransgender woman who used a ladies’ room at a Los Angeles Denny’s.”  

A Twitter exchange between Saavedra and critics has been censored, and the Facebook video vanished. 

Criticscall her “evil,” “homophobic,” “on the wrong side of history.”  She’s been told she has cursed her family to a lifetime of embarrassment, and should be “sued and put in jail.”  

Jazmina Saavedra is a Republican candidate running for the 44th CongressionalDistrict of California, a district located in Los Angeles County south of East Los Angeles.  

The Golden State Coalition, a political group of Christian and conservative candidates that Jazmina belongs to, responded about the incident with a press release with the headline, “Golden State CoalitionDenounces Deviant Behavior of Man in Los Angeles Denny’s Restaurant LadiesRoom.”  According to the article, for Saavedra, the situation was “startling”.  She objected to the man in the ladies’ room, and filmed the incident to expose how in California the security and privacy of women are being violated, and the Democrats in California have been passing legislation to support the dangerous conditions women are now being forced to confront.

Saavedra explained to me that she originally went into the bathroom to brush her teeth.  When she opened the door she heard the voice of a man coming from an occupied stall.  Her first instinct was that she had entered the wrong restroom, so she walked back out to take a look at the sign.  When she confirmed she had entered the correct bathroom, she became concerned that what she had walked in on could have been a situation where a man was waiting for a woman to enter so that he could attack her.  She later discovered that other women in the restaurant felt the same way.  A couple of women seated near the restroom, and a small girl at a different booth, told Saavedra that they were fearful about going to the bathroom because of the man who had gone in there.

Saavedra notified a waitress, who investigated the matter.  When the waitress returned, she told Jazmina that the person inside the stall told her he was a woman.

Concerned that a man using a women’s bathroom may be a serious personal safety issue for women, Saavedra sought help from the manager, telling him that “there’s a man saying he’s a lady in the ladies bathroom.”

It was at this point she decided it would be a good idea to document the bizarre occurrence by filming it so as to reveal to the public the fact that men are taking advantage of the socially deviant attitudes towards sexuality in California.

When the man reentered the dining hall, it was revealed he was a fairly young individual in a dark pullover with the hoodie pulled over his head.  Denny’s employees told Saavedra they saw drugs in his possession.  It is common in the Los Angeles region for people to go into public bathrooms late at night to satisfy their drug habit.

He accused her of invading his privacy, she shot back that he was invading hers.  “Next time use the men’s room.”

She later commented on her video that “this is what is happening in California.  They allow a man who thinks he’s a lady to go in the ladies’ room and put in danger the family…this is insane.”

Was Saavedra ever in danger?  She thought she might be.  She admits on the video that she had her pepper spray ready.

Transgenderism is one of the elements of the liberal left’s strategy to reshape America’s thinking.  Cultural Marxism is a strategy designed to dismantle the West’s ability to defend itself by eradicating morality, and exterminating the virtuous principles that have made the United States, and western civilization, flourish.  In the end, it is simply a politically motivated lie.

A critical battleground in the ideological war currently being waged, to fundamentally transform society the left believes our value system must be destroyed.  The goal is to undermine the character of our men so that they will lose the will to fight and defend the values that have made modern Western Society so successful and prosperous.  By deconstructing the very notion of masculinity, the aim is to gradually subvert the intellectual and moral traditions of western civilization, and to dismantle our system of liberty and traditional values in the process. 

Radical feminism serves as an important element in the assault on masculinity.  What has emerged from feminism is an aim to “bring down the white capitalism patriarchy.”  To accomplish that goal, feminists and cultural Marxists target traditional relationships, and the family unit.  The strategy is to destroy the male-female binary, considered by the statists to be an artificial social construct designed to keep in place power over society by men.

Gender is arbitrary, the leftists claim, sounding much like the faceless dictators of dystopian science fiction novels where the faceless pawns of society are nothing more than numbers, and mindless obedient gray figures with shaved heads and no will to fight back.  To resolve the problem of liberty, and to neutralize the men who would be willing to fight to defend it, the leftists are working to drive a wedge between the sexes as they undermine the family. With masculinity deconstructed, and men convinced that their inherent masculinity is “toxic,” they can be broken down, feminized, and made harmless against the ploy of destroying our “capitalistic society.” 

A subculture of men is emerging who have come to believe that their masculinity is to blame for every societal ill, from domestic violence to environmental catastrophes.  At early ages little boys are taught that their typical male behavior and rambunctious energy is problematic and toxic, and they must be drugged in order to fit into their societal place.  If not caught early, we have been convinced, such male aggression turns into gun violence, and male aggression that is the source of woe to our allegedly evolving progressive utopia.  Today’s young men no longer see any benefit to getting married, settling down and having children.  They would rather roam aimlessly alone, with drugs in hand and a hoodie over their head, seated on a toilet in a women’s bathroom, lashing out if anyone dares to question the lack of sensibility regarding their abandonment of any moral compass.

The birthrate is being driven down as our boys become more like girls, and our girls become more like mindless automatons of hate, rage, and “nasty women”. 

Islam is excited about that phenomenon, voicing often that to defeat the West all they have to do is outbreed us.

Islam is but one example of the reality we face.  The world is filled with factions who don’t like to play nice, and if they sense weakness, they will pounce.  Sometimes, male aggression through masculinity is the necessary tool on our tool belt to resolve conflicts, be it a schoolyard bully, a rampaging dictator flattening his neighbors with war machines, or an Islamic fundamentalist willing to do all he can to take out as many infidels as possible. 

George Washington said, “To be prepared for war is one of the most effective means of preserving peace.”

But to wage war against evil, our men must be willing to do so.

As our young men lose touch with who they are, and what their responsibilities as a man should be, they are also losing touch with how to defend their homes, and their homeland.  A society who is unwilling to defend or protect itself against evil because the men would rather abandon their masculine roles as they writhe around in confusion about what gender they are, and do drugs in the dark corner of a women’s bathroom, is a society that is ripe for conquest.  In Europe the loss of masculinity has become so severe that the men in Europe, rather than defend their women from the emerging Muslim rape culture, are cowering behind their fears, and are instead recommending that women dress more modestly, live their public lives in large groups, carry rape whistles, or urinate on the rapists in the hopes that the act will make the attackers lose their sexual mood and no longer wish to rape them.  In the Netherlands many men marched wearing mini-skirts to show their solidarity with women.  

Yeah, that’ll strike fear into the hearts of the rapists.

Giving in to the attack on masculinity is a signal of submission.  Jazmina Saavedra should be thanked for pointing out the symptoms of societal suicide.

Instead, our feminized men are attacking Saavedra for exposing the madness.

These pansies not willing to defend our wives, daughters, sisters and mothers against a well-planned assault that is designed to destroy us from within because they are a part of the problem.  If we are going to spend our time betraying the masculinity of our men with a silly war over pronouns (he versus she), then our men will be unwilling and unable to defend our culture against the tyrants lurking and waiting for the right time to strike.  There is a clear biological reality that a human being is born either male or female, and it is the males who must defend our society culturally, physically, and spiritually.  Otherwise, the war is lost, and the girly-boys will be nothing more than whimpering targets serving as easy targets for an aggressive enemy to pick off, one by one.

Jazmina Saavedra provided a service to our American culture by being willing to expose the madness of transgenderism as it fluttered and snorted in a bathroom stall.  Yet, rather than recognize the true mental sickness of it all, the liberal left would rather attack her as being someone who is discriminatory and not fit for office.

The reason we are in this cultural mess is because of a government full of leftist individuals not fit for office.  Someone like Jazmina Saavedra is not the problem in politics, candidates like her are the solution.  For society’s sake, we don’t need to be throwing in the towel on this issue.  Christian Conservatives must be willing to fight for preserving our social order.  We must continue to end the idiotic idea that people should amputate healthy sex organs in a quest to manipulate their body into something biologically it is not.  We must not concede to the idea that being a man is toxic, and that what’s best for our culture’s psychological and spiritual health is for men to run out and don skirts, cry and whimper during chick flicks, and do nothing but prance around upset because somebody didn’t like him in the ladies’ bathroom.  Transgenderism is a mental health issue, not a civil rights issue, and the sooner we begin to recognize that, the sooner we can do what we can to stop the growing assault against our civilization by cultural Marxism, and save our constitutional republic from forces that are determined to strangle her with a pair of non-gender skinny jeans.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary