Was the Louisiana Purchase Constitutional?

I received, over the weekend, an email that questioned Jefferson's Louisiana Purchase, and more specifically, the constitutionality of the transaction.  The email reads:

Subject: A question for you

Mr. Gibbs:

 

 You recently spoke to out Riverside County Unified Citizens (RCUC), but my  question (below) was not read.

 I am curious regarding your response to this, thank you.

 

  Do you consider the "Elastic Clause, Article I, Section 8, last ¶ as part of the United States Constitution?

  It reads, "To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

  Thomas Jefferson was a strict Constitutionalist, but when he wanted to make the Louisiana Purchase, it was not mentioned in the Constitution.  Jefferson finally turned to the Elastic Clause to make that purchase.  If he had not done that, the United States would still be along the Atlantic Coast.

My response is as follows:

Friends,

Thank you for the email. Your question is a very good one, and I hope you appreciate my response.

I do believe the final paragraph of The Necessary and Proper Clause, or The Elastic Clause, to be a part of the United States Constitution. The Elastic Clause alone was not what made the purchase of the Louisiana territories constitutional, nor could it have without other pieces being in place. The Elastic Clause says that being necessary and proper is not enough for the action by the government to be constitutional, but that the action must be carried into execution in pursuance of "the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution." In other words, the purchase could be made as a necessary and proper action, if it was constitutional under other criteria.

You are correct that purchasing land as Jefferson did with the Louisiana Purchase is not a power specifically expressed by the Constitution. Therefore, on the surface, people believe that the transaction was unconstitutional. However, don't be fooled by the rhetoric. The Louisiana Purchase was constitutional.

First of all, Jefferson did not make the purchase without Congressional oversight. The House did indeed appropriate the funds for the purchase. The real key, however, is explained in Article VI of the Constitution, in the Supremacy Clause. The second paragraph of Article VI. reads: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land."

The negotiations with Napoleon over the Louisiana Purchase were by treaty, signed by the President, and ratified by the U.S. Senate. As indicated by Article VI., like the Constitution, and laws made in pursuance to the Constitution, "all" treaties are the law of the land - making the purchase constitutional.

One last note. Some will argue that "unconstitutional treaties" cannot be considered the law of the land, and that is false. Unconstitutional laws are not the law of the land, and therefore are null and void, and can be nullified by the States. However, in the clause, after the words "Pursuance thereof," is a semi-colon, separating treaties from that requirement. The word "all" before the words "Treaties made," therefore, is literal. All treaties made are the law of the land, and therefore once ratified by the Senate become constitutional, and the supreme law of the land.

I hope this helps in your studies.

Blessings,

Douglas V. Gibbs
Constitution Radio, KCAA 1050 AM
www.politicalpistachio.com
www.douglasvgibbs.com

Shifting Cuban-American Vote

By Douglas V. Gibbs

When Cuba fell under the iron grip of communism, people fled from the tyranny.  As the communist regime cemented itself under Castro's tyrannical control, more and more Cubans were exiled, and found their way into the United States.  After experiencing the big government terror of communism, the Cuban Exiles in the United States voted republican. Their conservative values were a major key in the GOP gaining Florida in a number of elections.  However, their children do not remember the tyranny of communism, and have fallen for the bait being dangled in front of them by the democrats.  As a result, the children of the Cuban Exiles largely voted for Obama in Election 2012.

The liberal democrats, recognizing the opening window into the Cuban vote, have been working to open the door for travel to Cuba to continue to gain favor with the Cuban community.  During Obama's first term as President, the democrats worked into place the allowance for Cuban-Americans to visit family on the island as often as they like. Americans can travel legally as part of an academic or religious trip.

In addition to Republican Marco Rubio, a democrat Cuban is now also in the House of Representatives, Joe Garcia.  Garcia, a supporter of Obama's expansion of travel and remittances to Cuba while still favoring the 50-year-old embargo that limits American trade with the communist country, defeated Republican Rep. David Rivera.  Rubio, however, does not support Obama's move to open travel, or his push to lift the embargo against Cuba.

"Every U.S.-Cuba policy decision should be guided by the simple test of whether it helps free political prisoners, stops the daily repression and paves the way for the people to express their will through free and fair elections," Rubio said.

The defection of the children of Cuban Exiles towards the Democrat Party is an indication that the onslaught of liberalism in the education system and entertainment industry has even overwhelmed the teachings by the parents that big government tyranny is dangerous.  

The Cuban exile community in south Florida is one of the most conservative and reliably Republican voting blocs in this country.  They escaped Castro, and communism, to come to a nation where freedom was the rule, not the exception.  As Americans the Cubans became fervent anti-communists, anti-liberal, pro-conservative.

Their children voted overwhelmingly for Barack Obama, ignoring their lessons, ignoring their own parents' life experiences.

They believe the propaganda.  They believe the democrats when the liberals cry out that America's freedom is a problem, and that a totalitarian regime is better, safer, and fairer.

After living through Obama, and the destruction of the American Way, their opinions may be changing. . . or perhaps after living through the tyranny of communism in America, their children will revert back to the sanity of liberty.

Conservatism works any time it is tried.  Liberalism, or should I say communism, is destined to fail.  Americans have tasted liberty for way too long to go quietly.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Obama Maintains Standing with Cuban-Americans - Yahoo! News

Michigan's Battle Over The Right To Work

By Douglas V. Gibbs

Corporations, and the people associated with managing these large business entities, have been labeled "fat cats."  The executives are depicted as overweight, cigar-smoking plutocrats whose greed outranks any concern for the precious feelings and "rights" of the workers.  This view is nothing new, either.  A hundred years ago the same attitude towards the owners of big business ran rampant through the United States, as well as throughout the 1800s.  There is no doubt that a problem existed, and something needed to be done about it.

During the founding of this nation among the difficulties freedom faced was the political establishment colluding with big business.  Mercantilism was a way for the merchants to earn favor with governments, and a way for politicians to line their pockets.  As a result, the concept of the existence of different classes was perpetuated in a nation where the yearning for a land where all people are created equal was sought.

The large business owners were a massive obstacle in the drive for equality, and fairness, in this nation, so the labor unions emerged.  The unions fought for the workers, gaining for the laborers fair wages, benefits, and improved working conditions.  Laws were passed thanks to those early labor union efforts, and America's industries became better for it. After all, a happy employee is a good employee.

The usefulness of the unions has faded, and like anything else that gains any semblance of power, the powerful union leadership became who they defeated, and corruption accompanied the new greed for power, and political favor.  Today, the larger unions are steeped in corrupt lobbying activities and electioneering at the state and federal level.  As a result, a push-back against the power of the unions has risen, and in some States a movement called "Right to Work" has emerged.

Everyone has a right to work, and the freedom to choose that employment, without being required to join a labor union if they so choose - or at least that is the way the concept reads.  Right-to-work laws exist in twenty-three States, and in those States, one cannot be compelled to be a member of a union at any workplace as a condition of employment.  The laws find their roots in the constitutional concept of the right to the freedom of association.

Though wages and benefits are slightly lower in right-to-work States, the economic conditions in those States, as well as the employment rates, tend to be better.  Overall, right-to-work States fair better in the economic storms than unionized States.

Michigan is not a right-to-work State. . . yet.

Rick Snyder, The governor of the State of Michigan, did not enter office with a right-to-work law on his agenda, but his recent change of mind has caused the big unions to rise up in massive protest.  The issue kept rearing its head, and Snyder felt he had no other choice. The State is losing population, and cities like Detroit and Flint are shriveling up, largely because of the stranglehold the unions have on the State's industries.  Corporations are losing their ability to compete, and ultimately survive, faced with the massive drain of benefits that include destructive pension plans.  In this country, the failure of Hostess as a result of the labor union's destructive power was just the beginning.  The auto industry, once the driving force behind Michigan's prosperity, is fleeing the State, and they are fleeing from the oppressive unions, going to places like nearby financially thriving Indiana; a right-to-work State.

Governor Snyder says his call for right-to-work legislation is a move towards "Workplace fairness and equity."  He has been calling for the legislature to create the legislation, and has said repeatedly that when it arrives on his desk, he will sign it - big union demonstrations, or not.

Snyder says this is not union busting, but it is actually about being pro-worker.  The protesters say this is the powerful corporations wanting to lower income, and worker security, in Michigan.

The protests are planned to ramp up today with a massive convergence on Lansing as news that the legislation passed the State Legislature and is now only awaiting Snyder's signature.  The unions are providing bus transportation in an attempt to get as many demonstrators where they want them to be as possible.  However, the unions see the writing on the wall.  The right-to-work law is in Michigan's destiny - a State where nobody ever thought this kind of law would ever gain ground, considering the strength of the auto unions in Michigan.

The law, once signed, would go into effect in April of 2013.  Existing contracts would be exempt from the new law until they expire.  Proponents of the right-to-work law in Michigan say that the law is an attempt to keep businesses in Michigan, ultimately helping the workers by keeping employment opportunities in the State during a time when companies seem to be fleeing Michigan, and shriveling cities like Detroit.

Once the law is in place, lawsuits and recall elections are expected to be the next line of attack by the unions, as we saw in Wisconsin over Governor Scott Walker's challenges against his State's public union sector.  And if Wisconsin is any indication, the workers will win, freedom will survive, and the right-to-work law, and the governor, will remain in the State of Michigan.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Right to Work Law - Wikipedia

Snyder asks Michigan Lawmakers to Pass Right-to-Work Legislation - Fox 2 News Detroit

Michigan Unions to Protest "right-to-work" Measures this week - Yahoo! News

Michigan Passes Right-to-Work Legislation in Rebuke of Unions - Townhall Finance

Hamas Leader, Like Democrats, Denounces Israel

The Washington Post reports: In a fiery speech Saturday before a mammoth rally in Gaza City marking the 25th anniversary of the founding of Hamas, Khaled Meshal, the political leader of the militant Islamist group, pledged that it would never recognize Israel and called for an Islamic Palestinian state on the territory of Israel, the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

This is why the liberal democrats make such fine bedfellows with Islam - because they both have a common enemy: Israel.

In the Book of Genesis, Chapter 12, Verse 1-3, we see what God says about His response to how people treat Israel:

"And I will bless those that bless you and curse the one who curses you. And in you shall all families of the earth be blessed."
In the Book of Numbers, where the Bible is telling us about the Nation of Israel that God delivers out of bondage in Egypt, it tells us:

"He crouched. He lay down as a lion, and as a great lion. Who shall stir him up? Blessed is he who blesses you, and cursed is he who curses you."
I suppose that explains why the democrats tend to be anti-Christian, as well.  Well, there is that, and the fact that totalitarianism tends to be anti-religious. . . they can't welcome a people that places God on High when the statists believe government should be all things to all people.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Hamas Leader Khaled Meshal Denounces Israel at Anniversary Rally in Gaza - Washington Post

Obama and the Big Donors to his Inauguration

For a guy that claims he has a real problem with big business and the wealthy, he sure showers them with gifts when they throw money at him.  Notice the part about the democrats lifting the voluntary ban on donor money - it was a ruse to get votes, but now that they've won again, they don't care about it . . .

The biggest donors to President Barack Obama's second inauguration have been notified on what benefits will be available to them during that day's festivities.

Corporations and other organizations that donate in the highest bracket - $1 million - will have access to a children's concert, "benefactors reception," and four tickets to the official inaugural ball, among other perks. The bonuses were outlined in a solicitation from the Presidential Inaugural Committeeto potential donors, and provided to the New York Times by an Obama fundraiser.

Private individuals who contribute the legal maximum of $250,000 will be given the same offerings as the million dollar donation from an "institution." Institutions can include corporations, unions, charities, and other organizations.

The benefits are separated into four individual "packages," each corresponding to the level of donation. Each is named after a former president: Washington, Adams, Jefferson, and Madison; a copy of the solicitation can be found here.

As reported by ABC News on Friday, the inaugural committee has reversed a voluntary ban on the donor money, imposed by Obama on the inauguration four years ago and during the 2012Democratic National Convention.

Finish Reading at Yahoo! News

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Election's Over, Unemployment Rate on the Rise

By Douglas V. Gibbs

Now that the election is over, Gallup reports the adjusted unemployment rate is over 8% again, at 8.3%.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics is telling us the rate is at 7.7%, a number that would be the lowest since 2008.

The U-6 still has the rate well into the double digits, at 14.7%, and many number crunchers will even tell you the rate is closer to 20% than the government is willing to admit.

The number of jobs the government claims were added (and note that government jobs are on the rise, while the private sector suffers) in November are at about 146,000, which is the lowest since 2008.

Yet, they are telling us the rate has dropped to 7.7%.

The report is based on a survey of households and employers, using techniques that can't possibly accurately depict the current jobless rate in the United States.

We also have to remember the 7.7% rate the government publicizes does not take into account those whose unemployment benefits have run out, those who have given up seeking work, those who are underemployed, and those small business owners whose entrepreneurial endeavors have closed their doors.

Then there is the always fun “seasonal adjustments,” which is a guess based on what they have seen in the past this time of year.

The answer is only as good as the data imputed into the system.  And guess what?  The data input can be easily manipulated.

So what happens to the rate when the adjustments aren't there, and you take into consideration the seasonal hiring which is mostly only temporary?

The rate jumps upward.

Another group of people not counted are neither working nor looking for work but indicate that they want to work, are available for a job, and have looked for work sometime in the past twelve months. These people are your discouraged workers, not currently looking for work, but are willing to work.

Some folks are in between homes, or haven't hooked up their phone or email.  These folks aren't being counted either.  There is no way to count all of the unemployed in America, and the numbers not counted could be staggering.

CNN calls these folks "The 86 million invisible unemployed.”

In the end, it is obvious that the numbers don't add up, and the true jobless rate in the U.S. is far higher than 7.7%.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

U.S. Adjusted Unemployment Shoots Back Up - Gallup

Employment Situation Summary - Bureau of Labor Statistics

The 86 million invisible unemployed - CNN

Does the Supreme Court have no power to rule on the constitutionality of a law passed by Congress?

I often spend a lot of time going back and forth through email with readers and listeners of my programs over issues that concern them. In the case of David, his issue has been the constitutionality of the 16th Amendment, and more specifically, the allowance for the federal government to tax directly without concern regarding apportionment.  His latest email said to me:

Subject: RE: Sixteenth Amendment

Douglas,

So – you are saying that the Supreme Court has no power to rule on the constitutionality of a law passed by Congress?

How about Brown v. Board of Education in which the Supreme Court ruled that “separate but equal” was unconstitutional?

Frankly, I think that your position on the authority of the Supreme Court is unsupportable. And I conclude that you are evading the issue of the true effect of the Sixteenth Amendment (assuming again that it was lawfully ratified) simply because you do not wish to deal with the implications of the truth.

I, for one, prefer to demand the truth.

David

My response was lengthy because I wanted him to truly understand where I stand on the issue.  I said:

David,

Yes, I am saying that the Supreme Court has no power to rule on the constitutionality of a law passed by Congress. They can provide an opinion on the constitutionality, but that opinion is not supposed have any effect on the law itself. It is only an opinion. The dockets to his day begin with the words, "It is in the opinion of the court."  There is no constitutional authority granted to the courts to have this power of judicial review.  In fact, the courts gave themselves that power in an opinion by John Marshall in the 1803 Marbury v. Madison case.  I argued on the air with Dr. Larry Arnn, President of Hillsdale College, over this issue, and he claimed that the power is "implied" in the Constitution.  The concept of "implied powers" is also unconstitutional - invented by Alexander Hamilton as a way to subvert the Constitution so that he may put into place his Bank of the United States.

Remember, the Supreme Court is a part of the federal government, and for them to determine if a law is constitutional, which is to determine if the federal government has a particular authority, is to allow the federal government to choose its authorities for itself.  That is, in my opinion, in complete contrast to the limiting principles championed by the Founding Fathers.

The final arbiter of the Constitution is not the courts, but the States - and ultimately the people, through their States.

The judiciary being taught as the check against Congress has occurred because the true check and balance against Congress has been eliminated.  The original check against Congress was destroyed with the ratification of the 17th Amendment, which changed the appointment of the Senators by the State Legislatures to the vote of the people, introducing a larger dose of democracy to our republic, and introducing ideology to a House of Congress that had previously been only concerned with the interests of the States, and ultimately, State Sovereignty.

The States through the Senate checked the people, and the people through the House of Representatives checked the States (Senate). Together, they checked the executive branch, and the courts.

If you read Madison's Notes on the United States Constitution, the Judicial Branch was almost not created. There was a strong argument in the convention to not create that third branch of government, for the States each already had judiciaries.  Ultimately, the statists won out, pointing out that a federal court would be necessary to mediate disagreements between the States, cases regarding federal properties like the District of Columbia and territories, and so on and so forth.  So, near the end of the convention, it was decided to create the Judicial Branch, but for that branch to be the weakest of the three.  The judges did not like that attitude towards the courts, and worked to strengthen the power of the courts, while also weakening the constitutional philosophies that held that the courts should only apply the law to cases, and not interpret whether or not laws were unjust or constitutionally valid.  The battle for power began early, and as I pointed out earlier in this response, the concept of judicial review came into being as early as 1803.  The result has been a battle for power that has become an expanding court system that has grown more powerful over the years, and now legislates from the bench at will through their rulings.

So, now, I go back to those court opinions you have been referring to regarding the 16th Amendment. Whether they are right or wrong, they hold no power in law.  Personally, I believe the language in the 16th Amendment is clear, ". . . without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."  I am not defending the income tax, I am simply recognizing the reality of the language.  However, federal withholding from wages is not constitutional, for the 16th Amendment allows for the Congress to collect taxes on "incomes", and wages are not income.  Wages are a barter. We trade our labor for monetary compensation.  Of course bartering is against the law in the United States. The federal government did that because they realized they could not tax barter.

As for the Brown v. Board of Education case, where the Supreme Court ruled that "separate but equal" was unconstitutional, the courts had every right to that "opinion," but the Congress was the branch that needed to be passing laws supported by the 14th Amendment to enforce the provisions of that article. After all, does not Article I, Section 1 of the United States Constitution grant "all" legislative powers to the Congress?  This means no other branch has the authority to create law, modify law, repeal law, or strike down law.  Those powers belong only to the Congress.

Blessings,

Douglas V. Gibbs

Constitution Radio, 1050 AM

www.politicalpistachio.com

www.douglasvgibbs.com

Unconstitutional Proposition 30 Ready to Make California the Highest Taxed State

By Douglas V. Gibbs

On Election Day 2012 the voters in California voted for an increase in sales tax, and a massive increase in State Income Tax on the wealthiest in the State.  The claim was that the money was needed for education, but in reality it is going to be used to help pay for rising pension costs.  The unions are powerful in California, and ensured that Proposition 30 passed, and Proposition 32, which would have limited how unions fund their favorite politicians, failed.

In Britain, two-thirds of the top earners fled the country after the tax rate against them hit 50%. The resulting unintended consequence was a UK £7 billion loss in revenue.  When the United Kingdom announced they would reduce that rate to 45%, 10,000 millionaires returned.

In France, when the Socialists decided to raise the tax rate to 75% on income above 1.0 million euros per year, along with a sharp increase in taxes on capital gains from the sales of stock and company stakes, the rich began to leave the country. The successful population in France argues that the progressive tax rate will kill the market for innovative start-up companies.  As in Britain, the French could be seeing a massive drop in revenue.

