Saturday, February 24, 2018

Conservative Voice Radio: Shooters


Conservative Voice Radio

Hosted by Douglas V. Gibbs, and members of the Banning-Beaumont-Cherry Valley Tea Party www.bbcvteaparty.net Glenn, Jan and Diane.

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

Listen live at www.kmet1490am.com or listen later at the podcast page.

Today's topics:

- Parkland School Shooting

- California Immigration Defiance

- Property Tax Relief for Seniors Movement

- Mueller Indicts 13 Russians; Meddling began in 2014

- CPAC Bans Pro-Family Group

- Tech Workers Flee from Silicon Valley

Gun Violence Increasing . . . Why?

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

Why is our society producing mass shooters?

Gun Control, once again, has become the primary political issue being discussed.  About a week beyond the Florida High School Shooting, students are protesting, Democrats are screaming for more gun control, and some Republicans and Conservatives are making the mistake of getting into the conversation about guns, and the perceived need for the federal government to increase its intrusion into our right to keep and bear arms.

It seems to me, as an individual who's not quite a Baby Boomer, and not quite a Generation X'er (born in 1966, so I feel like I have been wedged in between . . . but I feel like I have more in common with the generation that's older than me, than any of the youngsters younger than me) that we're missing something.  We have to ask ourselves; there was a time period when mass shootings weren't out of control, and now they are ... what has changed?

If my memory serves me correct, I don't remember there being a lot of mass shootings when I was a kid, and the Baby Boomers tell me it was even a lower number in their younger years.

Has the incidents of mass shootings been increasing?  And, if so, why?

It amazes me that while everyone is trying to figure out how to take guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens, we have failed to really investigate the true reasons behind what is going on.

I visited "HeraldNet", who put out an article in January of 2013, and according to their list of mass shootings per decade, the number does seem to be increasing, particularly since the 1960s.

Here's their numbers regarding Mass Public Shootings per Decade:

1900s : 0

1910s: 2

1920s: 2

1930s: 9

1940s: 8

1950s: 1

1960s: 6

1970s: 13

1980s: 32

1990s: 42

2000s: 28

2010s (three years): 14

Looking at that list, there has definitely been an increase since the 1950s and 1960s.

Next, I visited the Washington Post, who claims so far in 2018 there have been 7 "school" shootings, and "Since 2000, there have been more than 188 shootings at schools and universities."

When I entered into Google "list of mass shootings in U.S. history", the big liberal news sites wouldn't give me a list anything like the one from HeraldNet. . . their lists showed a countdown from the worst, or more recent lists.

CNN's List of the Deadliest Mass Shootings in U.S. History counts down the worst mass shootings from the 58 killed in last year's Las Vegas shooting, to 8 people killed in 1982.  Interestingly, there were only two shootings on the list older than that 1982 shooting.  Overall, the list has 31 shootings with only two prior to 1982; occurring in 1966 and 1949.

In a more recent CNN article about mass shootings, CNN points out the ten worst, with only that 1966 shooting making the list, when it comes to something going back before the HeraldNet list says the numbers started rising. CNN also points out, "Of the 30 deadliest shootings in the US dating back to 1949, 19 have occurred in the last 10 years."

ABC News echoes CNN's list of Ten, also only having the 1966 University of Texas shooting as the only example of a shooting going back farther than the last 50 years. ABC points out that "Four of the five worst gun massacres on the list -- including the deadliest, at a concert in Las Vegas -— occurred in just the past year and a half."

The goal of the lists are to convince you that we somehow have an epidemic of mass shootings that are getting worse, and the underlying message is that it likely has something to do with an increase of access to guns.

Is it truly an epidemic?  Have mass shootings truly increased like the media is claiming?

For the sake of argument, let's agree with them.  Let's agree that since 1968 (about 50 years ago) there was somehow this line in the sand that got crossed, and gun violence has steadily increased - especially since the beginning of the 1980s.  We are expected to assume that somehow gun violence suddenly sprang up as a major threat in the last 30, or 40, or 50 years, but before that it wasn't really that great of a problem.

Let's break it down this way:

The 1900s to 1950s - low number of shootings, aside from some mob violence during prohibition.

The 1960s to the 1970s - this is about when the change happened.  Numbers were slightly going up, but hadn't gotten out of hand, just yet.

The 1980s until Now - explosion of gun violence, mass killings, and school shootings.

What, pray tell, is the difference between the 1950s and older, and our modern day mess of mass violence?

According to the Heritage Foundation, the primary progressive major institutional and policy changes that fundamentally began to change America were initiated between 1965 and 1975.  That's the decade that separates the older generations and the younger generations.

I have heard that prior to the 1960s, gun safety was taught in schools.  Now, it is not.  Other changes have happened over the generations, during that dividing decade, as well:

Before 1965......................................1965-1975...................................Since 1975

No gun control laws except those passed in the 1930s specifically targeting mob related firearms such as Tommy Guns.

Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 and the Gun Control Act of 1968
Democrats embrace gun control era, with ever-increasing gun control laws in the decades following the 1968 laws under President Johnson.
The sanctity of life is protected and observed.
Roe v. Wade 1973
Over a million abortions per year leads to a crisis of a disregard for life, and a desensitization of humanity’s attitude towards death.  In the last decade of so, euthanasia has also become more common.
Prayer was in schools.  The Bible often served as a textbook ... and was the primary textbook prior to the 1900s.
June 25, 1962, the United States Supreme Court decided in Engel v. Vitale that a prayer approved by the New York Board of Regents for use in schools violated the First Amendment because it represented establishment of religion.  1963 Supreme Court Rules reciting Lord’s Prayer in school is unconstitutional.

Not only is prayer gone, but any mention of God is frowned upon, and disallowed.  Following the loss of God on campus, we have also seen a deterioration in morality in our schools, and a push to do away with the Pledge of Allegiance.
Traditional Families are recognized as being between a man and a woman.
December 15, 1973 - By a vote of 5,854 to 3,810, the American Psychiatric Association removes homosexuality from its list of mental disorders in the DSM-II Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.
It began with the Sexual Revolution.  Now, militant homosexuality is using legal action to force their drive for the normalization of homosexuality upon society, even if it stomps all over religious freedoms.  Christian business owners and church related entities are being targeted.  
Beginning with the establishment of the State of Israel, the United States embraces a full alliance with Israel.  A positive relationship with the Jewish People goes all the way back to George Washington, "May the Children of the Stock of Abraham, who dwell in this land, continue to merit and enjoy the good will of the other Inhabitants; while every one shall sit in safety under his own vine and figtree, and there shall be none to make him afraid. May the father of all mercies scatter light and not darkness in our paths, and make us all in our several vocations useful here, and in his own due time and way everlastingly happy."
Israel captures East Jerusalem in 1967’s Six Day War – placing the whole city of Jerusalem under Israeli control.  Jerusalem as a whole was declared as the capital of Israel, but the United States, along with the international community, refused to recognize Jerusalem as capital of Israel, declaring it an international city.
The liberal left has since sided with Islam in any conflicts that have arisen in the region.  Jerusalem remained unrecognized as Israel’s capital by the United States until President Trump decided to acknowledge Jerusalem as Israel's capital in December of 2017.


See the common denominator?

We have lost our way, our soul, and therefore we have lost our minds.

Benjamin Franklin wisely determined that “Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.”

"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports...And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion." --George Washington

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." --John Adams

The Founding Fathers recognized the divine providence involved in the forging of this nation.

"I always consider the settlement of America with reverence and wonder, as the opening of a grand scene and design in Providence for the illumination of the ignorant, and the emancipation of the slavish part of mankind all over the earth." -- John Adams

If we abandon God, we abandon liberty, and as Ben Franklin recognized, we will become corrupt and vicious.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Friday, February 23, 2018

Vehicle Rams White House Barriers

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

I am willing to bet Jessica Ford of La Vergne, Tennessee, the woman who intentionally smashed into the security gate at the White House, is a registered Democrat.

The media is calling the woman "mentally ill" and "mentally challenged." If she's a liberal leftist, the labels apply.

President Trump was entertaining the Australian Prime Minister while the craziness was going on outside.

The woman struck the security gate with a 2008 white Chevrolet Uplander on Friday afternoon around 3:30 pm local Eastern Time.  Shortly after slamming the security barrier with her SUV, Secret Service personnel swarmed around her and the Metropolitan police later took her into custody.  No shots were fired, and she has tried to enter the grounds before without authorization; therefore, the woman is known to the Secret Service.  She has a list of numerous arrests for a variety of criminal violations.

The back window of the SUV was blown out, but since no shots were fired, it is uncertain why the back window was busted up.

Ms. Ford tried to jump the fence at the White House in April 2017.  At the time, she informed personnel of her intentions, and then ran toward the White House fence and tried to get over the barrier before she was stopped by officers.

In this latest incident, the White House was in lockdown immediately afterwards.  The lockdown was lifted at around 4:00 pm, at which time Prime Minister Turnbull departed from the premises.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Rasmussen: Trump Approval at 50%

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

Let's remember back to the 2016 Presidential Election polls . . . all of them had Hillary Clinton winning by a landslide.  Only one predicted Trump would win.  Rasmussen, of the polls who claimed Hillary Clinton would likely win, had her winning by the slimmest margin.  In other words, Rasmussen was more accurate than all of the other major polls except one.

So, before the usual talking knuckleheads slam me for using Rasmussen regarding Trump's approval rating, while I believe polls tend to always be skewed in a leftist direction, of the polls out there, I trust Rasmussen the most.

That said, here's the latest:

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Friday shows that 50% of Likely U.S. Voters approve of President Trump’s job performance. Forty-nine percent (49%) disapprove.
This is the president’s highest job approval rating since mid-June of last year. President Obama earned 45% approval on this date in the second year of his presidency.

Tax Reform, and his reaction to the Florida Shooting, likely are the two primary causes.

The more the Democrats try to make him look bad, the more Trump continues to keep winning.

While not perfect, Trump has been a breath of fresh air we have not experienced since Ronald Reagan.  Last century we only had two Presidents who stayed within the realm of the U.S. Constitution - Reagan and Calvin Coolidge.  Thank God we got another one early in the 21st Century.  That said, the enemies of the Constitution are not defeated, they are continuing to regroup.

The 2018 Mid-Term Elections are all out war, for them.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Idiotic Democrat Meme Proclaims Love of Government

At the bottom of the meme is says in very
small print "The American Resistance
Movement", but the language used does not
fit their normal lexicon.  Therefore, while
the meme may be made to look like it is from
The American Resistance Movement, I have
come to the conclusion that it is not from them.
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Author, Speaker, Instructor, Radio Host

On my Pinterest Account, in the wake of the Florida School Shooting, I came across an idiotic liberal left meme that pretty much explained to me how stupid and ignorant the Democrat base must truly be.

The image of a man with a very scary looking (from the point of view of the liberals) rifle in his hands, a bald head, and a full beard is shown with the following words around it: "People need to start respecting the flag of the government I am stockpiling arms against."

It's a feeble attempt at trying to show some kind of hypocrisy among those who love guns and claim to be patriotic conservatives. However, what the meme really shows is how stupid the left is, and how much of a socialist lemming the writer of the meme truly is.

First of all, when you recite the pledge of Allegiance, is it to the government for which it stands?  Of course not.

Like any other conservative, I don't love the government.  I love my country - the republic (not a democracy).

The Framers of the Constitution explained over and over again that government is a necessary evil, and if it becomes tyrannical, "it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government." -- The Declaration of Independence.

Which brings us to another idiotic liberal left Democrat use of language.

The liberal left has been calling the supporters of Trump, and pretty much all Republicans and conservatives (the two aren't always one and the same) "Nationalists."  The feeble attempt in that choice of language is to connect Trump and his "right-wing" supporters to the NAZIs, who were "nationalists."  After all, the "N" in Nazi stands for "National."

They seem to forget that "socialist" is also a part of the NAZI acronym, and that Adolph Hitler's campaign promises included health care for all, and gun control.

