Saturday, March 31, 2018

Finally, Hollywood Entertains with The Greatest Showman

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

I don't really go to the movies, much, anymore.  Well, let me rephrase that.  I don't go to the movies willingly, anymore.  My wife loves to go to the movie theater, so we go, but I always leave disappointed.  Hollywood's leftism is a part of the problem.  I am not a fan of giving money to an industry dominated by pagans, homosexuals, and Marxists.  I spent two years in the industry, myself, back in the mid-90s.  I was an extra in two films, and did two commercials.  I ran out of money and time, but I don't regret dropping out - despite having two vouchers.

Over the last decade, or so, I have noticed that Hollywood, both in the film industry, and on television, has run out of ideas.  We really don't see original stories, anymore.  We are no longer entertained.  It's either vulgar and profane comedy that is not funny, bloody shoot-em-up adventure films who use the exact same formula with each passing story along with a enough ammunition to launch a small war, horror films that rely on shock gore and plenty of sharp objects, dramas with boring story-lines and political messaging that doesn't interest anyone unless it was written by Nicholas Sparks, or science fiction and fantasy string of films so dependent upon modern special effects, comic books, or seventies blockbusters that the characters are flat and the stories are either too simple, or simply a rewrite of past tales.

On occasion I hear that a new movie is something different, or it's a part of a series from old that I may be willing to watch (i.e. the Star Wars films), so I go to Temeku, a local theater with a reduced price for movies that have passed from the main theaters, but is not quite on video or streaming services, just yet.  My wife appreciates it because she likes to go to the show, and I appreciated it because we can spend an evening at the movies for less than ten bucks.  She grins through the movie, I usually fall asleep about half way through.

Tonight was one of those nights we decided to take in a movie, and for the first time in a very long time, a movie impressed me beyond words.

The Greatest Showman.

I grew up being exposed to musicals.  I had an aunt that made sure we always caught the latest Broadway hits.  I loved musicals, on stage, or on film, and I also have always loved pretty much all of the films from the fifties and prior.  As the decades passed by, while the films were still worth watching, they were slowly losing the splendor of a lost era.

By the dawn of the new millennium, Hollywood had essentially lost me.  Around 2010, they began to repel me.

Then, along came The Greatest Showman.  Everyone I had talked to who had seen it could only rave about it.

I had to at least give it a chance.

The talent was phenomenal.  The music was fun and upbeat.  The story was relateable, and tear jerking.  It paced well, and was fun and entertaining.

Original, and entertaining.

I haven't been able to say that in a long time.

Thanks, Hollywood, it's about damn time.  The Greatest Showman, so far, is the greatest film of the century . . . and that's saying a lot when it is coming from a guy who normally prefers science fiction.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Thursday Tea Party Meeting: Election Integrity and the Constitution

Constitution Radio: Make California Golden Again

Constitution Radio with Douglas V. Gibbs

Saturday 1-3 pm Pacific LIVE

Call in 951-922-3532

Today's Guests:

Travis Allen: California Candidate for Governor

Paul Taylor: California Candidate for United States Senate, Organizer of the Golden State Coalition

Jack Flournoy: Holocaust March for Remembrance

Double X: Co-Organizer of the Golden State Coalition

Host Douglas V. Gibbs - Constitution Radio on KMET

If you are not local, and cannot pick-up the program on KMET 1490-AM on your radio dial, Listen Live online at KMET also has a phone app, and the podcast will be available if you miss the show live.

Miss the program? Podcast will be Here.


Travis Allen for Governor

Assemblyman Travis Allen was first elected to the State Assembly in November of 2012. Travis Allen represents the 72nd Assembly District, which includes the cities of Huntington Beach, Seal Beach, Fountain Valley, Garden Grove, Westminster, and Los Alamitos, also the unincorporated communities of Sunset Beach, Midway City, and Rossmoor. In addition, the 72nd Assembly District also includes portions of Cypress, Stanton, Anaheim, and Santa Ana.

A proven track record

For over 20 years, Travis Allen has operated his own small business as a Certified Financial Planner. Most of all, Assemblyman Travis Allen concentrated on investing and building secure retirements for working families, retirees, and local business owners. Despite the challenges that have come with the tough economy in addition to volatile markets, his expertise and hard work have helped his clients reach their financial goals.

Giving back to the community

Furthermore, Travis Allen has a lifelong history of giving back to his community. He has given his time and resources to many charitable and community causes, most noteworthy helping the homeless of Orange County with the Orange County Rescue Mission. In addition, Travis Allen is active in the Christian and Jewish communities and is a strong supporter of a number of pro-Israel charities.

CarStar/AllStar Collision Big Stories of the Week, March 31, 2018:

⬝ March For Our Lives Hypocrisy

⬝ Omnibus Precedent

⬝ California's Sanctuary State Status Opt-Out

Palestinians Clash with Israel During Passover

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

A sign of the times?  Christians will say it is.

And ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars: see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet. For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in diverse places. All these are the beginning of sorrows. Matthew 24:6-8

Is the recent clash between Palestinians and Israel in the Middle East where 17 are dead and thousands injured a sign of the birth pains?  

Zechariah 12:1-6 King James Version (KJV)

12:1 The burden of the word of the Lord for Israel, saith the Lord, which stretcheth forth the heavens, and layeth the foundation of the earth, and formeth the spirit of man within him.

2 Behold, I will make Jerusalem a cup of trembling unto all the people round about, when they shall be in the siege both against Judah and against Jerusalem.

3 And in that day will I make Jerusalem a burdensome stone for all people: all that burden themselves with it shall be cut in pieces, though all the people of the earth be gathered together against it.

4 In that day, saith the Lord, I will smite every horse with astonishment, and his rider with madness: and I will open mine eyes upon the house of Judah, and will smite every horse of the people with blindness.

5 And the governors of Judah shall say in their heart, The inhabitants of Jerusalem shall be my strength in the Lord of hosts their God.

6 In that day will I make the governors of Judah like an hearth of fire among the wood, and like a torch of fire in a sheaf; and they shall devour all the people round about, on the right hand and on the left: and Jerusalem shall be inhabited again in her own place, even in Jerusalem.

Both Palestinians and Israel claims the same land.  The area, indeed, has become a cup of trembling, and a burdensome stone.

Palestinians say they have a claim to the land since they have been there since the seventh century AD.  The assumption is associated with the Arab conquests (c. 636/7).  At the time the region was inhabited by an ethnic "meld" made up mainly of the descendants of the peoples whom the Hebrews had only partially displaced, and a few Jews.

The Palestinian name derives from the word "Philistine," the most powerful non-Jewish ethnic group in the land in the Old Testament era.  The Philistines were already there in Abraham's day (Genesis 20:1-17; 21:22-34).  There is no evidence that the Palestinians and the Philistines have any connection.

After Islam ravaged the region, many of the local peoples intermarried with Arabs, that they adopted the Arabic language and came to be called Arabs (which makes "Arab" more a linguistic designation, rather than an ethnic designation).  Intermarriage had also taken place during the Greek, Roman and Byzantine occupations. So the Palestinians are a mixed race.

The surrounding Muslim strongholds, while accepting the Palestinians into Islam, viewed them as a race of mongrels.  Therefore, for the most part, they were wanderers without a home.

It wasn't until the emergence of Israel in 1948 that the Arab nations in the area took up the Palestinian's alleged plight.

Joshua 13:1-5 explains the areas that are yet to be possessed by Israel.  God tells Joshua, shortly before his death, from the "region of the Philistines" in the south to "Lebo Hamath" in the north. Judges opens with the statement that Israel had failed to drive these people out. Because of this, the Angel of the Lord tells them, "I will no longer drive them out before you; they will be thorns in your sides. ... I will use them to test Israel and see whether they will keep the way of the Lord" (2:3, 22; 3:4). The Philistines were especially a thorn in the side of the Children of Israel then, and the Palestinians are thorns in the side of the Children of Israel today.

While, according to Scripture, God promised the land to the seed of Abraham, but the Palestinians will remain in the land as long as it suits His purposes.  Israelites still fail miserably in keeping the way of the Lord, and God continues to use the Palestinians to test them.

In addition to the tests Israel must continually face, Christians recognize these days as the birth pains that lead up to the Second Coming of Jesus Christ.  Based on what is happening in society, it is apparent that the final hour is upon us.

2 Timothy 3:1-5 (KJV)  This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, traitors, heady, high minded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.

As the Palestinians march on Israel's border we recognize that another second has ticked off of the end times clock, and we are just a little bit closer to the midnight hour.  As the fighting escalates, Israeli drones are dropping tear gas on those advancing towards Jewish communities.  The Palestinians claim this is only the beginning.  They are ready for new protests after the bloodiest day in clashes in years.

Are they prepared for all out war?  Israel says they are ready for escalation, and will expand their military response if clashes go on.  Meanwhile, Iran has stated they will shut down the messenger app for security reasons.  Is that an admittance that their people are also either involved in these clashes, or are invigorated and may become involved?

But of the times and the seasons, brethren, ye have no need that I write unto you. For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night. For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape. But ye, brethren, are not in darkness, that that day should overtake you as a thief. Ye are all the children of light, and the children of the day: we are not of the night, nor of darkness. Therefore let us not sleep, as do others; but let us watch and be sober. For they that sleep sleep in the night; and they that be drunken are drunken in the night. But let us, who are of the day, be sober, putting on the breastplate of faith and love; and for an helmet, the hope of salvation. For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ, Who died for us, that, whether we wake or sleep, we should live together with him. 1 Thessalonians 5:1-10

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Conservative Voice Radio: Battle for the Constitution

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

Conservative Voice Radio is hosted by Douglas V. Gibbs, with members of the Banning-Beaumont-Cherry Valley Tea Party (Glenn, Jan and Diane) on KMET 1490-AM every Saturday at 8:00 am Pacific Time.

Podcast available at
I have returned to join the Tea Party players regarding the following topics . . .

- Omnibus Bill

- March For Our Lives Rally

- Murrieta Tax Increase Proposal

- California Water Tax

- Trump Expels 60 Russian Diplomats

- Sanctuary State Opt-Out

- Venezuela's Muslim V.P.

Violent Human Nature and Hypocritical Idiots

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

In Sacramento a shooting of a black individual by a police officer happened.  Despite it simply being a case of being in the wrong place at the wrong time, protests emerged.  The violent thugs of Black Lives Matter, however, decided to use their own violence on the city council, creating a riot in the city council chambers over the shooting.

However, when violence happens, if jailing the offenders does not fit the leftist agenda narrative, somehow those people find a way to walk free.  It happened regarding Kate Steinle's illegal alien killer, and it happened when it came to the case regarding the wife/widow and accomplice of the June 2016 Florida Pulse nightclub shooter.

The Parkland Shooting was the event that really got the liberal left screaming for gun control, with some even willing to call out for full confiscation (or should we say "seizure") of guns, or in the case of former Supreme Court Justice Stevens, a repeal of the 2nd Amendment.

Funny.  We didn't hear anything from the media or the gun control people when a good guy with a gun showed up to interfere with a mass-shooter's aim to kill a bunch of people in Maryland.

How about the mass stabbing at a high school in Pennsylvania that left 21 injured?  Why aren't we hearing calls for knife-control?  What about bomb-control from the Austin bombings?

Do these idiots even understand the purpose of the 2nd Amendment?

The 2nd Amendment is in place so that the people can defend themselves against a tyrannical government in case liberty is lost.  That's what cracks me up.  They are convinced that Trump is a tyrant, that he is some kind of fascist . . . yet, they want to disarm themselves.


Either they don't believe Trump is actually a tyrant, or they hate guns more than they hate Trump, or they are really stupid.

I think it's a little bit of all three.

David Hogg's stupidity, yet fine use of propaganda, really amazes me.  He's a punk kid that is being used as a pawn by the liberal left to advance their agenda . . . so that they can get more power.  Don't forget that in history, the Bolsheviks were later killed once the communists came to power, and Hitler killed the Brown Shirts and replaced them with the S.S. once the dictator had gained his own power.  David Hogg, the useful idiot, has been playing the propaganda game like a champ.  Recently, he played Fox News's advertisers against Laura Ingraham, which tells us that whoever is behind all of this anti-gun crap are hardcore radicals who have coached the kids well.  They respond well to the hard-left puppet strings attached to them.

Alinsky would be proud.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Friday, March 30, 2018

Unite I.E. Conference, 2018, Sebastian Gorka

Confirmed: Travis Allen on Constitution Radio

When I was growing up, my dad told me that there are three different kinds of people.  Those who make things happen, those who watch things happen, and those who wonder, "What happened?"

Which One Are You?

Constitution Radio with Douglas V. Gibbs airs every Saturday from 1-3 pm, live on KMET 1490-AM.  Call in at 951-922-3532.  Tune in online at  Learn more at my radio page, or KMET's page for my program.  Listen later to the podcast on Sound Cloud.


1:05 - California Gubernatorial Candidate Travis Allen.
2:40 - U.S. Senate Candidate Paul Taylor.
2:15 - Organizer, Holocaust March of Remembrance

In Studio: Double X - primary organizer of the Golden State Coalition of Conservative, Christian California Candidates.

This is one episode you cannot afford to miss!

Also . . . 

I will discuss my visits to Southern California Cities regarding opting out of the Sanctuary State law.
→ I will discuss the truth about the Omnibus Bill.
→ I will discuss why the Democrats are pushing against the 2nd Amendment, and the real reason the amendment exists in the first place.
→ I will discuss why the Pennsylvania Gubernatorial Race is also important, and may serve as ground zero in the social issues debate.

Call in (951-922-3532), message me on Facebook during the program, or listen quietly . . . but be a part of the program.

This episode is too important ... don't miss it!!!

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

California's Constitutional Sanctuary Opt-Out

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

Yesterday, I spent most of the day visiting cities in Orange County regarding their choice (or contemplation of) opting out of California's Sanctuary State law, AB54.  I visited Los Alamitos, Huntington Beach, Newport Beach and Aliso Viejo to discuss an ordinance I have written.  The ordinance was inspired by my discussions with the Banning-Beaumont-Cherry Valley Tea Party, and the hope that the City of Beaumont would lead the charge in telling California that the Sanctuary Status is unconstitutional, and they weren't going to abide by it.

Other cities, and counties, have led the charge, but my involvement continues.  As a matter of fact, now that these cities have declared their defiance against the State of California, my aim is to make sure they survive the aftermath of that decision.  Their ordinances must be ironclad in case it goes to court (and it will).  Whether they use my ordinance, or elements of it, my concern is simply that if these cities continue down the path to opt out of the unconstitutional State law proclaiming California as being a Sanctuary State, that their ordinances contain constitutional language, and case law, supporting their claim.  My interest is that their city is protected, and can successfully navigate the troubled waters that will inevitably follow their decision to opt out of California’s constitutionally invalid Sanctuary State law.

The highlights of my ordinance is as follows:


WHEREAS, on October 5, 2017, Governor Brown signed into law an act to amend Sections 7282 and 7282.5 of, and to add Chapter 17.25 (commencing with Section 7284) to Division 7 of Title 1 of, the Government Code, and to repeal Section 11369 of the Health and Safety Code, relating to law enforcement;

WHEREAS, The act signed into law by Governor Brown, called California’s Sanctuary State Law, SB 54, violates Article VI. of the United States Constitution, which prohibits States from establishing laws contrary to laws of the United States made in pursuance of the United States Constitution;

WHEREAS, Congress is authorized in Article I, Section 9 of the United States Constitution to use legislation to prohibit the “migration” of persons into the States;

WHEREAS, Congress is authorized in Article I, Section 8 to “establish an uniform rule of Naturalization”;

WHEREAS, U.S. Code › Title 8 › Chapter 12 › Subchapter II › Part IV › § 1227 states that
(in this section I quote United States immigration law regarding who are deportable aliens under federal law)

WHEREAS, California’s Sanctuary State Law, SB 54 is in violation of Manigault v. Springs, 199 U.S. 473, 480 (1905) which indicates that States may take any action (consistent with their own constitutions and laws) unless there exists a prohibition in the United States Constitution or such action has been preempted by federal law. Chemerinsky, Erwin. Constitutional Law: Principles and Policies. Aspen Law & Business (1997, 1st ed.), pp. 166, 282;

WHEREAS, As Justice Kennedy wrote in the 2012 decision in Arizona v. United States:
“The Government of the Unit­ed States has broad, undoubted power over the subject of immi­gration and the status of aliens. … This authority rests, in part, on the National Government’s con­stitutional power to “establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,” U. S. Const., Art. I, §8, cl. 4, and its inherent power as sovereign to control and conduct relations with foreign nations”
WHEREAS, California’s Sanctuary State Law, SB 54 is invalid because it violates the United States Constitution and federal law;
WHEREAS, California cities, in compliance with constitutional federal law have the obligation to opt-out of California’s unconstitutional and illegal Sanctuary State Law, SB 54.

Manigault v. Springs, 199 U.S. 473, 480 (1905) serves in my ordinance as a legal protection when it comes to the concept of federal supremacy.

Understand, I am not normally a fan of federal supremacy.  When it comes to State issues, for example, there is no authority granted to the federal government regarding health care, drugs, marriage, abortion, education, highway funding, or the federal government's ownership of lands obtained without being purchased with the consent of a State legislature for the purpose of needful buildings (which makes a vast majority of the federal lands, especially those west of the Mississippi River, unconstitutionally owned by the federal government).  In those cases of the issues listed above, the 10th Amendment applies, and the federal government has no authority to be intruding upon those issues.

However, when it comes to immigration, as stated above in the language of my ordinance, immigration, as Justice Kennedy put it, is an "undoubted power" of the federal government, and the Supremacy Clause in Article VI. of the U.S. Constitution applies.

In my visits with officials from the cities I have talked to, and what I have gathered from the information they provided me, the cities are attempting to address specific parts of the Sanctuary State law, naming those parts separately, and addressing each of them individually.  That is not necessary.  The entire law is invalid.

Also, I have noticed that while the City Attorneys acknowledge the 2012 Arizona v. United States case as precedent showing that immigration is a federal authority (it's kind of funny that Obama's demand that Arizona comply with his unwillingness to execute immigration law can now be used against California), they were unaware of Manigault v. Springs, 199 U.S. 473, 480 (1905) as a legal protection when it comes to the concept of federal supremacy.

Other city council members of other cities have also had the chance to take a look at my ordinance, as well, including San Jacinto and Murrieta.  I am also trying to get Hemet, Temecula, and Banning to consider adopting it, as well.  Yesterday evening, I spoke to an official from Escondido and will be emailing them this morning.

The reality is, like gun control, immigration is a topic the Democrats always lose on, and even in California their hardcore stance on these issues are backfiring on them.  In fact, it's gotten to the point that the Democrats are beginning to fear that the potential of an electoral disaster for them may be in the works in 2018, especially in California where the primary is based on a Top Two voter receivers formula, regardless of party.

The Democrat Party's continuing push for gun control and giving support to illegal aliens over citizens is exploding in their faces.  Not only have the cities listed above considered (or are in the process of) opting out of the Sanctuary State law, so has Orange County (with other counties also considering following suit).  In the case of Orange County, the radicals in Sacramento are so angry at Orange County for daring to defy them that the State of California is threatening to arrest the Sheriff of Orange County for taking a stance to uphold federal immigration law by cooperating with ICE officials.

As President Trump has stated, this is about more than whether or not families who really want to be here for a better life should be able to ignore federal law by crossing the U.S. border illegally.  Mixed into those crowds of people entering the country are criminals, child molesters, rapists, gang members, drug cartel affiliates and Muslim terrorists.  In short, our immigration problem is also a National Security issue.  What that means is that these cities who are standing up against the treasonous Sanctuary State Law of California are not only following federal law, and abiding by the U.S. Constitution, but they are participating in protecting our country from enemies who wish to enter our country to cause harm to our people, and our system.  The Democrats of California, for the purpose of gaining more voters and increasing their political power, are placing the well-being of Californians, and Americans, at risk by adhering to our enemies, and giving them aid and comfort.

The stark truth is that they are not humanitarians.  The Democrat politicians in California are criminals who should be arrested and prosecuted not only for breaking federal law, but for treason against the United States of America.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Thursday, March 29, 2018

Temecula Constitution Class

Instructor: Douglas V. Gibbs

6:30 pm, Thursday Nights (except 2nd Thurs. of each month)

Faith Armory
41669 Winchester Road
Temecula, CA

Tonight we will be discussing the Omnibus Bill, Immigration and California's Sanctuary Status, and the recent push for guns control . . .


Constitution Class Handout
Instructor: Douglas V. Gibbs

Lesson 17

Amendments 11 and 12

Further Limiting the Courts, Amendment 11
The Judicial Branch was added almost as an afterthought. The judiciary was originally designed to be the weakest of the three branches of government. The Anti-Federalists feared the judicial branch becoming a judicial oligarchy, and therefore the judicial branch was constructed to only apply the law to cases they hear.  All opinions the judges may have of the law after reviewing the law was considered to be only opinion.  Any changes to law, regardless of what the courts felt about the law, could only be made legislatively.  However, soon after the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, fears of a tyrannical court arose, and so additional limits were placed on the federal courts by the 11th Amendment.  No case against a State by citizens of another State, or by the citizens or subjects of a foreign state, shall be heard by a federal court.

The 11th Amendment changes the intent of Article III.  As limited as the courts were supposed to be, the Founding Fathers realized the courts weren't limited enough, and as a result, the 11th Amendment wound up being ratified in 1795.

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

As you may recall, John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, resigned his position in 1795, disappointed in how few powers the federal courts had.  When approached later by President John Adams to return to the United States Supreme Court as the high court’s Chief Justice, Jay turned Adams down.  He said the Court lacked "the energy, weight, and dignity which are essential to its affording due support to the national government."  He also did not wish to serve under Thomas Jefferson, the victor in the 1800 Presidential Election, who was an advocate of limited government, and a judicial branch that existed as the weakest of the three branches of government. 

While John Jay was Chief Justice, among the influences of his decision that the court was too weak to promote a strong, centralized national government, was the case of Chisholm v. Georgia in 1793, which eventually led to the proposal, and ratification, of the 11th Amendment.  A citizen of South Carolina sued Georgia for the value of clothing supplied by a merchant during the Revolutionary War.  After Georgia refused to appear, claiming immunity as a sovereign state, as per the Constitution (Article III, Section 2) the federal courts took the case.  The nationalist view by the justices deemed that in this case Georgia was not a sovereign State; therefore, the Supreme Court entered a default judgment against Georgia.  What ensued was a conflict between federal jurisdiction and state sovereignty that reminded the anti-federalists of their fears of a centralized federal government consolidating the States, and destroying their right to individual sovereignty.

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

Judicial Branch - The branch of the United States Government responsible for the administration of justice; a central judiciary that is limited to federal authorities, and separated from the will of the central leadership.

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

National Government - Any political organization that is put in place to maintain control of a nation; a strong central government that does not recognize the individualism or local authorities of the smaller parts, such as states, of the nation.

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

Questions for Discussion:

1.  Why did the Founding Fathers design our governmental system with the Judicial Branch being the weakest of the three branches of government?

2.  Why is judicial review only supposed to be an opinion?

3.  How did Chisholm v. Georgia change the authorities granted to the federal judiciary?

4.  How does the 11th Amendment protect State Sovereignty?


Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 Dall. 419 (1793), Cornell College - Politics:
Jefferson’s Draft of the Kentucky Resolutions - October 1798, Avalon
Project, Yale University:
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).
Virginia Resolution of 1798,

Electoral Procedures for Electing President Changed, Amendment 12

 Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and all persons voted for as Vice-President and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted. The person having the greatest Number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President. The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.”

The 12th Amendment changes the procedure for electing the President and Vice President originally provided for in Article II, Section 1, Clause 3.  The procedure has remained the same since its ratification, save for the States changing their procedures from appointing the electors by the choice of the State legislatures, thus following the instructions of the State legislatures, to the citizens voting for who the electors are expected to vote for.  Though the electors are free to vote for anyone eligible to be President, in practice they usually vote for the candidates chosen by the voters in their State.  1824 is the last election in which electors were primarily appointed by their State legislature.  In that election, six states followed that procedure.  South Carolina was the final State to follow the practice, ceasing the appointment of their electors by the State legislature upon the approach of the American Civil War.

Each State is constitutionally allowed to choose how to appoint or elect their electors, and the methods vary from State to State.  Generally, electors are nominated by their State political parties in the months prior to Election Day.  In some States, the electors are nominated in primaries, the same way that other candidates are nominated.  Other States nominate their electors in party conventions.

The need for the 12th Amendment became apparent after the problems that arose in the elections of 1796 and 1800.  The Twelfth Amendment was proposed by the Congress on December 9, 1803, and was ratified by the requisite number of state legislatures on June 15, 1804.

Before the 12th Amendment, electors could vote for two candidates, though at least one had to be from a State different from that of the elector (as a protection against a larger State dominating the federal government).  A majority of the vote needed to be received in order to win the presidency.  If no candidate received a majority vote, then the House of Representatives chose the President.

In 1800, after a tie in the Electoral College, the House tied 36 times. That particular election was marked by a battle between the Federalists, and Jefferson’s Democratic-Republicans.  Even though Burr was Jefferson’s running mate, Aaron Burr wound up Jefferson’s adversary when the vote went to the House.  The lame-duck House controlled by the Federalists threw their support behind Burr, because they did not trust Jefferson’s philosophy of a limited government.

The term Electoral College did not appear until the early 1800s, and did not appear in legislation until 1845.  The concept was designed to act in a manner similar to Congress, where a portion of the election was connected to the population-based premise that was also used by the House of Representatives, and another portion of the Electoral College would be based on the State appointment premise used by the U.S. Senate.

In Federalist No. 39, James Madison explained that the Constitution was designed to be a mixture of State-based and population-based government.

In Federalist No. 10, James Madison argued against "an interested and overbearing majority" and the "mischiefs of faction" in an electoral system.  His definition of “faction” in relation to elections was "a number of citizens whether amounting to a majority or minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community."  In a republic it was necessary, according to Madison, to vary the distribution of powers, including those powers held by the members of the populace.  Only a thorough division of power throughout the American System would protect the United States from the excesses of democracy, and countervail against factions.  Madison further explained that the greater the population and expanse of the Republic, the more difficulty factions would face in organizing due to such issues as sectionalism.

Prior to the 12th Amendment, the choice of the Vice President went to the second place winner of the presidential election.  The Vice President, unlike the President, did not require the votes of a majority of electors.  If a tie arose, the Vice President was chosen by the Senate, with each Senator casting one vote.  Though it was not specified in the Constitution whether the sitting Vice President could cast a tie-breaking vote for Vice President, because the sitting Vice President is President of the Senate and casts the tie-breaking vote, it is assumed that if that situation had arisen, the sitting Vice President would indeed be the deciding vote for his successor.  Because the second place winner became Vice President, it was very possible for the President and the Vice President to be from different parties.  In fact, that is what happened in the 1796 election.  John Adams won that election as the Federalist Party candidate, and Jefferson became the Vice President as a Democratic-Republican candidate.  The fear was that by the two men being of different parties, the Vice President may do what he could to impede the ability of the President, or could even launch an effort to remove the President from office so that the Vice President could succeed to the office of the President.

The 12th Amendment eliminated the possibility of problems arising between the President and Vice President due to them being from different parties by having the President and Vice President elected as a ticket, thus lessening the Vice President's motivation for staging a coup.

The 12th Amendment also eliminated the “two votes for presidential candidates” method, changing it instead to the electors casting distinct votes for President and Vice President.

The 12th Amendment indicates that no elector may vote for both candidates of a presidential ticket if both candidates inhabit the same State as that elector, a provision consistent with the Framer’s original language against collusion.

The 12th Amendment also clarified language to not allow those constitutionally ineligible to be President from being Vice President.

A majority of Electoral Votes is still required for one to be elected President or Vice President.  As in the case before the 12th Amendment, when nobody has a majority, the House of Representatives, voting by States and with the same quorum requirements as under the original procedure, chooses a President.  The 12th Amendment requires the House of Representatives to choose from the three highest receivers of Electoral Votes, rather than the top five as was the process under Article II, Section 1, Clause 3.

The Senate chooses the Vice President if no candidate receives a majority of Electoral Votes. The 12th Amendment requires a quorum of two-thirds for balloting.


Collusion - Conspire together.

Electoral College - A body of electors chosen by the voters in each State to elect the President and Vice President of the United States.

Limited Government - A government that acts within the limitations granted to it; a governmental system that is restrained by an enumerated list of authorities; a limited government is the essence of liberty.

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

Sectionalism - Loyalty to the interests of one's own region or section of the country, rather than to the country as a whole; loyalty to a political agenda or ideology rather than to the country as a whole.

Questions for Discussion:

1.  Why did the States originally appoint electors, rather than the electors being elected directly by the popular vote by the public?

2.  What lessons did the Election of 1800 provide?

3.  Now that the presidential election is determined by party tickets, which ensures


David McCollough, John Adams; New York: Simon and Schuster.
Edward J. Larson, A Magnificent Catastrophe: The Tumultuous Election
of 1800; New York: Free Press (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).
Philip B. Kurland and Ralph Lerner, The Founder’s Constitution –
Volume Five - Amendments I-XII; Indianapolis: Liberty Fund (1987).

Copyright 2015 Douglas V. Gibbs