Tuesday, February 25, 2020

Corona Constitution Class: First Amendment


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

Constitution Class Handout
Instructor: Douglas V. Gibbs



Lesson 13
The First Amendment

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

            Freedom of Religion

The first part of the 1st Amendment addresses religion.  The frame of reference of the Founding Fathers was Europe, and more specifically, England.  In Europe, a movement to reform the Church began in 1517, influenced by Martin Luther’s critiques of the Roman Catholic Church.  The movement led to the Protestant Reformation.  After the Pope denied the King of England the permission to divorce his wife, the English king created the Church of England, and established himself as head of the church, so that he may grant to himself the allowance to seek a divorce.  In England the Church of England greatly influenced the centralized governmental system, and the politicians greatly influenced The Church.  There was no separation between powers of the king and the church, a problem that revealed itself with the 1559 Act of Uniformity.  According to the Act of Uniformity, it was illegal to not attend Church of England services.  A fine was imposed for each missed Sunday and holy day.  Penalties also existed if one decided to have church services not approved by the government, which included arrest, and larger fines.  The problem, the Founding Fathers reasoned, was not faith in God, but the establishment of a State Church.  Therefore, to protect the governmental system from the influence of religion, while also protecting the various religious sects from a government that may give preferential treatment to an established religion, the Founders determined that the federal government must not establish a state religion (Establishment Clause).

The second part of that clause, however, was clearly designed to protect the various religious exercises by Americans from the government by instructing government to not prohibit the free exercise of religion.

Freedom of religion was a big deal with those early Americans.  The importance of religious freedom during that time period is common knowledge.  Even the textbooks in today’s public school system reveals the Pilgrims first came to the New World in search of religious freedom.

Through the passage of time secular forces in our society have worked to undermine the first clause of the 1st Amendment.  Americans have been conditioned to believe in a concept known as the Separation of Church and State.  The concept has determined the church is to have no influence, no matter how subtle, on government for any reason.  Therefore, reason the secularists who support the modern concept of the separation of church and state, any mention of God in the same breath with the federal government is in direct violation of the 1st Amendment.

To understand the error of the concept of Separation of Church and State in today's society, we must go back and discover the origination of the idea.  The truth demands we recognize the language used in the writings of the Founders, as well as grasp the history of the colonies - including a series of letters between the federal government and the Danbury Baptists of Connecticut, culminating in the letters to Thomas Jefferson after he became President of the United States after the Election of 1800.

Each of the colonies began as a collection of like-minded religious folk who wanted freedom for their religion (not necessarily freedom of all religions).  In Jamestown, in 1610, Dales Law mandated the Jamestown colonists to attend Anglican worship.  The law went so far as to have provisions against criticism of the church.  Violation of Dales Law could even lead to death.  The Puritan Colonies to the north had similar laws, even setting up their governments in accordance with Puritan Law.  Connecticut was one of those Puritan Colonies, and in 1639 the colony enacted "The Fundamental Orders of Connecticut."  The law set Connecticut up as a theocracy, disallowing non-Puritans from holding office.  The government was the church, and the church was the government.

The practice of religious preference was not limited to Connecticut.  All of the States enforced established religions, except Pennsylvania and Rhode Island.

Though Pennsylvania was largely a Quaker dominated State, William Penn believed that religion should be free from state control, so Pennsylvania did not persecute non-Quakers.  However, in Pennsylvania, in order to hold office, you still had to be a Christian.

Rhode Island, founded in 1636 as a colony, was based on the principle of true religious liberty, and took in folks who were trying to escape the religious persecution of the other colonies.

Connecticut’s Puritan dominated landscape included a group of Baptists in Danbury, Connecticut who were tired of being treated like second class citizens.

Thomas Jefferson drafted the Virginia Act For Establishing Religious Freedom in Virginia, and with James Madison's assistance, finally got it enacted into law in 1786.  After many letters to President Adams that resulted in no assistance, the Danbury Baptists were excited about Jefferson winning the presidential election in 1800.  Finally, they would have someone in office who would help them in their fight for religious freedoms in Connecticut.

The Danbury Baptists wrote to Jefferson to congratulate him for his win, and to appeal to him for help.  Thomas Jefferson responded with a letter that carries the line, "a wall of separation between church and state," which has become the source from which the infamous concept of Separation of Church and State was eventually derived.

The Founding Fathers desired that Americans be free to worship as they wished, without being compelled by government through an established religion.  The key, however, is that they not only did not want the federal government compelling a person through laws regarding religion, but the government shall not “prohibit the free exercise thereof.”

Thomas Jefferson, as indicated in his letter to the Danbury Baptists, and his other writings, was against the government establishing a “State Church.”  However, he also believed that men should be free to exercise their religion as they deem fit, and not be forced to follow a government mandate that may prohibit religion.

The Danbury Baptists were concerned over local religious freedoms, but Jefferson was clear, the federal government could not mandate anything in regards to religion.  It is a State issue, and the Danbury Baptists needed to address the issue themselves through their State government.  Jefferson’s reference to a wall of separation was an explanation that the federal government cannot prohibit the free exercise of religion for any reason, including on public grounds, but if a State was to prohibit the free exercise of religion, or establish a state church, it was an issue that must be resolved at the State level.

            Freedom of Speech and Freedom of the Press

The point of including in the Bill of Rights the freedom of speech, and of the press, was specifically designed to protect political speech, though other speech is protected by this clause as well.  The Founding Fathers believed that freedom hinged on the freedoms of political speech and the press.  Benjamin Franklin wrote in the Pennsylvania Gazette, April 8, 1736, regarding the American doctrine behind freedom of speech and of the press:

“Freedom of speech is a principal pillar of a free government; when this support is taken away, the constitution of a free society is dissolved, and tyranny is erected on its ruins. Republics and limited monarchies derive their strength and vigor from a popular examination into the action of the magistrates.”

James Madison in 1799 wrote, “In every State, probably, in the Union, the press has exerted a freedom in canvassing the merits and measures of public men of every description which has not been confined to the strict limits of the common law.”

            Freedom of the Right of the People To Peaceably Assemble, and to Petition the Government for a Redress of Grievances

The right to peaceably assemble means that citizens may peacefully parade and gather, and demonstrate support or opposition of public policy.  This part of the 1st Amendment is closely tied to Freedom of Speech, guaranteeing one's ability to express one's views by freedom of speech and the right to peaceably assemble.

The need to protect the right to peaceably assemble was not a new concept during the Constitutional Convention.  Before the Bill of Rights, the Declaration and Resolves of the First Continental Congress declared on October 14, 1774:

The inhabitants of the English colonies in North-America, by the immutable laws of nature, the principals of the English constitution, and the several charters or compacts, have the following rights: They have a right peaceably to assemble, consider their grievances, and petition the king: and that all prosecutions, prohibitory proclamations, and commitments for the same are illegal.

In 1776, Pennsylvania's declaration of rights guaranteed peaceable assembly.  Pennsylvania was the first State to recognize this right.

Originally, the right to assemble was considered less important than the right to petition. Now, many historians consider the two to be equally important, and to actually complement each other.

The Founding Fathers felt that the right to assemble, and petition the government for a redress of grievances, were important keys to protecting States' Rights, and the rights of the people, from the federal government.  The need to assemble, to come together and share common beliefs and act upon those beliefs, is what began the drive for independence, and ultimately what led to the American Revolution.  The right to assemble and petition the government for a redress of grievances, the Founding Fathers believed, was one of the primary tools available to the citizens in their drive to stop tyrannies before they could take hold.

The right to peaceable assembly provides the opportunity for all citizens to participate in America's political life and in the electoral process.  A recent example of this inalienable right in action is the Tea Party Movement.  The Tea Party rallies are peaceful assemblies.  These rallies are protected by the Constitution when they are for a lawful purpose, are conducted in an orderly manner, and publicize some type of grievance.  Many groups and organizations use assembly as a way to show support for an idea, or dispute, as characterized by the Tea Party.
Terms:

1559 Act of Uniformity - In Britain it was illegal not to attend Church of England services, with a fine imposed for each missed Sunday and holy day.  Penalties for having unofficial services included arrest and larger fines.

Protestant Reformation - Movement of the Church Reform begun in 1517 that was influenced by Martin Luther’s critiques of the Roman Catholic Church.  The movement led to the formation of the Protestant Christian groups.

Separation of Church and State - Distance in the relationship between organized religion and the nation state.

Theocracy - Form of government in which a state is as governed by religion, or by clergy who believes they are under immediate divine guidance.

Questions for Discussion:

1.  How does today’s definition of the separation between church and state differ from the attitude towards religion by the Founding Fathers?

2.  Why did the Danbury Baptists appeal to Thomas Jefferson for help?

3.  Why do you think that the Founding Fathers believed that our freedoms hinged on the freedoms of political speech and the press?

4.  What are examples of the people peaceably assembling in protest?

Resources:

Danbury Baptist Association's letter to Thomas Jefferson, October 7,
1801: http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/dba_jefferson.html

Jefferson’s Final Letter to the Danbury Baptists, January 1, 1802:
http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.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).

Philip B. Kurland and Ralph Lerner, The Founder’s Constitution –
Volume Five - Amendments I-XII; Indianapolis: Liberty Fund (1987).

The Declaration and Resolves of the First Continental Congress declared
on October 14, 1774, U.S. History dot org: http://www.ushistory.org/Declaration/related/decres.htm

Thomas Jefferson, The Virginia Act For Establishing Religious Freedom,
1786: http://religiousfreedom.lib.virginia.edu/sacred/vaact.html

Copyright 2015 Douglas V. Gibbs

India Excited to Welcome President Trump

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

Despite the fake news being reported by the mainstream media about India, it turns out the country loves Trump.  The crowds welcoming our President were massive, with millions excited about his arrival, and the stadium he spoke out maxxed out at 125,000.  The crowds cheered as Trump stated America will stand with India in stopping radical Islam.  He pledged the U.S. will sell $3 billion in arms to help India in that fight.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Monday, February 24, 2020

Never Trumper Russian Collusion Delusion: Arrest of Hector Alejandro Cabrera Fuentes

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

If you are convinced something is true, even if it is not, you will see it even when it does not exist.  For example, Black Lives Matter folks believe all white people are racist, and then they see racism in everything a white person does, even if it is anything but racist.  Socialists believe capitalism is bad, so regardless of the overall picture, anything and everything about the free market to them looks evil.  I never noticed very many gold colored Camrys on the road until I bought one, then suddenly it seemed like one of the most common cars on the road.  When we focus our attention on something, we can literally think it into truth in the deep dark depths of our minds.

This is what happens when people but blinders on, and only see what they expect to see.

The Russian Collusion hoax has done much of the same thing.  Even though it is a lie created by the Clintons and their allies, for those who believe it they see circumstantial evidence everywhere that Donald J. Trump is some kind of Russian asset.  Never mind that there is a grand total of zero provable pieces of evidence out there.  Yes, there is a whole lot of speculation, presumptions, and hearsay...but none of it is true, hard core, undeniable evidence.

Trump's emergence on the political scene has created a very interesting phenomenon in the United States.  His election as President of the United States has severed friendships, split up families, and has sent the idea of civil discourse screaming bloody and beaten out the window.  And, from a Never-Trumper's point of view, any Russian intrusion into our society is confirmation that the Russia, Russia, Russia narrative is true, and Trump is to blame.

A former member of my team, radio co-host and writer on this website, JASmius, is convinced that Donald J. Trump is something worse than Hillary Clinton ever could be.  All of the good news that comes out of the Trump presidency is not true to him, or has a dark lining.  What is worse is he's not a Democrat.  He is a conservative Never-Trumper.  He sees disaster in every turn the president makes, and believes he is more destructive to the GOP than any Democrat could possibly be.

Then, I saw this from him:

Hector Alejandro Cabrera Fuentes, it turns out, is a Mexican communist arrested for his actions as a Russian asset.  He was arrested for being in Florida on behalf of Russia without notifying the Attorney General, and conspiracy to do the same.  In other words, he kept his presence secret, and purposely tried not to attract attention.  According to the report, Fuentes was directed by the Russian government to be in Florida, and operate under a different name.

What is there to spin, Mr. JASmius?

The whole thing over the Russian Collusion hoax is not that Russia is not trying to infiltrate us, is not trying to spy on us, and is not trying to influence our elections.  Nobody ever said that.  I do believe Russian operatives are swarming throughout the U.S., and that Putin's administration is actively trying to create havoc in our system.  There is no denial that Russian collusion exists.  The argument is that it is not with the current Trump administration.

I remember reading months ago that a report emerged saying that evidence revealed proof-positive that Russia was trying to influence our 2016 Presidential Election, but that it was not geared to help Trump or Hillary Clinton, it was all simply about causing doubts among the populace and chaos in our system.

Fuentes is simply an example of what I am saying.  Yes, Russia is the bad guy.  Yes, Russia has agents infiltrating our country, and likely in our government.  But no, I do not believe Trump is involved in any Russian collusion.  In fact, I believe Russian collusion is in play, but Russia is working with the Democrats, not Trump.  It is the progressives in this country, after all, who more resemble the Marxist ideology of Russia, so a Russia, Russia, Russia relationship with the Democrat Party makes all the sense in the world.

That's not spin; that's just fact.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Sunday, February 23, 2020

What is a Socialist? ... Letter to the Editor

WHAT IS A SOCIALIST?

Opinion by Allan McNew

(Author's note: this is a letter submitted to the Record Gazette newspaper)


A recent, short series of letters originally presented opposing arguments about the recent Trump impeachment effort and media bias. It culminated, as often happens with these things, in a redirected argument about the merits of socialism based on, an invariable occurrence in the course of political discussion, an out of context rebuttal of incidental references to socialists and socialism.

“Socialism” is a chameleon word with its meaning often opportunistically shifted to support the talking point of the moment. But, perhaps political observation can be akin to a judge’s long ago statement about pornography; “I can’t define it, but I know it when I see it.”

The myth that Scandinavian countries are successful socialist models: Sweden experimented with socialism but rapidly abandoned the effort. The Nordic nations are more free market, laissez-faire than the United States while dabbling in the welfare state model. However, the Scandinavian states still have a work ethic. There are currently enough producers to fund the slackers who spend their lives as perpetual students in the “free” college systems funded through the tax base.

Canada is merely flirting with socialism and Canadian Prime Minister Trudeau is not a true socialist. Trudeau is like a sheltered kid growing up in a safe, upper middle class suburb who tries to act tough while scratching his crew’s moniker onto public restroom toilet seats. Then, when real deal gangsters take over the neighborhood those kids find out what it unpleasantly means to be a poser.

House speaker Nancy Pelosi had that experience with the recent House impeachment circus. The millennial socialists working within the Democratic party in Congress and their grass roots supporters are true believers in “The Revolution”, they have some muscle behind them in the form of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) and it’s affiliations, and they are ready to rock and roll - whether in the streets or the chambers of Congress. Whatever Pelosi’s political beliefs and actions may have been during the Vietnam war era “Students for a Democratic Society” (SDS) fueled “Revolution”, Pelosi has until now been a highly successful, politically astute poser.

Presidential socialist candidate Bernie Sanders is a poser too, he used to trash millionaires before he became one himself – now his class warfare bile is generally reserved for billionaires. However, he is currently the vehicle for “The Revolution”, it remains to be seen if that ancient white man is brutally discarded when his usefulness is over or if he is awarded a place among the future socialist oligarchy while his deluded and betrayed followers stand in long lines on “free bread” days, maybe Tuesday and Friday.

Sanders exploits the fervor of the “Revolution”, the militant, street fighter, secular religion of the 1960s New Left which, until now, has been restrained since circa 1975 in favor of Fabian and/or Gramsci gradualism. The grass roots “Revolution” has now come out of its long stay in the campus closet. The members of rival SDS Maoist factions who occupied university administration buildings, incited riots, committed terrorist bombings and armed robberies (like Lenin’s Bolsheviks did to further and finance the “Revolution”) became credentialed academics and have “educated” two and a half generations of college graduates, which is where the Congressional “squad” of Ocasio-Cortez, Omar, Tlaib, and Pressley as well as much of the media got their political ideology. The core rhetoric and base ideology hasn’t changed much over the last 55 years or so.

Mark Zuckerburg, Jeff Bezos, nearly the whole of Silicone Valley, George Soros and the far left politicians and activist organizations who take money from them are posers too. The aforementioned haute bourgeoisie are excused by the latter for their capitalist sins by buying off the “Revolution” and the capitalist robber barons may well take their places among the future socialist oligarchy.

Nearly 100 years ago, near the end of his life, Russian socialist Vladimir Lenin is reputed to have said to the effect that his Bolshevik “revolution” resulted in the bourgeoisie reincarnation of the former Tsarist era – complete with serfs. Then Stalin with his Gulag took over. Stalin made Hitler look like an elementary school boy when it came to doctorate level of tyranny and genocide.

In the modern United States, different factions of socialists, communists and progressives ostensibly have somewhat differing ideologies, but it seems to me they pretty much all say, do and intend the same things with the “progressive” label serving as a screen for socialists and communists to hide behind.

It took me a long time to make sense of the contradictory, mixed, murky goals of the far, far left. Collapsing the economy; insistence on college education while ignoring the erosion of work place skill in the last couple of generations of blue collar workers; legalization of any and all kinds of drugs; exacerbating the homeless problem while exploiting it; the economy killing “green new deal” while willfully ignoring the most egregious polluter on earth; wide open borders; employing identity politics to set everyone against the other; the intended redistribution of income to fund young, able bodied, healthy people to be idle; redistribution of national wealth to other nations; blatant, wild, habitual prevarication to further political ends; creating problems then riding in with solutions to the problems they created, solutions which always further the agenda; the apparent policy of bringing about societal chaos; masters of framed narratives and accomplished sloganeers; wrapping the dirtiest of political deeds in moral tones; socialist, societal change by any means necessary. Collective misery and enraged polarity are needed to propel any population to revolt and usher in the decentralized, stateless, egalitarian, one world of the Utopian future.

But, human nature being what it is, the unwashed masses will need to be guided into what is best for them, therefore the socialist elite will do so with a centralized, coercive police state – the addictive, perpetual exercise of the ideology of despotic power complete with haute bourgeoisie oligarchy and downtrodden serfs.

Nothing is free, and the socialist promise of heaven on earth will never be fulfilled.

Saturday, February 22, 2020

Constitution Radio: Reformation of the Republic

Constitution Radio   
with Douglas V. Gibbs 


Never Mind that Socialist Behind the Curtain, we have plenty on stage at the Democrat Party Debates!!!

KMET 1490-AM 
Get the phone app ... make your smart phone smarter!

1-3 pm Pacific Time on Saturday Afternoon ... or if you miss the show, listen later to the archived podcast at 

Call in at
951-922-3532.

  • True Poll Data Reveals Mass Exodus of Democrats towards Trump
    • Colorado Rally Data
    • No Candidate can stand toe to toe with Trump ... Especially Mike Bloomberg ... Washington Examiner headline: Trump takes 2020 lead, 52%-48%, all Democrats 'probably lose'.
    • Latest Economist/YouGov survey: Most voters believe Trump will probably beat all of his Democratic challengers by at least 19 percentage points.
    • Congressman James Clyburn from South Carolina: While on FOX News, when asked about record black employment under President Donald Trump, Clyburn replied, "we were fully employed during slavery."
    • If Bernie Sanders has a good Super Tuesday he could have an insurmountable delegate lead that could only be busted up by a brokered convention because the establishment super delegates refuse to support Bernie.
      • Brokered Convention: Presidential nominating convention that fails to nominate a candidate on the first ballot because no candidate gets the votes of more than half the delegates.  This could lead to a complex series of negotiations by people in the party who hold the power to control or persuade other delegates.  While, if candidates were willing to convince their candidates to get behind the front-runner (contested convention) the lead candidate may be able to avoid a brokered convention and land the nomination, the vitriol among the current slate of Democrat Candidates makes it pretty obvious that that will likely not happen.
  • What the Democrats really want; because it's ridiculous to think their aim is to save us from the prosperity we are experiencing under Donald J. Trump.
  • Roger Stone sentenced to 40 months (close to Barr's recommendation), and will be pardoned.  It's a non-story.  So why are the media hounds so obsessed?
    • Roger Stone's case only emerged because of the fake Mueller prosecutors and the fake and discredited Russian Dossier.  Never a crime.  They lied, they forged documents, they lied to the FISA court.  Nothing in the whole Russia, Russia, Russia thing was real.  It was a fraudulent investigation looking for a crime that did not exist.  So how is it that Stone can be in jail for supporting Trump in the face of a fake investigation?
  • Trump's West Coast Visit: California, Nevada, Colorado, Arizona.  Big crowds, points voter focus on Democrat Party failures.  Can Trump help in rebuilding California?
    • California Failures: No new water storage facilities built since 1979 (claims we have droughts, passes draconian laws limiting water usage, thousands of acres of once green farmland bone dry), mass homelessness, increased drug usage, sky-high crime rates, 50% of illegal aliens in the country live in California, environmental policies that are actually worse for the environment once in place.  It's like the Tesla, which claims to be environmentally friendly, until you look at the environmental devastation involved in its manufacturing process.
  • Obama claims credit for Trump economy
    • Obama once asked how Trump was going to bring jobs back; by waving a magic wand?  They believed under Obama we were in an era of decline.  Our best days were behind us.  Under their policies, they would have been right.  Now that Trump has the economy booming, Obama has admitted it is booming, but rather than bash Trump, he's been trying to take credit for it.
  • How Trump, with his pardons and commutations, is playing the Democrats ... and they don't even know it.  Pardon of former Illinois Governor Rod Blagovich a great example.

Thursday, February 20, 2020

No Chance Democrats

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

The more the Democrats talk, debate, or appear on various media outlets, the more popular President Donald J. Trump becomes.  Even Democrat voters are not willing to throw away our free market for a lurch towards socialism.  Meanwhile, because they have nothing to contribute in the arena of ideas, the Democrat Primary candidates are going after each other in ways that makes one think that there might be a civil war going on in the party of the donkey.

In the beginning former Vice President Joe Biden was seen as the likely front-runner, and the only moderate voice among the bunch.  However, after some embarrassing displays of stupidity, and catastrophic failure in Iowa and New Hampshire, most pundits, pollsters, and voters have all but thrown in the towel for Joe "rub my leg-hairs" Biden.  Mike Bloomberg, after criticizing those who apologize for their past actions, and then found himself apologizing for his "stop and frisk" program (which was actually Rudy Guiliani's program, in the first place --- and a very successful one, at that), finally made it to the debate stage during the most recent gathering of candidates, and he did so poorly that even the MSNBCs and CNNs of the world were shaking their heads.

That leaves Bernie Sanders (self-proclaimed socialist, and essentially an outright commie), Elizabeth "Pocahontas" Warren (pretty close to Bernie on the communist chart), Mayor Pete Buttigieg (no experience, flush with donor monies from the wealthy as he hammers on the sins of being wealthy, oh, and he's a homosexual), and Amy Klobuchar (left-wing Senator and Lawyer who thinks Mayor Pete thinks she's stupid, and then she opens here mouth and confirms it) to round out the final group of leading Democrats for President of the United States.

Oh, and there's Tulsi Gabbard, the Army veteran Congresswoman from Hawaii who none of the Democratic Socialists like, who has spent more time on FOX News than any other candidate, and the candidate that media folks keep mistakingly claiming has dropped out of the race.

Trump is not worried.

The Democrats have nobody, and even with the impeachment garbage, his numbers, popularity, and size of crowds at his events, have never been greater.  Not even a surprise entry into the game by Hillary Clinton, or Michelle Obama, could save the Democrats, this time.

Single-payer healthcare is a losing policy, especially when folks realize that "Medicare For All" would also outlaw all private insurance companies.  Gun Control is a loser, too.  Just look at the backlash going on in Virginia.  They have no arguments when it comes to the economy, because Trump's economy is booming.  They have no arguments on foreign affairs, not with a President who has Iran on the ropes, brought North Korea to the negotiations table, and has China giving in on trade.  He recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, boasts the lowest unemployment rates in the history of this country (or at least as long as we've been keeping records), and the jobs numbers keep outperforming the predictions.

People are not buying into the Democrat Party's ideas for government-funded college, having the taxpayers pay for the entirety of student debt, letting government take over pre-school, all of the wacky climate change legislative ideas, their open borders policy, packing the Supreme Court, or abolishing the electoral college.  It is all too radical, and even younger voters are asking themselves, "what's going on in the heads of those old radical lefties?"

Even local offices are under fire.  President Donald Trump, on his trip to California, recently ripped into Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti for "endangering his community" based on Garcetti's immigration and homeless policies.  Meanwhile, not only did the Democrats try to impeach one of the most popular presidents in history, they got caught meeting in secret with Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif during the Munich Security Conference (namely, Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut, among other Democrat Party Senators).

What kind of politicians hold secret meetings with our enemies?

The voting public on the blue side of things has also gotten very vicious.  One story, where lifetime Democrat Karlyn Borysenko, after attending a Trump Rally, wrote that she realized Democrats are not ready for 2020, resulted in her being attacked by her own party brethren.  In fact, the vitriol from fellow Democrats got so bad that she left the party, and is now an independent.

The sick policies of the liberal left Democrats have sex education that could be considered kiddie-porn being taught from Kindergarten to twelfth grade in California, and according to writer Jeff Maples, a taxpayer-funded Preschool in New York is teaching "queer rights" and victimology to four-year-olds.

CBS New York is reporting that Suffolk County legislator Sam Gonzalez has proposed legislation to ban smoking in private homes.

The Democrats, on the debate stage, and with their proposals, have proven time and time again that they are the party of "government being all up in your business," and to be frank, most Americans are not cool with that.  Except for perhaps the most staunch Marxists, and newly indoctrinated youngsters (including AOC), even a large share of Democrats are throwing their hands up, and many of them have even entered the Trump camp.

With each passing moment the future is becoming more and more clear.  Not only will Trump win in November, because the Democrats have no chance, but it is going to be a massive, brutal, merciless shellacking.

And that's saying it nicely.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Wednesday, February 19, 2020

Temecula Constitution Class: Final Amendments

Last class before we start all over again at the beginning.  Tonight, final amendments.  Next Wednesday, introduction to the U.S. Constitution.  March 4, I will be out of town speaking in Sacramento.  Then, the following Wednesday we will be back to study the Preamble.

Temecula Constitution Class
Wednesdays 6:00 pm
GOP HQ
28120 Jefferson Ave.
Temecula, CA  

Constitution Class Handout
Instructor: Douglas V. Gibbs
douglasvgibbs@reagan.com
 
 
 
Lesson 20
 
Prohibition, Women's Voting Rights, Election Rules
Prohibition
Amendment 18 was ratified January 16, 1919, bringing the prohibition of alcohol to America. The amendment was repealed by Amendment 21, December 5, 1933.
 
Christian churches worked to bring about prohibition as far back as the early 1800s, largely through the campaigning by women and young adults who had been adversely affected by husbands and fathers who were heavy alcohol consumers. Alcohol was considered to be one of the most prevalent social problems in America. The concerns over the dangers of alcohol brought about the Temperance Movement. The American Temperance Society was founded in 1826, with the specific goal of outlawing alcohol in the United States.
 
Local organizations that encouraged abstinence from alcohol existed as early as 1808. It was not until 1826 that a nationwide temperance society was created. As the American Temperance Society gained steam, national and international temperance societies sprang up. Organizations like the Washington Temperance Society did not consider temperance to be a religious issue, while other groups felt compelled by God to proclaim temperance. Considering the involvement in the movement by a diverse menu of denominations, no one religion was able to claim to have been the originator of temperance ideals.
 
The most effective weapon of temperance was to advocate total abstinence from alcohol through personal pledges. The societies gave out pledge cards or medals with various types of pledges written on them. Not all of the pledges, however, demanded total abstinence, as indicated by the following pledge:
 
"We agree to abstain from all intoxicating liquors except for medicinal purposes and religious ordinances."
 
Concerned that being too strict may discourage many from joining their society, some organizations gave people the option to choose the extent of their pledge. One common practice was to have those who joined a society to sign a book indicating their commitment. If the person was willing to commit to total abstinence, they would place a capital "T" by their name. The "T" stood for Total or "Total Abstinence". Hence came the term "Tee Totaler" as one who has committed himself to total abstinence.
 
Through the use of pressure-politics the goal of nationwide prohibition was achieved during World War I with the ratification of the Eighteenth Amendment in January of 1919.
 
Congress, in response to the new amendment, passed the Volstead Act on October 28, 1919, to enforce the law. Most large cities refused to enforce the legislation. As the federal government went after bootleggers, it became quickly apparent that the understaffed agencies were fighting a losing battle. Meanwhile, though there was a slight decline in alcohol consumption around the nation, organized crime increased in the larger cities. Alcohol became a high demand cash crop that the criminal element could not resist.
 
As Prohibition became increasingly unpopular, and the element of organized crime had reached its height, the perceived need for tax revenue during the Great Depression also encouraged a repeal movement. The hope for tax revenue from the legal sale of alcohol, and the need to weaken organized crime, led to the 21st Amendment, which repealed the amendment that had brought Prohibition to America. The repeal returned the legalities of alcohol to the States. Though Prohibition was over nationwide, some counties remained dry counties, forbidding the sale of alcoholic beverages.
 
In our current society there are calls for the legalization of Marijuana, and other drugs. Existing federal drug laws enforce a prohibition of drugs. There is a movement in some parts of government pushing for the legalization of certain drugs, like marijuana. If at the federal level a number of politicians decided that the legalization of drugs is good for the nation, we could very well see such legislation pass through Congress. By studying the U.S. Constitution, and taking a lesson from the 18th Amendment, it is apparent that the federal government does not have the authority to ban, or legalize, drugs in America without receiving such an authority through the Amendment Process (as we saw with the 18th Amendment in regards to Alcohol). The regulation of drugs is a State issue, as per the Tenth Amendment. This means that all federal drug laws are unconstitutional, and laws in California legalizing marijuana for medicinal purposes, and in the States of Washington and Colorado for recreational use, are completely constitutional.
 
Terms:
Dry Counties - Counties in the United States whose government forbids the sale of alcoholic beverages within the county.
 
Great Depression - A severe worldwide economic depression in the decade preceding World War II.
 
Organized Crime - Transnational, national, or local groupings of highly centralized enterprises run by criminals for the purpose of engaging in illegal activity, most commonly for monetary profit.
 
Prohibition - Period in United States history during which the manufacture and sale of alcohol was prohibited. Drinking alcohol itself was never illegal, and there were always exceptions for medicinal and religious uses.
Temperance Movement - A social movement urging the reduced use of alcoholic beverages during the 19th and early 20th centuries.
 
Volstead Act - Officially The National Prohibition Act; the law that was the enabling legislation for the Eighteenth Amendment which established prohibition in the United States.
 
 
Questions for Discussion:
 
1. Why were women a major factor in the temperance movement?
 
2. What were some of the factors that contributed to the growing popularity of The Temperance Movement?
 
3. What challenges did The Temperance Movement encounter, and how did they adjust (i.e. through the style of pledges, exceptions to abstinence, etc.)
 
4. What was the reaction of many local governments to the Volstead Act?
 
5. What happened to the presence of organized crime when Prohibition was enacted? Why?
 
6. What were the reasons for repealing Prohibition?
 
7. What did Prohibition say about individualism and personal responsibility from the point of view of the federal government?
 
8. In what form does Prohibition continue to exist in the United States even today?
 
9. What lesson regarding the legalization of other drugs does the 18th Amendment teach us?
 
 
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)
 
Kobler, John, Ardent Spirits The Rise and Fall of Prohibition, New
York: G.P. Putnam's Sons (1973)
 
The Temperance Movement, US History.com;
http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1054.html
 
Steven Mintz, Moralists & Modernizers: America's Pre-Civil War
Reformers; Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press (1995)
 
Women's Voting Rights
The 19th Amendment established uniform voting rights for women nationwide. It was ratified on August 18, 1920.
 
Women, despite popular opinion, did vote in elections prior to the ratification of the 19th Amendment. In 1869, women in the newly created territory of Wyoming became the first women in the United States to win the right to vote. Colorado gave voting rights to women in 1892, and both Utah and Idaho gave women the right to vote in 1896.
 
The Constitution gives the States the right to determine their own rules for elections. The women's suffrage movement worked to bring about an amendment that would give women voting rights nationwide. The amendment was first proposed in 1878, and it took forty-one years before it was submitted to the States for ratification. It took about a year to receive enough votes for ratification.
 
Susan B. Anthony, already known for her crusade for the abolition of slavery, and the prohibition of alcohol, added women's suffrage to her plate. By 1878 she was able to induce a Senator from California to introduce a resolution in Congress calling for an amendment to the Constitution which would give women throughout the United States the right to vote.
 
The drive for an amendment that would grant uniform voting rights for women was nothing new. Aaron Burr, the Vice President during Thomas Jefferson's presidency, was a fervent believer in women's rights, and took personal charge of his daughter's course of study, insisting she learn Greek, Latin, and French, along with literature, philosophy and sciences. His proposals for the uniform voting rights for women, however, never gained traction.
 
John Adams, the second President of the United States, also supported expanding women's freedoms. As a great admirer of his wife, Abigail, he often went to her for advice. In 1776, as the Founders put into full gear their drive for American independence, Abigail offered in a letter, "I long to hear that you have declared an independency. And, by the way, in the new code of laws which I suppose it will be necessary for you to make, I desire you would remember the ladies and be more generous and favorable to them than your ancestors. Do not put such unlimited power into the hands of the husbands. Remember, all men would be tyrants if they could. If particular care and attention is not paid to the ladies, we are determined to foment a rebellion, and will not hold ourselves bound by any laws in which we have no voice or representation."
 
A challenge to the 19th Amendment (Leser v. Garnett, 1922) claimed that the amendment was unconstitutionally adopted, and that the rules for elections were implicitly delegated to the individual States because of the need to preserve State Sovereignty. However, the very fact that the change in voting rules was through amendment made the argument against the 19th Amendment a moot point.
 
Once the 19th Amendment was ratified, with this new power, women were able to attempt to elect those who shared their beliefs, hoping that other measures that would push forward the fight for women's rights would also emerge.
 
After the 19th Amendment passed, the percentage of women in the workforce increased to about 25%. Though some discrimination continued, and women rarely held decision-making positions, it was definitely a step in the right direction for the purpose of encouraging the rights of women.
 
During World War II, women were needed in all areas since many of the men went overseas to fight. The percentage of women in the workforce increased to 36%. The boom for women was short-lived, however. When the war ended, and the soldiers returned home, two-million women were fired within fifteen months after the end of the war to make room for the men.
 
Despite such setbacks, by the 1980s, the percentage of women in the workforce exceeded 50%. However, the percentage of women voting has not equaled the original push shortly after the ratification of the 19th Amendment.
 
Advocates for family values, though supportive of equal opportunity, often view these advancements as promotion for the break-up of the family unit. With mothers participating in the workforce, advent of women's rights has also given rise to the emergence of latch-key kids.
 
The greatest right for women is choice, which includes the choice not to pursue the numerous opportunities available for the purpose of following a more traditional role, should they desire to make such a choice. Women in today's society have the choice to pursue a career, be a stay-at-home mom and wife, or attempt to juggle both. For the purpose of protecting the family unit, and the traditional nature of the American society, wife and mother remains the more popular choice.
 
Terms:
Women's Suffrage - The right of women to vote and to run for office. The expression is also used for the economic and political reform movement aimed at extending these rights to women without any restrictions or qualifications such as property ownership, payment of tax, or marital status.
 
Questions for Discussion:
 
1. Were women allowed to vote in national elections before the ratification of the Nineteenth Amendment?
 
2. How did the abolition movement and temperance movement lead some to also support women's suffrage?
 
3. On what grounds was the Nineteenth Amendment Challenged?
 
4. How has the drive for the rights of women changed to an opposite extreme?
 
5. How has the Women's Rights Movement affected the concept of the traditional family unit?
 
Resources:
Aaron Burr Biography, Essortment; http://www.essortment.com/aaron-
burr-biography-20550.html
 
Abigail Adams urges husband to "remember the ladies", History.com;
http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/abigail-adams-urges-husband-to-remember-the-ladies
 
Andrew M. Allison, K. DeLynn Cook, M. Richard Maxfield, and W.
Cleon Skousen, The Real Thomas Jefferson; New York: National Center for Constitutional Studies (2009)
 
David McCullough, John Adams; New York: Simon and Schuster (2001)
 
W. Cleon Skousen, The Role of Women in Healing America, Latter Day
Conservative and The Constitution magazine, November 1985; http://www.latterdayconservative.com/articles/the-role-of-women-in-healing-america/
 
Election Rules
Ratified in 1933, the 20th Amendment establishes the current rules regarding the beginning and end of the terms of elected federal offices.
 
The amendment moved the beginning of the Presidential, Vice Presidential and Congressional terms from March 4. Congress, under the new rules established by the 20th Amendment, convenes on the third day of January, reducing the amount of time a lame duck Congress would be in session. A lame duck Congress, no longer fearful of the effect their decisions may have on re-election, may be more apt to support otherwise unpopular legislation during a lame duck session.
 
The 20th Amendment moved the terms of the President and Vice President to begin on the 20th day of January.
 
Section 2 of the 20th Amendment begins, "The Congress shall assemble at least once in every year." The phrase is consistent with the language used in Article I, Section 4, though one wonders if the delegates debating the 20th Amendment viewed meeting one day a year as overburdensome as did the Framers of the Constitution, or if they considered themselves to be professional politicians who must be constantly legislating, as does today's legislators.
 
The 20th Amendment's Section 3 addresses vacancies to the presidency before the new President has the opportunity to take office. The clause assigns the presidency to the Vice President in the case of the death of the President, if the President dies before he can take office. Assigning the presidency to the Vice President was in line with Article II, Section 1, Clause 6, and the 12th Amendment assigning to the Vice President the Office of the President should the President die after he took office. In the case it turns out the President does not qualify for the office, this article grants to Congress the authority to declare who shall act as President. "Failing to qualify for office" refers to an occasion that the Electoral College fails to resolve who will be the President or Vice President. A key point of this provision, and a critical protection against an outgoing faction attempting to retain some semblance of power, in the case that the candidates fail to qualify for office, is that the decision still devolves to Congress, but to the newly elected Congress, as opposed to the outgoing one. As established in Article II, Section 1, the decision for President would continue to rest upon the House of Representatives, and the choice of Vice President would continue to be the choice of the United States Senate.
 
Section 4 of the 20th Amendment addresses succession, giving Congress the authority to establish a line of succession, in the case of death of the President, or of the Vice President. The more astute student may recall that today's constitutional protocols calls upon the President to appoint a new Vice President, should that seat be vacated, but that provision did not become law until the ratification of the 25th Amendment in 1967.
 
The final two sections of the 20th Amendment address when the amendment would take effect should it be ratified, and a time limit of the proposal should the States not ratify it in a timely fashion. Section 5 states that the first two sections of the amendment, the parts of the amendment that alters the date the terms of President, Vice President, and members of Congress shall begin, "shall take effect on the 15th day of October following the ratification of this article." If ratification reached completion during an election year, that would put the new amendment into effect a couple weeks before the next election. The amendment was ratified January 23, 1933, not in time for Franklin Delano Roosevelt's victory in the 1932 Election. FDR had to wait until March of 1933 to take office.
 
In Section 6 of the 20th Amendment, for the first time in American History, a limitation was placed upon a proposed amendment, requiring that the amendment be ratified within seven years from the date of its submission. The same stipulation would be added at the end of the 21st and 22nd amendments, as well as a number of proposals that failed to be ratified within the allotted time period (like the Equal Rights Amendment). The 27th Amendment, ratified in 1992, reveals that without a limitation, proposed amendments remain in place and can stay on the active list indefinitely. The 27th Amendment was originally proposed as a part of the original Bill of Rights, submitted September 25, 1789.
 
 
Terms:
 
Lame Duck Congress - A lame duck session of Congress in the United States occurs whenever one Congress meets after its successor is elected, but before the successor's term begins.
 
Line of Succession - The order in which individuals are expected to succeed one another in some official position.
 
 
Questions for Discussion:
 
1. Why did the framers of the Twentieth Amendment see a need to move forward the dates of Presidential and Congressional Terms?
 
2. In what way can Lame Duck Sessions be dangerous?
 
3. Why do you think the Amendment changed the duty of electing the President, should the Electoral College fail to do so, to the newly elected Congress from the outgoing one?
 
 
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)
 
United States Senate, Lame Duck Session Definition:
http://www.senate.gov/reference/glossary_term/lame_duck_session.htm
 
 
Copyright 2015 Douglas V. Gibbs