Friday, August 31, 2018

AB 2943, California's Conversion Therapy bill shelved

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

Good news out of Sacramento, which is something hard to come by these days, came to me through the Facebook page of California Assemblywoman Melissa Melendez (my representative, and probably the most conservative member of the California legislature).  She explained in her Facebook post that the author of A.B. 2943, the "conversion therapy" bill, has chosen to shelve the bill, for now.  He says he hopes to "find consensus" with "religious communities" who oppose the bill.

This is not to say California's democrats are suddenly becoming reasonable:

⚬  California lawmakers approved a bill this week that would expand the list of people who could ask a court for a gun violence restraining order, reports said.  AB2888 passed the state Senate 25-12. It would allow co-workers and school personnel to petition a court to temporarily remove guns from someone they believe poses a danger

⚬  The Sacramento Bee reports that illegal aliens residing in California would be able to serve on all state and local boards and commissions under a proposal introduced in the State Senate. Senate Bill 174 amends existing state law to allow the appointment of any resident over the age of 18 to a civil office regardless of citizenship or immigration status. California law currently states that someone is incapable of holding office if they are not a citizen at the time of their appointment.

⚬  Suspects awaiting trial in California will now have their bail eliminated, according to a bill signed by Democratic Gov. Jerry Brown on Tuesday.

In lieu of bail, suspects will be gauged under a risk-assessment system, although the details of the program, which will take effect in October 2019, were not immediately clear.

Suspects looking at serious, violent felonies won’t be eligible for release prior to trial but the majority of suspects arrested for nonviolent misdemeanors will be let go within 12 hours of being booked, according to the legislation.

The bill gives officials 24 hours to determine whether other suspects should be released before trial. That time can be extended by 12 hours if necessary.

What this means is that criminals will dismiss court orders.  Our criminal justice system has already been weakened by AB 109, Proposition 47 and Proposition 57, and as a result crime is on the rise.  Now, bail agents will also no longer be able to serve as boots-on-the-ground.  Criminals will now receive nothing but a notice to appear, with little to no consequences if they do not show up in court.

⚬  California’s public universities are now one step closer to providing medication abortion for students, as a bill requiring public universities to offer abortion pills passed the California legislature.

The bill, which must now be approved by Gov. Jerry Brown, would require student health centers at public universities to offer medication abortion as a “basic health service.” The measure would take effect in 2022 and be funded through a College Student Health Center Sexual and Reproductive Health Preparation Fund made up of private, rather than state, funds.

California would be the first state to mandate providing medication abortions at public universities if the bill goes through.

⚬  Californians will have to tighten their water belts following Gov. Jerry Brown’s actions after he signed two new laws that will require cities and water districts to set permanent water conservation rules for both indoor and outdoor water consumption regardless of how dry or wet we get from year to year.

⚬  California Considers $1,000 Fine for Waiters Offering Unsolicited Plastic Straws: Ian Calderon wants restaurateurs to think long and hard before giving you a straw.  Calderon, the Democratic majority leader in California's lower house, has introduced a bill to stop sit-down restaurants from offering customers straws with their beverages unless they specifically request one. Under Calderon's law, a waiter who serves a drink with an unrequested straw in it would face up to 6 months in jail and a fine of up to $1,000.

Oh, and let's not forget the public ban of cigars and cigarettes during this "let's legalize marijuana" and allow meth dens in San Francisco period in American History ...

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Leftist Media Shocked Their Attacks Not Working

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

Timing is everything.  The Democrats and leftist mainstream media live by it.  The sudden attacks against candidates like Duncan Hunter and Judge Bailey, for example (whether there is any truth to the allegations, or not) were timed perfectly.  It's too late to pick another candidate, and too close to the election for the candidates to have enough time to prove their innocence.

However, in the case of Trump, when it comes to attacks by the liberal left, it's all the time, all hours of the day, non-stop "hate Trump" tactics designed to do nothing other than depose the current President of the United States.  Surely, the results must be devastating.  Surely, Republicans must be running away from the guy.  Surely, as we are seeing with Hunter and Bailey, people are so disappointed that they are bailing on President Donald J. Trump.


And the liberal left media can't figure out why.

Let me say this . . . we knew that Trump was no altar boy.  I didn't vote for him because I think he's got a flawless history or was never an un-Christian playboy.  I voted for him because his polices, compared to what was being offered by the communists of the Hillary Clinton camp, were more in line with what I believe as a Christian and a Conservative, and because he was the candidate that was more willing to abide by the principles of the U.S. Constitution.  I also voted for him because he's a pragmatic businessman who pulls no punches, and was willing to leave his life of luxury and private sector power to Make America Great Again, even if it meant being the target of a non-ending barrage of slings and arrows.

Let's roll Mark Dice's video about the confused media . . .

They can't stand it.  They are confused.  How is it that their attacks are not having any affect?

The liberal left does not represent American values and a desire to preserve liberty that most Americans embrace.  Trump does.  And, we are no fools.  We know the liberal left doesn't give a flying rat's behind about America.  For the Democrats it is only about position, power, and what wealth they can steal and redistribute in a Marxist fashion.

Thanks, but no thanks.  I'll take Donald J. Trump, instead of the socialism the Democrat Party has to offer.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

who framed Duncan Hunter?

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

First of all, let's remember that in this country we believe that people are innocent until proven guilty.  Therefore, to be judge and jury prior to an examination of the evidence is foolhardy.  While I understand that he charges against Duncan Hunter are extensive, I am not ready to throw him under the bus, and I think doing so would not be good at this juncture in the election, nor would it be good when it comes to the overall republican strategy regarding Duncan Hunter's congressional district (of which largely encompasses North San Diego County, and a part of Temecula in Riverside County).

Second (here's more on that strategy thing), if conservatives decide to not vote for Hunter because of the allegations, those republican voters would be giving in to exactly what the Democrats aimed to accomplish by unleashing these accusations a matter of a couple months before election day.  From a Republican Party strategy standpoint, the best thing to do would be to let Hunter retain his seat, and if he's found guilty later, he'll be removed or decide to resign, and then we can have a special election to either keep the seat republican, or allow the democrats to grab it.  If we refuse to vote for Hunter and it turns out he's not guilty, we gave away the seat, and fell for the left's deception, again.

Third, the masterminds behind the allegations against Duncan Hunter are two lawyers connected to Hillary Clinton.  Anytime the Clinton Crime Family has any connection to anything, it's likely to be bogus, or at best embellished in a sinister direction.

The truth is, Congressman Duncan Hunter Jr., who was among the first Trump supporters in Congress, has been charged with a number of allegations involving the use of campaign funds.  The indictment includes his wife, and the charges claim the couple illegally used a quarter million dollars in campaign funds for a whole list of personal expenses.

The indictment was put forth by a federal grand jury in San Diego after a months long criminal investigation into the allegations.  The 48-page indictment released by the Justice Department, at first glance, looks to be quite damning.

Hunter is the son of the previous holder of his seat, and is the second Republican congressman to be slammed this month with an indictment.

The Democrats and their leftist allies have timing down pat when it comes to attacking the GOP with an election looming.

The other congressman charged this month is Representative Chris Collins, a Republican in New York.  He was indicted on insider trading charges.  He has, as the Democrats had hoped, suspended his re-election campaign. The two congressmen, Hunter and Collins, were the earliest congressional supporters of the presidential campaign of Donald J. Trump.

That makes for an interesting coincidence, considering that they were early supporters of the hated President of the United States, and are the primary ones being targeted and butchered in this election (at this point).

The Hunter camp is claiming the allegations are “purely politically motivated,” and he has pleaded not guilty.  A letter sent this month to Rod J. Rosenstein, the deputy attorney general, asserts that the two prosecutors involved in the investigation had attended a fund-raiser for Hillary Clinton.

While Hunter's district is solidly Republican, it's too late for a replacement, and with California's top-two primary system, no write-in candidate is allowed.  In short, it was the perfect strike by the left to ensure that a “solidly Republican” House seat could be delivered into Democrat Party hands.

Hunter's seat now being attached makes it one of eight California GOP seats that the Democrats have been heavily targeting.

Hunter's opponent, Ammar Campa-Najjar, a Democrat, only got 17.59% of the vote in the primary, and the only chance the grandson of a known Islamic terrorist had against Duncan Hunter was if something like these charges happened to the incumbent.

Speaker Paul Ryan has announced the removal of Representative Duncan Hunter from the three House committees he serves on as a result of the allegations.

While Hunter claims he is the victim of a "witch hunt" concocted by a "bunch of leftists," and says he will not resign and will continue to run for re-election in November for the seat in the San Diego area that he has held for five terms, he does admit that some of the allegations have a small bit of truth to them.  He claims, however, that they were the result of honest mistakes.

The indictment contains 60 counts, including wire fraud and filing false reports with the FEC. 

"They overdrew their bank accounts more than 1,100 times in a seven-year period resulting in approximately $37,761 in 'overdraft' and 'insufficient funds' bank fees," the indictment charged.

Hunter and his wife left the court, when they entered their not-guilty pleas, without making any statements.  Hunter's legal counsel is asking for "the public to keep an open mind" on the case.

Hunter served as a member of the United States Marine Corps after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks, as an artillery officer in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Representative Darrell Issa blasted the U.S attorney in California for what he considered to be "political misconduct" over the last-minute indictment of Duncan Hunter.

“So now you have an accusation that could sink anyone, when in fact, this same information…I didn’t see anything that hasn’t been there for years,” said Issa, accusing the Democrats of withholding the information purposely for months.

“I don’t know how you make any kind of sense other than he sat on it for most of three years and certainly the last year,” Issa said.

Issa's district borders that of Duncan’s, and the former is retiring from Congress and is not on this year's ballot.

The democrat in the race, Ammar Campa-Najjar, is suddenly in the race and has a chance, but it seems interesting that the coincidences of this situation goes beyond the fact that Hunter was among Trump's earliest supporters.  Hunter is also among the loudest voices in Congress in regards to holding what is considered by Democrats to be a radical view concerning Islam.  Campa-Najjar, Hunter's electoral opponent, is the grandson of one of the members of the Palestinian Black September terror group that killed 11 Israeli athletes at the 1972 Olympic Games in Munich.

While the Mexican and Palestinian heritage candidate says he does not believe the same way as his grandfather, Muhammad Yusuf al-Najjar, and that he never met his grandfather, whose death at the hands of Israeli commandos happened 16 years before Ammar was even born, for Republicans the connection of Ammar to his grandfather, and the fact that he's running against a congressman who has been staunch in his position regarding the dangers of Islam, is alarming at best.

"I'm happy to take responsibility for my own choices and my own decisions," Campa-Najjar said. "I think other men are responsible for their own crimes, whether it's somebody who I share a lineage with and nothing else, or a sitting congressman whose being indicted and could be facing serious charges in the future."

His campaign also says while he’s proud of his heritage, he is “American first.”

While Hunter's recent legal problems may help Campa-Najjar's race, his chances to win still remain slim.

Campa-Najjar is in line with the Democrat Party's socialist leanings, supporting socialized medicine (they call it Medicare for all), for example.  In fact, he's so far to the left, the Marxist/Socialist 28 year old Democrat, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, from New York, called Campa-Najjar her "progressive brother." 

Campa-Najjar claims to be a Christian, despite his Muslim heritage.  In addition to being the son of a Palestinian Muslim father (he spent part of his childhood in Gaza), his mother is a Catholic Mexican-American.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

In-N-Out Burger Boycott Another Attempt to Silence Opposition

By Douglas V. Gibbs
AuthorSpeakerInstructorRadio Host

In California, In-N-Out is hands down the best burger joint in the State.  The Double-Double can be purchased after midnight, and the milkshakes also rank among the best in the State.  The workers are actually sent to school to learn the In-N-Out way of doing business before they can work at a location, and while the slow service and wrong orders of other establishments is becoming an epidemic, the service and speed of getting your order at In-N-Out remains as it always has been . . . above average.  But, I have to admit, sometimes the lines can be long.

In addition to putting out quality food with good service in a reasonable time period, the original owners of In-N-Out are also Christians, and if you look hard enough, on the cups, french fry baskets, and other wrappings you can find Bible Verses.  The liberal left has always hated In-N-Out for being owned by Christians, but the burger brand has become such an institution in California, they've always been off-limits when it comes to political attacks.

In the age of Trump, the liberal left Democrats and their socialist allies are desperate.  They hate their opposition so bad, they are willing to call for boycotts just because someone disagrees with them politically, or are willing to give money to their political enemies.  The latest by the Democrats is a call to destroy a business so as to protect their political power because In-N-Out dared to give the Republican Party money to help with GOP campaigns.

The Democrats are already colluding and conspiring to bring down a President, but that's not enough.  They wish to destroy and silence anyone who dares to disagree with them.  This is more than the idiotic protests pulling down confederate statues because they are blindly offended (remember, those how forget history are doomed to repeat it).  This is a concerted effort to destroy an economic system that made America the most prosperous country in the world because it dares not to be socialist.

My prediction is that as we saw with Chick-fil-a, In-N-Out's popularity is going to go through the roof, and Californians are going to rally around the California burger giant.  Be ready for long lines to get your order, but definitely do it, not only to send a message, but because the Double-Double is totally worth it.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Thursday, August 30, 2018

McCain Funeral Exclusions

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

I have tried to be as neutral as I can be when talking about recently deceased U.S. Senator John McCain, not because I liked his politics (I didn't) and not because I am trying to respect the dead, but because he was a military veteran (and endured a period of his life as a prisoner of war in Vietnam), and as a vet, I have this thing about letting vets rest in peace once it is all over.  That said, McCain was not a political maverick, he was a turncoat.  He carried and "R" for republican after his name, he represented a majority conservative State (Arizona), but he was no conservative republican.

Understanding the fact that he was a thorn in the side of the GOP (and pretty much had more in common with the liberal left democrats than the republicans) why is it such a surprise that his pall bearers are people like Jane Fonda anti-Vietnam buddy, former Secretary of State, and retired U.S. Senator John Kerry and former V.P. under Barack Obama and former U.S. Senator Joe Biden, and that people like President Donald J. Trump and 2008 McCain running-mate and former Governor of Alaska Sarah Palin have been rejected as guests at the funeral?

The mainstream news have been propping McCain up as the last bi-partisan god, and the reality is, he was a republican in the wrong party.

I appreciate his service, I do not hammer on him about his military service, and I will not write a bunch of anti-McCain pieces now that he is ready to be placed six-feet-under, but I refuse to herald him as some great poster-boy from a bygone era, or hammer on people like Trump or Palin because the McCain crowd decided to refuse to invite them to the funeral.

Rest in Peace, sorry for your loss, turn the page, let's start a new chapter in the U.S. Senate and Arizona politics.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Tuesday, August 28, 2018

3/5s Clause: Corona Constitution Class

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

Constitution Class Handout
Instructor: Douglas V. Gibbs
Lesson 02
Legislative Powers
Establishing the Legislative Branch
Legislative Powers
Article I, Section 1: All Legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.
Article I establishes the Legislative Branch of the federal government. Article I, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution establishes the two parts of Congress, and grants all legislative powers to the two Houses of the Congress of the United States. When studying the language used in Article I, Section 1, the original intent by the Founding Fathers becomes clear.
The first word in the first section of Article I is the word "all." The definition of all is "the whole of a particular thing."
The next words in Article I, Section 1 are legislative powers. Legislative powers are the ability to make law, modify law, repeal law, and anything else that has to do with affecting law.
The next word in the clause is "herein." The primary definition of herein is "here in this document."
After herein is the word granted. Granted is defined as "to give," "to allow," or more specifically "to legally transfer." If powers are granted, then there must be a "grantor," as well as a grantee. As we learned in our discussion regarding The Preamble, the "grantor" of the authorities enumerated in the Constitution is the States.
"Shall be" is definitive. The Constitution in its first clause reads, "All legislative powers herein granted shall be. . .," shall be meaning "it is," or "it will be."
"Vested" is much like "granted." Vested is a legal transfer of something, or in this case, an allowance to have legislative powers at the federal level granted to Congress.
The Congress of the United States is the legislative branch of the federal government, and this clause indicates that not only will the Congress be granted all legislative powers given to the federal government, but that the branch of government consists of two houses; a Senate and House of Representatives.
All legislative powers, according to this clause, are granted to the Congress by the States for the purpose of making law, modifying law, or repealing law. The powers are herein granted, which means that the laws must fall within the authorities granted by the text of the U.S. Constitution. In other words, laws made must remain consistent with the "powers herein granted."
Based on language used in the first clause of the United States Constitution, when members of the judiciary legislates from the bench, or the President issues an executive order to modify a law, such action is unconstitutional. After all, "all legislative powers" were granted to the Congress, not to the judicial branch, or the executive branch.
Since all legislative powers belong to the Congress, that means any regulations by federal departments that are not in line with laws made by the Congress that are in line with the authorities granted by the Constitution are unconstitutional as well. All legislative powers belong to the Congress, therefore any "legislative actions" by regulatory agencies, which are a part of the executive branch, are not in line with the original intent of the Constitution.
Powers the federal government has were "granted" by the States. "We The People of the United States" granted those powers to the federal government through the Constitution. Therefore, if the federal government acts in a manner that is not consistent with the contract between the States and the U.S. Government, the States have the option to ignore those unconstitutional actions by the federal government. This action of ignoring unconstitutional law is the States' way of being the final arbiters of the Constitution. The term for this kind of action by a State is nullification. Thomas Jefferson, in his draft of the Kentucky Resolutions, explained that any unconstitutional law is null and void, and as an illegal law, the States have the right to nullify it.
The concept that only Congress has legislative powers, only the executive branch has executive powers, and the judicial branch only has judicial powers, as described in the first sentence of each of the first three articles of the Constitution, is called Separation of Powers. The purpose of this philosophy is to disallow different branches from abusing the powers not granted to that branch, as well as to protect against collusion.
The Separation of Powers also exists between the States, and the federal government. Most authorities granted to the federal government are powers the States did not reserve to themselves. Most authorities retained by the States are not authorized to be administered to by the federal government. There are a few authorities that are concurrent, meaning that both the federal government, and the States, have some authority over the issue. One issue that is concurrent is immigration, which will be addressed later in this book. Sole authority over a particular power is called Exclusive Powers.
House of Representatives
Article I, Section 2 establishes, and defines, the House of Representatives. The members of the House of Representatives are divided among the States proportionally. As it is today, the House of Representatives was the voice of the people in the federal government. Each Representative is chosen to serve for two years, which means every two years every Representative is up for re-election, if they choose to run.
The eligibility of a Representative as explained by Article I, Section 2 requires that the candidate must be at least twenty-five years of age, and been a citizen of the United States for at least seven years. The age is lower than for Senators. Representatives were not expected to be as politically savvy as the Senators, and tended to have less experience. The age requirement simply reflected that. Political knowledge and experience tends to come with age.
Divided allegiance was a serious concern to the Founding Fathers. The requirement that Representatives have been citizens of the United States for at least seven years reflects that concern. Seven years, for a Representative of the people, was assumed to have been long enough for the Representative to have thrown off any allegiances to other nations.
The third clause of Article I, Section 2, includes the 3/5s clause, which was changed by the 14th Amendment following the American Civil War.
The Southern States used slaves for their agricultural economies. The southern states were needed to ratify the new constitution. As a condition for ratifying the Constitution, the southern states demanded that the slaves be counted as one whole person each. The idea was that if the slaves were counted as whole persons, the apportionment would tip the scales in their favor through increased representation in the new United States House of Representatives. White populations in the southern states were lower in number when compared to the northern states, due to the rural nature of the Slave States to the south.
The Northern States, under the heavy influence of merchants, political elitists, and a group of abolitionists, wanted the slaves counted as "zero" in order to reduce the number of representatives the southern states would receive, which would give the majority to the northern states, thus giving the north more legislative power. With this additional voting power in the House of Representatives, the northern states sought to have greater influence on the federal government through legislation. The plan was to use their legislative power to tyrannically force the southern states into submission, and to eventually abandon slavery.
In the interest of compromise, to convince the southern states to ratify the constitution, while giving the northern states the satisfaction that the southern states did not get exactly what they wanted, the decision was made that slaves would be counted as 3/5 of a whole person for the sake of apportionment. In other words, it was not a declaration that they believed blacks to be less than a person, but simply to affect the census in such a way that too much power through apportionment would not be given to either The North or The South, while also ensuring that the Constitution got ratified.
G.R. Mobley, author of We the People, Whose Constitution Is It Anyway?, believes the Founding Fathers missed a great opportunity to abolish slavery. He supports the idea that the 3/5s Clause was an error in judgment by the Founders, and that the authors of the Constitution should have only allowed those States that rejected slavery to be members of the union under the Constitution. By failing to ratify the Constitution the southern slave states would then have been on their own as a separate union. Pressure from the Spanish in Florida, and the threat of invasion by Spanish forces, would have then encouraged the slave states to abolish slavery, so that they may rejoin the union, and enjoy the strength of the union of all thirteen States.
Historically, it is impossible to know if that is exactly how it would have played out. Regardless of the opportunity, the Founders largely believed they had to compromise to ensure every State remained a member of the union, and ensure that they would receive the required nine ratifications of States in order to put the new federal government into motion.
Article I, Section 2, Clause 3, in addition to containing the 3/5s Clause, also establishes the census. The census is a required a head count to be taken once every ten years in order to determine the enumeration for establishing the number of Representatives each State shall receive. The clause also indicates that the number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty thousand. This means there cannot be more than one Representative for a district of thirty thousand. However, it does not indicate there must be one Representative per thirty thousand. If that was the case, we would have thousands of Representatives.
Article I, Section 2, Clause 4 states that whenever vacancies happen in the House of Representatives, it is the duty of the Executive Authority to issue Writs of Election to fill such vacancies. What this means is that the Governors of the States have the duty to ensure there is a special election to fill any vacancies that may happen in the House of Representatives.
The House of Representatives chooses for itself its own Speaker of the House, and other officers.
According to Article I, Section 2, Clause 5, the House of Representatives has the sole power of impeachment. To impeach is to charge with misconduct. The formal process of impeachment may lead to removal of an official accused of unlawful activity or other offenses deemed to be impeachable offenses. Impeachment is not defined as removal from office, though removal from office is often the result of impeachment proceedings. In history, two presidents have been impeached, but neither were removed from office. The presidents who faced impeachment were Andrew Johnson (serving as President of the United States from 1865 to 1869), and William Jefferson Clinton (1993-2001). President Richard Nixon resigned in 1974 before impeachment proceedings began.
The United States Senate
Article I, Section 3 established, and defines, the United States Senate. The representation of the States in the U.S. Senate is equal, two per State. The Senators serve for six years, which means every two years an election is held for one-third of the Senate seats. The required minimum age of a Senator is thirty years, five years older than that of a Representative. The increased age requirement for Senators reveals the importance of longer life and political experience, as considered by the Founding Fathers. Allegiance to the United States also remained important to the framers in the U.S. Senate, requiring that Senators need to be nine years a citizen of the United States, rather than the seven years as required of Representatives.
Article I, Section 3 originally required that Senators were chosen by the legislatures of the States, rather than voted into office directly by the voters. The appointment of Senators by their State legislatures changed to the vote of the people in 1913 with the ratification of the 17th Amendment. By the State legislatures appointing the Senators, it made the Senate the voice of the States, while the House of Representatives was the voice of the people. By the Houses of Congress being different, it created a natural check and balance, which did not allow the representation of the people to accomplish anything without approval of the voice of the States, and vice versa.
Article I, Section 3, Clause 4 establishes the Vice President as the President of the Senate. The Vice President, though a member of the executive branch, is also connected to the legislative branch. The Vice President may preside over the sessions of the U.S. Senate, and even participate in the debates, but in the end, the Vice President has no vote in the U.S. Senate, except as the tie-breaking vote.
During the early days of our nation the Vice President attended a large number of sessions of the Senate. He served as the voice of the executive branch in the Senate, ensuring the States' representation in Congress had the opportunity to be exposed to the executive branch's opinions regarding the issues that concerned the States, and the union as a whole.
As with the House of Representatives, the Senate chooses its own officers. One of those officers is the President pro tempore, which is the President of the Senate when the Vice President is not present.
The House of Representatives has the sole power of impeachment. Article I, Section 3, Clause 6 gives the U.S. Senate the authority to try all impeachments. No conviction can be reached unless two-thirds of the U.S. Senate membership is present. Impeachment cannot extend further than the removal of the impeached from office, and the disqualification to hold any office in the future. However, a legal case can still be brought against the convicted from other sources, according to the law. Since the U.S. Senators were originally appointed by the legislatures of the individual States, this means that impeachment charges could be brought by the people (House of Representatives), but it took the States (Senate) to hear the case, and make the final determination after all evidence was provided. During impeachment hearings, the Chief Justice presides over the hearing, as provided by Article I, Section 3.
The 17th Amendment changed the dynamics of our governmental system. Note that many functions by the executive branch are subject to the advise and consent of the Senate. The Senate ratifies treaties, holds hearings for any appointments the executive branch nominates, and the Senate holds the sole power for holding hearings on impeachments. This is because actions by the federal government are subject to approval by the States. The States granted the federal government its powers in the first place.
The House of Representatives, as the voice of the people, and the Senate, as the voice of the States, and the natural check and balance that is the result of that relationship between those two Houses of Congress, also enables both Houses together to be a valuable check against the executive branch. One of the emanations of that correlation is the ability of Congress to override a veto with a 2/3 vote. The authority to override vetoes was established to enable the People, and the States, when they are in full agreement regarding a proposed bill, to be able to ensure a law is put into place, and to constrain the executive together through the power of combined vote.
Elections and Assembly of Congress
Article I, Section 4 begins, "The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof." This clause establishes that each State may have its own methods for electing members of the Congress. The same applies, as determined in Article II, to presidential elections. If there is a discrepancy, or a question regarding the acceptance of ballots, it is not the job of the courts to make final determination. Article I, Section 4 gives that authority to the State legislatures.
The same clause adds, after giving the State legislatures authority over federal elections, that "Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators."
Congress, as discussed earlier, is bicameral. The two Houses of Congress are the House of Representatives, and the United States Senate. The House of Representatives, at the time of the writing of the Constitution, was designed to be as it is now, the voice of the people. Representatives have always been elected by a direct vote. The United States Senate was the voice of the States, appointed by the State legislatures. The appointment of the Senators by representatives of the people is an example of an indirect vote.
As the representation of the people, and the States, Congress was not seen as the greatest potential danger in the federal government. Congress was the voice of the people and the States in the federal government; the eyes of the parents to ensure the central government did not grow beyond the authorities granted to it. With Congress representing the oversight by the people, and the States, the oversight powers given to the federal legislature often led to other authorities that allowed Congress to act as a check and balance against potentially dangerous government activity. Giving Congress oversight authorities was a way to ensure that Congress participated in the concept of a government "by the consent of the governed."
Though elections were established with the State legislatures prescribing the times, places and manner of holding elections, as a check and balance against that authority, Congress may pass laws to "make or alter such regulations."
At the end of the clause giving Congress the authority to act as an oversight regarding the manner in which elections are held, a qualifier is present, expressing, "except as to the Places of chusing Senators."
A majority of delegates at the Federal Convention in 1787, by the conclusion of the assembly, were strong supporters of the sovereignty of the States, and the parental nature of the States in relation to the newly formed federal government, and the duty of the States as the final arbiters of the United States Constitution to ensure the new government functioned within the limitations granted to it. A part of that function by the States included the very important fact that the States had a voice in Congress with appointed U.S. Senators. The framers did not want that authority to be tinkered with, so they remind future generations at the end of this clause that though Congress has lawmaking authorities, and oversight authorities, manipulating the dynamics of government where the people, and the States, have a voice in the United States Congress is something not to be fiddled with. A similar advisement also appears at the end of Article V., "and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate."
Oversight powers by the States were seen by the framers as being a right of the States, and as with natural rights of the people, a right is not something that should be able to be taken, but if the holder of the right wishes to give it away, no law can prevent such a foolish action.
The second paragraph of Article I, Section 4 reads, "The Congress shall assemble at least once in every Year." The first thought regarding this clause by the typical reader may be, "Of course. How can they get anything done if Congress isn't assembling?"
Another question may be, "Why did the framers feel it to be necessary to insert this clause into the Constitution?"
During the convention in 1787, there were some who felt this clause was "overburdensome." Government was not supposed to dominate their everyday lives. The members of Congress were not professional politicians, nor did they care to be. They had businesses to run, and lives to live. Surely, the attitude of many of the Founding Fathers was, there is not enough business to compel Congress to meet every single year!
Those who supported the concept of an annual meeting reminded the others that Congress was the check the people and the States had available to them in the federal government. It was the duty of Congress to serve as a check against the President, and the federal judiciary. To be an effective check, Congress must meet at least once per year. The clause, it was argued, was for the benefit of the people.
In present day politics, the opposite seems to be the norm. Government is viewed as being broken if they do not act on an endless and constant flow of issues, committees, and crises. Politicians view their position as their job, rather than a service they are providing.
Originally, the required meeting day was the first Monday in December. That was later changed to noon on the third day of January by the 20th Amendment.
Congressional Procedure
Article I, Section 5 requires Congress to have a minimum number of members present in order to do business. That majority constitutes a quorum, and if the Congress deems it necessary, the present members may set fines for members who do not show up. The Houses of Congress may remain in session, during which no formal business is conducted because the House does not have a quorum, so as to prevent executive actions that may be carried out during recess. This kind of session is called a pro forma session.
In Article II, Section 2, the President is given the authority to make recess appointments, when Congress is not in session. Normally, the United States Senate has advise and consent authority over appointments, which means that appointments of personnel to fill vacancies are possible for the President to grant, but such appointments requires the approval of the United States Senate (voice of the States). If the Senate is not in session, and an appointment is necessary, the President may make appointments, but the terms of those appointments only last to the end of the Senate's next session. If the Senate is in a pro-forma session, the President may not make any appointments. With Congress only in session when there is work to be done, and the Founders believing that would likely only be once a year, the ability of the President to make appointments when Congress is not in session was a valuable, and necessary, tool. In today's political environment, it seems like Congress is always in session, so recess appointments are not as common.
In early January of 2012, President Barack Obama used a recess appointment to name Richard Cordray the new Director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). The CFPB is a powerful bureaucracy created by the 2010 Dodd-Frank financial overhaul legislation. However, even though most of the members of Congress were on vacation, the United States Senate was still in session. President Obama's definition of recess, it turned out, was broader than the Constitution's definition. In reality, the U.S. Senate was in pro-forma session. John Berlau, Director of CEI's Center for Investors and Entrepreneurs, called the nomination of former Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray "very troubling," criticizing both Obama's controversial use of a recess appointment, and the selection of Cordray itself. Berlau later asked, "What's next, appointing nominees when the Senate takes a bathroom break?"
Article I, Section 5 also allows each House of Congress to determine its own rules, keep a journal to record proceedings and votes, and that neither house may adjourn without the permission of the other. Section 5 also establishes that if a member of a house does not follow the established rules, the house may punish its members for disorderly behavior, and by a two thirds vote may actually expel a member from Congress.
The establishment of rules, holding a hearing in regards to the breaking of those rules, and punishing a member for his behavior, as set forth by Article I, Section 5, was used when Charles Rangel broke the rules of the House of Representatives. He faced a panel for his actions, and was punished by censure in December of 2010. He later sued, spending about a third of his 2014 campaign cash on legal bills in a failed bid to overturn his fall from congressional grace. On December 11, 2013, a federal judge in Washington dismissed the lawsuit, filed by Rangel in the previous April, to get the censure overturned.
The mandate to keep a journal to record proceedings and votes was included in this section because the Founders wanted government to be transparent, accessible, and accountable to the people. Deals behind closed doors were not supposed to be a part of our political system.
Congressional Compensation, Privileges, Restrictions
When President George Washington took office, he refused to accept the constitutionally allowed compensation for holding the office. He viewed his office as being a privilege, and an opportunity to once again serve the country he loved. During the Constitutional Convention, Benjamin Franklin considered proposing that elected government officials not be paid for their service. By the end of the debate, it was decided that government representatives should receive fixed stipends by which they may be compensated for the devotion of their time to public service. It was also determined, however, that the compensation should not be so high that it would become the motive for seeking office.
Article I, Section 6 of the Constitution addresses compensation, and the rules regarding such. Section 6 also establishes that members of Congress may not be detained while traveling to and from Congress, and that they cannot hold any other office in government while in Congress.
Protection from arrest while traveling to and from Congress was not only a privilege based on those enjoyed by their counterparts in the British Parliament, but also a protection from political enemies who may wish to keep certain members of Congress from voting.
This section also indicates that no member of Congress shall be appointed to a later office if while in Congress the office was created, or a raise in pay was enacted for that office.
To explain this clause, let's visit a recent violation of it during the Obama administration.
After Barack Obama won the 2008 Presidential Election, he announced that Hillary Clinton would be his new Secretary of State. The position of Secretary of State received a pay raise while Hillary Clinton was a member of the United States Senate. Article I, Section 6 states that "No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States, which shall be been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been encreased during such time." Since Clinton was a Senator at the time the position of Secretary of State was given a raise, technically she was not eligible for the position to which she was appointed. To resolve this problem, and still allow Mrs. Clinton to accept the position, the Democrats applied the Saxbe Fix, meaning they undid the raise, and Hillary Clinton received the compensation that was in place before the vote she participated in while in the Senate. The Saxbe Fix, or a Salary rollback, is an unconstitutional action. The clause in the Constitution is clear: "No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been encreased during such time."
The Saxbe Fix, or the rollback of the salary, does not change the fact that the emoluments increased during the time Hillary Clinton was in the U.S. Senate.
As a tool, the Saxbe fix was nothing new. The salary rollback in the case of a violation of Article I, Section 6, a mechanism by which the President of the United States can avoid restrictions by the United States Constitution which prohibits the President from appointing a current or former member of Congress to a position that was created, or to an office position for which the pay and/or benefits were increased, during the term for which that member was elected until the term has expired, was first used in 1909. The "Saxbe" name was applied to the political maneuver later in history. The Saxbe Fix is named for William Saxbe, a Senator appointed Attorney General by President Richard Nixon in 1973.
Adjourn: Suspend proceedings to a later time and/or place.
Censure: Procedure for publicly reprimanding a public official for inappropriate behavior. There are normally no legal consequences. Censure is not mentioned in the Constitution, but is a procedure devised by the legislature as a tool for formal condemnation of a member of the congressional body.
Congress of the United States: The legislative branch of the federal government which consists of two houses; a Senate and House of Representatives. The Congress is the only part of the federal government granted the authority of legislative powers.
Granted: To confer, give, or bestow. A gift of legal rights or privileges, or a recognition of asserted rights, as in treaty. To legally transfer.
Impeachment: To charge with misconduct. Formal process that may lead to removal of an official accused of unlawful activity; impeachment does not mean the removal from office, though removal from office is often the result of impeachment proceedings.
Legislative Powers: The ability to make law, modify law, repeal law, and anything else that has to do with affecting law.
Nullification: State power to ignore unconstitutional federal law.
President pro tempore: Second highest ranking official of the United States Senate. Vice President is President of the Senate and the highest-ranking official of the Senate despite not being a member of the body. During the Vice President's absence, the president pro tempore presides over its sessions or appoints another senator to do so. The president pro tempore is elected by the Senate and is customarily the most senior senator in the majority party.
Pro Forma Session: A session in either house of the United States Congress at which no formal business is expected to be conducted, so as to fulfill the obligation "that neither chamber can adjourn for more than three days without the consent of the other." Pro forma sessions are also used to prevent the President from pocket-vetoing bills, calling the Congress into a special session, and to prevent the President from making recess appointments.
Quorum: Minimum number of members of an assembly necessary to conduct the business of that group.
Saxby Fix: Salary rollback. A mechanism by which the President of the United States can avoid restrictions by the United States Constitution which prohibits the President from appointing a current or former member of Congress to a position that was created, or to an office position for which the pay and/or benefits were increased, during the term for which that member was elected until the term has expired. First used in 1909, the Saxbe Fix is named for William Saxbe, a Senator appointed to Attorney General by Nixon in 1973.
Questions for Discussion:
1. If only Congress can make law, then why do some politicians believe that Executive Orders can modify law, or that regulatory agencies can create new regulations to enforce laws that were never passed by Congress?
2. The word "granted" reminds us that all powers once belonged to the States, and some of those authorities were "granted" to the federal government for the purpose of carrying out the tasks necessary for the protection, preservation, and promotion of the union. If the federal government was created by the States, then how can statists justify their belief that all federal laws trump all State laws?
3. Why do you think the Congress has two legislative houses?
4. Why do you think representatives are only elected for two years?
5. Why is it significant that only the House can originate bills for raising revenue?
6. Why is the power of impeachment belonging to the House so important?
7. As President of the Senate, what kind of role should the Vice President play in the day to day activities of the United States Senate?
8. Why do you think the House of Representatives has the sole power of impeachment, but the Senate has the task of hearing the case?
9. How are the dynamics of our governmental system different in relation to how the Senators are appointed, or voted for?
10. How was the Senate expected to check the House of Representatives, and work together with the House to check the Executive and Judiciary?
11. Why do you think the authority for prescribing the times, places, and manner of holding elections was given to the State Legislatures?
12. Why was Congress given the allowance to pass laws that may make or alter such regulations?
13. Why was the federal government prohibited from influencing the places for choosing Senators?
14. To conduct business, the houses of Congress need a quorum. If they do not have a majority, they may remain in session through a rule established by Congress called pro forma. What advantages does pro forma give the houses of Congress when it comes as serving as a check against the executive branch?
15. Why do you think neither house can adjourn without the permission of the other?
16. The houses of Congress establish their own rules of procedure. If a member breaks any of these rules, Congress also has the authority to punish the rule breaker. One type of punishment is called censure. How is censure an adequate punishment?
17. How has the concept of transparency changed over the last two hundred years?
Edwin Mora, "Top Democrat Dodges Question on Constitutionality of Obama Appointments, Says Pro Forma Sessions Are 'Games Being Played'," (January 6, 2012):
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).
Larry Schweikart and Michael Allen, A Patriot's History of the United States; New York: Sentinel (2004).
Madison's Notes on the Constitutional Convention, Avalon Project, Yale University:
Philip B. Kurland and Ralph Lerner, The Founder's Constitution - Volume Two - Preamble through Article I, Section 8, Clause 4; Indianapolis: Liberty Fund (1987).
Saxbe, William B. I've Seen the Elephant: An Autobiography. Kent State University Press (2000).
Copyright: Douglas V. Gibbs, 2014

Monday, August 27, 2018

Constitution Study Group: Tonight, Temecula

2nd and 4th Monday Night of each Month we gather at the Riverside County Republican Party Headquarters for an hour of Constitution Study, and Questions and Answers.

Each Session is a learning experience.  No Registration Required.  Show up and learn.  Free Pocket Constitutions handed out to each attendee.

The location is at 28120 Jefferson Ave., Suite 205, Temecula, California . . . in the same shopping center as Rosa's Cafe and Mr. Kabob, situated at the back of the parking lot between the tattoo parlor and the smoke shop.

Door will be unlocked, come right in and join us.
Instructor: Douglas V. Gibbs

Islamic Training Site in New Mexico

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

My first notes about the installation raided in New Mexico read as follows:
NBC News reported that a "man" arrested in New Mexico was "allegedly training kids to commit school shootings.” A “man”? That "man" is actually Muslim extremist Siraj Ibn Wahhaj. And he has deep ties to radical jihad...
I held off writing about this because it was so hard to get information on what had happened.  I didn't want to write an article based on conjecture, but I knew this information had to get out if it was what I thought it was.

InfoWars took the story even further once the dust began to settle.
According to the Alex Jones connected report, the suspects are connected to New York based Islamic leaders, and Linda Sarsour who is also connected to the Democratic Socialists of America.  From there, the connections to CNN and the Democrat Party fall into place like puzzle pieces.

As more information came in, the reality of what was going on became very frightening.  Sons of Liberty explained:
...that 11 children were rescued from an Islamic compound in New Mexico and that a Muslim man from Georgia and four other adults were arrested. Now, we are learning what one of the men was attempting to do with these children. He was attempting to brainwash and train these kids to carry out school shootings.
One of the suspects arrested at a suspected Muslim “extremist” compound in New Mexico is a longtime illegal immigrant from Haiti who overstayed a visitor visa for more than 20 years, immigration authorities said on Wednesday. 
What kind of whackado is this judge? A religious extremist training children to commit school shootings, a dead child’s body, and an illegal alien. But bonded right out on a $20,000 signature bond. Seriously?
So, based on what we have gathered, the Islamic compound was teaching radical Muslim ideas, was teaching children how to carry out school shootings, and the people in charge had connections to terrorist organizations, American mosques, the Democrat Party, various socialist organizations and individuals, and liberal left media outlets.

And they wonder why President Trump wants to build a wall, restrict travel from certain countries, hammers on the Democrats, doesn't trust the judiciary, and calls the liberal media "fake news"?

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Sunday, August 26, 2018

New Amsterdam: Where's the Money?

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

NBC has a new show called "New Amsterdam" coming in the Fall Season about a public hospital that puts the Democrat Party's socialist pipe dream of universalized medicine into a television series.  The program's advertisements talk about putting patients first, treating regardless of insurance coverage, getting rid of waiting rooms, and operating without seeking profit.

If NBC wants to truly do this right, they should also run the television show without profit.  No advertisers.  No paychecks above a "livable wage" for the actors and behind the scenes personnel.  Put it also online so we don't have to wait until the day of the week it comes on.

The show, like the hospital if it was launched in the real world, would be off the air in weeks, if it was able to get out the gate at all.

Without profit there is no incentive.  When government claims to offer something for free, the takers storm the gates and overrun the system.  In the case of a hospital of the kind the television show is about, the waiting room wouldn't be big enough for all of the people arriving wanting free care.  The doctors and nurses, overworked and underpaid, would abandon their posts and seek private practices where they can make a good living without the socialist B.S.  The costs would eventually exceed expectations, and to try to trim expenditures the facility would begin to ration health care, and offer end of life counseling and assemble death panels.

Remember, as Margaret Thatcher so reminded us, "The trouble with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money."

Let's also remember (also a Thatcher quote), "There is no such thing as public money; there is only taxpayers' money."

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Jacksonville Video Game Tournament Shooting

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

News coming out of Florida is grave.  A shooting has occurred, but the details of what led to the shooting remain unknown at this early juncture.  What we know is that one suspect is dead, but it is unknown if there was multiple shooters.  Eleven people, it is being reported, have been shot.  At least four people are dead, but the number of casualties may rise as more details become known.

The shooting occurred at a video game tournament in Jacksonville, Florida being held at a pizza restaurant and game bar.  A large number of young people had gathered to participate in and observe the gaming competition.  Sixteen is the minimum age to compete in the Madden 19 football tournament.  This is an ongoing tournament, which adds the possibility that this was a planned shooting that anticipated that young people would be gathered at the location.  The reason for targeting young people remains unknown, and is nothing I could fathom.

One theory is that this could be the continuation of gang related violence that occurred two nights prior at an area High School Football Game where one was left dead, and two were injured when a shooter opened fire on the grounds.

"Chilling" is always the word that comes to mind when I hear that someone could be so senseless and go out and kill innocent people in such a way.

I want to emphasize the importance of how we view this incident as the facts become known.  The democrats will politicize this as an excuse to call for more gun control.  The reality is that the attack is the fault of the shooter, not the firearm.  The left calling for the removal of firearms from the hands of law-abiding citizens due to the actions of criminal minds is mind-boggling.  Even more mind-boggling is the understanding that if they eventually get their way, and eventually all guns are confiscated from Americans, that would mean that only government would have all of the guns.  But, they believe the current government is a fascist regime.  Why would they wish for the fascists to be the only ones with guns?

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Video: Constitution Class, Introduction to the Legislative Branch

The audio is not the greatest on this one.  You'll probably need a headset and careful listening skills for this one.

By Douglas V. Gibbs

Saturday, August 25, 2018

John McCain, End of an Era

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

The White House flag is at half-staff due to the fact that The Maverick, known as such due to his tendency to sometimes vote against the Republican Party, has passed away.  Shortly after announcing he was no longer going to be receiving treatments for his brain cancer, U.S. Senator John McCain has died.  He was the GOP nominee for President of the United States in 2008, and has been a U.S. Senator since 1986 after four years in the House of Representatives.  He replaced Barry Goldwater when he was first elected to the Senate.

The 81-year old was also a Vietnam War veteran who was captured, and survived five years as a prisoner of war.  He went to Vietnam in 1958 after graduating from the Naval Academy.  In 1967 his attack aircraft was struck by a surface-to-air missile over Hanoi.  His injuries included a restricted movement of his arms apparent to those around him for the rest of his life.

McCain was diagnosed with brain cancer in July of 2017, of which doctors discovered while removing a blood clot from above his left eye.  A large scar above his eye remained visible after the procedure.  While he outlived expectations in seemingly defiance of the affliction, the progress of the disease and the advancement of his age added up to the reality that the end was near.

Prayers go out to his family and loved ones.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Constitution Radio Preempted by L.A. Rams Football

Last Saturday and today the Constitution Radio with Douglas V. Gibbs radio program on KMET 1490-AM was preempted by Los Angeles Rams Football.  We return Saturday, September 1, with a live program.  Our guest will be Bryan Dey, featured in the video below.  He's a Mexican Comedian from Los Angeles with a common sense viewpoint on immigration that is both refreshing, and rare, especially when it comes to folks from Los Angeles.

See you next Saturday.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Friday, August 24, 2018

Bad Socialism Versus Good Socialism

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

The reality is, the title of this article (Bad Socialism versus Good Socialism) is a statement that can't exist, because there is no such thing as "good socialism."  Whether it happens quickly, or slowly, socialism always ends in death and destruction.


In a socialist society the means of production is communally owned through government.  In other words, individualism, and individual incentive, is eliminated for the good of the collective, and then controlled by the benevolent forces of government (because we know government always wants what's best for us, and can be fully trusted).  But, when the collective is more important than the individual, the individual will not work for what's best for the collective because the truth is they don't have any individual incentive to do so.

As for the government owning the means of production, that's fine until people realize they have no incentive and no longer put forth their best effort.  Once that happens, government simply lowers the hammer and forces them to do as it wishes.

Socialism cannot exist unless producers produce at a high level, and producers won't produce unless they have an incentive of profit.  So, in the end, socialism collapses because eventually all of the producers become takers, and production ceases.

While for us that may be common sense, the younger generation does not understand these self-evident truths because the liberal left Democrats have been feeding them the fairy tale of socialism all of their lives, and without letting them know that when human nature slows down production, governmental totalitarianism will kick in to force them to work their fair share.

When I explain all of this to our latest generation of youths, today's young American socialists tell me, "maybe in the past that may have been true, but that's because the right people weren't applying socialist principles.  It will work much better in America because we have the right people to do it."

When I asked about the failure of Venezuela, I have been told that the destruction of Venezuela was not because of socialism, but because Maduro's government didn't have enough resolve to stand up against the international and American corporations that were working to destroy his efforts.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary