Constitution Radio: Texas Blast, London Knifing, D.C. Circus, Dems Unconstitutionality

Constitution Radio with Douglas V. Gibbs KMET 1490-AM 1-3 pm on Saturday Afternoon archived podcast at  https://soundcloud.com/kmet-1490-am/sets/constitution-radio Plant Blast in Texas leads to Mandatory Evacuations London Bridge Knife attacker convicted terrorist released last year Impeachment Circus hurts Dems, strengthens Trump's ratings in the polls Was there Quid Pro Quo? Netanyahu being investigated and attached same as Trump Incestuous Nepotism between Dems and Media Democrat Debate: Every wishlist policy is unconstitution Medicare for all Wealth Tax (Closing the Wealth Gap) Climate Change Taking on Big Tech Gun Control Affordable Housing Decriminalization of Illegal Border Crossings Legalize Marijuana End Mass Incarceration of Blacks Reproductive Rights (Abortion) Federal Election Reform Abolishing the Electoral College Packing the Supreme Court Universal Childcare Universal Pre-K Education Free College Reparations National Service Program Requiring Equal Pay Certification from companies to make sure they are paying different races and genders fairly Universal Basic Income LGBTQ Rights -----------

The Real Story of Thanksgiving

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

... as told by Rush Limbaugh

The REAL STORY OF THANKSGIVING

"Well, let's allow our real undoctored American history lesson to unfold further. If our schools and the media have twisted the historical record when it comes to Columbus, they have obliterated the contributions of America's earliest permanent settlers, the Pilgrims. Why? Because they were a people inspired by profound religious beliefs to overcome incredible odds. Today, public schools are simply not teaching how important the religious dimension was in shaping our history and our nation's character. Whether teachers are just uncomfortable with this material or whether there's been a concerted effort to cover up the truth, the results are the same. Kids are no longer learning enough to understand and appreciate how and why America was created.

"The story of the Pilgrims begins in the early part of the seventeenth century The Church of England under King James I was persecuting anyone and everyone who did not recognize its absolute civil and spiritual authority. Those who challenged ecclesiastical authority and those who believed strongly in freedom of worship were hunted down, imprisoned, and sometimes executed for their beliefs. A group of separatists first fled to Holland and established a community. After eleven years, about forty of them agreed to make a perilous journey to the New World, where they would certainly face hardships, but could live and worship God according to the dictates of their own consciences. On August 1, 1620, the Mayflower set sail. It carried a total of 102 passengers, including forty Pilgrims led by William Bradford. On the journey, Bradford set up an agreement, a contract, that established just and equal laws for all members of the new community, irrespective of their religious beliefs. Where did the revolutionary ideas expressed in the Mayflower Compact come from? From the Bible.

"The Pilgrims were a people completely steeped in the lessons of the Old and New Testaments. They looked to the ancient Israelites for their example. And, because of the biblical precedents set forth in Scripture, they never doubted that their experiment would work. But this was no pleasure cruise, friends. The journey to the New World was a long and arduous one. And when the Pilgrims landed in New England in November, they found, according to Bradford's detailed journal, a cold, barren, desolate wilderness. There were no friends to greet them, he wrote. There were no houses to shelter them. There were no inns where they could refresh themselves. And the sacrifice they had made for freedom was just beginning. During the first winter, half the Pilgrims – including Bradford's own wife – died of either starvation, sickness or exposure. When spring finally came, Indians taught the settlers how to plant corn, fish for cod and skin beavers for coats. Life improved for the Pilgrims, but they did not yet prosper!

"This is important to understand because this is where modern American history lessons often end. Thanksgiving is actually explained in some textbooks as a holiday for which the Pilgrims gave thanks to the Indians for saving their lives, rather than as a devout expression of gratitude grounded in the tradition of both the Old and New Testaments. Here is the part that has been omitted: The original contract the Pilgrims had entered into with their merchant-sponsors in London called for everything they produced to go into a common store, and each member of the community was entitled to one common share. All of the land they cleared and the houses they built belong to the community as well. Bradford, who had become the new governor of the colony, recognized that this form of collectivism was as costly and destructive to the Pilgrims as that first harsh winter, which had taken so many lives.

"He decided to take bold action. Bradford assigned a plot of land to each family to work and manage, thus turning loose the power of the marketplace. That's right. Long before Karl Marx was even born, the Pilgrims had discovered and experimented with what could only be described as socialism. And what happened? It didn't work! Surprise, surprise, huh? What Bradford and his community found was that the most creative and industrious people had no incentive to work any harder than anyone else, unless they could utilize the power of personal motivation! But while most of the rest of the world has been experimenting with socialism for well over a hundred years – trying to refine it, perfect it, and re-invent it – the Pilgrims decided early on to scrap it permanently. What Bradford wrote about this social experiment should be in every schoolchild's history lesson if it were, we might prevent much needless suffering in the future."

Now, I'm going to cease and desist at this point because I don't want to get started and have to interrupt myself for a commercial break with the passage from Bradford in his journal about the decision to scrap socialism, this common share business, and he turned everybody loose, and this new social experiment, forerunner to capitalism, is profoundly detailed in his journal.

Here now, in its entirety, the William Bradford journal, what he wrote about the social experiment after abandoning what essentially was socialism shortly after the Pilgrims had arrived in the United States or in the new world:

"'The experience that we had in this common course and condition, tried sundry years...that by taking away property, and bringing community into a common wealth, would make them happy and flourishing – as if they were wiser than God,' Bradford wrote. 'For this community [so far as it was] was found to breed much confusion and discontent, and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort. For young men that were most able and fit for labor and service did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men's wives and children without any recompense...that was thought injustice.' Do you hear what he was saying, ladies and gentlemen? The Pilgrims found that people could not be expected to do their best work without incentive. So what did Bradford's community try next? They un-harnessed the power of good old free enterprise by invoking the under girding capitalistic principle of private property. Every family was assigned its own plot of land to work and permitted to market its own crops and products.'"

Not just use themselves and not just send to a common store but they could market. They could grow as much, they could sell it for what they could get for it, and the incentive was clear to do as much as possible on both sides. "And what was the result? 'This had very good success,' wrote Bradford, 'for it made all hands industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been.' Bradford doesn't sound like much of a Clintonite, does he? Is it possible that supply-side economics could have existed before the 1980s? Yes. Read the story of Joseph and Pharaoh in Genesis 41. Following Joseph's suggestion (Gen 41:34), Pharaoh reduced the tax on Egyptians to 20% during the 'seven years of plenty' and the 'Earth brought forth in heaps.' (Gen. 41:47) In no time, the Pilgrims found they had more food than they could eat themselves. So they set up trading posts and exchanged goods with the Indians. The profits allowed them to pay off their debts to the merchants in London. And the success and prosperity of the Plymouth settlement attracted more Europeans and began what came to be known as the 'Great Puritan Migration.' Now, let me ask you: Have you read this history before? Is this lesson being taught to your children today? If not, why not? Can you think of a more important lesson one could derive from the Pilgrim experience?

"Guess what? There's even more that is being deliberately withheld from our modern textbooks. For example, one of those attracted to the new world by the success of Plymouth was Thomas Hooker. Thomas Hooker established his own community in Connecticut, the first full-fledged constitutional community, perhaps the most free society the world had ever known. Hooker's community was governed by the fundamental orders of Connecticut, which established strict limits on the powers of government. So revolutionary and successful was this idea that Massachusetts was inspired to adopt its body of liberties. The body of liberties included ninety-eight separate protections of individual rights, including no taxation without representation, due process of law, trial by a jury of peers, and prohibitions against cruel and unusual punishment. Now, those no doubt sound familiar to you and they should because these are ideas and concepts that led directly to the U.S. Constitution and the U.S. Bill of Rights."

"Nevertheless, the Pilgrims and the Puritans of early New England are often vilified today as witch burners and portrayed as simpletons. But to the contrary, it was their commitment to pluralism and free worship that led to these ideals being incorporated into American history, and our history books purposely conceal the fact that these notions were developed by communities of devout Christians who studied the Bible and found that it prescribes limited representative government and free enterprise as the best political and economic systems. Now, there's only one word for this, folks. It's censorship. There was a time when every schoolchild did learn these basic lessons of the American culture. Now these truths are being and have been systematically expunged from history books in favor of liberal social studies clap trap," and the chapter goes on. "This brings us to our Founding Fathers, the geniuses who crafted the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution.

"These were men who shook up the entire world by proclaiming the idea that people had certain God-given freedoms and rights and that the government's only reason to exist was to protect those freedoms and rights from both internal and external forces -- and that simple, yet brilliant, insight has been all but lost today in liberalism's relentless march toward bigger, more powerful, more intrusive government," and that's why I wanted to add to the reading today the George Washington First Thanksgiving proclamation in 1789. Thanksgiving was about thanking God for bounty and freedom and opportunity and blessings. Thanksgiving is a time we celebrate the Pilgrims realizing the best way to enjoy prosperity in a new world that was foreign to them. Yes, there was cooperation with the Indians and, yes, the Indians did extend the handshake of freedom when we arrived by teaching the Pilgrims how to farm and so forth, but after that, all the bounty that was created by the first settlers were shared with the Indians.

There was no wiping them out. There was no infiltration. There was no introduction of various diseases and -isms like environmental wackoism or sexism or racism or any of this, as have been attached in recent multicultural curricula to the so-called white Europeans who invaded this pristine land and destroyed the goodness and the oneness that the Indians enjoyed with this land. That's what's being taught today. What is not being taught today is the devotion to God that these people had, but the failure of a socialist compact to adequately provide for the residents of the first colony and how William Bradford himself saw it was failing almost from the outset and devised a new compact which was basically capitalism and unfettered competition, and incentive, and then it was Katie bar the door. All of these things are part of the original Thanksgiving, and even when I go back and remember my days in school, I was not taught this. I was not taught the involvement and the references to God.

I was not taught that the Pilgrims had all this bounty after awhile and shared it with the Indians. It was quite the opposite. The purpose of teaching Thanksgiving when I was a kid was to tell all of us just how wonderful the Indians were and how well they treated us when we arrived because we were basically inept and incompetent. I enjoy passing this story along every Thanksgiving because we've been doing it here since I published and wrote the book, and the book is actually 1993. It came out in November of '93. By the end of the year, it had sold two million copies, and since then, I guess this is our 11th year now of reading the real story of Thanksgiving, and it always reaches new people. Every year we do it, people who have never heard it before are amazed. Now, if I was able to find it and get the true story, it's out there, but it's not in conventional history textbooks that you'll find in many of the public schools.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Video: Sacred Honor

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




-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Recalls, impeachments and Banning Councilman Happe

Opinion by Allan McNew

I know little about the inner workings of local politics within the City of Banning, Ca. However, the recent petition to recall District 4 Councilman David Happe has a common whiff of politics in general.

I have had a couple of conversations of a political nature with Mr. Happe. These were reasonable, two way discussions on his part, not the normal bob and weave, change the subject to shape a shout down narrative that so often characterizes political conversation.

There is a varying degree of “whats in it for me” in politics of any type. Stalin and Hitler couldn’t have done what they did without rewards for those who supported them. The same is true for any morally upright politician who would even think about being a success. In nearly all aspects of life there is a never ending negotiation of quid pro quo, some unsaid yet expected, some far more acceptable than others. On one hand, this works towards an orderly and cooperative society, on the other whatever is “fair” can go out the window when one self interested party has an advantage over the self interested other. It is never good when one side can be all take and no give and especially when vindictiveness or sociopathy is a factor.

Money, sex and power are said to be the prime motivations for murder. There are plenty of those motivators in all aspects of the politics of competing self interest.

Perhaps newcomer Mr Happe represents a perceived threat to those who benefit from the status quo and those stepped on toes lashed back with an apparently slanderous recall effort.