The Founding Fathers were aware of the dangers of this kind of taxation.  They were against direct taxation, and called the concept of the redistribution of wealth a "Utopian scheme of leveling."  Samuel Adams went so far as to say such actions are, "Impractical, despotic, and unconstitutional" at the federal level.

Though direct taxation is constitutional at the State level, California's hike in the tax rate against the rich is also retroactive to last January, and that makes the new law unconstitutional.

Article I, Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution says that "No State shall pass any ex post facto law."  Ex post facto law is retroactive law.  As per Article I, Section 9, the federal government can't pass any ex post facto law, either.  That makes Proposition 30, and Bill Clinton's retroactive tax in the 1990s, unconstitutional.

The new nation wanted to be nothing like the British they had won their independence from, and the monarchy played games with taxation, and ex post facto laws, to hang on to power, and tighten its grip on the people. The way the founders saw it, if congress applied laws ex post facto, people could be charged with crimes that they committed before the act itself was even illegal, and that was just not acceptable in a free country.  That, in the opinions of the Founding Fathers, is tyranny, and so the Constitution is specific about no allowing ex post facto laws.

The unconstitutionality of Proposition 30 goes even deeper than that, however.  In addition to the fact that retroactive law is unconstitutional, so is targeting a specific group and treating them differently under the law. Those that normally oppose the government following the original intent of the U.S. Constitution love to use the "Equal Protection Clause" in the 14th Amendment to support their talking points, but conveniently forget all about the Constitutional Requirement that all people be treated equally under the law when it comes to taxing the rich.  Shouldn't taxation, like any other law, be applied equally to all citizens?  Is it not un-American to single out a single group with punitive laws?

In the end, California's Proposition 30 is unconstitutional, which makes it an illegal law, and once implemented will cost California the revenue the ruling elite in Sacramento believes the new tax law will create when the wealthiest Californians leave the State, just as the richest folks did in France and Britain.

Prediction?

California is in for a tough economic ride, worse than she has already faced under liberal democrat leadership; and after the next census California will lose at least one representative in Congress due to the dwindling population. . . well, the State will lose that seat as long as the census-takers don't count the illegal aliens as a part of the "legal" population.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Capitol Alert: High-income Californians may pay nation's highest tax rate - Sacramento Bee

Two-Thirds of millionaires left Britain to avoid 50p tax rate - U.K. Telegraph

Business Fleeing France as 75% Income Tax Looms - NewsMax

The "Your Money Is Not Yours" Crowd - American Thinker

Constitution Study Radio: 25 Myths of the Constitution - Myths #15 and #16: Faith and Justice

Constitution Study Radio: 25 Myths-#15,16: Faith and Justice

• by Douglas V Gibbs
• in Politics Conservative
• Sun, December 9, 2012 06:00 am

25 Myths of the Constitution: Myths #15 and 16: Myth #15: The Founding Fathers Were Deists/Atheists/Not Christians Myth #16: The Role of Government is to Ensure Equality Through Social Justice

Fighting the Monetary Tax

By Kevin Price,

The massive bailouts by the federal government over the last several years have not only changed the way our nation conducted its fiscal policy, but its monetary policy also. The enormous amount of spending by our government -- at a pace that increases the deficit annually at a rate higher than our total debt a few decades ago -- has been breathtaking to observe.

As a result of such spending, government is mass producing money to pay its bills. The government loves this approach to solving its problems for several reasons. First of all, since the government prints the money and releases it first, it enjoys this "funny money" at its highest value. It is only after it circulates through the economy that it loses its spending power and reduces the value of all other dollars in the market. Inflation is defined as "too much money chasing too few goods." High prices is only one of the many symptoms of such a policy. In addition, inflation plays on the ignorance of a population who has no idea that these increases in prices are caused by the mass production of devalued dollars. Most voters will blame businesses for their "greed" and price raising, not the politicians who make such a phenomenon necessary. Simply put, every new dollar pumped into the economy takes away the value of all the dollars in the market, unless there is a comparable increase in productivity.

Recently I discussed this problem on a recent Price Point Edition video. In one day in 2009, the United States took a chapter out of Zimbabwe's playbook by pumping $1.2 trillion into the money supply in an attempt to pay off its bills. We know from the Weimar Republic in Pre-WWII Germany, that inflation can become so bad that it is like worthless trash blown in the streets. Many Americans have (rightly) been alarmed by the more than $1.5 trillion we have seen in bailouts. According to the Washington Post, these inflationary efforts have the potential of being much more far reaching, noting that "combined with the billions already deployed by the Fed, the new money dwarfs even the biggest government bailouts of financial companies."

Historically, this type of monetary policy leads to the kind of inflation that we have seen in history books, where it is cheaper to use money for wallpaper than to buy it or it requiring a barrel of money to buy a loaf of bread. Printing worthless money will not make our problems away, but make issues we never imagined.

The purpose of this inflation is to serve as a tax by taking away the value (rather than the actual dollars) of all the money we hold. This is, however, one tax we can fight against because Americans can reduce their "monetary tax" burden with every precious metal purchase they make. Gold, silver, and other precious metals are at an all time high because of the inflation we have suffered over the last two years. It is only expected to get worse. Precious metals are a tool for shoring up the value of money. As the money supply is inflated, those with gold or other precious metals will see their wealth enjoy a greater level of protection and their "monetary tax" burden greatly reduced. Those who do not move towards precious metals either do not fully appreciate our current economic crisis or are as apathetic as the millions of Americans who still sit on the sidelines rather than participate in the most important political battles of the day. People need to make a difference in the national economy through elections and their personal economies through precious metals.

---------

Kevin Price

Host

Price of Business on KTEK 1110, PriceofBusiness.com

Home of Bloomberg Radio on morning drive time.

Publisher and Editor in Chief, USDailyReview.com

Frequently found on Strategy Room at FoxNews.com

Syndicated columnist whose articles appear on a variety of media outlets.

Follow Kevin on Twitter at http://Twitter.com/KevinPriceLive

Like his new Facebook page at

http://www.facebook.com/#!/pages/Kevin-Price/225149017497975

Kevin Price's Profile: http://www.google.com/profiles/PriceofBusiness

Dead Atheists - Wild Bill for America

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

What the Founding Fathers would have thought about Obama's Scheme of the Redistribution of Wealth

Samuel Adams said, "The Utopian schemes of leveling (re-distribution of the wealth) and a community of goods (central ownership of the means of production and distribution), are as visionary and impractical as those which vest all property in the Crown. [These ideas] are arbitrary, despotic, and, in our government, unconstitutional."

"The duty of a true patriot is to protect his country from the government." - Thomas Paine

The founders were well aware of concepts like the ones the liberal left pushes - which is why the Constitution does not allow them.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Founding Truth

Founding Truth of the U.S. Constitution

• by HOV Radio
• in Politics Conservative
• Sat, December 8, 2012 05:00 pm

What is our government doing, to the American people, that is not following the Constitution? Listen here and find out!

Hedgehog Provides Enjoyment for Grandkids

This morning as I sat at my desk in my office two of my grandchildren, who spent the night, ran in to see Grandpa. As I popped them both up on my lap and began to talk with them, my grandson, Ezekiel, who has an interest in guns, not necessarily to the approval of his dad, asked me about a couple used targets lying on my printer-stand.  In the hopes of abiding by my son's wishes that the five-year-old be much older before I teach him about firearms, I joked with him saying that a porcupine caused all of those holes in the target.

"Porcupine?"

I decided to show him what porcupines look like on my computer, eventually coming across a video about a porcupine who thinks it is a dog. The man was petting the animal with thick gloves, even rubbing its belly as the quilled creature rolled over to its back.

My granddaughter, Alexya, was not so impressed - until I found a video of a hedgehog reacting to a verbally produced fart sound.  For a large chunk of time we watched the video over and over, the three of us laughing at this poor little hedgehog ducking from a sound it did not understand.

Honestly, I am not sure if they were laughing at the ducking hedgehog, or the fart sound, but we laughed incessantly, anyhow.

My son and his wife enjoyed the time alone, as their children sat on grandpa's lap, laughing at a video on the computer in my office.

Here's the video:




-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Wear Socks. . . Constitution Radio Welcomes Wild Bill for America

Constitution Radio with Douglas V. Gibbs, Saturday at 2:05 PM on KCAA 1050 AM, and Online at KCAAradio.com.  Podcast available later on our podcast page.

Today's Constitution Radio will knock your socks off.  First, my opening monologue will address the disease of Fatalism, what is really behind the war we are waging to save this country, and the tools we have available for turning all of this around.  Then, I will be joined by Bill Finlay, better known as Wild Bill for America.

After the interview we will be joined by Paul from Prying1Books for the Book of the Week, and the Constitution Quest Question of the Week.

After we give away a Prying1Books prize, and Constitution Quest T-Shirt to the listener that accurately answers this week's Question of the Week, we will be joined by JASmius of Hard Starboard Radio for the. . .

5 Big Stories of the Week, December 8, 2012

5.  North Korea’s Long Range Rocket

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/12/01/north-korea-plans-new-long-range-rocket-launch/#ixzz2DvrEX7z1

4.  Syria Moving Chemical Weapons

http://www.startribune.com/world/181819561.html?refer=y&refer=y

3.   Morsi Flees

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20121204/DA2V12302.html

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/12/04/us-egypt-politics-idUSBRE8B30GP20121204

http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/12/04/15673963-morsi-flees-egypts-presidential-palace-as-last-warning-protesters-battle-cops?lite

2. Senate Considers Giving Obama Dictatorial Powers over Debt Limit

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/12/06/us-usa-fiscal-debtlimit-idUSBRE8B513I20121206

http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-congress/2012/12/senate-theatrics-over-obama-debt-limit-plan-151273.html?hp=lh_b7

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/12/06/obama-debt-ceiling-demand-complicates-fiscal-crisis-talks/#ixzz2ELgBB3ci

1.  Pearl Harbor Day

American Daily Review Tackles the Stories that Matter

American Daily Review

• by ADR Radio
• in Politics Conservative
• Noon Pacific

Welcome to the pre-game show for Constitution Radio on the Political Pistachio Radio Network

Harry Reid Strikes Again With Obstructionism!

By J.J. Jackson

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D- NV) is probably the largest obstructionist in Washington DC these days. What is funny, however, is when he obstructs President Obama.

As we all know, President Obama made a proposal, correctly called “unserious”, for avoiding the looming “fiscal cliff”. The plan was basically soak the “rich” and maybe, possibly, we’ll cut some loosely defined spending a decade down the line. That proposal would not, obviously, have solved anything. But it would have made the far left base of the Democratic party, people who just adore socialism and believe there is always more of someone else’s money to spend, very happy.

Following the “plan” being divulged, the media was agog and trumpeted the “fact” that Obama had a plan, while Republicans had none. Yep, the same old, pathetic playbook whereby the liberal media ignores the real facts in favor of made up ones.

Yet this week, did you know that Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) tried to get the Senate to vote on Obama’s proposal. Yep. It’s true. The attempt came in the form of an amendment attached to a Russian trade bill (H.R. 6156).

So, was there a vote? Nope. Harry Reid nixed that attempt and called it a “political stunt”. Yes, Heaven forbid that a vote would actually be taken on his own party’s President’s proposal. Logically, this means that Harry Reid believes the President’s proposal was a “political stunt” as well. Thanks for admitting the truth about it Harry, even if it is in a roundabout, convoluted manner.

It would be funny if it weren’t so sad. Democrats won’t even stand up and go on the record supporting or denouncing their own President’s plan. Of course, this is the same Senate that has voted against budgets proposed by President Obama 99-0 when actually forced to do so.

All this is nothing new. Harry Reid has been pulling this sort of stunt so many times over the past few years to protect Democrats from actually going on the record that it has basically turned the Senate into a three ring circus. And it seems clear that Democrats are determined to force a jump come January.

That’s ok. I’ll agree to that. Only on one condition. I get to push all the whiney liberals off first, along with all their precious entitlements doers like myself pay for. That way, when my turn comes, I will have a nice pile of bodies to cushion my fall. After all, why should someone like myself, a doer who understands the problem, suffer because of liberals too stupid and stubborn to take proper action? It just doesn’t seem “fair”, and aren’t’ liberals all about “fairness”?

Oh, that’s right, liberals believe that “fairness” is them getting what they want and being allowed to loot the treasury until they have gotten it.

=================
J.J. Jackson is a libertarian conservative author from Pittsburgh, PA who has been writing and promoting individual liberty since 1993 and is President of Land of the Free Studios, Inc. He is the Pittsburgh Conservative Examiner for Examiner.com. He is also the owner of The Right Things - Conservative T-shirts & Gifts The Right Things. His weekly commentary along with exclusives not available anywhere else can be found at Liberty Reborn

Blame the Person, Not the Gun

ZoNation: Jovan Belcher Tragedy: Blame the Man not the NRA

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Founding Fathers' Opinion of the Institution of Marriage

"It is not necessary to enumerate the many advantages, that arise from this custom of early marriages. They comprehend all the society can receive from this source; from the preservation, and increase of the human race. Every thing useful and beneficial to man, seems to be connected with obedience to the laws of his nature, the inclinations, the duties, and the happiness of individuals, resolve themselves into customs and habits, favourable, in the highest degree, to society. In no case is this more apparent, than in the customs of nations respecting marriage." --Samuel Williams, The Natural and Civil History of Vermont, 1794

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Pearl Harbor Day - Remembrance

Obama the Dictator: Senate Votes to Give Obama Power to Raise Debt Limit without Congress

Morsi don't have anything on Obama. . .


Senate to vote on giving Obama debt limit power

(Reuters) - The Senate is expected to vote on Thursday on legislation that would give President Barack Obama power to raise the Treasury Department's borrowing authority without congressional approval, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Democrat, said.


Senate theatrics over Obama debt limit plan

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid announced on the floor Thursday he planned to call Sen. Mitch McConnell's bluff and hold a vote on the president's proposal to deal with the debt limit.

McConnell had requested a vote on the offer in the morning that included the Obama administration’s offer on resolving the so-called fiscal cliff. It includes a permanent, “unlimited” debt limit hike with no spending cuts attached, along with a provision that would allow Congress to disapprove the debt increase. McConnell said President Barack Obama is “the last person who should have limitless borrowing power.”

In the morning, Reid swiftly objected to the idea. But then, in typical Senate theatrical fashion, Reid changed his mind said he wanted to hold a Thursday afternoon vote. A Democratic aide said the White House coordinated the move with Reid, and the Majority Leader had secured the 51 votes needed to pass the proposal on an up or down vote.


Reid, McConnell Duel over Obama's Debt-Ceiling demand

The Democratic and Republican Senate leaders tried to outmaneuver each other Thursday in a bid to gain political traction over President Obama's call for a permanent increase in the debt ceiling -- in the latest sign of how that demand has complicated negotiations over the looming fiscal crisis.

The political dance started a day earlier, when Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell tried to call a vote on Obama's fiscal plan which included granting the White House the ability to approve automatic increases in the debt ceiling. Democratic Leader Harry Reid blocked it, allowing McConnell to suggest even Democrats don't want Obama's plan to pass.

But then Reid turned around Thursday and proposed calling a vote in the afternoon on the debt-ceiling plan. Reid, though, wanted to call a simple majority vote -- McConnell objected, saying a 60-vote threshold was warranted. Reid in turn objected to that, and the entire vote was scuttled again.

Democrats emerged claiming McConnell had shot down his own proposal, though the proposal was actually Obama's.

Editor's Note: The very thought that the Democrats would consider giving the executive this kind of power should be more evidence of the Marxist nature of the party. . . 

The Founding Fathers would be appalled.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Hurricane Sandy: Bureaucracy at work - Jersey Shore Home Vanishes

A man in New Jersey returned to his home after Superstorm Sandy only to find it had vanished -- and not from the storm. At issue is who tore it down and why?

Read more Fox New York

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Hurricane Sandy: New York City to Residents - Clean up our mess!

New York City Hits Sandy Victims With ‘Failure To Maintain’ Property Citation

And What's More, The Tree Causing All The Fuss Was City's Responsibility

Residents in one Queens neighborhood are crying foul after they were written up for failing to clean up the city’s own mess. It is yet another new complication in life after Superstorm Sandy.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

John Adams: Rights of the Colonists

"If men through fear, fraud or mistake, should in terms renounce and give up any essential natural right, the eternal law of reason and the great end of society, would absolutely vacate such renunciation; the right to freedom being the gift of God Almighty, it is not in the power of Man to alienate this gift, and voluntarily become a slave." --John Adams, Rights of the Colonists, 1772

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Constitution Class - Temecula, California: Section 1, Article 4, 5, and 6

Join us tonight at Faith Armory on Enterprise Circle West in Temecula at 6:00 pm for tonight's study:

2.5 - Article I, Section 4; Elections for Senators and Representatives

Article I, Section 4 establishes that each State may have its own methods for electing members of the Congress, and mandates, or requirements, and that Congress must meet at least once per year. This means that it is up to the State Legislatures to make the rules for elections, including the federal elections held in their State.  Understanding this, it becomes clear that when the hanging chad controversy arose (Gore/Bush, 2000), the case should have remained with the state legislature to decide on, and should have never gone to the courts.

In Clause 1 of Section 4, though the Constitution specifically gives the times, places and manner of holding elections to the State’s legislatures, the United States Congress is given the ability to pass laws to alter parts of these procedures.  When Congress acts upon this authority, it is often in a manner to make an election practice uniform among the States.  Note that Congress is not given that ability in regards to the places of choosing Senators.  Remember, the United States Senators were appointed by the State Legislatures at that time.  Appointment of Senators by the States was changed to a vote by the people by the 17th Amendment in 1913.

Clause 2 requires for Congress to assemble at least once per year.  The day of their first meeting was changed from December to January by the Twentieth Amendment.

Questions for Discussion:

1.  Why do you think the authority for prescribing the times, places, and manner of holding elections was given to the State Legislatures?

2.  Why was Congress given the allowance to pass laws that may make or alter such regulations?

3.  Why was the federal government prohibited from influencing the places for choosing Senators?

Resources:

Madison’s Notes on the Constitutional Convention, Avalon Project, Yale University: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/debcont.asp

2.6 - Article I, Section 5; 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, 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.

Section 5 also states that each house may have 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 recently used when Charles Rangel broke the rules of the House of Representatives.  He faced a panel for his actions, and was punished by censure.

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.

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.

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.

Questions for Discussion:

1.  To conduct business, the houses of Congress needs 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?

2.  Why do you think neither house can adjourn without the permission of the other?

3.  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?

4.  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

Joseph Andrews, A Guide for Learning and Teaching The Declaration of Independence and The U.S. Constitution - Learning from the Original Texts Using Classical Learning Methods of the Founders; San Marcos: The Center for Teaching the Constitution (2010).

Madison’s Notes on the Constitutional Convention, Avalon Project, Yale University: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/debcont.asp


2.7 - Article I, Section 6; Compensation, Privileges, Restrictions

Article I, Section 6 goes over 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.  The compensation was expected to remain low, for the founders did not wish for the compensation to be so high that it became the motive for seeking office.

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 that 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.  For example, the position Secretary of State received a pay raise while Hillary Clinton was in the Senate, so technically she was not eligible for the position when she was appointed. To fix this, the Democrats applied the Saxby 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 Saxby Fix, or a Salary rollback, is an unconstitutional action, for the clause 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 increased during such time.”

The Saxby 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.

Terms:

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.

Resources:

Madison’s Notes on the Constitutional Convention, Avalon Project, Yale University: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/debcont.asp

Saxbe, William B. I've Seen the Elephant: An Autobiography. Kent State University Press (2000).