Tuesday, September 24, 2019

Women's Rights, Human Rights, and Natural Rights

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

As with securing the rights of blacks, the Republican Party was also originally the political party at the forefront of the fight when it came to women's rights.  The Democrat Party, unfortunately, hijacked both issues, claiming they are the party for racial justice (even though they voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and some of them even filibustered against it), and the party that stands against sexism (Susan B. Anthony was a Republican, the Democrats largely stood against the 19th Amendment which extended the privilege of voting to women).  However, in order to try and prove that they are actually the party women's rights the liberal left has gone so far as to not only support the blood sacrifice of innocent children, but then they mislabel the murderous act of abortion as being a "reproductive right."  Then, if you disagree with them on the barbaric practice of abortion, you are then accused of standing in opposition of women's rights.

Women have access to their natural rights no different than men do.  If a woman wishes to pursue her rights, she can.  Some women, as a result, have made remarkable strides in a vast number of careers, endeavors, and areas of study.  Some women have been astronauts, some have been the leaders of massive corporations, and many are holding political office.  There is no crisis regarding women's rights in the United States as the Democrats would have you believe.  The claim that there is a women's rights crisis is simply a liberal left twisting of realty.

I can hear the lefties now.  "Doug, equal pay for equal work!"

There are no laws not allowing women to make as much as men, and for the most part a woman can reach for the stars if she desires to.  The problem is, most women don't push for those heights because they don't desire it.  Many women, as they settle into a family role, prefer being a mom, and spending time with her children, so they don't push for the higher paying positions, and they don't reach for the stars ... and that's okay.  What a wonderful country.  They have the freedom to reach for either, or try to do both at the same time. But, as a result of our culture where many women pursue motherhood, the reality is that there are less women seeking the bigger positions, therefore there are less women reaching into those high paying positions.  It's not sexism, it's basic math.

"But Doug, what about reproductive rights?"

Is it really a right to kill another human being?  To what god is the blood of those children being sacrificed to?  And, the first or second trimester is one thing, but now the Democrats are pushing for third trimester abortions (which is never necessary since a third trimester child can survive outside the womb)?  At which point do they begin sacrificing babies after birth?

With the sexualization of children in the schools I heard one leftist Planned Parenthood executive exclaim that the goal was for girls between the ages of nine and eighteen to have four abortions before they graduate from high school.

How disgusting is that?  Why is the left pushing for this kind of human suffering?  Is it for body parts?  Is it for money and power?  Or is it even more gruesome than that, and is truly nothing different than the child sacrifices of Moloch?

Does not the unborn have the natural right of life?  As persons do they not deserve legal protection from people who wish to kill them?  If the liberal left with their mantra "women's rights are human rights" are claiming that killing another human life is a human right, then I not only want nothing to do with their sick and twisted ideology, but I will do everything I can to protect babies from their murderous demands.  After all, a baby's right to life is a natural right given to that child by the Creator, and no woman has the right to steal the life of any child by poisoning them in the womb, or pulling them out of the uterus piece by piece.

That's not a woman's right ... it's murder.

"But, Doug," they tell me, "are you saying you want the child to suffer as a crack baby?  Are you willing to raise a child who would have such a horrible future ahead of them?"

So your solution is to murder them?  Deny them the opportunity to work their way out of the poverty and become successful Americans who defied conventional wisdom that if born in poverty they would stay in poverty?  Of the greatest Americans in history, how many were born in wealth, and how many in poverty?  A part of becoming great is learning how to overcome adverse conditions.  It's a part of life.  Sure, I would prefer that people did not have to come from such difficult beginnings, but let's not go the other extreme and try to create a master-race that only has what we consider to be acceptable upbringings, either.

"You don't understand," one person said to me, "because of your white privilege."

What white privilege?  I've struggled for every gain I've accomplished.  My parents divorced.  My step-dad often worked multiple jobs to keep us afloat.  Before moving to the Inland Empire in California, we lived in North Long Beach, in a very difficult, gang-infested area.  My Mexican-born wife, whose parents immigrated here legally when she was but a baby, once told me, "you grew up poorer than me, and I grew up in the barrio."

When we were first married we couldn't afford dishes, so we ate our meals out of the one pan we owned.  It was ramen and tomato soup, mostly, back in those days.  At one point I worked two jobs, just to keep us from going under after we bought our house.  We had no television for a very long time, because the signal was bad in the area, and we couldn't afford cable.  We shared one old used vehicle, and worked our fingers to the bone until we were able to finally increase our salaries where we worked.

No white privilege here, not that I believe that poppycock the liberal left is trying to sell.  We are all Americans.  Some have a difficult start, some don't, but all of us deserves a chance to live, breath, and go for the American Dream.  Even the babies who will be born in poverty.

Read the other articles in this series:
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Monday, September 23, 2019

Love may be Love, but it shouldn't be Tyranny

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

Love is Love.  I agree.  However, I don't believe people in love should be able to use the government to force people who disagree with them into accepting the narrative, or celebrating what the other group believes to be deviant behavior.

The Love is Love mantra is the liberal left's way of combating those not fully celebratory about homosexuality, transgenderism, and the other deviant sexual behaviors that will no doubt be added to the list (polygamy, beastiality, pedophilia ... mark my words, the normalization of each of those things is on the horizon).  At what point does the envelope stop being pushed?  At what point does the sexualization of our culture (and thanks to the homosexual militantism, the sexualization of our children) stop?  At what point will they say "we've gone too far"?

The problem is, there is no limit.  And now that the line has been crossed, the normalization of aberrant sexual behavior is not going to stop.  As California's governor, Gavin Newsom, once said, "like it or not" the homosexual wave is coming and will succeed.

From a Christian point of view, I believe homosexuality to be sinful behavior.  From a personal point of view, until the last few years my only experience with homosexuals was them raping me as a child between the ages of six and twelve.  From a societal view, the homosexual agenda is dangerous to the basic building blocks of our culture, which includes the family unit.  From a legal and political view, any group that seeks to use the law to force people to agree with their cause, and do so through lawsuits, and authoritarian schemes including "hate crime laws" as they force their agenda into the culture through entertainment and the education system is nothing less than tyrannical, and unwelcome in the American scheme of liberty.  It is not liberty to force someone to bake a cake with language they disagree with.  It is not liberty to fire people or prosecute them for using language that is not agreeable to a particular group.  It is not liberty to monitor pastors and try to prosecute them for daring to say that homosexuality is a sin.  It is not liberty to shout down or ridicule into silence anyone who dares to have a dissenting opinion when it comes to sexual lifestyles.  You want to be gay, then be gay, but don't try to use the force of law to force those who disagree with the lifestyle into compliance.

How Orwellian of the liberal left, and their homosexual compadres.

In the Declaration of Independence it says, "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness."  Life and liberty are the only things we can demand to be guaranteed.  Everything else is something to be pursued.  We don't have a right to happiness, but we have a right to pursue it.  We don't have a right to health care, but we have a right to pursue it.  We don't have a right to have a cake baked the way we want or to force a pastor to marry certain types of couples, but we have a right to pursue those things.  Why?  Because the rights of the other folks matter, too.  Rights are a two-way street.  One's rights stop at the edge of the other person's rights.  So, if someone has a religious belief that your homosexual behavior is a sin, and they do not wish to participate in it, that is their right.  Go find your services elsewhere.

Personally, I don't believe we have different categories of rights.  We are told we have fundamental rights, civil rights, property rights, religious rights, secondary rights, and so on and so forth.  But that is not what our founding documents and the writings of the Founding Fathers say.  According to them, we have rights we have been endowed with by our Creator, and government is instituted to secure those rights (not protect or guarantee them), and among those rights are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  Our rights are Natural Rights, and nothing more.

Sure, love is love, and you can love whoever you want, but you can't force everyone to like it, agree with it, or celebrate it.  That's not liberty.  That's tyranny.

Read the other articles in this series:
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

No Human is Illegal

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

A part of the premise for the liberal left claiming that "no human is illegal" is the belief that the land inhabited by Americans in the Southwest United States is stolen land.

We always hear the old saying, "the winners write the history," but more often than not that is not true.  For example, the Mexican-American War, despite what we have been told, was not a war of American expansionism.  In truth, it was a war of liberation.

In 1824, the Mexican government wrote a constitution based on ours, hoping that Mexico would be able to throw off the attitude of Roman authoritarianism, and instead adopt the concept of Saxon liberty.  They even set up States in Mexico, in the hope of being more like the United States.  However, the drive for liberty was short-lived when a blood-thirsty dictator by the name of Santa Anna arose.  He tore up the constitution, and began a campaign of killing anyone who stood against him, including those who stood in favor of Mexico's 1824 constitution.

The Mexican people were being slaughtered, and many of the regions called out to the United States for help.  In the northern area, north of where today's Mexican-American border is, only three Mexican settlements existed.  Santa Fe, Los Angeles, and San Francisco.  The remaining settlements were by Americans (at the urging of the Mexican government because most Mexicans would not settle in those areas, complaining they were too cold and too rocky).  As Santa Anna engaged in his killing spree, one region, the Yucatan Peninsula (which consisted of five Mexican states) actually went before Congress to ask for the area to be admitted as a State in the United States.  However, the Missouri Compromise, which was in place at the time, required any State south of Missouri's southern border to be admitted as a slave State, and the Yucatan refused to offer themselves as anything other than a free State.  So, the Slave States' representatives in the United States Congress voted against Yucatan's request, and the area shortly after was forced to endure Santa Anna's dictatorial punishment for daring to make the request.  As the United States became more engaged in a war with Santa Anna's Mexico, soundly defeating the massive Mexican Army with a much smaller number of troops, the spoils of war wound up going to the United States, which basically included all of the lands that was being settled by Americans, anyway.  Nonetheless, while it was not necessary, the United States provided funds after the war for the lands in the hopes it would help rebuild the war-battered Mexican landscape south of the new American border.

The drive for open borders, of course, has more to do with globalism than it does Mexican claims that the Southwest United States is stolen land.  The globalists wish to erase borders, and dissolve national sovereignty so that the people of the world can fall under a united global system.  What they don't tell you is that it is all based on Marxist principles, and totalitarian expectations.  The Democrats also want open borders because they have erroneously convinced people they are the party of the poor and the needy, even though all of their policies create poverty, and work to benefit the wealthy and powerful (who agree with them politically).

While I agree that no human is illegal, humans can be illegally in a country.  As Thomas Jefferson once reminded us, "a country without borders is not a country."

From my point of view, it is as simple as protecting our home.  We lock the doors of our homes not because we hate everyone on the outside, but because we love everyone on the inside.  Even when we are home we don't just throw our door open and allow anybody to walk right in.  We look through the eye-hole, or peek around the corner of the door with it only cracked open, in order to identify and vet the person at the door before letting them in.

This country is our home.  All I ask is that immigrants knock on the door, and go through the vetting process that includes ensuring they are not dangerous (criminal history, make sure they have no ties to drug cartels or terrorist groups, etc.).  To do that we need to secure the border (and walls make the best obstacles) and enforce the immigration laws we have on the books.  If they are too harsh, fine, adjust the laws.  If you think families are getting separated and the facilities are not very nice for the illegals, first of all they brought it upon themselves by crossing illegally, and second, the border patrol has been asking for more funding so that the process can be less painful and the facilities can better accommodate the massive numbers they are facing.  But, the Democrats keep shooting down any chance for that funding.  So when idiots like AOC complains about the facilities, and calls them concentration camps, isn't it her own party that has enabled the poor conditions she is complaining about by refusing to provide more funding for ICE and the Border Patrol?

As for the kids in cages accusation, that happened during the Obama administration, it is not happening during the Trump presidency.  I can't believe the Democrat faithful are so gullible that they believe that whopper.

Read the other articles in this series:
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Sunday, September 22, 2019

Nobody Said Black Lives Don't Matter

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

This is the second in our series of six articles regarding liberal left talking points, "Science is Real, Black Lives Matter, No Human is Illegal, Love is Love, Women's Rights are Human Rights, Kindness is Everything."

The amazing thing about leftist talking points is not what they are saying, but what they are inferring.  By saying science is real, it creates the assumption that somebody is claiming science is not real.  By shouting Black Lives Matter, it is saying that somebody said that black lives do not matter.  Going down the list, each line makes a similar assumption, leading the reader to conclude there must be people saying otherwise.  And, since the allegations are coming from the liberal left, it then provides the assumption that conservative republicans say that science is not real, the GOP and white police say black lives don't matter, there are human beings who are considered illegal (and therefore not human) by members of the political right, some people who claim to love in a different manner than the norm are actually not capable of love, women's rights are not human rights which would then create the idea that women are somehow less than human, and there are times kindness does not matter at all to some people.

It is a masterful manipulation of language, and a diabolical play on the assumptions of the average person.

The problem is, the assumptions people are making based on the talking points are false.  For example, no conservative ever said black lives don't matter.

There may be a very small minority of rotten people in American Society who are so racist, and so out of their mind crazy, that they believe there are people whose lives don't matter.  Anything is always slightly possible.  But it is safe to assume that most people are not that way.  However, with the sound-byte "Black Lives Matter," and the accompanying political rhetoric, the liberal left have not only decided that a large portion of people actually believe that black lives do not matter, but that the problem is so bad that the alleged racists desire the death of blacks, and/or a return to the days of Jim Crow laws, or even the age of slavery.

Of course, the very idea in this modern society that an entire class of people, or the followers of an entire political party, believes such a thing is preposterous.  Yet, for some the sound-byte is so effective, that that is exactly what they believe.

And the politicians play on it like it's a fiddle.

What amazes me is how illogical, based on recent evidence, the claim truly is.

Exhibit A: The first black president in the history of the United States, Barack Obama.

Exhibit B: The overwhelming popularity of President Trump to a base that not only elected the billionaire businessman, but in defiance of a conventional wisdom that said Hillary Clinton was a sure thing.

We are told that President Trump and his supporters are racist, and that the racists were so angry at the Democrats for their black President, Barack Obama, that they pulled together to surprise everyone in the election of Trump in 2016.

Question: If the Republican Party base is that racist, and that capable of overwhelming the electoral process with their numbers, then why wasn't stopping the first black president in 2008 or 2012 possible?

The obvious answer is that racism played no part.  Political policies, and promises, did.  Simply, the conservative voters of the Republican Party were not inspired enough by the candidates from the previous elections, John McCain and Mitt Romney, to even overcome their alleged prejudices (of which apparently does not exist), but Trump's stance on policies, and his firm stance on what he believes, was enough to inspire an entire, otherwise silent, group of voters who put him into office.

In short, if racism was the reason for Trump's ability to be elected, would not the racists have been out in greater force with the advent of a black president in the elections prior?

Besides, if Trump and his supporters were of the belief that Black Lives Don't Matter, they'd be angry about the economic boom going on in the black community as a result of Trump's policies, including the lowest black unemployment rate in history.

Oh, and don't forget that Trump once won the Ellis Island Award for his work in minority neighborhoods.

Read the rest of the articles in this series:
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Science is Real

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

The progressive left is good at sound-bytes and mantras.  They chant, they yell, and they do it with language mechanisms that are designed to be impossible to argue with.  The latest is the list you see in the image to the left.  It reads: Science is Real, Black Lives Matter, No Human is Illegal, Love is Love, Women's Rights are Human Rights, and Kindness is Everything.

I learned about the "Science Is Real" statement while watching Rebecca Friedrichs provide information about the indoctrination of our children, and the sexualization of our children, in the public schools.  The list to the left, in fact, as she showed us in her slide presentation, is on (or was on) the California teacher's union website. I've heard various liberal left talking heads mutter the same.  The first line, Science is Real, caught my attention first, and to me it's pretty obvious that it is simply their way of combating against "climate change deniers" like yours truly.

The problem is, real science is not something that is supposed to be manipulated and guided for the purpose of supporting a political agenda, and in many cases so as to provide reports so that the government money to the scientist's work keeps on flowing.

The problem began long before the fake science of man-made climate change or the latest outcropping of fake sexual deviation biology.  While they are the latest manifestations of science for political gain, the fake science business being called real science goes back a lot further than any of us are capable of remembering.

Science began when humans decided they wanted to learn more about the universe that God had Created.  It didn't take long before secularists and humanists took over and began to try and use science to prove God false.  The science, however, didn't add up, and to this day, the anti-God science still doesn't add up.  The evidence they claimed is out there, somewhere, never seemed to surface.  Despite the confidence by evolution scientists that Darwin's theories must be accurate, the science has never proven it.  To this day, evolution remains a mere theory.

They can't explain the Cambrian Explosion.  They can't explain the genesis of everything (how nothing became something).  And they have yet to find their coveted missing link.

Evolutionists want you to believe we are the result of a cosmic accident, and that these accidents take billions of years to manifest.  They tell us that life began with random chance and chemical reactions.  Yet, the complexity of the organisms and the environment we live in screams that chance is not capable of such things.  As with building a mechanism in a factory, the chance of that same mechanism forming on its own over billions of years on its own without a designer is a big, fat, zero.

The ideas presented by evolutionists have no proof whatsoever.  The idea that the world and the universe is millions and billions of years old, for example, is simply a guess, and one fashioned to fit the narrative, not one supported by science.

While the evolutionists cannot scientifically prove that they are correct, the reality is, and they are only still around because at the moment they can also not be scientifically proven wrong.

Or, can they?

The reality is that the theories don't add up when science is actually applied.  Evolution is a farce.  Man-made Climate Change is a made up lie based on manipulated models (don't get me wrong, climate change exists, but it's a natural occurrence guided by natural factors).  And the biology being used to support homosexual and transsexual arguments is simply a fantasy made up as they go along, and a very dangerous one, at that.

I am tired of the progressives claiming pseudo-science is real science, and then trying to ridicule any opposition into silence if we dare to disagree.  Perhaps, just perhaps, the way to combat it is with real science.

Here's a taste of some real science:



Read the Rest of the Articles in this Series:
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Saturday, September 21, 2019

Pomp and Circumstance

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

I was at the Anaheim Convention Center earlier today for an event that basically unites global dignitaries and humanitarians in a front against communism, and global poverty.  I was asked to take the stage at one point, and so I spoke shortly about our veterans at the event, explaining that it is because of the American troop that other countries in the world have the opportunity to possibly taste liberty in their own lands.  While the U.S. Constitution was written to establish American Liberty, it was also a document written for the rest of the world.  The Framers hoped that the example of American Liberty would become something other countries would wish to emulate.  America planned to spread its message not by conquering other nations through empirical means, but by setting an example for others to follow.

"Communism is not the future hope for the world.  Liberty is," I said in conclusion.

The largely Vietnamese audience applauded as the final words dripped from my lips.

Following the expo a Gala dinner was held.  The organizer of the event is a friend of mine, so he gave me, without expecting anything in return, one of the $500 tickets to get in.  The dinner was not bad.  A small filet of fish (salmon, I think), asparagus, and a mystery vegetable that looked like carrots, but tasted like something else altogether.  My table was sparsely populated, at first.  I was alone, until a friend of mine who was assigned to a different table decided to join me.  Later, the emcee, a spokesmodel who stood on stage next to the emcee to add a little beauty to the scene, and their significant others, also joined my table, along with the organizer's right hand man (who was also in charge of crowd control, it seemed), and a lovely woman who ate, and then left to mingle.  The company I had turned out to be a pleasure to talk to.  I handed out business cards and flyers regarding what I do, and perhaps made a couple new friends along the way (the spokesmodel's husband being the one I really got to know well).  While the conversation at my table wound up becoming an enjoyable part of the event, the atmosphere of the gala dinner was almost comical.

With so many people who hold titles of some kind at the event, they all expected to be announced, and fawned over.

Don't get me wrong.  I have respect for those who have reached important offices.  World leaders (and former world leaders) filled the room. I spent a moment speaking to a general (in full uniform) who escorted the former female president of Cambodia. The room was filled with leaders, princesses, reverends, monks and other important people of all kinds, including a few from the alternative media.  More than half the room participated in the grand entrance, with a smattering of us lower folk encouraged to clap and make over their entrances for the cameras.

Again, I am not mocking people's positions.  I am simply amazed at how much they demand to be recognized for those positions.

Humility was not a commodity that dominated the room.

A red carpet was laid out, and the long, flowing dresses and suits with sashes draped across them, entered one by one, and then paused for a photo opp.

My friend commented I ought to be among the group of important people.  I simply smiled, and shook my head.  "No," I replied.  "They can keep all of that pomp and circumstance.  It's not my thing."

I don't do what I do regarding the Constitution and defending liberty because I expect a pat on the back, or a bunch of people to kiss my feet.  I do it because I love my country, I appreciate liberty, and I feel like the Lord has put me in the position I am in to carry out the task.  Maybe that's why I am not flush with funding.  It's more of a ministry to me, than anything else.

But, I participated in the pomp and circumstance from an audience-member vantage point, applauding when it was expected, and bowing my head in greeting when I met the higher ranking VIPs.

Then, when it was all over, and everyone's shoulders were sore from patting each other on the back, I walked alone to my humble little pick-up truck, dropped on the passenger seat a couple artifacts I had collected during the progression of the evening (a couple woven bags, rice paintings, and a music CD), and drove home as I listened to a local classic rock station.

The memories of the event are good, and the organizer, Tony Nguyen, long ago earned all of my respect and love.  Princess Maria, too, is a fantastic individual, and I am proud of her for establishing the series of award banquets (which she started through the United Nations, but they kicked her out when they realized it was largely anti-communist), but to be honest, the pomp and circumstance, and the less-than-filling extravagant meal left me a little short in the "food in my tummy" category.  A quick two dollar double cheeseburger and a root beer, right before I got on the freeway to head home, did the job.

Meal of champions, if you ask me.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Friday, September 20, 2019

Bolton's Departure

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

President Trump asked John Bolton to step down as National Security Adviser, and he did.  It wasn't some big, nasty firing like the media has been trying to make it out as, but Bolton was, essentially, fired.  I believe Bolton served well as President Donald Trump’s national security adviser, helping Trump strengthen the way the world looks at the United States as the world’s superpower.  And, I think he taught our president a few things along the way.

Bolton understands the world, and that the bad guys out there are indeed bad actors that often can neither be negotiated with, or must be dealt with using a firm hand.  He recognizes the myriad of threats facing the United States, and projects an uncompromising view that the U.S. must protect its interests by projecting strength when dealing with our enemies.

Bolton has been in the game a long time.  He sees the world situation in a way the rest of us are unable to, recognizing things down the road that may become consequences if we don't address them properly.  Bolton is not a conventional wisdom kind of guy who folds under liberal calls for appeasement, but instead has stood as a firm defender of the American way, and our place as a leader on the world stage.  As a result, he successfully partnered with our president to ensure that Trump’s “America First” approach to foreign policy was laid out properly.

Bolton stood by Trump as maximum pressure was applied against the Iranian regime.  Now, Iran is a shadow of the threat they were during the Obama presidency, now more concerned with its economic woes.  As a result, Iran's ability to fund terrorism, and conduct terrorism, has been nipped.  Thanks to President Trump, and the support of Bolton, we have withdrawn from the disastrous Iran nuclear deal, and Bolton, in his role as national security adviser, has played a significant part in ensuring another flawed deal is not on the horizon.

Bolton also played a part in America's response to the Venezuela crisis, confronting Russian aggression, and the constant trouble that always seems to be bubbling in the Middle East.  He was instrumental in talking to our NATO allies regarding their lack of investment in their own defense (while leaning heavily on America's good will).  In the process Bolton stood firm against Putin, and called out Russia for their aggression and threats to Europe, making it very clear that the United States was committed to defending its allies who may be targets of Russia.

Bolton's leadership in Asia has led to a strengthened U.S.-Taiwan relationship, a policy of pushing back against China, and America's support of the people in Hong Kong.

He also was a staunch defender of national sovereignty and self-determination as Britain’s exit (Brexit) from the European Union emerged.  Because of Bolton, a better relationship with the supporters of Brexit in Britain has developed, as well as an offering by the United States that we stand with Britain and her efforts to escape from the tyrannical grip of the European Union.

Bolton's departure, while a sad occurrence, leaves a tremendous legacy in its wake.  The White House is in a stronger position to meet the challenges facing the United States because of his presence in the administration.

In my opinion Bolton was among the most effective national security advisers I've seen in my lifetime, and he will be sorely missed.  Deep down, I think President Trump realizes that, and while I don't know the reasons Bolton was asked to step down, I am sure it was a long and difficult decision for the president.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Taking Things Personal

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

The liberal left has predicated their whole social justice movement on a warped version of "if you don't have something nice to say, don't say anything at all."  While in its purest form, the mantra is essentially true, that does not mean we should go around suffering from emotional wounds every time someone says something to us that may be considered offensive, or off-color.  More often than not, the person delivering what we believe to be hurtful words of hate are not doing it to offend someone or target a particular individual ... and, they probably don't hate you.

In my growth as an individual over that last half-century (and then some) it took me years to quit taking things personal.  Reality dictates that the world does not revolve around us.  Self-absorbed individuals who think that it does, and are offended by everything someone says, are more often than not seeking victimhood, or they are looking for a way to be offended so as to support a political narrative.

That said, sometimes wounds are deep enough that we can be hurt by what someone has said, even though they may unknowingly do it; or, we may hurt others by what we say without even realizing it.

This is where the line between conservatives and liberals is drawn.

Liberals then lash out, call the person a "hater," and create social justice crusades to silence anyone who may say such hurtful things.  Conservatives step back, assess the situation, and realize the person delivering the hurtful remarks likely did not realize that what they were saying could be taken in a hurtful manner, or may be offensive.  Besides, why would we want other individuals to have that kind of control over our emotions?

In my growth over the years I have gotten to the point that you can't offend me.  Sure, there are some deeply rooted things that, if twisted just right, can create hurt deep inside me.  Sure, there are certain things that can be said, or championed, that reminds me of horrendous events that happened to me when I was young.  And I suppose if I wanted to I could lash out at the speaker, or blame my parents, or use a broad brush to paint every member of a particular group (of which my attackers when I was young belonged to) as violent, or rapists, or child molesters.  But, would that really be accurate?  Would that be a strategy that would solve my discomfort or pain?  Would such a tactic be good for my world around me?

In the end, I figure I need to just buck up, understand that the person either likely didn't mean it, or if they did the Lord will deal with them in His own way.  I don't have time for dirtbags, or people who just didn't know any better, to ruin my day.  I have too many positive things to accomplish in my life to become a victim and therefore a social justice warrior crying over every drop of spilled milk, thus, creating a negative swirl of pity around me.

In short, while this may seem harsh, in most cases my advice is, "get over it."  Life is too short to act like a crying, whimpering, victimized liberal.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Thursday, September 19, 2019

Basic Civics

Hand-out for a 4H group I spoke to tonight:


Civics/Government Basics                                                      Presented: September 19, 2019
Douglas V. Gibbs
www.douglasvgibbs.com
www.politicalpistachio.com
constitutionspeaker@yahoo.com


What is government?

Declaration of Independence: Governments are instituted among men to secure our rights.  The Constitution of the United States sets up the framework of our government, determines the distribution of power to the different parts of government, and provides a method for changes to the government, if necessary.  The Federal Government consists of three branches; Legislative, Executive, and Judicial.  The Legislative Branch is tasked with creating, modifying, and repealing laws.  The Executive Branch is tasked with executing the laws, and as the figurehead of the United States while dealing with foreign powers.  The Judicial Branch is tasked with applying the black letter of the law to the cases they hear.  While it has become common practice for the judiciary to also review laws for validity, be it by determining constitutionality, or if the law is a just law, there are no constitutional authorities allowing the courts to carry out such a task.  Judicial Review, as it is called, is technically unconstitutional.

What are rights?

Declaration of Independence: Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.   Among them are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.  Our rights belong to us based on our birth, and it was believed by the Framers of the U.S. Constitution that our rights are “God-given.”  The Declaration provides the following characteristics to our rights: We are entitled to them, they are our possession, we are endowed by the Creator with our rights, they are self-evident, and they are unalienable.  The Bill of Rights was written as a warning to the federal government to not interfere with our rights.  According to the Constitution the government does not exist to guarantee or protect our rights, but to secure our rights in our possession by restraining itself, and others, from interfering with our rights.

How does government work?

In most governmental systems there are three parts.  Legislative, Executive, and Judicial.  In the United States we have a Federal Government, State Governments, County Governments, and Municipal Governments.  Each of them are broken up into those three parts.
· Federal:  Legislative – Congress.  Executive – President.  Judicial – Court System.
· State: Legislative – Assembly and State Senate.  Executive – Governor.  Judicial – State Courts.
· County: Legislative – County Supervisors.  Executive – Sheriff.  Judicial – County Courts.
· Municipal: Legislative – City Council.  Executive – Mayor and Chief of Police.  Judicial – City Attorney and Municipal Courts.

Structure of the legislature.

Most legislatures consist of two houses.  This is called a “bicameral congress.”  Legislatures work best when there are two houses and the houses are different from each other.  In the Roman Empire the Legislature consisted of an Assembly (voice of the common people), and the Senate (voice of the wealthy and powerful).  In Britain you have the House of Commons (voice of the commoner), and the House of Lords (voice of the nobles).  In the United States, at the founding of our country, the two Houses of Congress were the House of Representatives (voice of the people), and the United States Senate (voice of the States, changed to democratic vote in 1913 with the 17th Amendment).  All State legislatures (except Nebraska) are also broken up into two houses.  The Assembly (or State House of Representatives) and the State Senate.  Prior to 1964 (Reynolds v. Simms) the Assemblies (or State Houses) were the voice of the people, and the State Senate was the voice of the Counties.  The State Senate districts, back then, were based on the county lines.  In an attempt to turn the United States into a democracy, anti-constitution forces fought to change the system so that the Senate districts are designed to break up the States into equally populated districts, and for the senators to be democratically voted into office.  While unconstitutional, today all 50 States follow this model.  Prior to Reynolds v. Simms, States like California saw one senator per county.  Today, State Senate District 2 (which spans along the Northern California Coast between the Oregon State Line and the northern edge of the San Francisco Bay) consists of seven counties, while Los Angeles County contains fourteen senate districts.

How are laws made?

A bill may be presented by one of the houses.  Once it is approved by vote it moves to the other house for approval.  If no amendments are made and the vote approves the bill, it then goes to the executive for signature.  However, if amendments are made, the bill must return to the other house for approval.  The process continues until both houses approve the same exact bill with an agreement on all of the amendments, or the bill dies in the legislature unable to receive enough votes to move forward to the executive.  If the executive disagrees with the bill, or believes it to be unjust or outside legality (unconstitutional), he may veto that bill.  If vetoed, the bill will either die, or can become law if the legislature has enough votes to override the veto.  In the U.S. Congress a two-thirds majority from each house is required to override a veto.

How many members are there in a legislature?

The number varies by State and/or legislature.  In the U.S. Congress there are 435 members of the U.S. House of Representatives (a State’s number of representatives is based on population), and one hundred members of the Senate (two per State).

What is the Electoral College?

The Electoral College is a unique, American-style, way of electing the President of the country.  Electors are chosen to elect the president, and then points are awarded based on a State’s number of representatives in Congress.  For example, California has 53 members of the House of Representatives and two members of the U.S. Senate, giving the State 55 Electoral Votes.  The Electoral College protects the country from the excesses of democracy, changing the vote from a single popular vote to 51 (50 States plus Washington D.C.) separate and distinct contests.  The Electoral College, in the process, reduces the influence heavily populated areas have on the election.  Without the Electoral College, the votes from the Los Angeles, Chicago, New York, Philadelphia, Houston, Washington D.C., and San Francisco metropolitan areas would be sufficient to elect the President, and nobody else’s votes would matter.  All but two States have a “winner take all” system where all of the electoral votes for the State go to the statewide winner.  Nebraska and Maine split up their electoral votes into electoral districts, so it is possible for some of the State’s electoral votes to go to one candidate, and the rest to another.  Some States, in an attempt to sabotage the Electoral College, have been proposing legislation that would change the system in their State to all of their electoral votes going to the national popular vote winner.

What is the difference between a Democracy and a Republic?

In a Democracy the laws and rules of society are only determined by democratic vote.  In a representative democracy the people vote for representatives to make the laws for them.  In a republic the power of the vote is minimized through a series of checks and balances, and any democratic votes are limited. Originally, in the United States, the only federal office democratically voted into power was the House of Representatives.  Thomas Jefferson called democracy the “tyranny of the majority where 51% can vote away the rights of the other 49%.”  John Adams said that “there was never a democracy that did not commit suicide.”  James Madison said, “Democracies are short in their lives and violent in their deaths.”   The United States was originally established as a republic, and in Article IV. of the U.S. Constitution the document states that the United States shall guarantee to each State a republican form of government.

What powers are different between the two Houses of the U.S. Congress?

At one time the Senators were appointed by the State legislatures.  Since 1913 (17th Amendment) the Senators have been democratically voted into office by the populace.  Therefore, the two chambers of Congress are essentially equal, save for these differences: Persons nominated by the President of the United States, such as judges, ambassadors, cabinet officers, and other senior primary officers of the U.S. Government must be confirmed by the Senate by a majority vote; Treaties negotiated with foreign countries must be ratified by the Senate with a two-thirds majority vote; in cases of impeachment, the Senate hears the cases with the President of the Senate (Vice President of the United States) carrying out the duties as chief presiding officer, unless the President is being impeached, at which time the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court will preside over the hearing.  The U.S. House of Representatives alone has the power to establish articles of impeachment, and bills affecting revenue may only originate in the House of Representatives.

Why is government important?

The framers of the U.S. Constitution called government a “necessary evil.”  With government, we run the risk of it becoming a tyranny.  Without it, we live in chaos with no rules regarding how to live together in a society.  As a member of a society with a government, it is our duty to respect the government, obey the laws, and give thoughtful opinions as we participate in the duties of citizenship.  With freedom comes responsibility, and that means we must all participate, and work to change the laws or representation in our government should we believe that the laws or representatives are not best for our society.  As Americans we agree to do what we can to keep our system of government in good working order, and consistent with the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.


-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Wednesday, September 18, 2019

Temecula Constitution Class: Amendments, Federal Supremacy

Temecula Constitution Class, Wednesdays 6:00 pm
28120 Jefferson Avenue, Temecula, CA
Riverside County Republican Party Headquarters

Constitution Class Handout
Instructor: Douglas V. Gibbs
douglasvgibbs@reagan.com
 
 
 
 
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
 
 
---------------------------------------

 
Lesson 11
 
Debt and Supremacy
 
            Prior Debt
 
Article VI begins with "All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation."
 
The first clause of Article VI legally transfers all debts and engagements under the Articles of Confederation into the new government. This is not only the debts and engagements by the United States Government under the Articles of Confederation, but also includes all debts of each of the several States. After ratification of the Constitution, each and every State would be debt free, and all debt would be held by the federal government. This condition, according to the Constitution, would be the last time the States would legally be in debt. In Article I, Section 10, the Constitution forbids the States from issuing bills of credit.
 
Alexander Hamilton, the first Treasury Secretary, suggested that the United States should remain in perpetual debt. Maintaining a perpetual debt, he explained, would be a mechanism that could assist in holding together the union, since States would be unlikely to secede when they are responsible for a part of the national debt.
 
Thomas Jefferson disagreed with Hamilton. He recognized the necessity to maintain the ability to borrow, and the need for credit, but found a national debt to be a potentially dangerous proposition.
 
"Though much an enemy to the system of borrowing, yet I feel strongly the necessity of preserving the power to borrow. Without this, we might be overwhelmed by another nation, merely by the force of its credit." -- Thomas Jefferson to the Commissioners of the Treasury, 1788.
 
"I am anxious about everything which may affect our credit. My wish would be, to possess it in the highest degree, but to use it little. Were we without credit, we might be crushed by a nation of much inferior resources, but possessing higher credit." -- Thomas Jefferson to George Washington, 1788.
 
"Though I am an enemy to the using our credit but under absolute necessity, yet the possessing a good credit I consider as indispensable in the present system of carrying on war. The existence of a nation having no credit is always precarious." -- Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1788.
 
"I wish it were possible to obtain a single amendment to our Constitution. I would be willing to depend on that alone for the reduction of the administration of our government; I mean an additional article taking from the Federal Government the power of borrowing. I now deny their power of making paper money or anything else a legal tender. I know that to pay all proper expenses within the year would, in case of war, be hard on us. But not so hard as ten wars instead of one. For wars could be reduced in that proportion; besides that the State governments would be free to lend their credit in borrowing quotas." -- Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1798.
 
"I sincerely believe... that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity under the name of funding is but swindling futurity on a large scale." -- Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1816.
 
"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks...will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.... The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs." -- Thomas Jefferson in the debate over the Re-charter of the Bank Bill (1809)
 
"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies." -- Thomas Jefferson
 
"... The modern theory of the perpetuation of debt has drenched the earth with blood, and crushed its inhabitants under burdens ever accumulating." -- Thomas Jefferson
 
 
 
            The Supremacy Clause
 
Article VI, Clause 2: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
 
Perhaps one of the most misunderstood and misapplied clauses of the U.S. Constitution, the Supremacy Clause has been used in line with the concept of Federal Supremacy. Federal Supremacy is a concept our first Chief Justice, John Jay, believed in. During his stint on the Supreme Court Jay worked feverously to establish broader powers for the courts, and to transform the federal government into a national government. He quit the Supreme Court after failing, pursuing an opportunity to be governor of New York.
 
Chief Justice John Marshall spent his 36 years on the Supreme Court attempting to establish, and expand federal supremacy, and largely succeeded. Marshall is embraced by statists as the one to develop federal supremacy in his opinion of the Mcculloch v. Maryland case in 1819 where the Court invalidated a Maryland law that taxed all banks in the State, including a branch of Alexander Hamilton's creation, the national Bank of the United States. Marshall held that although none of the enumerated powers of Congress explicitly authorized the incorporation of the national bank, the Necessary and Proper Clause provided the basis for Congress's action. Marshall concluded that "the government of the Union, though limited in its power, is supreme within its sphere of action."
 
During the 1930s, under Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the Court invoked the Supremacy Clause to give the federal government broader national power. The federal government cannot involuntarily be subjected to the laws of any state, they proclaimed, and is therefore supreme in all laws and actions.
 
The legally, and commonly, accepted definition, as a result of the courts and the persistence of, regarding the Supremacy Clause, is that all federal laws supersede all State laws.
 
The commonly understood definition of the Supremacy Clause is in error. To understand the true meaning of this clause, one must pay close attention to the language used.
 
If the federal government has a law on the books, and the law was made under the authorities granted by the States in the United States Constitution, and a state, or city, passes a law that contradicts that constitutional federal law, the federal government's law is supreme based on The Supremacy Clause. However, if the federal law is unconstitutional because it was made outside constitutional authority, it is an illegal law, and therefore is not supreme over similar State laws.
 
An example of the federal government acting upon the assumption that all federal law is supreme over State law is when the medical marijuana laws emerged in California in 1996 after the passage of Proposition 215. Though I do not necessarily agree with the legalization of the casual recreational use of marijuana, and believe "weed" should be heavily regulated like any other pharmaceutical drug if being used for medicinal purposes, the actual constitutional legality of the issue illustrates my point quite well.
 
California's law legalizing marijuana for medicinal purposes was contrary to all federal law that identified marijuana as being illegal in all applications. Using the commonly accepted authority of the federal government based on their definition of the Supremacy Clause, federal agents began raiding and shutting down medical marijuana labs in California. However, there is no place in the U.S. Constitution that gives the federal government the authority to regulate drugs, nor has there been an amendment passed to grant that authority to the federal government. From a constitutional point of view, then, the raids on medical Marijuana labs in California were unconstitutional actions by the federal government.
 
The Supremacy Clause applies only to federal laws that are constitutionally authorized. Therefore, federal drug laws are unconstitutional. As a result, California's medical marijuana laws are constitutional because they are not contrary to any constitutionally authorized federal laws.
 
Language plays an important part in the Constitution, and The Supremacy Clause is no different. The clause indicates that State laws cannot be contrary to constitutionally authorized federal laws. For example, Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 states that it is the job of the U.S. Congress to establish an uniform rule of naturalization. The word "uniform" means that the rules for naturalization must apply to all immigrants, and to all states, in the same way. If a state was to then pass a law that granted citizenship through the naturalization process in a way not consistent with federal law, the State would be guilty of violating the Supremacy Clause.
 
In the case of Arizona's immigration law, S.B. 1070 in 2010, the argument by the federal government that Arizona's law is contrary to federal law was an erroneous argument. Assuming, for just a moment, that the federal government has complete authority over immigration (which is not true since immigration is one of those issues in which the federal government and the States have concurrent powers), Arizona's law would then need to be identical to federal law. And in most ways, the Arizona law was similar to federal immigration law. The only difference was that Arizona's law disallowed racial profiling.
 
The federal government's argument when the United States Department of Justice filed a lawsuit against the state of Arizona in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona on July 6, 2010, was that the law must be declared invalid because it interfered with the immigration regulations exclusively vested in the federal government. Therefore, a State cannot enforce immigrations laws if the federal government decides not to, nor can a State pass law regarding an issue that the federal government has sole authority over. In this way, Arizona was considered to be acting "contrary" to the federal government.
 
Article I, Section 9, Clause 1, and Article I, Section 10 in the final clause, provides that States hold concurrent authorities regarding immigration, and securing the border. Therefore, the federal government's argument that they held sole authority over the issue was in error.
 
Eric Holder, when he filed the lawsuit in the U.S. District Court also acted unconstitutionally because in Article III, Section 2, the Constitution states that all cases "in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction." Since the case was the United States v. Arizona, the case, constitutionally, could only be filed with the United States Supreme Court.
 
The language in Article VI, Clause 2 reveals clearly that only laws made under the authorities granted to the federal government have supremacy. Article VI, Clause 2 reads, "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
 
The clause establishes three things as being potentially the supreme law of the land. First, "This Constitution." Second, "Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof." And Third, all Treaties made, or which shall be made."
 
"This Constitution" is the supreme law of the land. Understanding that first part of the clause is easy.
 
The second one has a condition attached to it. "Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof."
 
In pursuance thereof? In pursuance of what?
 
Of "This Constitution."
 
Therefore, if a law is not made "in pursuance" of "This Constitution," then the law is an illegal law, and cannot possibly be the supreme law of the land. Unconstitutional laws are not the supreme law of the land, which reveals that all federal laws are not the supreme law of the land. Illegal law made outside the authorities granted by the Constitution of the United States cannot legally be the supreme law of the land.
 
After "pursuance thereof" in the clause, a semicolon is used. The semicolon separates "Treaties" from the "Laws of the United States." The separation by the semicolon means that "in pursuance thereof" applies to "Laws of the United States," but not to "Treaties." This means that treaties not in line with the principles of the Constitution can be accepted as the supreme law of the land.
 
The concern over treaties was not great, because the Senate was the voice of the States, and the States are the final arbiters of the Constitution. If the States are willing to ratify what would be considered an unconstitutional treaty, they must be given the chance. Therefore, "in pursuance thereof" does not apply to treaties.
 
The importance of this part of the Supremacy Clause revealed itself during Jefferson's Louisiana Purchase in 1803. As discussed in Article I, Section 8, Clause 17, the federal government does not have the authority to buy or own land unless it is purchased from a State, by the consent of the State legislature, for the purpose of needful buildings. The details of the Louisiana Purchase did not fit Article I, Section 8, Clause 17's requirement. To get around that, President Thomas Jefferson negotiated the Louisiana Purchase with France through treaties. Since treaties were ratified by the States through the Senate, it kept the States involved in the process, and made the purchase the law of the land even though technically it was not constitutional.
 
            Oath or Affirmation to Support This Constitution
 
Article VI, Clause 3 indicates that all elected officials are bound to support the Constitution by oath or affirmation. An oath is to God, and an affirmation is not a sworn oath to God. This was offered because the Founding Fathers recognized that not everyone believed in God, and that there were some religions that believed swearing to God to be a sin.
 
The final clause of Article VI also states that there shall be no religious test to serve. This was not the case inside the States. This was a provision only required of the federal government. At the State level, established churches, and religious tests were the norm. The Danbury Baptists in Connecticut appealed to President Jefferson because they felt they were being mistreated by the Puritans. The Baptists felt they were being treated like second class citizens in a State dominated by the Puritan Church. Jefferson replied that the federal government could not help them. It was a State issue.
 
Alexis de Tocqueville observed when he visited the United Sates in the 1830s that religious freedom had truly come to The States. In America, the politicians prayed, and the pastors preached politics, yet neither controlled the other. He concluded America's greatness was a result of the good in America, coining the term American Exceptionalism.
 
Terms:
Concurrent Powers - Government powers shared by the State and the federal government.
 
Exceptionalism - The condition of being exceptional or unique; the theory or belief that something, especially a nation, does not conform to a pattern or norm.
 
National Bank - In the United States, a bank chartered by the federal government authorized to issue notes that serve as currency; a bank owned and administered by the government, as in some European countries.
 
Oath - A solemn sworn declaration, or promise, to a deity (God), to fulfill a pledge.
 
Supremacy Clause - Clause in the Constitution that indicates that all federal laws, and treaties, passed under the authorities granted by the Constitution, are the Supreme Law of the Land
 
Questions for Discussion:
1. What was the common opinion by the Founding Fathers regarding a perpetual national debt?
 
2. What limitations on national debt did the Framers of the United States Constitution consider?
 
3. It is a common belief in today's society that all federal laws are supreme to all State and municipal laws. Why is this belief wrong?
 
4. How does the Supremacy Clause enable Nullification?
 
5. Why does the Constitution offer the opportunity for both oaths, and affirmations?
 
Resources:
John Taylor, New Views of the Constitution of the United States; Washington City: By Way and Gideon
(1823)
 
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
 
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)
 
Sam Cornell, The Other Founders: Anti-Federalism and the
Dissenting Tradition in America, 1788-1828; Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press (1999)
 
Copyright: Douglas V. Gibbs, 2015