Temecula Constitution Class: Assembling and Making Law

Temecula Constitution Class, Wednesdays 6:00 pm 28120 Jefferson Avenue, Temecula, CA Riverside County Republican Party Headquarters Constitution Class Handout Instructor: Douglas V. Gibbs   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, 2014

Trump Joins Europeans in Recognizing D-Day

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

On June 6, 1944, in the dead of early morning darkness, 18,000 British and American troops parachuted into Normandy, France.  13,000 aircraft, and a massive wave of naval support, were utilized to provide air cover for the coming invasion.  Key bridges were destroyed, leaving the Germans few escape routes.  Shortly after dawn, at 6:30 am, the amphibious portion of the invasion began.  American troops came ashore at two of the five beaches that were targeted, Utah and Omaha.  British and Canadian troops captured Gold, Juno, and Sword beaches. Omaha beach proved to be the toughest, with rough weather conditions, and a strong German coastal defense, but the Americans persevered, and in the end all five beaches were captured. 

Military leaders recognized the risk, they knew the cost in lives would be high, but the cost was necessary, they believed.  Germany had been pounding Britain with bombing runs and the allies had no stronghold in Western Europe.  If the allies were going to be able to have a chance to win the war in Europe they needed to establish a stronghold on the mainland.

By dusk the five beaches were secured, and 155,000 allied troops had successfully stormed Normandy's beaches.  From that point the allies pushed inward, and by the end of three months they had forced German forces out of Northern France.  At the end of June, the allies had 850,000 men and 150,000 vehicles in Normandy and were poised to continue their march across Europe.  Meanwhile, the Soviets were working their way towards Germany from the east.

The first allied cemetery in Europe was dedicated only two days after the Normandy Invasion.  D-Day dead were buried June 8, 1944, and at the National D-Day Memorial Foundation in Bedford, Virginia, it is estimated that 4,414 allied lives were lost during the gruesome D-Day invasion.  German casualties are believed to be anywhere between 4,000 and 9,000 killed, wounded or missing.  About 200,000 were captured as prisoners of war.

75 years later, June 5, 2019, President Donald J. Trump joined fellow European leaders and Queen Elizabeth II to honor those troops who lost their lives through the ultimate sacrifice on D-Day.  As the leaders gathered to pay their respects, American and British paratroopers dropped into northwestern France and scaled cliffs beside Normandy beaches, recreating the daring, costly invasion that helped liberate Europe from Nazi occupation.

A few hundred World War II veterans, all in their 90s, attended an international ceremony in Portsmouth (the English port city from where many of the troops embarked for Normandy on June 5, 1944).  The U.K.'s queen, 93 years old, served as an army mechanic during the war.

“The heroism, courage and sacrifice of those who lost their lives will never be forgotten,” the monarch said. “It is with humility and pleasure, on behalf of the entire country — indeed the whole free world — that I say to you all, thank you.”

German Chancellor Angela Merkel also attended the event with the European leaders, revealing Europe’s postwar reconciliation and transformation.

President Trump read a prayer that President Franklin D. Roosevelt delivered in a radio address on June 6, 1944, extolling the “mighty endeavor” Allied troops were engaged in.

British Prime Minister Theresa May read a letter written by Captain Norman Skinner of the Royal Army Service Corps to his wife, Gladys, on June 3, 1944, a few days before the invasion. He was killed the day after D-Day.

“Although I would give anything to be back with you, I have not yet had any wish at all to back down from the job we have to do,” he wrote.

French President Emmanuel Macron read from a letter sent by a young resistance fighter, Henri Fertet, before he was executed at the age of 16 years old.

“I am going to die for my country. I want France to be free and the French to be happy,” it said.

The ceremony ended with singer Sheridan Smith performing the wartime hit “We’ll Meet Again,” as many of the elderly assembled veterans sang along.

Then WWII Spitfire and Hurricane fighter jets, modern-day Typhoons and the Royal Air Force’s Red Arrows aerobatic unit swooped over the dignitaries, veterans and large crowd of spectators.

Tomorrow the focus of the commemorations will shift.  Events will be held at simple military cemeteries near the Normandy beaches. Some 300 British veterans will cross the Channel by boat to the beaches overnight, just as they did 75 years ago.

Events in France began early Wednesday morning with U.S. Army Rangers climbing the jagged limestone cliffs of Normandy’s Pointe du Hoc to honor the men who scaled them under fire 75 years ago.

Elsewhere in Normandy parachutists jumped from C-47 transporters in WWII colors and other aircraft, aiming for fields of wild flowers on the outskirts of Carentan, one of the early objectives for Allied troops.

Among the jumpers was American D-Day veteran Tom Rice, 97. He jumped into Normandy with thousands of other parachutists in 1944 and recalled it as “the worst jump I ever had.”

Thanks to the efforts of those courageous souls in 1944 the allies pushed their way all the way to Berlin by April of 1945, shortly after the Russians arrived, ultimately leading to the surrender of Nazi Germany, and the war in Europe.  Four months later Japan agreed to surrender, ending the war in the Pacific, and officially bringing World War II to a close.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Constitution Study TV: Real ID

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




-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Progressive Era: Corona Constitution Class

Tuesday Night at 6:00 pm at AllStar/CARSTAR Collision (522 Railroad St., Corona, CA)  Constitution Class Handout Instructor: Douglas V. Gibbs   www.politicalpistachio.com www.douglasvgibbs.com www.constitutionassociation.com       Lesson 19   Progressive Era Amendments             16th Amendment: Income Tax   Income Tax is a direct tax. The Founding Fathers prohibited direct taxes in Article I, Section 9, Clause 4 of the United States Constitution. The concept of an income tax emerged during the American Civil War as a means of assisting in paying for the Union war effort. In 1861, Congress drew up a bill to tax personal and corporate incomes. This first income tax measure in the United States called for a 3% tax on incomes over $800. The bill quickly passed in both the House and the Senate, but it was never put into operation. In 1862, Abraham Lincoln signed a bill that imposed a 3% tax on incomes between $600 and $10,000 and a 5% tax on higher incomes. The bill was amended in 1864 to levy heavier taxation on higher incomes. The 1862 income tax law was repealed in 1872 and was declared to be unconstitutional, in violation of Article I, Section 9, Clause 4 of the United States Constitution. Progressivism was on the rise in the United States around the turn of the 20th Century. Americans were concerned about the large national debt that remained with the United States as a result of the Spanish-American War, and the growing social inequality between the rich and the poor. The idea that there should be a tax that "soaks the rich" began to take root among progressives of both major parties. The Democrats took to progressivism more than the Republican Party, and the progressives of the Democrat Party were looking for a way to embarrass the conservative arm of the GOP so that they could gain some traction in the next election. With social unrest rising among the population, a Democrat proposed the Bailey Bill with the express hope the Republicans would reject it. The theory was that after the Republicans rejected the bill, the Democrats could then point a finger at the Republicans, claiming for political purposes that the Republicans were in cahoots with the corrupt wealthy corporate types. A Republican rejection of the Bailey Bill, which would have imposed an income tax on the rich, would serve as proof of such an alignment between the Republicans and the wealthy. The slogan used by proponents of the Bailey Bill was "soak the rich," a direct call to tax people they considered to be profiteers, a class of plutocrats they claimed were in collusion with the Republicans. The conservative Republicans knew what the progressives of the Democrat Party were up to, and launched a counter move. They proposed a constitutional amendment that would impose an income tax on the rich, and when the States refused to ratify the amendment, the Republicans would use that failure to ratify the amendment as proof that the people, through their State legislatures, were against the idea of a new income tax. In turn, that would defeat the Bailey Bill, for how could Congress approve an income tax against the rich through the Bailey Bill after the people and States rejected a constitutional amendment that would have done the very same thing? The proponents of the 16th Amendment promised that if it were to be ratified (remember, it was fully expected not to be ratified) the income tax would only be imposed on the top 5% wage earners, it would be voluntary, and it would be temporary. The progressives of the Republican Party, however, rallied behind the proposed amendment, and the Secretary of State announced the amendment was ratified on February 12, 1913. Progressives, satisfied the 16th Amendment was ratified, hoped to use it to tax the rich. In the beginning, only 5% of the people were required to submit tax returns. Many of the rich, however, avoided the tax with charitable deductions, and other creative strategies. During World War II Franklin Delano Roosevelt saw the income tax as a way to vastly increase revenue, and initiated a policy of withholding from "all" wages and salaries, not just the highest incomes enjoyed by the rich.   Rather than the rich paying the tax at the end of the year, the tax was collected at the payroll window before it was even due to be paid by the taxpayer. This style of collection shifted the tax from its original design as a tax on the wealthy to a tax on the masses, mostly on the middle class. In addition to violating the original intent of Article I, Section 9 prohibiting direct taxation, the income tax also opposes the 4th Amendment which requires that a citizen's privacy be protected. An income tax enforced by the Internal Revenue Service violates the privacy of the home, business, personal papers and personal affairs of the private citizen. Since the tax is based on income, the IRS has the task of making sure everyone pays his fair share. This task is physically impossible without prying into the private papers, private business and personal affairs of the individual citizens. Since the ratification of the 16th Amendment, there have been questions about whether the proper number of State ratification votes were ever achieved. Despite the argument by some researchers that the 16th Amendment was never properly ratified by the requisite three-fourths of the states, and that politicians of the day were aware of the discrepancy, Secretary of State Philander Knox fraudulently declared ratification. Some may suggest that he did so under the urgings of wealthy bankers like J.P. Morgan.   Terms:   Bailey Bill - Income Tax introduced in April 1909 by Senator Joseph W. Bailey, a Democrat from Texas, designed to embarrass conservative Republicans when they voted against it. The introduction of the bill was one of the factors that led to the proposal of the 16th Amendment.   Direct Taxation - A government levy on the income, property, or wealth of people or companies. A direct tax is borne entirely by the entity that pays it, and cannot be passed on to another entity.   Plutocrat - A person whose power derives from their wealth.   Profiteer - A person who seeks exorbitant profits.   Progressivism - Philosophy that views progress as seeking change in approaches to solving economic, social, and other problems, often through government sponsored programs.   Questions for Discussion:   1. Why did the Founding Fathers not allow direct taxation by the Federal Government?   2. What lesson can be learned from the story of the Bailey Bill and the passing of the 16th Amendment?   3. Why didn't "soaking the rich" work as hoped?   4. Why did President Roosevelt extend the income tax to include all wages and earnings?   Resources:   Bill Benson, The Law That Never Was: http://www.thelawthatneverwas.com/ Ethan Pope, America's Financial Demise: Approaching the Point of No Return; Dallas, TX: Intersect Press (2010) W. Cleon Skousen, History of the 16th Amendment, National Retail Sales Tax Alliance: http://www.salestax.org/library/skousen_16history.html               Federal Reserve   The same year the 16th Amendment created the income tax, the Federal Reserve was also created. The Federal Reserve is not a federal agency, and is actually a privately owned corporation owned by a secret group of international bankers. The Federal Reserve holds a monopoly on the creation of money in the United States. Whenever the U.S. Government needs money it borrows the money from the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve gladly loans that money because doing so results in a good profit for the bankers. The Federal Reserve is not the first central bank, but it is the longest lasting. The First Bank of the United States in 1791, created by Alexander Hamilton, became a system of control over the American economy, and was, as described by Jefferson and Madison, "an engine for speculation, financial manipulation, and corruption." In order to properly function, a central bank needs a collection of large sums of money from the people to pay off the interest on the money the government borrows. The creation of the income tax provided that opportunity. The Federal Reserve Act surrendered control of the monetary system to the international banking cartel and guaranteed the eventual abandonment of the gold standard. The Federal Reserve's debt-based money guaranteed the enslavement of every American under a crushing debt burden. The Federal Reserve guaranteed the ability of the international banking cartel to confiscate wealth through artificially created boom/bust cycles. The result is that the U.S. Government, and the bankers in charge of the Federal Reserve, can manipulate the economy simply by the amount of money they decide to pump into the system. The more currency is pumped into the system, the greater the rise of inflation rates. A reduction of the printing of money then results in a recovering economy. Government spending, in relation to the national debt, has a direct impact on the economic cycles we experience. The more the government borrows, the more fiat money is pumped into the system. The result is increased inflation, and a stalled economy. Cutting spending results in less money being borrowed, which then returns value to the dollar, and in turn reduces the level of inflation while encouraging capitalism to thrive. The welfare system was created to compensate for the damage caused by the Federal Reserve and the income tax. The 16th Amendment allows for the taxation on income from whatever source derived, which gives Congress, for the most part, carte blanche to tax at will, while giving the IRS the power to do all of the things the founders specifically disallowed the federal government from doing. This invasion of privacy, without due process, will continue as long as the 16th Amendment remains in force. The income tax is in line with the Marxist philosophy of destroying a capitalist society by steeply graduating taxes on income and applying heavy levies upon the estates of people when they die.     Terms: Capitalism - An economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market.   Carte Blanche - Unrestricted power to act at one's own discretion; unconditional authority; derived from "blank cheque."   Federal Reserve - A privately owned corporation owned by a secret group of international bankers. The federal reserve holds a monopoly on the creation of money in the United States. Whenever the U.S. Government needs money it borrows the money from the Federal Reserve, thus creating a national debt.   Fiat Money - Money that derives its value from government regulation or law, but is not backed by any tangible collateral; money that lacks any intrinsic value.   Inflation - A sustained, rapid increase in prices, over months or years, and mirrored in the correspondingly decreasing purchasing power of the currency.   Questions for Discussion:   1. What are the similarities between Alexander Hamilton's National Bank, and the Federal Reserve?   2. How does the existence of Federal Reserve adversely influence our economic system?   Resources: Abolish the Federal Reserve dot org: http://abolishthefederalreserve.org/ G. Edward Griffin, The Creature from Jekyll Island : A Second Look at the Federal Reserve; Appleton, WI: American Opinion Publishing (1994)   17th Amendment: State Representation in the Senate To comprehend the 17th Amendment, we need to go back in history to understand how our political system was originally established. The Founding Fathers included a number of checks and balances during the creation of the federal government in the hopes of providing enough safeguards to protect the people from an ever expansive, tyrannical, consolidated central government. The separation of powers between the three branches of government, and between the federal government and the States, were an integral part of these protections against tyranny. However, not all of the checks and balances put in place were obvious, nor are all of the checks and balances taught to us during our school years. The dynamics of the federal government were set up to prevent any part of government from having access to too much power. Too much power in any one part of the system could be dangerous, and this includes too much power in the hands of the people. The general population, just like the government, cannot be fully trusted with absolute power. To prevent the danger of too much power residing in any part of government, power needed to be divided as much as possible so as to keep it under control. Too much power in the hands of anybody has the potential of being a dangerous proposition, including in the hands of the voting public. The United States is not a democracy. All of the voting power was not given directly to the people. The voting power was divided to ensure the Republic was protected from the mob-rule mentality of democracy. The vote of the people, or the people's full and unquestioned voice in government, was, and still is, manifested in the U.S. House of Representatives. Then, as now, the representatives were voted into office directly by the people. Each Representative represents a district. The members of the United States Senate were not voted in directly by the people during the time period immediately following the ratification of the United States Constitution. U.S. Senators were voted in by an indirect vote of the people. The Senators were appointed by their State legislatures. The State legislators are voted into office by the people of the State. Therefore, during the early years of this nation, the Senators attained office by an indirect vote of the people through their State legislatures. The people are represented indirectly by the States in the U.S. Senate, and by the States appointing the Senators, the method of appointment allowed State's interests to be represented in the U.S. Congress. Since they were appointed by the State legislatures, the Senators looked at the political atmosphere in a different manner than the members of the House of Representatives. Members of the House of Representatives are directly voted into office by the people, so their concerns are more in line with the immediate concerns of the people, no matter how whimsical those concerns may be. The Senate functioned in a very different manner because when the Senators were appointed they were expected to abide by the wishes of the State legislatures. The Senators were expected to be representative of what was best for their States; State's Rights, State Sovereignty, protecting the States not only from a foreign enemy, but from a domestic enemy, should the federal government become the potential tyranny that the Founding Fathers, and especially the Anti-federalists, feared a central government could become. The federal government exists because the States allow it to. The powers derived by the federal government were granted to it by the States, so in a way the States birthed the federal government, making the States the parents of the government in Washington, D.C. The federal government is not supposed to be able to do much of anything without the permission of the several States. The Senate was the representation of the States so that the States could ensure the federal government remained within its authorities. The States having representation in the federal government through the U.S. Senate was also another way that checks and balances were applied to the system. The House of Representatives represented the people, and the Senate represented the States. Through this arrangement, it gave the people the ability to check the States, and the States the ability to check the people, and together they checked the Executive. The dynamics of our government through this arrangement were a built in check and balance. The States could not get too far without the people approving of a senatorial proposal. The people could not get much done without The States agreeing with a proposal that originated in the House of Representatives. The executive branch could get little done without both the people and the States approving of it. However, if the President did not like what the people and the States were trying to accomplish, he could veto the bill. If the people and the States felt the legislation was important enough, they could override that veto with two-thirds of a vote in both Houses. Looking at it in another way, a bill would be approved by both the people and the States before it went to the President to become law. This gave the Executive and both parts of the legislative branch the opportunity to approve or disapprove potential laws. In 1913, the Seventeenth Amendment changed the originally intended dynamics of the American form of government. The amendment removed the States' representation from U.S. Government proceedings. The Seventeenth Amendment changed the appointment of the Senators from that of the State legislatures to that of the direct vote of the people. As a result, the protection of State Sovereignty was removed, and in its place was inserted ideology, and the willingness of Senators to buy the votes of individual voters through gifts from the treasury in a manner that was already emerging from the House of Representatives.               Vacancies in the Senate   The Seventeenth Amendment also provides for appointments should a seat in the U.S. Senate be left vacant for any reason. The governors of the States, should the legislatures allow such, may make temporary appointments until a special election takes place. The State legislatures may change these rules as they deem necessary, such as requiring an immediate special election instead of allowing the governor to temporarily appoint a replacement. This leaves most of the power regarding filling vacancies in the hands of the State legislatures. Massachusetts, during the reign of Democrat governors, used the rule that if there was a vacancy in the U.S. Senate, the governor could appoint the new Senator to complete that term of office. When Mitt Romney, who was a Republican, was governor, the Democrat dominated legislature feared a Republican appointment should one of the Massachusetts Senators die, so they changed the rule to require an immediate special election, fully confident the people would put another Democrat into office should one of the seats be vacated. The Massachusetts legislature even overrode a veto by Governor Mitt Romney to accomplish their rule change. Romney did not run for reelection in 2006, and his gubernatorial term in Massachusetts ended January 4, 2007. The new governor of Massachusetts in 2007 was Deval Patrick, a Democrat. When Senator Edward "Ted" Kennedy passed away August 25, 2009, since the State of Massachusetts had a Democrat governor, the Democrat-led legislature hurriedly changed the rule to enable the governor to appoint the new Senator as had been allowed before Mitt Romney was governor, just in case the people could not be trusted. The appointed Democrat Party senator held the seat until a special election in January of 2010 that pitted Republican Scott Brown against Democrat Martha Coakley. To the surprise of the entire nation, Scott Brown won the election, sending tremors through the political establishment, which included the Democrats losing a filibuster-proof majority in the U.S. Senate. Brown was defeated in 2012 by Democrat Elizabeth Warren, returning the Senate Seat back to the Democrats when she took office on January 3, 2013.               More like a Democracy   In the end, the real damage caused by the ratification of the 17th Amendment was that State representation in the Congress was removed. Senators, after the ratification of the 17th Amendment, would be voted into office by the vote of the people, making the U.S. Senate more like the House of Representatives, eliminating a very important check and balance, and making the United States more like a democracy and less like the Republic the Founders originally intended. The people, fooled by a relenting rallying cry of "The will of the people," and a common belief that the leaders of the States could not be trusted, demanded that the federal government be changed into something more like a democracy. As the progressives desired, and planned, the American form of government moved closer to a democracy