The reality is that the American political party closest to nationalism is not the GOP.  It's the liberal left Democrats, especially if you go by the language used by the idiot who created the above pictured meme.

From the point of view of the Framers of the U.S. Constitution, here's the definitions of nationalism and patriotism . . . and after reading them it should be clear who really deserves the title "Nationalist."

Nationalism – Nationalists, during the era of the Founding Fathers, were people who believed in a political ideology involving a strong identification of a group of individuals with a political entity defined in national terms.  There are various strands of nationalism.  The ideology may dictate that citizenship in a state should be limited to one ethnic, cultural or identity group.  Nationalism may also include the belief that the state is of primary importance, which becomes the unhealthy love of one’s government, accompanied by the aggressive desire to build that governmental system to a point that it is above all else, and becomes the ultimate provider for the public good.


Patriotism - Wholesome, constructive love of one’s land and people.


The 2nd Amendment was placed in the Constitution to guard against a tyrannical government.  Patriotism is not love of government, as suggested in the meme.  Government is the potential enemy.

The Federal Government was seen as the greatest threat against our Natural Rights.  That is why the language of the Bill of Rights is negative in terms of federal authorities.

The 1st Amendment begins, "Congress shall make no law." The 2nd Amendment ends, "shall not be infringed." The 3rd Amendment begins, "No soldier shall." In the middle of the 4th Amendment it states, "shall not be violated." In short, the Bill of Rights does not tell the government to guarantee our rights, it tells the government "hands off our rights". Don't touch. None of your darn business.

When something is a right, it means that you should have access to it without any central government interference.

The Right to Keep and Bear Arms was specifically designed to protect our rights, and to be used to alter or abolish a tyrannical government should it come to that.

The flag represents our republic, a union of States that form a country called the United States.  The government is not America, and the flag is not "of the government."  The government is a mechanism in place to protect, preserve and promote the union - a republic for which the flag stands.  However, if that government should become tyrannical, you are darn-tootin' that I am stockpiling, and ready for action.  Should things go wrong, and head in the direction of tyranny, there are plenty of us ready to do what needs to be done.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Thursday, February 22, 2018

Hypersensitivity Meets Gun Control

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

I have to give Trump a few props, when this morning at the White House he explained the importance of getting rid of "gun free zones."  He suggested what I have been suggesting . . . arming some of the personnel on school campuses.  The reality is, good guys with guns stop bad guys with guns.  As President Trump said, the average time it takes the police to arrive is eight minutes, and these shootings take about three minutes.  He said, "I want schools protected like banks."

I was glad to hear that, because I was getting very nervous during his discussion that included his approval for age restriction laws to be passed at the federal level for gun ownership.  If that's the case, they better propose an amendment for such a change, because federal legislation regarding our right to keep and bear arms is unconstitutional from an original intent point of view.

During the White House discussion, this morning, even though he talked tough on protecting the right to keep and bear arms, Trump also suggested raising the age of gun ownership to 21 (which, in many ways, is a change from his 2nd Amendment language prior to the shooting). 

In all honesty, a new law restricting gun sales to those who are 21 or older would not do anything to stop school shootings, or any other kind of mass shootings, and would have not stopped Nikolas Cruz in Florida last week.  In fact, raising the age to buy a firearm to 21 would not have stopped any of the previous school shootings we have experienced.  With a cursory glance at the list of the most recent school shootings, here's what we can determine - Every single person initiating these shootings were either 21 or older, or under 18, which means that 19 year old Nikolas Cruz would have been the only person an age restriction might have theoretically stopped.  But, that wouldn't have stopped him, anyways, because killers always find a way. . . just as the under-18 kids in the shootings on the list did.  They found a way to get a gun, because killers always find a way to kill.

Increasing the age to buy a firearm also creates a whole new host of inconsistencies.  If you push gun ownership to 21, how do you reconcile having kids under 21 in the military using those kinds of firearms to protect out country?  If you push gun ownership to 21, then the logical conclusion would be to push driver's licenses to 21, to push voting back to 21 (as it was originally), and pushing enlisting in the military to 21.  If you do one, you have to eventually do the others.

Pam Bondi, Florida's Attorney General, seated next to President Trump this morning, began to talk about The Florida Mental Health Act of 1971 (Florida Statute 394.451-394.47891 (2009 rev.)), commonly known as the "Baker Act," which allows the involuntary institutionalization and examination of an individual.  She called the new version the Gun Violence Restraining Order.

That, my friends, is very dangerous.  When you make government the definers of mental illness, or the guard over protecting the public by allowing them to arrest those they believe could be disruptive to the common good, you are opening up the opportunity for abuse, and ultimately, tyranny.  At what point does a governmental leader decide that conservatives are dangerous to the community and must be arrested and put away.  When does such a law get turned against Christians.  Jews.  Dissidents.  You.

The problem with shootings is not that we don't have enough government intrusion, the problem is societal.  Our culture has lost sight of God, virtue, and has gone down a path of hypersensitivity that demands government imposed utopia where nobody is sad, nobody is offended, and nobody can even have access to a variety of offensive things (guns, profit, possessions, money) because all of those things offends somebody, somewhere.

In short, the Democrats have created the ultimate weapon.  Together, with their socialist overlords, the younger generation has become strong in their hypersensitivity.

Aside from a few bumps in the road, such as the rise of the presidency of Donald Trump, who they are working to twist and mold in their leftist image little by little and crisis by crisis, everything is proceeding as they have foreseen.

The rise of Donald Trump as the Republican offering for President of the United States was seen by the liberal left as an attack against an establishment machine that should have been otherwise unstoppable, in their minds.  They were too powerful, and the inevitability of the election of Hillary Clinton was too great.

The Democrats thought that they had turned the corner, and that America was finally a one-party state.  Unfortunately, for them, the ability to destroy liberty and create a leftist utopia based on equality in misery turned out to be insignificant next to the power of the Trump movement.

They have rioted, screamed, cried, and threatened impeachment, and Trump's support and popularity has simply increased in the face of the attacks (especially since the tax reform law).  Their strategies have been failing.  What they needed was an ultimate crisis that allowed them to unleash the younger generation on him, to force Trump's hand, and force the Republicans to nudge in a direction the Democrats can take full advantage of . . . if not today, down the road.

Then, the Democrats got what they wanted.  A school shooting, and a major one with a lot of death.  The media ran with it, the students activated, and now the liberal left has the GOP right where they want them.  Sheriff David Clarke has gone so far as to suggest that it may have been planned by the left, saying that the shooting "has George Soros' fingerprints all over it."

The liberal left agenda is logically a failure.  The liberal agenda is also historically a failure.  Leftism, when taken to an extent beyond the reach of liberty, results in violence, starvation, and death.  Just look at Venezuela.

When emotions are kicked into high gear, anger, fear, and aggression come into play, and with each crisis the liberal left agenda makes all the sense in the world to the crying, whining, emotionally distraught individual.  All they know is they want the hurt to go away.  When we are emotionally exhausted from the pain of some kind of event, common sense is set aside and we are willing to agree with just about anything . . . to make the hurt go away.

The next move by the liberal left, where the youth are demanding gun control through the tears of pain they have rolling down their faces, has been in planning for a long time.

There is an old saying that too much of a good thing can be a bad thing. We were all taught to be considerate and reasonable to the people around us but at the same time what has happened is we've created a hypersensitive society.

It's an interesting construct because it has created a weird phenomenon of extremities.

For example, while on the road, I've noticed you either get a bunch of people so afraid to insist on the right of way that everyone is waiting for the next guy to go.  However, at the very next stop you may have two jerks practically running into each other and flipping each other off.

We have a society where everyone is easily offended by anyone who disagrees with them, or they are quick to offend you and don't give a crap what you think.  Disagreement in any discussion is considered rude.  We have the safe spaces that are popping up in colleges because of this ridiculousness.  Sounds like a whole new video series . . . "Political correctness Gone Wild."

Yeah, I get it.  We were taught to be reasonable.  If you don't have something nice to say don't say it at all.  But, at what point does that very good idea become a damaging part of society because it is taken too far?  We have taken human reasoning, and it has been morphed into a situation that is both overly aggressive and overly hypersensitive.  How do you combat something that is essentially at it's core good, but it became bad because it was essentially taken too far?  Aggression is seen as a bad thing, but those who see aggression as being bad are aggressive.  Disagreement is a bad thing, but those who disagree with you, and call you rude for disagreeing with them, consider themselves tolerant.

It's like an episode of the Twilight Zone.

These people must be ready to curl up in the corner in sheer terror when it comes to sales.  How can you expect these people to have a "can-do attitude" and sell in an aggressive manner if everyone is so touchy-feely that nobody's going to be aggressive enough to be the lead salesman?

Talk about a golden opportunity for the alpha male.  These people have become so wimpy that the alpha male has no competition whatsoever.  Problem is, the alpha males are taking full advantage and are becoming overly aggressive.  So, while we have metrosexuals who want to be more like a woman, and women who think they should be more like a man, and nobody is quite sure which bathroom they want to use, anymore, and everyone is so confused that they don't even know what bathroom to use, anymore . . .

Holy crap.  You know what our society sounds like?  The split in humanity depicted as Morlocks and Eloi from H.G. Wells' "The Time Machine."  You know.  The Eloi have become so passive that the more aggressive Morlocks have gotten to the point that they simply provide for and feed the Eloi, to fatten them up, so that that Morlocks may eat them later.

To get back to the Florida Shooting, the politicization of the event by media and the Democrats, and what Trump plans to do, it sure doesn't help the Left's cause when we hear things like what Colton Haab, a JROTC enlistee, said regarding CNN, after the shooting.  He said he did not take part in a gun safety townhall with CNN at the helm on the grounds that CNN attempted to plant “scripted” questions for him to ask.

Trump said that the NRA was in his corner regarding the Age 21 legislation he is calling for.  I haven't heard the NRA say such a thing.  In fact, National Rifle Association (NRA) CEO Wayne LaPierre is warning us to be on our guard.  He says socialism (a.k.a. Democrats) are behind the anti-gun movement.  “Socialism is a movement that loves a smear. Racists, misogynists, sexists, xenophobe and more. These are the weapons and vitriol these character assassinations permanently hang on their targets because socialism feeds off manipulated victims,” LaPierre told the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC).

LaPierre claimed "European socialists” are taking over the Democratic Party. He also named the “Occupy” movement, Black Lives Matter and antifa as examples of social groups that he claimed promote “uncivil discourse” and aim to "eliminate due process."

“The elimination of due process is the very gold standard of the socialist state,” he said.

LaPierre, earlier in his speech at CPAC, called proposals to limit the amount of weapons available to Americans “completely ridiculous,” and said more security would help prevent future school shootings.

A church in Pennsylvania is doing what it can to defend the right to keep and bear arms by announcing they will be hosting a blessing ceremony for couples with an AR-15 assault rifle.

The World Peace and Unification Sanctuary in Newfoundland, Pennsylvania, an offshoot of the Unification Church, is inviting couples to bring their semi-automatic rifles to the church on Feb. 28 to “show their willingness to defend their families, communities and nation.”

According to the church’s website, the ceremony will focus on the “rod of iron” and each couples’ pledge to defend their home and the coming nation of Cheon Il Guk — the biblical kingdom of God referred to in Scripture.

The church describes the “rod of iron” as an “AR-15 semiautomatic rifle or equivalents such as an AK semiautomatic rifle.”

Meanwhile, on the other side of the issue, the hate against the NRA, and those who support the 2nd Amendment, is reaching a "witch-burning" level of craziness.

The townhall in Florida had, among its participants, NRA spokeswoman Dana Loesch.  Later at CPAC she told her conservative audience that escaping the CNN-hosted forum was an incredible experience.  She said she wouldn't have been able to exit the town hall if she didn't have a security detail.

"I want to make this super obvious point," Loesch said. "The government has proven that they cannot keep you safe. And yet, some people want all of us to disarm. You heard that town hall last night. They cheered the confiscation of firearms. And it was over 5,000 people."

"I had to have a security detail to get out," she said of the Sunrise, Florida event. "I wouldn't be able to exit that if I didn't have a private security detail. There were people rushing the stage and screaming burn her. And I came there to talk solutions and I still am going to continue that conversation on solutions as the NRA has been doing since before I was alive."

"The government can't keep you safe and some people want us to give up our firearms and rely solely upon the protection of the same government that's already failed us numerous times to keep us safe. And then they also call Trump a tyrant but they say they want the president to also confiscate our firearms? Try to figure that one out," Loesch said.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Temecula Constitution Class: Law and Order

Join us Thursday Night at 6:30 pm, Faith Armory, 41669 Winchester Road, Temecula, CA


Constitution Class Handout
Instructor: Douglas V. Gibbs

 
 
 
Lesson 15
 
The Legal Amendments
 
Amendment IV

Warrants, Searches, and Seizures

The 4th Amendment to the United States Constitution was added as part of the Bill of Rights on December 15, 1791.  It was written with the purpose of protecting people from the government searching their homes and private property without properly executed search warrants.
 
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
 
What this means is that the federal government, in order to search a person's home, business, papers, bank accounts, computer or other personal items, in most cases, must obtain a search warrant signed by the proper authority, which usually means by a judge.
 
The issuance of a warrant must accompany reasonable belief that a crime has been committed and that by searching the premises of a particular location, evidence will be found that will verify the crime.  The government officer does not have to be correct in his assumption, he just has to have a reasonable belief that searching someone's private property will yield evidence of the crime.  The task of determining whether or not the officer's assumptions are a reasonable belief falls on the judge who is considering issuing the search warrant.
 
The concept that citizens must be protected from unreasonable searches and seizures goes back into English history.  The British Crown was known for performing searches and seizures that were unlawfully conducted.  Often, these searches were conducted by the king's representatives.
 
The British government saw the American Colonies as a source of revenue.  As a result, taxation against the American colonies was a continuous practice, in the hopes of generating as much money from the colonists as possible.  The colonists resented this and engaged in substantial smuggling operations in order to get around the customs taxes imposed by the British government.
 
The King responded to the Colonist's smuggling activities by using writs of assistance, which were search warrants that were very broad and general in their scope.  British agents, once obtaining these writs, could search any property they believed might contain contraband goods.  They could enter someone's property with no notice and without any reason given.  Tax collectors could interrogate anyone about their use of goods and require the cooperation of any citizen.  Searches and seizures of private property based on very general warrants became an epidemic in colonial America.
 
In 1756, the Massachusetts legislature passed search and seizure laws outlawing the use of general warrants.  The friction created between the Royal Governor and the people of Massachusetts grew with each passing moment.
 
In 1760 James Otis, a Boston lawyer, strongly objected to these arbitrary searches and seizures of private property and consequently resigned his position with the government, and then became the lawyer for a group of over 50 merchants who sued the government claiming that the writs of assistance were unjust.
 
James Otis represented these merchants for free.  His speech condemning British policies, including writs of assistance and general search warrants, was so powerful and eloquent, that it was heard of throughout the colonies and catapulted him to a place of leadership in the swelling tide of disillusionment toward Great Britain.
 
Twenty-five year old John Adams, who would become the second president of the United States some time later, was sitting in the courtroom and heard Otis' famous speech that served as a spark that led to igniting the American Revolution.
 
The 4th Amendment, a part of The Bill of Rights, became law on December 15, 1791.
 
The 4th Amendment applies only to the federal government.  State constitutions are written similarly, and States also have laws that are consistent with the intention of the 4th Amendment.  The 4th Amendment provides protection from illegal search and seizure by federal government officials, but not by private citizens.  So, if an employer unreasonably searched your possessions at work, the 4th Amendment would not have been violated, but local laws may have been.
 
In recent history The PATRIOT Act was seen as a breach of the 4th Amendment because it allowed the federal government to pursue a number of strategies in their search for terrorists that includes warrantless phone taps, access to phone logs, and monitoring of online communications such as email.  The debate still goes on regarding the constitutionality of The PATRIOT Act, with both sides presenting reasonable arguments, ranging from the constitutional necessity of the law for the purpose of "providing for the common defense," to the argument that the authorities offered by the law allows the federal government to unconstitutionally intrude on the right to privacy of all Americans.
 
The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) of 2014 builds on the powers seized by the federal government through the PATRIOT Act, allowing unrestricted analysis and research of captured records pertaining to any organization or individual "now or once hostile to the United States."  The definition of "hostile to the United States" is broad, and can include political opposition.  Under NDAA 2014 Sec. 1061(g)(1), an overly vague definition of captured records enhances government power and guarantees indefinite surveillance.
 
The Internal Revenue Service is another arm of the federal government that routinely violates the 4th Amendment, doing so under the auspice of ensuring all taxes are paid.
 
Terms:

Search Warrant - The Search Warrant specifically requires that the government demonstrate to a judge the existence of probable cause of criminal activity on the   part of the person whose property the government wishes to search.  The Fourth Amendment commands that only a judge can authorize a search warrant.
 
Writs of Assistance - British search warrants that were very broad and general in their     scope.  British agents, once obtaining these writs, could search any property they believed might contain contraband goods.
 
Questions for Discussion:

1.  What actions by the British prior to the American Revolutionary War inspired the Founding Fathers to include this amendment in the Bill of Rights?
 
2.  How would our legal system act if Search Warrants were not considered necessary?
 
3.  How does the Fourth Amendment influence today's thinking regarding government actions, such as with The PATRIOT Act?
 
Resources:
 
How Congress Has Assaulted Our Freedoms in the Patriot Act by
Andrew P. Napolitano, Lew Rockwell.com: http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/napolitano2.html
 
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).
 
Paul A. Ibbetson, Living Under the PATRIOT Act: Educating a Society;
Bloomington, IN: Author House (2007)
 
Philip B. Kurland and Ralph Lerner, The Founder's Constitution -
Volume Five - Amendments I-XII; Indianapolis: Liberty Fund (1987).
 
 
 
Amendment V

Due Process and Eminent Domain
            Due Process
 
The majority of the Fifth Amendment provides additional reinforcement to the concept of due process.  The language of this Amendment was designed to assure those who feared the potential tyranny of a new centralized government created by the United States Constitution that the federal government would be restrained in such a way as to ensure that the government did not perpetrate bloodshed against its citizens.
 
The first part of the 5th Amendment reads: "No person shall be held to answer for a capital crime, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury. . ."
 
The 5th Amendment attests to the Founding Father's understanding that this is a nation of property owners.  As a republic of property owners, when in jeopardy of legal trouble, our rights and properties must be safeguarded.  Therefore, an American Citizen in the American legal system has a right to a jury, as well as a right to the presentation of evidence.  Conviction is not reached with a majority vote, either.  Conviction requires a unanimous agreement among all of the members of the jury.  These concepts reinforce the concept that one is innocent until proven guilty (A concept found in the Book of Deuteronomy, Chapter 19, Verse 15), and that the United States of America is a Republic.  Mob rule is not allowed, for as the amendment provides, a person cannot be held until given the opportunity of due process.
 
Not all persons, however, are awarded this opportunity.  The next part of the amendment reads: ". . . except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger. . ."
 
The military does not fall under the U.S. Constitution.  Personnel serving in the armed forces are governed by the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).  Instead of a civilian trial, a military service member is normally afforded a court martial.  If a civilian trial is deemed appropriate by the U.S. Military, a service member can still stand trial in a civilian court, but the military has the authority to decide whether or not the member shall stand such a trial.
 
Having a sense of independence, individuals must be protected, then, from the tyrannical trappings of a governmental system that may try to use the judiciary against them (as the King of England had done often).  The protective mechanism, or the rule of law, would be the U.S. Constitution and clauses like the 5th Amendment, which were designed to provide protection to the populace from unfair legal practices. 
 
One such protection is provided in the next part of this amendment: ". . . nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life and limb. . ."
 
Protection against Double Jeopardy enables us not to be continuously tried for the same offense, which was a technique often used in some parts of Europe during the eighteenth century.  The idea was that if a person was prosecuted enough, either they would weary of the process and break down, or the defendant would become unable to financially continue, hence unable to defend themselves.
 
The next part of the amendment serves as a large influence on today's Miranda Rights.  The section reads: ". . . nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property."
 
Miranda Rights are named after the U.S. Supreme Court case, Miranda v. Arizona (1966).  Miranda Rights are a warning given advising the accused of their right to remain silent, their right to an attorney, and the right to an appointed attorney if they are unable to afford counsel - prior to conducting a custodial interrogation. From the 5th Amendment: ". . .nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."  Miranda Rights exist to secure the 5th Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination, and to make the individual in custody aware not only of the privilege, but also of the consequences of forgoing it.  The judicial opinion from the Miranda v. Arizona case also indicated that in order to protect the person's life, liberty or property with the due process of law, the individual must have the right to an attorney.  With a lawyer present the likelihood that the police will practice coercion is reduced, and if coercion is nevertheless exercised the lawyer can testify to it in court.  The presence of a lawyer can also help to guarantee that the accused gives a fully accurate statement to the police and that the statement is rightly reported by the prosecution at trial.
 
The words of the Founders continues to resonate today as the majority of the American people seem to firmly agree with the Founding Father's insistence that no one should be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.  We can take satisfaction that most of our fellow citizens in our republic still hold these truths to be self-evident.
 
            Eminent Domain
 
The provisions of the 5th Amendment are there to keep our courts honest, and the powers of the government constrained.  The last phrase of the 5th Amendment, however, is considered too general by many, and it has been used in a manner by the federal government that is extremely troublesome, because it gives the government the right to take property if there is just compensation.
 
How is just compensation determined?  Is it based on the market value of the property?  How does the government officials involved in eminent domain calculate the non-intrinsic value?  How do they compensate for the value on which nobody can put a price?
 
Just compensation was intended to be based on what the property owner deemed to be just.  If the property owner did not deem the offer to be just compensation, then the government, from a constitutional viewpoint, is out of luck.
 
 
Terms:

Capital Crime - A crime for which the punishment is death.  Punishment for a Capital Crime is called Capital Punishment.
 
Double Jeopardy - The act of putting a person through a second trial for an offense for which he or she has already been prosecuted or convicted.
 
Due Process - 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.
 
Eminent Domain - The power to take private property for public use by a State, municipality, or private person or corporation authorized to exercise functions of public character, following the payment of just compensation to the owner of that property.
 
Grand Jury - A group of citizens convened in a criminal case to consider the prosecutor's evidence and determine whether probable cause exists to prosecute a suspect for a felony.  At common law, a group of persons consisting of not less than twelve nor more than twenty-four who listen to evidence and determine whether or not they should charge the accused with the commission of a crime by returning an indictment.  The number of members on a grand jury varies in different States.
 
Infamous Crime - A crime which works infamy in the person who commits it.  Infamous crimes tend to be classified as treason, felonies, and any crime involving the element of deceit.
 
Just Compensation - The value of a property deemed to be just by the property owner.
 
Miranda Rights - A warning given advising the accused of their right to remain silent, their right to an attorney, and the right to an appointed attorney if they are unable to afford counsel - prior to conducting a custodial interrogation.
 
Mob-Rule - A government ruled by a mob or a mass of people; the intimidation of legitimate authorities; the tyranny of the majority; pure democracy without due process.
 
Republic - Form of government that uses the rule of law through a government system led by representatives and officials voted in by a democratic process.  The United States enjoys a Constitutional Republic.
 
Rule of Law - The restriction of the arbitrary exercise of power by subordinating it to well-defined and established laws; Laws of Nature and of Nature's God; self-evident standard of conduct and law.
 
Questions for Discussion:

1.  How is property rights affected by Due Process?
 
2.  Why do military members not fall under the protections of the U.S. Constitution?
 
3.  Why is protection against Double Jeopardy important?
 
4.  What was the inspiration for our Miranda Rights?
 
5.  Who determines if compensation for one's property is just?
 
6.  How is Eminent Domain being used for environmental reasons?
 
7.  Is Eminent Domain constitutionally in force if a property is rezoned for environmental conservation, forcing the value of the property to be reduced due to the fact that it can no longer be developed?
 
8.  Is it constitutional for government to use Eminent Domain for the use of the land by private development projects?
 
Resources:

Definition of Due Process, Family Rights Association:
http://www.familyrightsassociation.com/bin/definition_due_process_.htm
 
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).
 
U.S. Supreme Court case, Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436 (1966)
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=384&invol=436
 

Amendment VI

Personal Legal Liberties

The 6th Amendment affords criminal defendants seven discrete personal liberties.  "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence."
 
Rights afforded in all criminal prosecutions are set forth in this amendment.  The word "all" at the beginning of this amendment establishes a special characteristic regarding this article of the Constitution.  The Constitution applies only to the federal government, unless it states otherwise.  The 6th Amendment, by providing the word "all" in the regard to cases, establishes that this amendment is not only to be applied to the federal courts, but to the State, and lower, courts as well.
 
As for the rights afforded to the accused:
 
            Speedy Trial
 
The concept of a speedy trial was an English concept of justice.  A speedy trial allows for conditions that disallow the powerful from abusing the court system, forcing defendants to languish in jail for an indefinite period while awaiting their trial.  Ensuring a speedy trial minimizes the time in which a defendant's life is disrupted and burdened by a criminal proceeding, and reduces the likelihood of a prolonged delay impairing the ability of the accused to prepare a defense.
 
Historically, when trials are postponed or drag out for long periods of time, witnesses disappear, and evidence is often lost or destroyed.  Memories of the incident in question are also not as reliable as time passes.
 
A person's right to a speedy trial arises after the arrest, indictment, or otherwise formal accusation of a crime. 
 
            Public Trial
 
The right to a public trial was inherited by the Americans from Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence.  Public criminal proceedings would operate as a natural check against malevolent prosecutions, corrupt judges, and perjurious witnesses.  A trial that is out in the open also aids the fact-finding mission of the judiciary by encouraging citizens to come forward with relevant information.
 
The right to a public trial is not absolute.  Persons who may disrupt proceedings may be banned from attending the trial because they present a substantial risk of hindering a trial.  A disallowance of the media attending falls under the concept of "potential disruptions," but otherwise, under normal circumstances, both the public and media have a qualified First Amendment right to attend criminal proceedings.  The right to a public trial does not require the presence of media, and because courtrooms have limited seating, judges may attempt to maintain decorum.  For media, with today's technology, the media does not have to be in the courtroom to see or hear the proceedings of the case. 
 
            Right to Trial by an Impartial Jury
 
A part of the effort in achieving an impartial jury is the process of determining who will serve on the jury through a series of questions and observations, in an effort to eliminate biased jurors.  The concept of protecting the defendant from a biased jury can be traced back to the Magna Carta in 1215.  In the United States, the requirement for a trial by an impartial jury does not apply to juvenile delinquency proceedings, or to petty criminal offenses, which consist of crimes punishable by imprisonment of six months or less.  In Great Britain, and Canada, a jury is not required for cases with potential penalties of two years or less, and the concept of an impartial jury is not entertained in the same way as in the United States.  Canada and Britain choose jurors randomly, and then in an open court the jurors for a specific case are selected from the jury panel by ballot.  A juror may be challenged once in the box for bias, but an extensive process to eliminate possible biased jurors before selection through a series of questions and observations is not normal practice.
 
The Sixth Amendment entitles defendants to a jury that represents "a jury of the defendant's peers," which means the jury should be a fair cross section of the community.  From the jury pool, the presiding judge, the prosecution, and attorneys for the defense are allowed to ask members of the jury pool a variety of questions intended to reveal any latent biases, prejudices, or other influences that might affect their impartiality.  The presence of even one biased juror is not permitted under the Sixth Amendment.
 
It is possible that the potential bias of a juror may be affected by sources outside the courtroom, so jurors are instructed to not consider newspaper, television, and radio coverage before or during trial, and are instructed not to discuss the trial with even family members, when evaluating the guilt or innocence of the defendant.
 
Jurors are not permitted to begin deliberations until all of the evidence has been offered.  Deliberations do not begin until after the attorneys have made their closing arguments, and the judge has read the instructions.  Premature deliberations have shown the potential, historically, to create early biases, or a juror may form a preconceived notion that they will then compare all evidence to, which they may have entertained as a result of premature deliberations.
 
            Notice of Pending Criminal Charges
 
The 6th Amendment guarantees defendants the right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against them.  Defendants must receive notice of any criminal accusations that the government has lodged against them through an indictment, information, complaint, or other formal charge.  Defendants may not be tried, convicted, or sentenced for a crime that materially varies from the crime set forth in the formal charge.
 
The requirement by the 6th Amendment to inform a defendant of the nature and cause of the accusation is an attempt by the Founding Fathers to create fundamental fairness that was not necessarily present in civil and criminal proceedings in England and the American colonies under English common law.  Receiving notice of pending criminal charges in advance of trial permits defendants to prepare a defense in accordance with the specific nature of the accusation.  In tyrannies, defendants are all too often incarcerated without being apprised of pending charges until the trial begins.  Requiring notice of the nature and cause of the accusation against a defendant eliminates confusion regarding the basis of a particular verdict, which in turn decreases the chances that a defendant will be tried later for the same offense.
 
            Confrontation of Witnesses Against Him
 
The 6th Amendment requires that defendants have the right to be confronted by witnesses who offer testimony or evidence against them, as well as the opportunity to subject them to cross-examination. 
 
Today's courts have established rules that are enforced at the discretion of the judge who forbids questioning that pursues areas that are irrelevant, collateral, confusing, repetitive, or prejudicial.  Defendants are also forbidden to pursue a line of questioning solely for the purpose of harassment.
 
            Compulsory Process for Obtaining Witnesses In His Favor
 
The 6th Amendment recognizes a defendant's right to use the compulsory process of the judiciary to subpoena witnesses that may be favorable to the defense.  Courts may not take actions to undermine the testimony of a witness who has been subpoenaed by the defense.  Any law that attempts to establish particular persons as being incompetent to testify on behalf of a defendant is not allowed.
 
Defendants can also testify on their own behalf, a right not afforded in the American Colonies, or Great Britain, prior to the United States dissolving the political bands connecting them to the Crown.  Common law presumed all defendants to be incompetent to give reliable or credible testimony on their own behalf.  The vested interest in the outcome of the trial, it was believed, would taint the testimony of the defendant.  The 6th Amendment does not require, a defendant to testify on his own behalf, but does not prohibit it, either.
 
            Right to Counsel
 
The 6th Amendment states that criminal defendants have a Right to Counsel.  A defendant's right to counsel does not become an issue until the government files formal charges.  However, in the 5th Amendment a person has the right not to be compelled to be a witness against himself, allowing him to remain silent until he has counsel present.
 
In many instances, defendants have the inability to obtain counsel be it because of financial or other reasons.  The 6th Amendment, by listing that assistance of counsel for his defense is a right, has compelled the government to institute a program where counsel can be assigned to a defendant if the person is unable to afford counsel, or obtain counsel for any other reason.  In the occurrence of a defendant unable to afford counsel, the trial judge appoints one on his behalf.  If it turns out that the defendant has financial resources previously unknown to the court, he may be required to reimburse the government for a portion of the fees paid to the court-appointed lawyer.
 
Defendants are not required to have counsel.  Defendants have a right to counsel.  Defendants also have the right to decline the representation of counsel and proceed on their own behalf.  Defendants who represent themselves must present a waiver of the 6th Amendment right to counsel before a court will allow them to do so.  The waiver must reveal that the defendant is knowingly making the decision, and understands the potential consequences.
 
Questions for Discussion:
 
1. Why is having a speedy trial so important in a free society?
 
2.  How does a public trial better enable the fact-finding mission of the trial?
 
3.  How is the concept of an impartial jury different in the United States than it is in other countries?
 
4.  Why is it important for a defendant to be able to confront the witnesses against him?
 
5.  How is a defendant's right to counsel enabled in today's court system?

Resources:

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).
 

Amendment VII

Right of Trial by Jury in Civil Suits
 
"In suits at Common Law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law."
 
The 7th Amendment guarantees the right to a jury trial in most civil suits heard in federal court.  Remember, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights, apply only to the federal government unless the document states otherwise.  The 7th Amendment serves to preserve the historic line separating the province of the jury from that of the judge in civil cases by separating cases that should have a jury in federal court, from those that are smaller cases, and may not require a jury.  During the time the amendment was ratified, a case requiring a jury was one where "the value in controversy" exceeded twenty dollars.  The cutoff in the court system today is $75,000.  Any disputes that involve amounts less than $75,000, in fact, will not even be handled in a federal court.
 
State courts don't have to honor this provision in the 7th Amendment, and often don't.  People bringing a suit do not have to have a jury trial.  Individuals can waive their right to a jury trial if they so choose.
 
The 7th Amendment also expressly forbids federal judges to re-examine any "fact tried by a jury" except as allowed by the common law.  This means that no court, trial or appellate, may overturn a jury verdict that is reasonably supported by the evidence.
 
Prior to the Declaration of Rights in 1689, English judges served the King of England.  These judges showed bias towards the King, resulting in unfair rulings.  Judges in the American colonies were also biased towards the king, and when King George III got rid of trials by juries in the Colonies, the colonists viewed the decision as more kindling for the fire of independence that had been blazing in the pubs, churches and meeting halls of the Colonies.  The Bill of Rights applied what the Framers learned under the rule of Britain to the American System.  In the American courts the Framers believed it was important to have a fair court system, so the right to have a trial by jury is mentioned a number of times, and is a fundamental part of the United States legal system.
 
Together with the due process clause of the 5th Amendment and the right to an impartial jury enumerated in the 6th Amendment, the 7th Amendment guarantees civil litigants the right to not just a jury, but to a jury who is not biased for any reason.

Terms:

Bill of Rights - The first ten amendments of the U.S. Constitution; a formal summary of those rights and liberties considered essential to a people or group of people.
 
Declaration of Rights - Enacted in 1689, the English Bill of Rights is one of the fundamental documents of English constitutional law, marking a fundamental milestone in the progression of English society from a nation of subjects to a nation of free citizens with God-given rights.  The evolution began with the Magna Carta in 1215.
 
Questions for Discussion:

1.  What historic line does the 7th Amendment preserve?
2.  Must the States abide by the 7th Amendment?
3.  Can a person bringing suit waive the right to a jury trial?
 

Amendment VIII

Excessive Bail, Cruel and Unusual Punishment
 
The 8th Amendment reads, "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."
 
As a nation founded on honorable Judeo-Christian principles, the United States legal system is expected to be fair and just.  This means that Americans should insist upon a due process that protects individuals from excesses and abuses by the judicial system.  Such expectations include that no individual should be singled out, or treated differently, in the eyes of the courts.  A fair and equitable judicial system includes no excessive bails or fines, or cruel and unusual punishment, for one person while others guilty of similar crimes do not receive similar treatment.
 
Today's definitions attempt to set a limit on where "excessive" or "unusual" lies.  When a harsh penalty is applied for a crime, even when it is similar to the punishment received by others for the same crime, challenges are launched regarding if the penalty matches the crime.  These challenges are fine, and an important part of the American judicial system seeking to adjust itself in regards to its fairness, but the debates during the Federal Convention and State ratification conventions did not focus so much on where the line between excessive and not excessive, or unusual as opposed to usual, exists as much as are the bails, fines and punishment consistent with the bails, fines and punishment consistent with others guilty of the same.

Questions for Discussion:

1.  In the context of the time period during which the 8th Amendment was written, what was meant by "cruel and unusual punishment?"
2.  How has the original definition of "cruel and unusual punishment" changed since the founding of the United States?
3.  How does the 8th Amendment apply the concept of uniformity to cases?
4.  Why would the Founding Fathers see the need to enumerate the right of an individual to be protected from cruel and unusual punishment?

Resources:

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