Thursday, January 30, 2020
Wednesday, January 29, 2020
Oregon Trying to Follow Virginia to the Dark Side
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Author, Speaker, Instructor, Radio Host
California is in shambles. The politically dark blue legislature has done more damage to California's state of freedom and economic health than the lefties were able to accomplish in Detroit. California is on the way to becoming a U.S. version of Venezuela; a failed, dreary socialist dystopia drowning in its own filth and unsustainable promises.
The State of Virginia, recently, thanks to democracy (certain components of being a republic have been taken away, which has enabled this madness ... I'll explain later in the article what I mean by that) went full on Democrat Majority, and among the most egregious laws the commies of the party of the donkey have put into place have been nasty gun control laws that are ready to move into full on gun confiscation mode.
The people of the largely rural and conservative State (save for Norfolk, Richmond, Arlington, and a few other populated areas) responded by telling the Governor and his Democrat Party henchmen that they refuse to comply with the totalitarian gun laws. The Democrats have responded by promising to slam their laws down everyone's throats with an iron fist, largely through the governor's mishandling of the National Guard.
The State of Oregon, largely thanks to the hard-left voters in the Portland area, has offered a number of draconian gun laws as well, but so far the largely rural State has not chased the worst of them. However, many of the other laws that echo the madness of California's dark-side have worked their way through the hoops and hurdles of the legislative process to become law.
Based on the man-made climate change hoax, for example, Oregon has essentially outlawed plastic straws, and gone from the flimsy plastic grocery bags to the thicker reusable ones that nobody reuses.
Once you study what is going on, however, the foundation of the problem is not so much with the liberal left as much as it is with the unconstitutional idea of our States operating as pure democracies, which makes both sides guilty of causing our problem.
The Framers of the U.S. Constitution, with 20/20 hindsight into history, determined that while some democratic processes in our American system of government were necessary, and even a good thing, our system must not be a pure democracy. When it came to the will of the people, just like other parts of government, a system of checks and balances needed to be in place. Our republic was formed to ensure that there was a proper distribution of power between We the People, the States, and the savvy political class. No group was to have full power. The power was intended to be shared, with each group serving as a check against too much ambition by any of the other groups.
Article IV., Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution states that "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government."
What does that mean?
Obviously, they did not mean in that sentence a government run by "Republicans", in the political party sense. What they meant was that the States must be republics, not democracies, oligarchies, theocracies, or any other non-republican form of government.
When I tell you that we are not supposed to be a democracy, that does not mean you are not supposed to have the privilege to vote, or that We the People are supposed to be silenced in the American experiment. It means that certain parts of the government should be voted in by the people, and others should be appointed by certain other parts of the system that serve as a constituency no different than We the People do.
In our system of government, at both the federal and State levels, we have dual constituencies, with We the People existing as only one part of the overall whole. At the Constitutional Convention, for example, it was not just We the People that the delegates in that convention represented, but they were also representatives of the States, and the overall interests of the States. This is why originally the only part of the federal government that was democratically voted into office were the members of the House of Representatives. The President was elected by Electors who were appointed by the State legislatures, and guided by the lobbying efforts of We the People; and the Senators were appointed by the State legislatures. The House was the voice of the people in the federal legislative process, and the U.S. Senate was the voice of the States. Since the representatives of each House of Congress received their seats through a different process by a different constituency, it made the two houses of the bicameral congress different from each other, viewing each issue from a different angle; a healthy way to operate in a republic. While democracy was used to elect the members of the House of Representatives, the whole body (including the U.S. Senate), was created through a republican method, rather than pure democracy.
Like the Senators at the federal level, the Senators at the State level were also appointed by a different part of the constituency than We the People. However, at the State level, the second half of the dual constituency was the counties.
The State Senate districts were the county lines, with one Senator per county, regardless of population (as with the U.S. Senate where it is two Senators per State, regardless of population). However, that was semi-permanently changed by the federal courts (an unconstitutional action in itself) in 1964 when the Warren Court ruled in Reynolds v. Sims that Alabama, and therefore all of the other States, could no longer have the counties appoint State Senators because, in the opinion of the court, the method established by the Founding Fathers is undemocratic.
The court violated Article IV., Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution. It does not say that the United States shall guarantee to each State a democratic form of government. It calls for the federal government to guarantee a republican form of government, which must include the counties appointing the State Senators, rather than them being voted in democratically by gerrymandered districts that have rural senate districts consisting of multiple counties, and Los Angeles County being the home of more than a dozen state senatorial districts.
The Founding Fathers understood that tyranny always rises out of population centers, so they did all they could to ensure the rural voice had a little help against the totalitarian march of mob-rule, a.k.a. democracy. Thomas Jefferson even suggested that the United States should do what it could to be a largely agrarian society, so that large cities did not overpopulate the landscape, and threaten to steal liberty with their communitarian ideas.
Which brings us back to California, Oregon and Virginia. Because of democracy these largely rural and conservative States are being manhandled by the hard-left socialist oligarchs and uniformed voters of their large cities. Because of pure democracy these States have become leftist dystopias where the socialists of the population centers dictate to the rest of the State what they can or can't do, with those policies largely standing against the interests of the rural areas, and completely slamming liberty for all in the face with a socialist iron fist.
If we wish to take back our country, and get it back on track with the U.S. Constitution, then, our primary fight must be to return our system back to a republican form of government, and stamp out pure democracy. That means repealing the 17th Amendment (which would return appointment of the U.S. Senators to the legislative bodies of the States), and overturning Reynolds v. Sims, which would return the method of seating the State Senators back to appointment by the counties.
Instantly, democracy would be on the run, and socialism would be defeated.
Otherwise, the disease that has spread to Oregon and Virginia from hard-left California will continue, and America will continue its slow, goose-step march towards socialism, oligarchy, and ultimately the demise of liberty.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Author, Speaker, Instructor, Radio Host
California is in shambles. The politically dark blue legislature has done more damage to California's state of freedom and economic health than the lefties were able to accomplish in Detroit. California is on the way to becoming a U.S. version of Venezuela; a failed, dreary socialist dystopia drowning in its own filth and unsustainable promises.
The State of Virginia, recently, thanks to democracy (certain components of being a republic have been taken away, which has enabled this madness ... I'll explain later in the article what I mean by that) went full on Democrat Majority, and among the most egregious laws the commies of the party of the donkey have put into place have been nasty gun control laws that are ready to move into full on gun confiscation mode.
The people of the largely rural and conservative State (save for Norfolk, Richmond, Arlington, and a few other populated areas) responded by telling the Governor and his Democrat Party henchmen that they refuse to comply with the totalitarian gun laws. The Democrats have responded by promising to slam their laws down everyone's throats with an iron fist, largely through the governor's mishandling of the National Guard.
The State of Oregon, largely thanks to the hard-left voters in the Portland area, has offered a number of draconian gun laws as well, but so far the largely rural State has not chased the worst of them. However, many of the other laws that echo the madness of California's dark-side have worked their way through the hoops and hurdles of the legislative process to become law.
Based on the man-made climate change hoax, for example, Oregon has essentially outlawed plastic straws, and gone from the flimsy plastic grocery bags to the thicker reusable ones that nobody reuses.
Once you study what is going on, however, the foundation of the problem is not so much with the liberal left as much as it is with the unconstitutional idea of our States operating as pure democracies, which makes both sides guilty of causing our problem.
The Framers of the U.S. Constitution, with 20/20 hindsight into history, determined that while some democratic processes in our American system of government were necessary, and even a good thing, our system must not be a pure democracy. When it came to the will of the people, just like other parts of government, a system of checks and balances needed to be in place. Our republic was formed to ensure that there was a proper distribution of power between We the People, the States, and the savvy political class. No group was to have full power. The power was intended to be shared, with each group serving as a check against too much ambition by any of the other groups.
Article IV., Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution states that "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government."
What does that mean?
Obviously, they did not mean in that sentence a government run by "Republicans", in the political party sense. What they meant was that the States must be republics, not democracies, oligarchies, theocracies, or any other non-republican form of government.
When I tell you that we are not supposed to be a democracy, that does not mean you are not supposed to have the privilege to vote, or that We the People are supposed to be silenced in the American experiment. It means that certain parts of the government should be voted in by the people, and others should be appointed by certain other parts of the system that serve as a constituency no different than We the People do.
In our system of government, at both the federal and State levels, we have dual constituencies, with We the People existing as only one part of the overall whole. At the Constitutional Convention, for example, it was not just We the People that the delegates in that convention represented, but they were also representatives of the States, and the overall interests of the States. This is why originally the only part of the federal government that was democratically voted into office were the members of the House of Representatives. The President was elected by Electors who were appointed by the State legislatures, and guided by the lobbying efforts of We the People; and the Senators were appointed by the State legislatures. The House was the voice of the people in the federal legislative process, and the U.S. Senate was the voice of the States. Since the representatives of each House of Congress received their seats through a different process by a different constituency, it made the two houses of the bicameral congress different from each other, viewing each issue from a different angle; a healthy way to operate in a republic. While democracy was used to elect the members of the House of Representatives, the whole body (including the U.S. Senate), was created through a republican method, rather than pure democracy.
Like the Senators at the federal level, the Senators at the State level were also appointed by a different part of the constituency than We the People. However, at the State level, the second half of the dual constituency was the counties.
The State Senate districts were the county lines, with one Senator per county, regardless of population (as with the U.S. Senate where it is two Senators per State, regardless of population). However, that was semi-permanently changed by the federal courts (an unconstitutional action in itself) in 1964 when the Warren Court ruled in Reynolds v. Sims that Alabama, and therefore all of the other States, could no longer have the counties appoint State Senators because, in the opinion of the court, the method established by the Founding Fathers is undemocratic.
The court violated Article IV., Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution. It does not say that the United States shall guarantee to each State a democratic form of government. It calls for the federal government to guarantee a republican form of government, which must include the counties appointing the State Senators, rather than them being voted in democratically by gerrymandered districts that have rural senate districts consisting of multiple counties, and Los Angeles County being the home of more than a dozen state senatorial districts.
The Founding Fathers understood that tyranny always rises out of population centers, so they did all they could to ensure the rural voice had a little help against the totalitarian march of mob-rule, a.k.a. democracy. Thomas Jefferson even suggested that the United States should do what it could to be a largely agrarian society, so that large cities did not overpopulate the landscape, and threaten to steal liberty with their communitarian ideas.
Which brings us back to California, Oregon and Virginia. Because of democracy these largely rural and conservative States are being manhandled by the hard-left socialist oligarchs and uniformed voters of their large cities. Because of pure democracy these States have become leftist dystopias where the socialists of the population centers dictate to the rest of the State what they can or can't do, with those policies largely standing against the interests of the rural areas, and completely slamming liberty for all in the face with a socialist iron fist.
If we wish to take back our country, and get it back on track with the U.S. Constitution, then, our primary fight must be to return our system back to a republican form of government, and stamp out pure democracy. That means repealing the 17th Amendment (which would return appointment of the U.S. Senators to the legislative bodies of the States), and overturning Reynolds v. Sims, which would return the method of seating the State Senators back to appointment by the counties.
Instantly, democracy would be on the run, and socialism would be defeated.
Otherwise, the disease that has spread to Oregon and Virginia from hard-left California will continue, and America will continue its slow, goose-step march towards socialism, oligarchy, and ultimately the demise of liberty.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Saturday, January 25, 2020
The State of Virginia's Guns
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Author, Speaker, Instructor, Radio Host
Good going, Virginia, you once again showed the liberal left the class and level of responsibility gun owners are really all about.
On a side note, thanks to the leftist attack on Virginia, I predict in 2020 the State will not only vote for Trump, but will swing their legislature way back over to the Republican column.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Author, Speaker, Instructor, Radio Host
The Democrats desperately want you to believe that
gun-owning, gun-toting conservatives are dangerous, violent, and only want
their gun rights protected because they are racists who wish to kill anyone who
doesn’t agree with them. In 2009 a smattering
of lefty commentators and politicians portrayed the Tea Party rallies as
gatherings of violent protestors driven by racist rage against President Barack
Obama.
It didn’t work.
Now, the same tactics are in play in Virginia. The mainstream media’s coverage of pro-Second
Amendment protests that took place in Richmond, Virginia reminded me of their
coverage of the Tea Party protests and rallies.
The Virginia rally was a response to the gun control
policies of Governor Ralph Northam and Virginia’s lately bright blue legislature. Northam, participating in the hysteria, called
for a “state of emergency” in response to the protest, and numerous media
outlets predicted it would be marked by “hate” and violence, and overall would
be a menacing and sordid affair.
But, no violence took place, and it appears that only one
person was arrested for violating an anti-mask prohibition put in place by the
governor. There were no lawbreakers, no
white supremacists, and the grounds were cleaned up by the rally-goers, leaving
the site cleaner than before they had arrived.
Pretty impressive, given that the crowd reached an estimated
size of over 20,000 on a very cold day.
The media spent days calling it a white supremacist rally,
since three white supremacists, one of whom is an illegal alien from Canada,
threatened to crash the party. The media
predicted violence at the rally because, you know, how could there not be with
all of those dangerous guns all over the place.
Yet, the media was quick not to report that the rally was peaceful, and
that the white supremacists were nowhere to be seen.
On a side note, thanks to the leftist attack on Virginia, I predict in 2020 the State will not only vote for Trump, but will swing their legislature way back over to the Republican column.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Constitution Radio: It is all coming crashing down for the Democrats
Constitution Radio
with Douglas V. Gibbs
with Douglas V. Gibbs
Get the phone app ... make your smart phone smarter!
1-3 pm Pacific Time on Saturday Afternoon ... or if you miss the show, listen later to the archived podcast at
Call in at
951-922-3532.
- The Democrat Party's 7 Impeachment Managers
- Schiff was discussing "How to take out Trump" with CIA analyst merely two weeks after Trump took office
- ABC/WAPO: Trump at highest job approval rating amid Democrat's Impeachment Trial
- Four Possible Endings to the Senate's Impeachment Trial
- The radicalization of the Democrat Party
- How the Virginia Gun Rally REALLY Went
- California Primary Rigged to be a Disaster
Thursday, January 23, 2020
Constitution Podcast: Impeachment, Burisma, March for Life
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Author, Speaker, Instructor, Radio Host
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Author, Speaker, Instructor, Radio Host
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Wednesday, January 22, 2020
Constitution Class: Reconstruction from the Constitution to Oligarchy
|
NBA Punk Thugs in Training at Kansas, Kansas State Game
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Author, Speaker, Instructor, Radio Host
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Tuesday, January 21, 2020
Constitution Study TV: War Powers
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Author, Speaker, Instructor, Radio Host
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Author, Speaker, Instructor, Radio Host
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Doug joins Next News Network to discuss Trump Impeachment
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Author, Speaker, Instructor, Radio Host
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Author, Speaker, Instructor, Radio Host
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Corona Constitution class, Article 5, amendments and convention
Join us tonight in Corona at Carstar All-Star Collision at 522 Main Street in Corona California. The class begins at 6 p.m. in the upper class room. Our topic tonight is Article 5, amendments and conventions.
Corona Constitution Class
Tuesdays, 6:00 pm
CARSTAR/ALLSTAR Collision
522 Railroad Street
Corona, CA
Constitution Class Handout
Instructor: Douglas V. Gibbs
Lesson 10
Amendments and Conventions
Article V is the section in the Constitution that provides the people and the States the opportunity to change the law of the land if needed by establishing the amendment process. Originally, only the States were going to be able to propose amendments. On the second to the last day of the Constitutional Convention, the Founding Fathers added as an afterthought to allow the Congress to propose amendments as well. The amendment process is the only process through which the Constitution may be altered.
Amendments, according to Article V, may be proposed by either two-thirds of both Houses of the United States Congress, or by a national convention of States. Amendments must then be ratified by approval of three-fourths of the States either through their legislatures, or through ratifying conventions.
Amendments proposed by a national convention is a process known as an Article V. Convention.
Current opinion regarding an Article V. Convention varies. Some people and groups have warned against such a convention, fearing a runaway convention that could be used to re-write the Constitution. The Constitution does not allow for a runaway convention. In an Article V. Convention, only amendments may be proposed.
The call for an Article V. Convention is nothing new. Forty-Nine States have called for it, many of those calls beginning longer than over a 100 years ago. Over 700 applications have been made. The convention has never taken place because the Congress will not set a time and place (the only federal duty in an Article V. Convention), for fear of the people proposing amendments, and the States ratifying them, that would limit the powers of the federal government. Centralized systems do not like it when the individual mind gets involved, and demands change.
There are three kinds of conventions. A con-con, which is a Constitutional Convention, and there was only one, held back in 1787, and there should only be one in our history. In addition to the con-con, and the Article V. Convention, is a kind of convention called Republic Review. A Republic Review may be used to audit the federal government, determine what is unconstitutional, and then form a plan of action to alter the federal government so that it falls in line with the principles of the United States Constitution. An Article V. Convention, or the States working together through nullification, could be the result of a Republic Review. The strategy to convene a Republic Review convention lies primarily with We the People.
Amendments, no matter how they are proposed, require three-quarters approval from the States. This approval process is called "ratification." Ratification is the failsafe, according to Alexander Hamilton in his Federalist 85, against conventions that may be used to rewrite the Constitution. Any change to the Constitution is possible, as prescribed by Article V, as long as the amendment is capable of receiving three-quarters of the States' ratification votes.
The only exception to any amendment being possible is addressed at the end of Article V. According to the Constitution, no amendment, without the consent of the State in question, may deprive a State of equal suffrage in the Senate. This testifies to the importance, in the minds of the framers, to the need for the United States Senate to remain unchanged, with the Senators being appointed by the State legislatures.
Since the Constitution is a document that contains express powers for the federal government, granted by the States, the only way to change or add authorities is through the amendment process, with State approval. When it is understood that the original authorities granted to the federal government were granted to the central government by the States, it is appropriate that it takes three-quarters of the States to ratify an amendment. When Congress proposes an amendment, it is literally a case of the federal government asking for permission of the States to have a new authority, and approval by the States requires three-quarters agreement.
Terms:
Article V. Convention - A convention for the proposal of constitutional amendments applied for by the States and called by Congress.
Express Powers - Powers granted to the federal government by enumerated authorities expressly granted in the United States Constitution.
Republic Review - A convention of delegates representing the several States in order to audit the laws, actions, and composure of the United States federal government; a review of unconstitutional characteristics of the federal government based on the amendment ratification concept that if it takes three-quarters of the States to ratify an amendment, a quarter (plus one) of the States determining a law, action or department of the federal government to be unconstitutional allows the States to nullify the item.
Questions for Discussion:
1. What two sources may propose amendments?
2. Why does it require the States to ratify proposed amendments?
3. How is an Article V. Convention an important part of restraining the federal government?
Resources:
Friends of the Article V. Convention: http://foavc.com/
G. R. Mobley, We the People: Whose Constitution is it Anyway?;
Hobart, Washington: Mobius Strip Press (2013)
G. R. Mobley, We the People: The Strategy to Convene a Convention for
Republic Review; Hobart, Washington: Mobius Strip Press
(2014)
Joseph Andrews, A Guide for Learning and Teaching The Declaration of
Independence and The U.S. Constitution - Learning from the Original Texts Using Classical Learning Methods of the Founders; San Marcos: The Center for Teaching the Constitution (2010).
Madison's Notes Constitutional Convention, Avalon Project, Yale
University: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/debcont.asp
Mark R. Levin, The Liberty Amendments: Restoring the American
Republic; New York: Threshold Editions, a division of Simon & Schuster (2013)
Philip B. Kurland and Ralph Lerner, The Founder's Constitution -
Volume Four - Article I I, Section 8, Clause 5 to Article VII; Indianapolis: Liberty Fund (1987)
Copyright: Douglas V. Gibbs, 2015
|
Impeachment Trial 2020: Elements of Due Process
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Author, Speaker, Instructor, Radio Host
The impeachment of Donald J. Trump, when it comes to evidence and due process, reminds me of a scene from the Old West. "Yes, Sir, there is no evidence that you stole any horses, but we intend to prosecute you for resisting being hung for it."
Our country's founding was based on the idea of judicial fairness, and the self-evident truth that everyone is innocent until proven guilty.
In order to ensure that we have a fair justice system, in the early courts, and the 6th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, the concept of due process was instilled. From the Framers' point of view, the essential elements of due process of law are notice, an opportunity to be heard, the right to defend in an orderly proceed, and an impartial judge. It is founded upon the basic principle that every man shall have his day in court, and the benefit of the general law which proceeds only upon notice and which hears and considers before judgment is rendered. In short, due process means fundamental fairness and substantial justice.
As the centuries have passed, through judicial experience, the elements have evolved into five essential elements recognized as the sine qua non of “due process.”
Equality. The system must not discriminate procedurally between parties. In the 6th Amendment, for example, it states that the accused has a right to have the assistance of counsel for defense. This means that if one party is entitled to counsel, then all are entitled. The call for Equality means that there must be a “level playing field" for all who are involved, including the disputants. Discrimination in appearance or fact is objectionable to the Equality required to satisfy due process.
Economy. The cost of access to justice must not be a barrier, either in use, or operation, within the system. Having one's day in court must not be difficult to obtain by any of the parties.
Expedition. “Justice delayed is frequently justice denied.” The obligation of the system is to ensure that the proceedings are expeditious. This does not mean that shortcuts should be made, impairing the opportunity for an orderly procedure with adequate time to ensure notice, time to prepare, opportunity to identify and gather witnesses, and otherwise develop facts and arguments. It does, however, discourage dilatory tactics, unreasonable extension of time, and protraction of hearings.
Evidence. The system must be designed to elicit evidence, not assumptions; proof, not presumptions. While strict rules of evidence in the judicial sense may not apply to an impeachment hearing, the evidence admitted still needs to be relevant, and there must be an understanding that mere speculation and hearsay designed to prejudice rather than inform should not be acceptable.
Equity. The system must produce decisions that reflect a sense and substance of “rightness” and “reasonableness.”
In the end, however, with the Republican Senate now at the helm, I do believe we will reach Equity. Constitutionally, the House has no influence regarding the Senatorial proceedings. They can object all they want, but ultimately, now the rules and procedures are the call of GOP leaders in the Senate, and there's nothing more the Democrats can do to poison the procedures.
Author, Speaker, Instructor, Radio Host
The impeachment of Donald J. Trump, when it comes to evidence and due process, reminds me of a scene from the Old West. "Yes, Sir, there is no evidence that you stole any horses, but we intend to prosecute you for resisting being hung for it."
Our country's founding was based on the idea of judicial fairness, and the self-evident truth that everyone is innocent until proven guilty.
In order to ensure that we have a fair justice system, in the early courts, and the 6th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, the concept of due process was instilled. From the Framers' point of view, the essential elements of due process of law are notice, an opportunity to be heard, the right to defend in an orderly proceed, and an impartial judge. It is founded upon the basic principle that every man shall have his day in court, and the benefit of the general law which proceeds only upon notice and which hears and considers before judgment is rendered. In short, due process means fundamental fairness and substantial justice.
As the centuries have passed, through judicial experience, the elements have evolved into five essential elements recognized as the sine qua non of “due process.”
Equality. The system must not discriminate procedurally between parties. In the 6th Amendment, for example, it states that the accused has a right to have the assistance of counsel for defense. This means that if one party is entitled to counsel, then all are entitled. The call for Equality means that there must be a “level playing field" for all who are involved, including the disputants. Discrimination in appearance or fact is objectionable to the Equality required to satisfy due process.
Economy. The cost of access to justice must not be a barrier, either in use, or operation, within the system. Having one's day in court must not be difficult to obtain by any of the parties.
Expedition. “Justice delayed is frequently justice denied.” The obligation of the system is to ensure that the proceedings are expeditious. This does not mean that shortcuts should be made, impairing the opportunity for an orderly procedure with adequate time to ensure notice, time to prepare, opportunity to identify and gather witnesses, and otherwise develop facts and arguments. It does, however, discourage dilatory tactics, unreasonable extension of time, and protraction of hearings.
Evidence. The system must be designed to elicit evidence, not assumptions; proof, not presumptions. While strict rules of evidence in the judicial sense may not apply to an impeachment hearing, the evidence admitted still needs to be relevant, and there must be an understanding that mere speculation and hearsay designed to prejudice rather than inform should not be acceptable.
Equity. The system must produce decisions that reflect a sense and substance of “rightness” and “reasonableness.”
This whole impeachment has been anything but a shining case of what judicial fairness, and due process, is all about.
During the House of Representatives impeachment inquiry, the Trump team was denied the opportunity to be heard, shut out of each session and meeting, and disallowed to present its own witnesses. Therefore, there was no orderly proceed, and with liar Adam Schiff at the helm, the proceed did not enjoy the right to an impartial judge.
There has been no equality in the case. The impeachment has been tilted heavily in the favor of the Democrats so that they may discriminate procedurally against the President, disallowing the President, during the House of Representatives phase of the process, the right to any counsel for defense. The Democrats have not provided a “level playing field".
In the 6th Amendment it indicates the right to a speedy trial. “Justice delayed is frequently justice denied.” The Democrats drew out the procedure in the House, and regarding the transmission of the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate specifically for the purpose of allowing them the time to manipulate and carefully play the system with their dilatory tactics, unreasonable extension of time, and protraction of hearings.
There is no evidence. Instead, what the Democrats have offered has been presumptions based on a twisting of circumstantial evidence. The whole impeachment proceeding has been based on speculation and hearsay based on presumptuous conversations in the dark corner of bars and conference rooms, designed to prejudice rather than inform.
In the end, however, with the Republican Senate now at the helm, I do believe we will reach Equity. Constitutionally, the House has no influence regarding the Senatorial proceedings. They can object all they want, but ultimately, now the rules and procedures are the call of GOP leaders in the Senate, and there's nothing more the Democrats can do to poison the procedures.
The timeline set forth by Senator McConnell is quick, and calls for a vote before the start of the Primary Season. In short, the whole thing is about to blow up in the face of the Democrats, and they know it, which is why they keep complaining about how the Senate is handling the hearing.
The Democrats still remain smug, however. The polls, after all, are showing that most Americans favor the impeachment of President Donald J. Trump. You know, polls by the same pollsters who predicted Hillary Clinton would win in 2016 by a landslide.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Monday, January 20, 2020
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Birthday/Holiday
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Today is Martin Luther King, Jr.'s birthday. He fought for the individual liberty of all American citizens because Dr. King believed that all lives matter, and all lives should have the opportunity to enjoy the liberty available in America ... if only one were willing to pursue it.
He understood that without God, we are not capable of freedom, that without God we live under the rule of man rather than the rule of law, and that without God the liberty and prosperity we so desperately seek is but an illusion.
Author, Speaker, Instructor, Radio Host
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. did not march so that Black Nationalists (under the misleading name "Black Lives Matter") could demand black power and further divide this country along racial lines.
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. did not march so that Black Nationalists (under the misleading name "Black Lives Matter") could demand black power and further divide this country along racial lines.
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. did not march so that blacks in America could vote Barack Obama into office because of the color of his skin, rather than the content of his character.
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. did not march so that blacks in America could lead the country in abortions to the point where more black babies are aborted in New York City than born live, each year.
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. did not march so that the black community could go on welfare and throw dad out of the house for the promise of increased government benefits, leading the black community to suffer in poverty as a result of abandoning the traditional family unit (poverty rate for single mother households in the black community is 37%, for households with both parents 8%, for households where both parents work 5%).
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. did not march so that under liberal policies that are legalizing drugs (i.e. marijuana) blacks could get high.
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. did march for the hope that people would be judged individually; not based on the color of their skin, but by the content of their character. He marched so that Americans could come together and work together against the leftist forces determined to tear down the American System of liberty and free association. He marched because he believed, "We have an opportunity to make America a better nation…to make America what it ought to be." He marched so that all Americans would realize that we all have a God-given right to live our lives free from the oppression of tyranny.
Today is Martin Luther King, Jr.'s birthday. He fought for the individual liberty of all American citizens because Dr. King believed that all lives matter, and all lives should have the opportunity to enjoy the liberty available in America ... if only one were willing to pursue it.
He understood that without God, we are not capable of freedom, that without God we live under the rule of man rather than the rule of law, and that without God the liberty and prosperity we so desperately seek is but an illusion.
"Only a virtuous society is capable of freedom." -- Benjamin Franklin
-- Political Pistachio' Conservative News and Commentary
Saturday, January 18, 2020
Constitution Radio: The Failure Shuffle
Constitution Radio
with Douglas V. Gibbs
with Douglas V. Gibbs
Get the phone app ... make your smart phone smarter!
1-3 pm Pacific Time on Saturday Afternoon ... or if you miss the show, listen later to the archived podcast at
Last Saturday we had two callers, one from Canyon Lake, California, and one from South Central Los Angeles. We want to hear from you during this next episode. Call in at
951-922-3532.
- Second Amendment Showdown in Virginia
- U.K.'s Boris Johnson Wants U.S. Trade Deal Before Negotiating with E.U.
- Investigations: Rep. Ilhan Omar and James Comey
- Ninth Circuit Denies "Climate Teens" Who Sued Trump Over Climate Change
- Trump's popularity rises after delivery of Impeachment Articles
- Republicans Amash and Romney losing donor money over Anti-Trump Stance
- Iranian Regime Facing Increasing Internal Protests
- Unemployment Rate Under Trump Lower than before, some rates at historic lows, as Trump states more tax cuts on the way
- Pelosi: Trump is impeached forever
- Warren to Bernie: You called me a liar on National TV
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)