Politics in general can be a nasty business. Epic power struggles; inventive, vicious slander that goes far beyond the immediate participants; half the observers trashing the other half and sometimes anyone and everyone else not present.

This can be seen in any organizational model including but certainly not limited to, the direct democracy of fraternal organizations; the hierarchy of corporate business structure; municipal, county, and state governments along with the national indirect democracy of our Representative Republic.

Welcome to governmental politics, Dave.

Mr. Happe commented in part that to have a recall for anything other than criminal activity is a waste of time, that just because your taxes are going up or your candidate didn’t win is no reason to have a recall of the governor or impeachment of the president. Mr. Happe is looking at this through the lens of his own political experience.

Governor Gray Davis was a participating factor of exploding retail energy costs and further raising the cost of living. if I remember right what broke the camel’s back was raising the vehicle license fee and the recall was on. It was a broad spectrum of “what’s in it for me” that booted Davis out of Sacramento.

Governor Newsom is presiding over what I perceive to be an all out assault on the middle class with taxes and living costs soaring out of sight due to Sacramento’s one party, ideological agenda. If the split tax role effort succeeds and cap and trade inflates energy prices next year Mr. Happe may well be squealing like a stuck hog because the property tax he pays, directly through ownership or indirectly through the landlord, is going to rise to stratospheric levels, his wholesale costs will go way up, his employees may want a raise to cope with the increased cost of living, and his customers are going to have less disposable income to spend in his restaurant while Mr Happe may need to raise prices to cover his costs. There is a lot of “what’s in it for me” for Mr. Happe’s constituency, his business, his employees, his customers and Mr. Happe himself.

Newson would be removed from office for those reasons by the same direct democracy voters that put him in office.

On the other hand, if during his candidacy for councilman Mr. Happe’s electoral opponent had conspired with key unelected members of city hall to trash him to the public by buying and leaking invented fourth party fantasy, then those same elements of city hall and elected political opponents worked on nothing but his removal from office the second he was elected and, while conducting a conviction in search of a crime to prosecute, kept a grand jury occupied for years with all sorts of hearsay snipe hunting to run him out of office without seeking the unpolarized consensus of both the elected body and the constituency at large. And, while in the process of manufacturing a case for removal the accusers did all the very same things they accused him of, then Mr. Happe might have a point about recalls being a universal waste of time.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Constitution Radio: A Deadly Socialist Road

Constitution Radio with Douglas V. Gibbs KMET 1490-AM 1-3 pm on Saturday Afternoon archived podcast at  https://soundcloud.com/kmet-1490-am/sets/constitution-radio Impeachment Circus Was there Quid Pro Quo? Netanyahu Incestuous Nepotism between Dems and Media Democrat Debate: Every wishlist policy is unconstitution Medicare for all Wealth Tax (Closing the Wealth Gap) Climate Change Taking on Big Tech Gun Control Affordable Housing Decriminalization of Illegal Border Crossings Legalize Marijuana End Mass Incarceration of Blacks Reproductive Rights (Abortion) Federal Election Reform Abolishing the Electoral College Packing the Supreme Court Universal Childcare Universal Pre-K Education Free College Reparations National Service Program Requiring Equal Pay Certification from companies to make sure they are paying different races and genders fairly Universal Basic Income LGBTQ Rights -----------

Episode 002: Constitution Podcast - Impeachment, Kaepernick, Netanyahu, Ukraine, Quid Pro Quo, Chick Fil A

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




-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Temecula Constitution Class: Judicial Abuse and Fixing the Electoral College

Class is on tonight!  And, we may have a special guest ... a fellow constitutionalist of whom I have referenced in your handouts.  See you tonight. Temecula Constitution Class Wednesdays 6:00 pm GOP HQ 28120 Jefferson Ave. Temecula, CA   Constitution Class Handout Instructor: Douglas V. Gibbs   www.politicalpistachio.com www.douglasvgibbs.com www.constitutionassociation.com   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. Terms: 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?   Resources   Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 Dall. 419 (1793), Cornell College - Politics: http://cornellcollege.edu/politics/courses/allin/365-366/documents/chisholm_v_georgia.html Jefferson's Draft of the Kentucky Resolutions - October 1798, Avalon Project, Yale University: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/jeffken.asp Joseph Andrews, A Guide for Learning and Teaching The Declaration of Independence and The U.S. Constitution - Learning from the Original Texts Using Classical Learning Methods of the Founders; San Marcos: The Center for Teaching the Constitution (2010). Philip B. Kurland and Ralph Lerner, The Founder's Constitution - Volume Five - Amendments I-XII; Indianapolis: Liberty Fund (1987). Virginia Resolution of 1798, Constitution.org: http://www.constitution.org/cons/virg1798.htm       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.   Terms:   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   Resources   David McCollough, John Adams; New York: Simon and Schuster. (2002) 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

Constitution Study Television: Violence

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

After last Thursday Night Football's violent ending where a Brown's defender, Myles Garret, pulled the helmet off of the Steelers' quarterbacks' head and then used the piece of equipment as a weapon to strike the QB in the head with the helmet, I immediately recognized the anger and violence as being a sign of the times.  Why has society gotten so violent?  Did the Founding Fathers see this coming?  Is violence addressed by the U.S. Constitution or in the writings of the Framers?




-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Tonight, Judicial Branch, Corona Constitution Class

Corona Constitution Class Tuesdays, 6:00 pm CARSTAR/ALLSTAR Collision 522 Railroad Street Corona, CA Constitution Class Handout Instructor: Douglas V. Gibbs   www.politicalpistachio.com www.douglasvgibbs.com www.constitutionassociation.com       Lesson 08   Judicial Branch   Establish Justice   The United States Constitution was written to establish a federal government for the United States of America. Article III establishes the federal court system. Article I, Section 8 gives the Congress the power to "constitute tribunals inferior to the supreme Court." Given the power to establish these courts, Congress also has the authority to do away with any of these inferior courts. This power of Congress is repeated in Article III, Section 1 during the first sentence.   When reading Article III, one must keep in mind the fact that the article was specifically written to affect the federal court system, not the state courts. The authorities contained within this article, and the restrictions thereof, are to be applied to the federal courts, not the state courts. One must also bear in mind, as one reads this article, the additional limits 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.   In other words if citizens of a State sues a State, or foreign government sues a State, the case can't go to the federal courts. The highest that case can go is the State Supreme Court. These limitations placed upon the court system by the 11th Amendment were proposed by the people (House of Representatives) and the States (Senate), and finally ratified by the States, in order to better control a federal court system that was attempting to compromise State Sovereignty. Judges, the lesson of the 11th Amendment shows us, are not the wielders of the rule of law. They are not the powerful men of honor when it comes to the law. The guardians of the rule of law are the people, and the States. The courts had proven that they can become an enemy of the law, proclaiming that their rulings are the rule of law, but as the 11th Amendment reminds us, the judges are merely men, and their system is the rule of man attempting to manipulate the law through their rulings. For their bad behavior, the people and the States judged them, and further limited them with a new constitutional amendment.     Good Behavior   The conventional understanding of the terms of federal judges is that they receive lifetime appointments because no time restriction is placed upon them in the Constitution. The only limitation on term placed upon the judges can be found in Article III, Section 1 where the Constitution states that judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, "shall hold their offices during good behavior." Conventional wisdom dictates that bad behavior is defined as unlawful activities.   The definition of bad behavior is not limited to only illegal activities. Judges take an oath to preserve, protect, and defend the United States Constitution, which is the Law of the Land. Bad behavior, then, from the point of view of the Founding Fathers, may also include unconstitutional actions, or failure to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution.   Impeachment by Congress may be used if a judge acts in bad behavior. If a judge refuses to attend the hearing at the behest of the United States Senate, the federal marshall may be used to retrieve the judge, and compel them to stand before Congress to answer for their bad behavior. Congress is the check and balance against the courts, not the other way around.           Limits   The powers of the federal courts "shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority."   The federal courts, in other words, may hear all cases that fall within their authority. These cases are regarding those in which the federal government has authority, be it by laws passed within the authorities granted to the federal government by the Constitution, or regarding issues related to treaties made that have been signed by the President and ratified by the U.S. Senate. The courts may not hear cases that are regarding issues not within the authorities of the federal government.   A recent example would be the flurry of federal court rulings against State laws defining marriage as between a man and a woman. In California, the State's attempt to protect the government definition of marriage was with Proposition 8. The proposition changed the State Constitution to read that marriage is between a man and a woman. Marriage is not an issue that falls under the authorities of the federal government as expressly granted by the Constitution, nor is the issue of marriage prohibited to the States. Therefore, as per the authorities granted, and not granted, in line with the 10th Amendment, the government authority over marriage is reserved to the States. Since the issue of marriage is a State issue, the case should not have gone beyond the State Supreme Court. The federal courts hearing the case regarding Proposition 8, or any of the State laws regarding marriage, are acting unconstitutionally. The governors of these States, whose marriage laws were overturned by an activist federal court system, have the right to disregard all rulings by the federal courts on this issue. The action of ignoring the rulings is a type of nullification, and States have the right to nullify unconstitutional laws or actions by the federal government..   Other limitations have been placed upon the federal courts as well. The 11th Amendment changed 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. The 11th Amendment was encouraged by a federal case called Chisolm v. Georgia (1793).     Chisolm v. Georgia (1793)   An increasing problem with federal intrusion on the States via the federal court system culminated in 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 the State of 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 judges in the court system tended to embrace a nationalist view of the federal government, and their nationalist point of view encouraged the judges to deem that in the Chisolm v. Georgia 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 a more powerful part of government over the federal judiciary.   Authorities   The 10th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America states that the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, or prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. The federal courts are included in that, as being a part of the United States federal government. As a result of the nature of how federal authorities are granted, the federal court system can only hear cases that fall within the constitutional authorities for the federal government.   When one understands the importance of protecting state sovereignty, and that the courts are supposed to be very limited in their scope and power, Article III becomes much simpler to understand.   As stated earlier in this section, the first sentence of Article III, Section 2, reads: The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States (which are only supposed to be passed if they are within the authorities granted by the Constitution), and Treaties made . . .   Notice the phrase, "arising under this Constitution." If the case is not involving the federal government as one of the parties, or is not regarding an issue that falls under the authorities of the U.S. Constitution, the federal courts can simply not take the case. The State Supreme Court, in those cases, is the highest court the case can go to.     Judicial Review   Federal judges maintain that the federal courts 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 concept of the separation of powers, and other much-touted limits on power. The final arbiters of the Constitution are not the courts, argued the Founding Fathers who supported the foundation of 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.   In today's society it is commonly accepted that one of the roles of the federal court system is to interpret the Constitution, and issue rulings determining the constitutionality of laws. The Constitution does not grant this authority. The power of Judicial Review was given to the courts by themselves.   The first attempt to establish "Judicial Review" as an authority to the federal court system was through the Judiciary act of 1789, but the authority allowing the United States federal courts to hear a civil case because the plaintiff has alleged a violation of the United States Constitution, federal law, or a treaty to which the United States is a party, was limited to only the United States Supreme Court. The lower federal courts, at this point, were not allowed hear cases questioning the federal government's "federal question jurisdiction." Anti-federalists, and Jefferson Republicans immediately railed against the legislation, arguing that legislation cannot determine authorities granted.   The Federalists, in an attempt to allow the lower courts to wield the power of judicial review, briefly created such jurisdiction in the Judiciary Act of 1801, but it was repealed the following year. Unable to establish the federal court system as the final arbiters of the United States Constitution through legislative means, the Federalists turned to the courts themselves to drive into place the controversial authority.   During John Adams' final moments in the presidency, he appointed a whole host of "midnight judges" (appointing 16 Federalist circuit judges and 42 Federalist justices of the peace to offices created by the Judiciary Act of 1801) in the hopes of retaining federalist control of the courts as Jefferson's Democratic-Republicans gained control of the Congress, and Jefferson himself accepted the presidency.   Thomas Jefferson's Democratic-Republicans were appalled by the appointment of the Midnight Judges, recognizing the stacking of the courts as a desperate attempt by the Federalists to try and continue Federalist influence despite their election loss. In Jefferson's view, the Federalists "retired into the judiciary as a stronghold . . . and from that battery all the works of Republicanism are to be beaten down and destroyed."   While Adams was still in office, most of the commissions for these newly appointed judges were delivered. However, unable to deliver all of them before Adams' term expired, some of them were left to be delivered by the incoming Secretary of State, James Madison. Jefferson ordered them not to be delivered, and without the commissions delivered, the remaining new appointees were unable to assume the offices and duties to which they had been appointed to by Adams. In Jefferson's opinion, the undelivered commissions were void.   One of those appointed judges was a man named William Marbury. He sued, and the case worked its way up to the Supreme Court. After all of the dust settled, on February 24, 1803, the Court rendered a unanimous (4-0) decision that Marbury had the right to his commission, but the court did not have the power to force Madison to deliver the commission. Chief Justice Marshall wrote the opinion of the court, and in that opinion he wrote that the federal court system has the power of judicial review. Rather than simply applying the law to the cases, Marshall decided, based on case law and precedent, that the courts have the authority to determine the validity of the law as well. This opinion, however, went against all of the limitations placed on the courts by the Constitution.   One of the most obvious fundamental principles of the Constitution is the limitations it places on the federal government. The Constitution is designed not to tell the federal government what it can't do, but to offer enumerated powers to which the authorities of the federal government are limited to. The powers are granted by the States, and any additional authorities must also be approved by the States through the ratification of any proposed amendments. It takes 3/4 of the States to ratify an amendment. The congressional proposal of an amendment, with the ratification of that amendment, in the simplest terms, is the federal government asking the States for permission to a particular authority.   The power of Judicial Review, or the authority to determine if laws are constitutional, was not granted to the courts by the States in the Constitution. The courts took that power upon themselves through Justice Marshall's opinion of Marbury v. Madison.   The federal courts are a part of the federal government. The Constitution was designed to limit the authorities of the federal government by granting only a limited number of powers. Judicial Review enables the federal government, through the courts, to determine if the laws that the federal government made are constitutional. In other words, the federal government, through Judicial Review, can determine for itself what its own authorities are.   The idea that the federal court system has the authority to interpret the Constitution, and can decide if a law is constitutional or not, is unconstitutional, and is simply an attempt by those that believe in big government to gain power, and work towards a more centralized big federal governmental system.     Original Jurisdiction   In Article III, Section 2, Clause 2 the Constitution reads: "In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction."   What this means is that in all of those above listed cases, the federal appellate courts cannot take the case. Such cases must bypass the federal appellate system, and go straight to the Supreme Court. Since one of those stipulations is in regards to cases "in which a State shall be a Party," that means that the case "U.S. v. Arizona" where the federal government sued Arizona to block the State's immigration law, was unconstitutional. It was unconstitutional for the inferior federal courts to hear the case. The Supreme Court had original jurisdiction. Therefore, when the district court ruled in July of 2010 on the case, and struck down parts of the Arizona immigration law, not only did that court not have jurisdiction to hear the case in the first place, but the very act of striking down portions of the law was unconstitutional. After all, Article I, Section 1 grants the legislative branch all legislative powers, and those powers would include the ability to strike down law. The courts were not vested with any legislative powers, and therefore cannot strike down laws, or portions of laws.     Trial by Jury   Article III, Section II, Clause 3 sets up the right to a trial by jury, except in the cases of impeachment.   This clause also requires that a trial must be held in the state where the crime was committed. If the crime was not committed in any particular state, then the trial is held in such a place as set forth by the Congress.       Treason   Article III, Section 3 defines treason, as well as the granting of the power by the Congress to declare the punishment. When the Constitution says that "no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attained," it means that the punishment cannot be inherited or passed down (corruption of blood), nor shall the person be denied due process (attainder).   Corruption of blood also means that all inheritable qualities are destroyed, and the Founding Fathers did not believe this English practice should be an American one.   No forfeiture meant that despite treason, the properties of the person could not be forfeited to the government. The property would remain as property of the individual, or remain with family. Even when it came to the despicable act of treason, the founders believed that the individual should be able to retain certain rights.     Terms:   Corruption of Blood: Punishment inherited or passed down, all inheritable qualities are destroyed.   Judicial Review: The unconstitutional authority of the federal courts to review law, interpret the Constitution regarding laws, and then determine the constitutionality of laws.   Original Jurisdiction: In the Constitution the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction on some cases, which means the case must proceed directly to the Supreme Court, and the high court must make a determination on whether or not to accept the case.   Treason:Levying war against the States, or adhering to the enemies of the States, giving aid and comfort to the enemy.   Questions for Discussion:   1. How would life in the United States be different if there was no federal court system?   2. Why did the Founding Fathers limit the authorities of the federal courts?   3. How has Judicial Review changed our system of government?   4. Why do you think the Supreme Court has Original Jurisdiction over some cases?   5. In what ways is the presence of a Judicial Branch important?   Resources:   Draft of the Kentucky Resolutions (Jefferson's Draft), Avalon Project, Yale University: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/jeffken.asp   Madison's Notes Constitutional Convention, Avalon Project, Yale University: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/debcont.asp   Virginia Resolution - Alien and Sedition Acts, Avalon Project, Yale University: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/virres.asp Copyright: Douglas V. Gibbs, 2015

Constitution Podcast, Ep. 001, Impeachment, Guns, Election, Violence

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




-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Constitution Radio/Constitution Podcast/YouTube

There will be no Constitution Radio today on KMET 1490 AM due to University of Redlands football.  Whether or not we are on the air next Saturday depends upon if they win today. However, in lieu of the radio program, I plan to make a couple videos today, the inaugural video version of the Constitution Podcast, and Constitution Study Television.  Watch those YouTube channels, your email, and Political Pistachio for those videos, which will likely air this afternoon/evening. Thanks for your fellowship, friendship, and support.  And don't forget, the radio program still needs help financially.  We had a recent $200 donation, but we are still about $300 short.  Please feel free to donate below. Stay Constitutional, and Stay Free. Doug

Incestuous Nepotism of the Liberal Left in Politics, and the Media

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

Email of the Week:

> YES, the CA governor, GAVIN NEWSOME IS NANCY PELOSI'S NEPHEW,

> AND YES, ADAM SHIFF'S SISTER IS MARRIED TO GEORGE SOROS’ SON, AND YES, JOHN KERRY'S DAUGHTER IS MARRIED TO A "MULLAH'S SON IN IRAN................

>

> This is what you call a "stacked deck."

>

> IF YOU HAD A HUNCH THE NEWS SYSTEM WAS SOMEWHAT RIGGED AND YOU COULDN'T PUT YOUR FINGER ON IT, THIS MIGHT HELP YOU SOLVE THE PUZZLE :

>

> ABC  News  executive producer Ian Cameron is married to Susan Rice,  Obama's former National Security Adviser.

>

> CBS  President David Rhodes  is the brother of Ben Rhodes, Obama's Deputy National Security Adviser for Strategic Communications.

>

> ABC  News correspondent Claire Shipman is married to former Obama White House Press Secretary Jay Carney  .

>

> ABC  News and Univision reporter Matthew Jaffe is married to Katie Hogan, Obama's former Deputy Press Secretary.

>

> ABC  President Ben Sherwood is the brother of Obama's former Special Adviser Elizabeth Sherwood.

>

> CNN  President Virginia Moseley is married to former Hillary Clinton's Deputy Secretary Tom Nides  .

>

> This is “Huge” and is a 'partial' list since the same incestuous relationship holds true for NBC/MSNBC and most media outlets. Trump has been right all along. Fake News is generated by this incestuous relationship.

>

> Ya think there might be a little bias in the news?..... Dah!

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary