No Nativity Scene at Capitol Hill

 

Written note seen under windshield wiper of car with Biden Bumper Sticker

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

 "I just wanted to let you know that someone vandalized your car by slapping a Biden 2020 sticker on it.  The last thing you want to be doing is driving around all day looking like an idiot.

Take care,

A Good Samaritan.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

California Ignores Newsom Mask Mandate

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

On December 15 a new mask mandate, after months upon months of political freedom from the facial armbands, was instituted by the Gavin Newsom regime in California, effective until January 15.  Never mind that more than enough evidence is available revealing that facial coverings are essentially ineffective against anything except giving people skin infections and rashes around their mouths, and reducing one's immune system's ability to fight off illness as a result of a reduced amount of oxygen intake.  It also flies in the face of the courts who have been all over the mandate thing, and in the case of Pennsylvania the State Supreme Court even said that the mandate can't even be enforced at the schools.  The United States Supreme Court will be looking at Biden's unconstitutional jab mandates on January 7.

In short, it's all a bunch of stupidity, and a drive for power and control over people.  The lefties I talk to about this say that your "individual liberties have to be suspended when an emergency threatens the community."  Life is full of risks, and individual decisions for individuals to make regarding those risks after they make their own assessments of those risks.  It's called, "Freedom".  Tyranny in the name of safety is never an excuse to support tyranny.  Just because some people are filled with fear or are extremely paranoid about something that little can be done to mitigate, the ultimate reality is despite what the liars in government, lefty corporate cartel-ville, and the courts say, there is no constitutional authority for anyone to take away my freedom of choice because they claim the safety of the community is in play.

There are no asterisks in the Constitution, and according to the Fifth Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment the federal government and the States have no authority to deprive any person of Life, Liberty, and Property without due process.  Liberty, by the way, is the freedom to say "NO!"

So, when I heard about California's latest one month long mask mandate, it ticked me off.  I am a public speaker, primarily, and the lockdowns and mask mandates have been devastating for business.  On top of that, even though I would not comply anyway, I have a medical reason I can't wear a face covering and the tyrants of the left have told me in not so many words, "Tough!"  My medical condition that disallows me to wear a mask is connected to my military service.  So, in order to enforce their mask mandates, and make themselves feel good about a false sense of security they are not only willing to toss away everyone's individual liberties who don't want to wear a mask, but they are even willing to treat someone like me like a second-class citizen because I medically can't wear one, literally spitting on my military service that, in part, was a cog in the machine that ensures their freedom to be idiots.

While I was never planning to comply with the new mask mandate, I was wondering how many stores I would get kicked out of, and how many people would try to shame me with their verbal confirmation of their desire to virtue signal (because deep down they are either narcissists, or really big cowards who will believe anything the government and corporate colluders will feed them).

So, I went to the grocery store once the mandate was in effect.  Nobody stopped me.  Nobody questioned me.  And, more than half of the shoppers in the store were practicing facial nudity.  An office type store, two more grocery stores, and a big superstore mart all reveal for me that same realization.  The mask mandate is largely being ignored.

Later that day I traveled up the hill (foothills of the local mountains) to a radio studio, then another superstore mart, and finally stopped to grab a bite at a sandwich shop.  The ratio of masked people was a tad higher, but still a large portion of the locals were simply ignoring the mandate, and the establishments they were visiting were doing nothing about it.

I thought to myself how fragile the power of tyrants truly is.  If nobody enforces tyranny, and nobody obeys tyranny, in truth the tyranny doesn't exist.

Then again, that's usually about the time that tyrants decide to clamp down and imprisoning people for daring to refuse to obey.

The following day Constitution Association business took me to San Diego County and Orange County.  Riverside County, the home of the cities I was in the day before, is known for being very conservative aside from maybe the City of Riverside, and Palm Springs/Cathedral City.  So, defiance should sort of be expected.  Even the Sheriff, Chad Bianco, is known for telling the governor that he won't enforce the State Executive's unconstitutional edicts; so much so that the Riverside County Sheriff has received national attention for it.

San Diego's North County, north coast, and South Orange County proved to be similar to Riverside County, upon my own personal inspection.  For the most part, the locals also practiced non-compliance with the California governor's demands.

Finally, a couple days later, I hit North Orange County, and the edges of Los Angeles County.  More people were masked up, but non-masked folks were still out and about, and the places of business, while adorned with "face coverings required" signs on their doors, left me alone as I entered.

In fact, not a single place of business had a problem with me not wearing a mask until I stopped by the pet store in my hometown to pick up crickets for my gecko.  The woman in the small store told me to stay outside, and handed me the crickets from behind the door, barely opening it to push her fist holding the clear plastic bag full of cattle for reptiles through.

Last Summer Aldi, Sprouts, and Trader Joe's had all refused to serve me without a mask on.  I decided not to test them, but when I went into the World Market in Temecula, while most folks in there, and all of the employees, were masked up, I was allowed to shop without any complaint.

Overall, based on my experience, most Californians are flipping Governor Adolf Newsom the bird.  His unconstitutional mandates are having no effect, at least outside hard left strongholds.  I am willing to bet the wearing of facial armbands is a majority practice in the deep bowels of places like Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Berkeley.

I was once watching a video with William Shatner in it, and he said, "Power is powerless if there is no recognition of the power."

He may have had something, there.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

C.R.E.A.T.O.R. is Available for Purchase...

C.R.E.A.T.O.R. by Douglas V. Gibbs is available at Amazon as of December 20, 2021. Availability at the Mr. Constitution Shop is pending.

The keystone of American Liberty is The Creator. Without a godly foundation, like an arch without its keystone, our whole system comes crumbling down. Thanks to age-old ideologies and an ancient lust for power and wealth, once again our world is upside down. Evil has become good, and good has become evil. The churches have been infiltrated, and the rule of law has been replaced by the rule of man. To restore our liberty and the virtuous nature of our country we must understand what is happening, and what to do.

C.R.E.A.T.O.R. is a book that illuminates the realities that swirl around the foundation of American Liberty, and addresses seven critical issues directly related to our System of Liberty that we must understand, address, and fight for if we are to reestablish our American Way of Life on a foundation and cornerstone based on the Founding Fathers' beliefs in our Creator.

Patriot Streetfighter Mr. Constitution Class

Did you miss today's 3pm (Pacific Time) Constitution Class?  Hit the link and watch anytime you want...

Constitution Class on Patriot Streetfighter, Tuesdays, 3:00 pm Pacific

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCj7PJlgAEiAWeQ7DSJLczHw

IESUS NAZARENVS REX IVDAEORVM and the holidays

Opinion by Allan McNew

This is not about religion nor reason for the season but something peripheral which has profoundly affected me.

Between Thanksgiving, Christmas and Easter, there are many ways to look at the holidays.

One is the Norman Rockwell view of cultural tradition and maintenance of family bonds with going over the river and through the woods to spend the feast with Grandma. Some people genuinely love Christmas with all the decorating, Christmas songs, holiday cooking and wrapping presents. The other extreme has to do with unpleasant, extended family drama plus the painful ordeal of spending 5 hours in traffic to go 70 miles one way. Then, either way, we do it all over again a year later.

An older friend, who is obviously way past the furtive childhood thrill of searching potential hiding places for unwrapped Christmas presents, recently asked me “What are the best Christmas lights?” His answer - “The tail lights.”

Christmas, the celebration of the birth of the man who would be crucified during Passover some 30 years later, the celebration of which most modern American businesses would go broke without “Black Friday,” the specified Friday being the day when normally sane grandmothers will beat each other down in the store isle over the last popular, on sale, toy on the shelf.

The Romans of Jesus’ time were extremely touchy about anything which slightly interfered with the emperor’s authority. The penalty for non Roman citizens was crucifixion, where death of the convicted was not so much the point as was it was a public object lesson to others. It was designed to be extremely humiliating while inflicting the most pain possible while prolonging life for as long as possible. Death was the desired end but definitely not the point.

The Romans seem to have had a lock on execution in Judea, there was what seems to be an endless series of attempts by the Jewish religious elite of the time to set up and entrap Jesus in such a way that Roman authority would inflict legal punishment on Jesus, preferably death. Such things long proceeded Jesus, it increasingly goes on now in America, and the case against dissenting Jesus was religious and political and without substance – regardless of whether Governor Pontius Pilate washed his hands or not.

So, at the end, the crime which was posted by Roman custom over Jesus on the cross was “Jesus, King of the Jews”, a capital offense against the emperor.

It was something Jesus didn’t directly claim, the Jewish hierarchy rejected, and the Romans used to not only mock Jesus but the Jewish population at large – “We crucified your King”.

I have not read scripture in more than 40 years, but I recall one of the attempted entrapments had to do with a group dragging a prostitute in front of Jesus and demanding to know if he approved stoning the woman to death per Jewish law going back to Moses. The trap was that if he said yes, he violated Roman authority. If he said no, he would be slandered and ostracized as rejecting Jewish faith.

It was brilliant that Jesus replied “He who is without sin cast the first stone.” Presumably being among the woman’s clients, the accusers all slunk away. Jesus then said to the woman “go forth and sin no more.”

Whether or not the woman heeded the admonition is not the point, and it’s none of my business anyway. There may be many potential reasons why she may have fell through the cracks of what cultural tradition was supposed to do for the poor, without fault of their own, among the descendants of Israel and she sold what she had to sell.

But what strikes me is that in a world of towering injustice and great hypocrisy, Jesus expressed great mercy and consideration.

I cannot think of this story without tears coming to my eyes.

Editor's Note: Jesus is the only person ever born on Earth whose primary purpose was to die, and then conquer death.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Publius

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

Publius was a pseudonym used by the three writers of The Federalist Papers; James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay.  The Federalist Papers were originally essays and articles submitted to newspapers during the ratification period of the U.S. Constitution.  The collection of 85 essays were written to encourage ratification of the Constitution specifically by the State of New York.  There were fears that the Anti-Federalists were influencing the direction New York was going to go regarding the new Constitution and it was believed that which ever way New York went, the rest of the country would follow.  Hamilton and Jay were both residents of New York at the time, Madison was a resident of Virginia but was in New York at the time as a delegate in the Congress under the Articles of Confederation, and in turn he was recruited to also participate in the essay writing.  

The pseudonym "Publius" was chosen as the collective name for the trio due to its connection to Publius Valerius, who helped found the Roman Republic.  Cato and Cicero were also instrumental as statesmen during the time of the Roman Republic, the former being one of 46 pseudonyms used by various patriots during the Founding Era.  

While the most astute observers recognized the writing styles of the authors, and it was widely believed the authors of the Federalist Essays were Hamilton, Jay and Madison, nobody knew for sure, or to which essay each of those Founding Fathers were attached.  The identities of the authors were not revealed until after Hamilton's death in 1804, after which a list written by Hamilton tying each author to their work was found in his desk.  Madison later released his own list, in which he disputes a few of Hamilton's claims as to regards of which author wrote what.  Authorship of twelve of the essays remains disputed even now.

The use of Publius as a pseudonym was likely used to hide the writers' connections to the Constitutional Convention, as well as to hide their identities from the British since such writings were considered to be high treason against the British Empire.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Some Quotes about Liberty and Tyranny to Consider...

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

“Democracy is the road to socialism.” – Often attributed to Karl Marx.

“The good sense of the people will always be found to be the best army. They may be led astray for a moment, but will soon correct themselves.”
– Thomas Jefferson

“Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority.” – Lord John Dalberg-Acton

“Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered. Yet we have this consolation with us: the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly. It would be strange indeed if so celebrated an article as freedom should not be highly rated.” – Thomas Paine

“The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted.” – James Madison

“I believe that there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachment than by violent and sudden usurpations.” – James Madison

“The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants, and it provides the further advantage of giving the servants of tyranny a good conscience.” – Albert Camus

“Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.” – William Pitt

“Just because you do not take an interest in politics doesn't mean politics won't take an interest in you.”
– Pericles, 430 B.C.

“Why of course people don't want war. Why should some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor England, nor for that matter Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country.” – Hermann Goering, Nazi Germany Commander-in-chief of the Luftwaffe (air force), Reichsmarschall, Senior Rank over all officers in Nazi Germany's armed forces.

“You should never wear your best trousers when you go out to fight for freedom and truth.” – Henrik Ibsen

“Civilization has been a continuous struggle of the individual or groups of individuals against the State and even against society; that is, against the majority subdued and hypnotized by the State and State worship.” – Emma Goldman

“Universal History is not a burden on the memory but an illumination of the soul.” – Lord John Dalberg-Acton

“Liberty is not the power of doing what we like, but the right of being able to do what we ought.” – Lord John Dalberg-Acton

“Liberty is the Freedom to say ‘NO!’” – Douglas V. Gibbs

“With Freedom comes Responsibility to do what we know in our hearts is right and proper. After all, the Declaration of Independence tells us that our liberties are self-evident. If that is true, do we truly have any excuse to stand in defiance of liberty, or moral law?” — Douglas V. Gibbs

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Creator, Defined

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

From the point of view of the Framers of the United States Constitution, and the 1828 Webster's Dictionary put out by Founding Father Noah Webster, the Definition of Creator is as follows:

Creator; noun; being or person that creates, "Remember thy creator in the days of thy youth." Eccle. 12:1.

Declaration of Independence: 1. All men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights; 2. Separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them.

U.S. Constitution: "secure the Blessings of Liberty..."

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Mr. Constitution Hour: Separation of Powers

Mr. Constitution Hour by Douglas V. Gibbs, Tonight on KPRZ K-Praise Mr. Constitution Hour by Douglas V. Gibbs Saturday Nights at 9:00 pm Pacific, on K-Praise, San Diego's Christian Radio Station Listen online at: www.kprz.com Tonight's Topic: Legislative Powers, Separation of Powers, and the Christian Connection... Mr. Constitution Hour: Separation of Powers - When the Framers of the Constitution put the document together biblical truths were their guidance. Even the creation of our three branches of government, the makeup of Congress, and the concept of a separation of powers follows biblical truth. Mr. Constitution Douglas V. Gibbs explains.

Constitution Radio: Forever Grateful

It's one week before Christmas in 2021.
Politically, the year has been stormy.
The Storm is almost over.
The shore is on the horizon.

Constitution Radio with Douglas V. Gibbs

Saturdays, 1:00 - 3:00 pm Pacific Time

KMET 1490-AM (www.kmet1490am.com)

KMET Show Page

Doug's Show Page

Podcast Page on SoundCloud

Call in Live during the Program!

951-922-3532

Topics on Today's program:

• 
  On the sea of Galilee while Jesus was sleeping the storm arose, the waves beat the side of the boat, and the winds gusted across the bow.  The disciples, worried and fearful, awakened Jesus in a panic.  "Have you no faith?" Was Christ's reply before he calmed the storm.  The storm is only passing.  The storm is only temporary.  He never promised us the journey would be easy.  He promised us he would get us to the other shore.
• In the Preamble we are told that among the foundational pillars of our system is the Blessings of Liberty...
• United we Stand.  Have we forgotten the importance of that statement?  Do we not understand that with everything the tyrants try to do to us it is all about keeping us divided?
• Tytler Cycle: It Begins with Faith
• Big Tent.  The Biggest Tent is not collectivism or the Democrat Party.  The Biggest Tent is a spiritual one.
• A Sleeping Giant, and a Terrible Resolve.
• What Next?
• How we got funded...

Airlines Refuses Women's Underwear as Facial Covering

By Douglas V. Gibbs

Author, Speaker, Instructor, Radio Host

According to a Tweet by Dana Loesch, conservative pundit and alternative journalist, United Airlines kicked a man off of one of their flights because he was wearing women's underwear as a facial covering.

This facial covering discrimination (does that make them facial-underwear-phobes?) comes from people who tell us that there are thousands of genders, and we can be whoever, or whatever, we want at any given moment.  It depends on how you are feeling at the moment.  If that is the truth, then why can't inanimate objects also be whatever we want them to be at any given moment?  Why wasn't "my women's underwear self-identifies as a mask" a good enough response?

What's next?  Are we going to be kicked off of flights because we are unvaccinated, too?  Why can't I self-identify as vaccinated?

Personally, I am curious if the woman shown in the image below would have been kicked off from that flight, too?  Or, would they have nodded and let her on?

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

The National Clown Show (Volume One)

Sardonic snippets by Allan McNew

Author’s note: Reliable, anonymous sources have informed me that some readers believe I make things up. I assure the readers my journalistic standards far exceed those of The Washington Post and New York Times.

Editor's Note: Warning!  You have to have a sense of humor to get the jokes.  Hard Left Anti-Constitution Democrats need not apply.  If this piece was published on the CNN or MSNBC sites the audience would believe every word of it, and claim it was all proof that Biden and gang were doing great things.  At this point I wish I had the giant gong from The Gong Show.

President Biden believes Russian President Putin doesn’t respect him. In order to send an unmistakable message to the world while one upping Putin, Biden took a photographer with him to the zoo and set up a shoot where the President stood in front of the glass at the lion enclosure with his shirt off. White house staff posted a picture of Biden standing tall with two male lions behind him all over social media. It had a faint mirror image of the photographer and secret service personnel.

Biden’s colonoscopy found a cache of dog whistles in his colon. Twitter exploded with speculation that the President was trying to blow one of them the times he gassed members of British Royalty along with associated British dignitaries, the Pope and Pennsylvania Governor Tom Wolf.

There’s a dance craze spreading among the President’s Executive Departments as well as his cabinet. One is the Psaki Dodge Dance, which is built around side stepping and spinning. The other is imported from California – the Gavin Newsom Media Tap Dance.

In a major bid to let small restaurants nationwide know the White House and Biden Administration sympathize with them during the current rip roaring economy, Biden and Harris salt and pepper shakers have been shipped to eateries all over the country. However, every last set has been proven to be defective. No matter how much salt is poured into the Biden shaker it is empty whenever customers try to use it.  The Harris shaker keeps disappearing only to be found in obscure, out of the way places. In an experiment it stayed in place next to a Tabasco bottle as long as someone watched it, but vanished immediately whenever set next to the Mexican hot sauce Tapatio.  There is speculation is it has something to do with the Mexican border.

When the President went to the Middle East to beg Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud, King of Saudi Arabia, to pump more oil in order to reduce prices in the United States, Biden bent forward to kiss the King’s hand. Looking around the room, the King motioned Biden to follow him to the back of the room. Looking around again, the King pulled a curtain for privacy.  When the incident leaked out, Twitter went wild with speculation about what happened behind the curtain. The only verifiable facts since are the Saudis aren’t increasing production and Biden’s been walking funny ever since.

The White House has been objecting to a meme going around the internet which depicts President Biden with a Stalin mustache and wearing a t-shirt with a hammer and sickle print on the front with the lable “Uncle Joe” underneath, a back handed reference to President Franklin Roosevelt affectionately calling Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin “Uncle Joe” during WWII with the suggestion that President Biden is a communist dictator. Stalin was famous for political purges and dissident witch hunts of all kinds complete with show trials culminating in executions and imprisonment in the Gulag.  Since the meme appeared, the White House has been in constant contact with Attorney General Merrick Garland and the FBI has enlarged its presence at the FISA Court.

In a move which proves that Kamala Harris is Presidential material, the VP has put into motion a project to remove racist trees throughout the country, which, according to progressive values, is every last tree in the nation. The Sierra Club, in a historic departure from the bid to fight white supremacy, has filed suit to block the effort.

According to British periodical Foggy Weather Times, British TV show producer Ricky Gervais is contemplating a reboot of the Sky One show “An idiot abroad” with a focus on villages around the world. However, the star of the previous series, Karl Pilkington, is deeply involved with other projects. Gervais needs to find another idiot for his village project.  Reliable, anonymous sources say Gervais has been seeking contact with the Biden Administration since anyone who’s a part of it would perfectly fit the bill.

That’s a wrap for today.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Constitution Q&A... and Cheese Potatoes

The final Constitution Class of the year. The Carlsbad Class finished the Constitution last week, so this week we will do a Question and Answer ... ask me anything about the Constitution... And, I am bringing Cheese Potatoes ...

Carlsbad Health From Within Family Wellness Center 1818 Marron Rd., #103 Carlsbad, CA 92008 6:00 pm Thursdays For Zoom, www.1776foreverfree.com has the details MERRY CHRISTMAS

Beaumont Constitution Class: Establishing the Legislative Branch

Beaumont Constitution Class Marla's Mexican Food 1310 E. 6th Street Beaumont, Ca 10:00 am Thursdays

Constitution Class Handout Instructor: Douglas V. Gibbs douglasvgibbs@reagan.com   www.politicalpistachio.com www.douglasvgibbs.com www.constitutionassociation.com     Lesson 02   Legislative Powers   Establishing the Legislative Branch     Legislative Powers Article I, Section 1: All Legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.   Article I establishes the Legislative Branch of the federal government. Article I, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution establishes the two parts of Congress, and grants all legislative powers to the two Houses of the Congress of the United States. When studying the language used in Article I, Section 1, the original intent by the Founding Fathers becomes clear.   The first word in the first section of Article I is the word “all.” The definition of all is “the whole of a particular thing.”   The next words in Article I, Section 1 are legislative powers. Legislative powers are the ability to make law, modify law, repeal law, and anything else that has to do with affecting law.   The next word in the clause is “herein.” The primary definition of herein is “here in this document.”   After herein is the word granted. Granted is defined as “to give,” “to allow,” or more specifically “to legally transfer.” If powers are granted, then there must be a “grantor,” as well as a grantee. As we learned in our discussion regarding The Preamble, the “grantor” of the authorities enumerated in the Constitution is the States.   “Shall be” is definitive. The Constitution in its first clause reads, “All legislative powers herein granted shall be. . .,” shall be meaning “it is,” or “it will be.”   “Vested” is much like “granted.” Vested is a legal transfer of something, or in this case, an allowance to have legislative powers at the federal level granted to Congress.   The Congress of the United States is the legislative branch of the federal government, and this clause indicates that not only will the Congress be granted all legislative powers given to the federal government, but that the branch of government consists of two houses; a Senate and House of Representatives.   All legislative powers, according to this clause, are granted to the Congress by the States for the purpose of making law, modifying law, or repealing law. The powers are herein granted, which means that the laws must fall within the authorities granted by the text of the U.S. Constitution. In other words, laws made must remain consistent with the “powers herein granted.”   Based on language used in the first clause of the United States Constitution, when members of the judiciary legislates from the bench, or the President issues an executive order to modify a law, such action is unconstitutional. After all, “all legislative powers” were granted to the Congress, not to the judicial branch, or the executive branch.   Since all legislative powers belong to the Congress, that means any regulations by federal departments that are not in line with laws made by the Congress that are in line with the authorities granted by the Constitution are unconstitutional as well. All legislative powers belong to the Congress, therefore any “legislative actions” by regulatory agencies, which are a part of the executive branch, are not in line with the original intent of the Constitution.   Powers the federal government has were “granted” by the States. “We The People of the United States” granted those powers to the federal government through the Constitution. Therefore, if the federal government acts in a manner that is not consistent with the contract between the States and the U.S. Government, the States have the option to ignore those unconstitutional actions by the federal government. This action of ignoring unconstitutional law is the States’ way of being the final arbiters of the Constitution. The term for this kind of action by a State is nullification. Thomas Jefferson, in his draft of the Kentucky Resolutions, explained that any unconstitutional law is null and void, and as an illegal law, the States have the right to nullify it.   The concept that only Congress has legislative powers, only the executive branch has executive powers, and the judicial branch only has judicial powers, as described in the first sentence of each of the first three articles of the Constitution, is called Separation of Powers. The purpose of this philosophy is to disallow different branches from abusing the powers not granted to that branch, as well as to protect against collusion.   The Separation of Powers also exists between the States, and the federal government. Most authorities granted to the federal government are powers the States did not reserve to themselves. Most authorities retained by the States are not authorized to be administered to by the federal government. There are a few authorities that are concurrent, meaning that both the federal government, and the States, have some authority over the issue. One issue that is concurrent is immigration, which will be addressed later in this book. Sole authority over a particular power is called Exclusive Powers.   House of Representatives Article I, Section 2 establishes, and defines, the House of Representatives. The members of the House of Representatives are divided among the States proportionally. As it is today, the House of Representatives was the voice of the people in the federal government. Each Representative is chosen to serve for two years, which means every two years every Representative is up for re-election, if they choose to run.   The eligibility of a Representative as explained by Article I, Section 2 requires that the candidate must be at least twenty-five years of age, and been a citizen of the United States for at least seven years. The age is lower than for Senators. Representatives were not expected to be as politically savvy as the Senators, and tended to have less experience. The age requirement simply reflected that. Political knowledge and experience tends to come with age.   Divided allegiance was a serious concern to the Founding Fathers. The requirement that Representatives have been citizens of the United States for at least seven years reflects that concern. Seven years, for a Representative of the people, was assumed to have been long enough for the Representative to have thrown off any allegiances to other nations.   The third clause of Article I, Section 2, includes the 3/5s clause, which was changed by the 14th Amendment following the American Civil War.    The Southern States used slaves for their agricultural economies. The southern states were needed to ratify the new constitution. As a condition for ratifying the Constitution, the southern states demanded that the slaves be counted as one whole person each. The idea was that if the slaves were counted as whole persons, the apportionment would tip the scales in their favor through increased representation in the new United States House of Representatives. White populations in the southern states were lower in number when compared to the northern states, due to the rural nature of the Slave States to the south.   The Northern States, under the heavy influence of merchants, political elitists, and a group of abolitionists, wanted the slaves counted as "zero" in order to reduce the number of representatives the southern states would receive, which would give the majority to the northern states, thus giving the north more legislative power. With this additional voting power in the House of Representatives, the northern states sought to have greater influence on the federal government through legislation. The plan was to use their legislative power to tyrannically force the southern states into submission, and to eventually abandon slavery.   In the interest of compromise, to convince the southern states to ratify the constitution, while giving the northern states the satisfaction that the southern states did not get exactly what they wanted, the decision was made that slaves would be counted as 3/5 of a whole person for the sake of apportionment. In other words, it was not a declaration that they believed blacks to be less than a person, but simply to affect the census in such a way that too much power through apportionment would not be given to either The North or The South, while also ensuring that the Constitution got ratified.   G.R. Mobley, author of We the People, Whose Constitution Is It Anyway?, believes the Founding Fathers missed a great opportunity to abolish slavery. He supports the idea that the 3/5s Clause was an error in judgment by the Founders, and that the authors of the Constitution should have only allowed those States that rejected slavery to be members of the union under the Constitution. By failing to ratify the Constitution the southern slave states would then have been on their own as a separate union. Pressure from the Spanish in Florida, and the threat of invasion by Spanish forces, would have then encouraged the slave states to abolish slavery, so that they may rejoin the union, and enjoy the strength of the union of all thirteen States.   Historically, it is impossible to know if that is exactly how it would have played out. Regardless of the opportunity, the Founders largely believed they had to compromise to ensure every State remained a member of the union, and ensure that they would receive the required nine ratifications of States in order to put the new federal government into motion.   Article I, Section 2, Clause 3, in addition to containing the 3/5s Clause, also establishes the census. The census is a required a head count to be taken once every ten years in order to determine the enumeration for establishing the number of Representatives each State shall receive. The clause also indicates that the number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty thousand. This means there cannot be more than one Representative for a district of thirty thousand. However, it does not indicate there must be one Representative per thirty thousand. If that was the case, we would have thousands of Representatives.   Article I, Section 2, Clause 4 states that whenever vacancies happen in the House of Representatives, it is the duty of the Executive Authority to issue Writs of Election to fill such vacancies. What this means is that the Governors of the States have the duty to ensure there is a special election to fill any vacancies that may happen in the House of Representatives.   The House of Representatives chooses for itself its own Speaker of the House, and other officers.   According to Article I, Section 2, Clause 5, the House of Representatives has the sole power of impeachment. To impeach is to charge with misconduct. The formal process of impeachment may lead to removal of an official accused of unlawful activity or other offenses deemed to be impeachable offenses. Impeachment is not defined as removal from office, though removal from office is often the result of impeachment proceedings. In history, two presidents have been impeached, but neither were removed from office. The presidents who faced impeachment were Andrew Johnson (serving as President of the United States from 1865 to 1869), and William Jefferson Clinton (1993-2001). President Richard Nixon resigned in 1974 before impeachment proceedings began.   The United States Senate Article I, Section 3 established, and defines, the United States Senate. The representation of the States in the U.S. Senate is equal, two per State. The Senators serve for six years, which means every two years an election is held for one-third of the Senate seats. The required minimum age of a Senator is thirty years, five years older than that of a Representative. The increased age requirement for Senators reveals the importance of longer life and political experience, as considered by the Founding Fathers. Allegiance to the United States also remained important to the framers in the U.S. Senate, requiring that Senators need to be nine years a citizen of the United States, rather than the seven years as required of Representatives.   Article I, Section 3 originally required that Senators were chosen by the legislatures of the States, rather than voted into office directly by the voters. The appointment of Senators by their State legislatures changed to the vote of the people in 1913 with the ratification of the 17th Amendment. By the State legislatures appointing the Senators, it made the Senate the voice of the States, while the House of Representatives was the voice of the people. By the Houses of Congress being different, it created a natural check and balance, which did not allow the representation of the people to accomplish anything without approval of the voice of the States, and vice versa.   Article I, Section 3, Clause 4 establishes the Vice President as the President of the Senate. The Vice President, though a member of the executive branch, is also connected to the legislative branch. The Vice President may preside over the sessions of the U.S. Senate, and even participate in the debates, but in the end, the Vice President has no vote in the U.S. Senate, except as the tie-breaking vote.   During the early days of our nation the Vice President attended a large number of sessions of the Senate. He served as the voice of the executive branch in the Senate, ensuring the States’ representation in Congress had the opportunity to be exposed to the executive branch’s opinions regarding the issues that concerned the States, and the union as a whole.   As with the House of Representatives, the Senate chooses its own officers. One of those officers is the President pro tempore, which is the President of the Senate when the Vice President is not present.   The House of Representatives has the sole power of impeachment. Article I, Section 3, Clause 6 gives the U.S. Senate the authority to try all impeachments. No conviction can be reached unless two-thirds of the U.S. Senate membership is present. Impeachment cannot extend further than the removal of the impeached from office, and the disqualification to hold any office in the future. However, a legal case can still be brought against the convicted from other sources, according to the law. Since the U.S. Senators were originally appointed by the legislatures of the individual States, this means that impeachment charges could be brought by the people (House of Representatives), but it took the States (Senate) to hear the case, and make the final determination after all evidence was provided. During impeachment hearings, the Chief Justice presides over the hearing, as provided by Article I, Section 3.   The 17th Amendment changed the dynamics of our governmental system. Note that many functions by the executive branch are subject to the advise and consent of the Senate. The Senate ratifies treaties, holds hearings for any appointments the executive branch nominates, and the Senate holds the sole power for holding hearings on impeachments. This is because actions by the federal government are subject to approval by the States. The States granted the federal government its powers in the first place.   The House of Representatives, as the voice of the people, and the Senate, as the voice of the States, and the natural check and balance that is the result of that relationship between those two Houses of Congress, also enables both Houses together to be a valuable check against the executive branch. One of the emanations of that correlation is the ability of Congress to override a veto with a 2/3 vote. The authority to override vetoes was established to enable the People, and the States, when they are in full agreement regarding a proposed bill, to be able to ensure a law is put into place, and to constrain the executive together through the power of combined vote.   Elections and Assembly of Congress Article I, Section 4 begins, “The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof.” This clause establishes that each State may have its own methods for electing members of the Congress. The same applies, as determined in Article II, to presidential elections. If there is a discrepancy, or a question regarding the acceptance of ballots, it is not the job of the courts to make final determination. Article I, Section 4 gives that authority to the State legislatures.   The same clause adds, after giving the State legislatures authority over federal elections, that “Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.”   Congress, as discussed earlier, is bicameral. The two Houses of Congress are the House of Representatives, and the United States Senate. The House of Representatives, at the time of the writing of the Constitution, was designed to be as it is now, the voice of the people. Representatives have always been elected by a direct vote. The United States Senate was the voice of the States, appointed by the State legislatures. The appointment of the Senators by representatives of the people is an example of an indirect vote.   As the representation of the people, and the States, Congress was not seen as the greatest potential danger in the federal government. Congress was the voice of the people and the States in the federal government; the eyes of the parents to ensure the central government did not grow beyond the authorities granted to it. With Congress representing the oversight by the people, and the States, the oversight powers given to the federal legislature often led to other authorities that allowed Congress to act as a check and balance against potentially dangerous government activity. Giving Congress oversight authorities was a way to ensure that Congress participated in the concept of a government “by the consent of the governed.”   Though elections were established with the State legislatures prescribing the times, places and manner of holding elections, as a check and balance against that authority, Congress may pass laws to “make or alter such regulations.”   At the end of the clause giving Congress the authority to act as an oversight regarding the manner in which elections are held, a qualifier is present, expressing, “except as to the Places of chusing Senators.”   A majority of delegates at the Federal Convention in 1787, by the conclusion of the assembly, were strong supporters of the sovereignty of the States, and the parental nature of the States in relation to the newly formed federal government, and the duty of the States as the final arbiters of the United States Constitution to ensure the new government functioned within the limitations granted to it. A part of that function by the States included the very important fact that the States had a voice in Congress with appointed U.S. Senators. The framers did not want that authority to be tinkered with, so they remind future generations at the end of this clause that though Congress has lawmaking authorities, and oversight authorities, manipulating the dynamics of government where the people, and the States, have a voice in the United States Congress is something not to be fiddled with. A similar advisement also appears at the end of Article V., “and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.”   Oversight powers by the States were seen by the framers as being a right of the States, and as with natural rights of the people, a right is not something that should be able to be taken, but if the holder of the right wishes to give it away, no law can prevent such a foolish action.   The second paragraph of Article I, Section 4 reads, “The Congress shall assemble at least once in every Year.” The first thought regarding this clause by the typical reader may be, “Of course. How can they get anything done if Congress isn’t assembling?”   Another question may be, “Why did the framers feel it to be necessary to insert this clause into the Constitution?”   During the convention in 1787, there were some who felt this clause was “overburdensome.” Government was not supposed to dominate their everyday lives. The members of Congress were not professional politicians, nor did they care to be. They had businesses to run, and lives to live. Surely, the attitude of many of the Founding Fathers was, there is not enough business to compel Congress to meet every single year!   Those who supported the concept of an annual meeting reminded the others that Congress was the check the people and the States had available to them in the federal government. It was the duty of Congress to serve as a check against the President, and the federal judiciary. To be an effective check, Congress must meet at least once per year. The clause, it was argued, was for the benefit of the people.   In present day politics, the opposite seems to be the norm. Government is viewed as being broken if they do not act on an endless and constant flow of issues, committees, and crises. Politicians view their position as their job, rather than a service they are providing.   Originally, the required meeting day was the first Monday in December. That was later changed to noon on the third day of January by the 20th Amendment.   Congressional Procedure Article I, Section 5 requires Congress to have a minimum number of members present in order to do business. That majority constitutes a quorum, and if the Congress deems it necessary, the present members may set fines for members who do not show up. The Houses of Congress may remain in session, during which no formal business is conducted because the House does not have a quorum, so as to prevent executive actions that may be carried out during recess. This kind of session is called a pro forma session.   In Article II, Section 2, the President is given the authority to make recess appointments, when Congress is not in session. Normally, the United States Senate has advise and consent authority over appointments, which means that appointments of personnel to fill vacancies are possible for the President to grant, but such appointments requires the approval of the United States Senate (voice of the States). If the Senate is not in session, and an appointment is necessary, the President may make appointments, but the terms of those appointments only last to the end of the Senate’s next session. If the Senate is in a pro-forma session, the President may not make any appointments. With Congress only in session when there is work to be done, and the Founders believing that would likely only be once a year, the ability of the President to make appointments when Congress is not in session was a valuable, and necessary, tool. In today’s political environment, it seems like Congress is always in session, so recess appointments are not as common.   In early January of 2012, President Barack Obama used a recess appointment to name Richard Cordray the new Director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). The CFPB is a powerful bureaucracy created by the 2010 Dodd-Frank financial overhaul legislation. However, even though most of the members of Congress were on vacation, the United States Senate was still in session. President Obama’s definition of recess, it turned out, was broader than the Constitution’s definition. In reality, the U.S. Senate was in pro-forma session. John Berlau, Director of CEI's Center for Investors and Entrepreneurs, called the nomination of former Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray "very troubling," criticizing both Obama's controversial use of a recess appointment, and the selection of Cordray itself. Berlau later asked, “What's next, appointing nominees when the Senate takes a bathroom break?”   Article I, Section 5 also allows each House of Congress to determine its own rules, keep a journal to record proceedings and votes, and that neither house may adjourn without the permission of the other.  Section 5 also establishes that if a member of a house does not follow the established rules, the house may punish its members for disorderly behavior, and by a two thirds vote may actually expel a member from Congress.   The establishment of rules, holding a hearing in regards to the breaking of those rules, and punishing a member for his behavior, as set forth by Article I, Section 5, was used when Charles Rangel broke the rules of the House of Representatives. He faced a panel for his actions, and was punished by censure in December of 2010. He later sued, spending about a third of his 2014 campaign cash on legal bills in a failed bid to overturn his fall from congressional grace. On December 11, 2013, a federal judge in Washington dismissed the lawsuit, filed by Rangel in the previous April, to get the censure overturned.   The mandate to keep a journal to record proceedings and votes was included in this section because the Founders wanted government to be transparent, accessible, and accountable to the people. Deals behind closed doors were not supposed to be a part of our political system. Congressional Compensation, Privileges, Restrictions When President George Washington took office, he refused to accept the constitutionally allowed compensation for holding the office. He viewed his office as being a privilege, and an opportunity to once again serve the country he loved. During the Constitutional Convention, Benjamin Franklin considered proposing that elected government officials not be paid for their service. By the end of the debate, it was decided that government representatives should receive fixed stipends by which they may be compensated for the devotion of their time to public service. It was also determined, however, that the compensation should not be so high that it would become the motive for seeking office.   Article I, Section 6 of the Constitution addresses compensation, and the rules regarding such. Section 6 also establishes that members of Congress may not be detained while traveling to and from Congress, and that they cannot hold any other office in government while in Congress.   Protection from arrest while traveling to and from Congress was not only a privilege based on those enjoyed by their counterparts in the British Parliament, but also a protection from political enemies who may wish to keep certain members of Congress from voting.   This section also indicates that no member of Congress shall be appointed to a later office if while in Congress the office was created, or a raise in pay was enacted for that office.   To explain this clause, let’s visit a recent violation of it during the Obama administration.   After Barack Obama won the 2008 Presidential Election, he announced that Hillary Clinton would be his new Secretary of State. The position of Secretary of State received a pay raise while Hillary Clinton was a member of the United States Senate. Article I, Section 6 states that “No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States, which shall be been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been encreased during such time.” Since Clinton was a Senator at the time the position of Secretary of State was given a raise, technically she was not eligible for the position to which she was appointed. To resolve this problem, and still allow Mrs. Clinton to accept the position, the Democrats applied the Saxbe Fix, meaning they undid the raise, and Hillary Clinton received the compensation that was in place before the vote she participated in while in the Senate. The Saxbe Fix, or a Salary rollback, is an unconstitutional action. The clause in the Constitution is clear: “No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been encreased during such time.”   The Saxbe Fix, or the rollback of the salary, does not change the fact that the emoluments increased during the time Hillary Clinton was in the U.S. Senate.   As a tool, the Saxbe fix was nothing new. The salary rollback in the case of a violation of Article I, Section 6, a mechanism by which the President of the United States can avoid restrictions by the United States Constitution which prohibits the President from appointing a current or former member of Congress to a position that was created, or to an office position for which the pay and/or benefits were increased, during the term for which that member was elected until the term has expired, was first used in 1909. The “Saxbe” name was applied to the political maneuver later in history. The Saxbe Fix is named for William Saxbe, a Senator appointed Attorney General by President Richard Nixon in 1973. Terms:   Adjourn: Suspend proceedings to a later time and/or place.   Censure: Procedure for publicly reprimanding a public official for inappropriate behavior. There are normally no legal consequences. Censure is not mentioned in the Constitution, but is a procedure devised by the legislature as a tool for formal condemnation of a member of the congressional body.   Congress of the United States: The legislative branch of the federal government which consists of two houses; a Senate and House of Representatives. The Congress is the only part of the federal government granted the authority of legislative powers.   Granted: To confer, give, or bestow. A gift of legal rights or privileges, or a recognition of asserted rights, as in treaty. To legally transfer.   Impeachment: To charge with misconduct. Formal process that may lead to removal of an official accused of unlawful activity; impeachment does not mean the removal from office, though removal from office is often the result of impeachment proceedings.   Legislative Powers: The ability to make law, modify law, repeal law, and anything else that has to do with affecting law.   Nullification: State power to ignore unconstitutional federal law.   President pro tempore: Second highest ranking official of the United States Senate. Vice President is President of the Senate and the highest-ranking official of the Senate despite not being a member of the body. During the Vice President's absence, the president pro tempore presides over its sessions or appoints another senator to do so. The president pro tempore is elected by the Senate and is customarily the most senior senator in the majority party.   Pro Forma Session: A session in either house of the United States Congress at which no formal business is expected to be conducted, so as to fulfill the obligation "that neither chamber can adjourn for more than three days without the consent of the other." Pro forma sessions are also used to prevent the President from pocket-vetoing bills, calling the Congress into a special session, and to prevent the President from making recess appointments.   Quorum: Minimum number of members of an assembly necessary to conduct the business of that group.   Saxby Fix: Salary rollback. A mechanism by which the President of the United States can avoid restrictions by the United States Constitution which prohibits the President from appointing a current or former member of Congress to a position that was created, or to an office position for which the pay and/or benefits were increased, during the term for which that member was elected until the term has expired. First used in 1909, the Saxbe Fix is named for William Saxbe, a Senator appointed to Attorney General by Nixon in 1973.   Questions for Discussion:   1. If only Congress can make law, then why do some politicians believe that Executive Orders can modify law, or that regulatory agencies can create new regulations to enforce laws that were never passed by Congress?   2. The word “granted” reminds us that all powers once belonged to the States, and some of those authorities were “granted” to the federal government for the purpose of carrying out the tasks necessary for the protection, preservation, and promotion of the union. If the federal government was created by the States, then how can statists justify their belief that all federal laws trump all State laws?   3. Why do you think the Congress has two legislative houses?   4. Why do you think representatives are only elected for two years?   5. Why is it significant that only the House can originate bills for raising revenue?   6. Why is the power of impeachment belonging to the House so important?   7. As President of the Senate, what kind of role should the Vice President play in the day to day activities of the United States Senate?   8. Why do you think the House of Representatives has the sole power of impeachment, but the Senate has the task of hearing the case?   9. How are the dynamics of our governmental system different in relation to how the Senators are appointed, or voted for?   10. How was the Senate expected to check the House of Representatives, and work together with the House to check the Executive and Judiciary?   11. Why do you think the authority for prescribing the times, places, and manner of holding elections was given to the State Legislatures?   12. Why was Congress given the allowance to pass laws that may make or alter such regulations?   13. Why was the federal government prohibited from influencing the places for choosing Senators?   14. To conduct business, the houses of Congress need a quorum. If they do not have a majority, they may remain in session through a rule established by Congress called pro forma. What advantages does pro forma give the houses of Congress when it comes as serving as a check against the executive branch?   15. Why do you think neither house can adjourn without the permission of the other?   16. The houses of Congress establish their own rules of procedure. If a member breaks any of these rules, Congress also has the authority to punish the rule breaker. One type of punishment is called censure. How is censure an adequate punishment?   17. How has the concept of transparency changed over the last two hundred years?   Resources:   Edwin Mora, “Top Democrat Dodges Question on Constitutionality of Obama Appointments, Says Pro Forma Sessions Are ‘Games Being Played’,” CNSnews.com (January 6, 2012): http://cnsnews.com/news/article/top-democrat-dodges-question-constitutionality-obama-appointments-says-pro-forma   Free Dictionary by Farlex; http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Grant   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).   Larry Schweikart and Michael Allen, A Patriot’s History of the United States; New York: Sentinel (2004).   Madison’s Notes on the 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 Two - Preamble through Article I, Section 8, Clause 4; Indianapolis: Liberty Fund (1987).   Saxbe, William B. I've Seen the Elephant: An Autobiography. Kent State University Press (2000).       Copyright: Douglas V. Gibbs, 2015