with the 17th Amendment. Karl Marx once stated that "Democracy is the road to socialism." Progressivism was on the rise in the United States during those early years of the 20th Century, and the statists knew that one of their main obstacles to consolidating government power into the grasp of the central authority in Washington was the independent and sovereign voice of the States. The 17th Amendment was one of the vehicles the statists used to begin the process of silencing the States, with the ultimate goal of making them irrelevant in regards to the running of the federal government. The statists did not reveal their true intentions. If they had proclaimed that they desired the ratification of the 17th Amendment so that they could proceed in their quest to change the United States into a socialist system, the people would have rejected it. Instead, they used a populist argument. "It is for the will of the people. You deserve a Senate voted into office by the democratic will of the people. If you directly vote for the Senators, they will be more apt to act in line with the will of the people. After all, the States are corrupt, and they can't be trusted. You, the voting public, in the interest of democracy, deserve to be able to directly vote for the Senators yourselves." As a result, the whole American political system has been turned on its head. The entire dynamic of our government system as it was originally intended to function has changed. The damage to the American form of government reached deeper into the dynamics of our Constitutional Republic than immediately meets the eye. The Founding Fathers made the House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate different from each other for a reason.   If a President of the United States signs a treaty, before that treaty goes into force, it must be ratified by the U.S. Senate, which back then was the voice of the States. It was the Framer's way of making sure the States could act as a protective mechanism against a President who might make treaties that were dangerous to State Sovereignty. However, now the Senate no longer represents the States, so that important safeguard is no longer in place. Senators more apt to defend an ideology, rather than the best interest of their State, are in office now. The ratification of treaties has totally changed in a way that could place State Sovereignty in jeopardy. The States no longer have a voice in that part of the governing process anymore, and as a result it has become easier for the federal government to enter into treaties that compromise State interests, or local issues over which the federal government would normally not have any authority. Another point to examine in regards to the Senate ratification of treaties, is since the people, through their States, are the final arbiters of the Constitution, the Founders felt no worry about unconstitutional treaties being ratified. After all, the final arbiters of the Constitution, the States, were the ones in charge of the ratification of all treaties. Now, since ideology now takes precedence over States' Rights in the Senate, we are faced by a number of draconian treaties . . . and there is nothing the States can do about it. The appointment of judges, such as Supreme Court Justices, has also been altered by the passage of the 17th Amendment. Imagine how different the hearings regarding the appointment of Supreme Court Justices would be if the Senators were appointed by the State legislatures? Do you think it would be as easy for an activist judge to be appointed? Do you think the nominees would be asked questions geared towards the Constitution, and protecting State Sovereignty? The people were told that the States could no longer be trusted in their appointment of the Senators, and the States got lazy and didn't wish to participate in that manner anymore. As a result, the 17th Amendment was ratified, and look at the mess it has caused. Let's return to the concept of "dividing power" for a moment. The Founding Fathers divided the voting power. By the States appointing the Senators, it divided the people's voting power. During the early years of this nation the State legislatures also appointed the Electors for president. The people only directly voted into office the Representatives of the U.S. House of Representatives. This division of voting power was put into place because the Founding Fathers knew that should the people be fooled while they completely controlled the vote, a tyranny could ensure that it was voted into the three primary parts of government: the Executive, the House of Representatives, and the U.S. Senate. Once tyranny had control of those three parts of government, the judicial branch would be sure to follow, if not already in collusion with the other two branches. The Founders knew that should the uninformed electorate vote in a tyranny, while caught up in some kind of cult of personality, it would spell the beginning of the end of the United States as we know it. The Founding Fathers knew that democracy of that kind would destroy the system, so they divided the power of the vote. The voting power was divided so as to protect us from the excesses of democracy. Looking back on 2006, 2008, and 2012 we see an example of exactly what the Founding Fathers warned us about. A single ideology, one that is hostile towards the U.S. Constitution, and hostile to the American System, fooled the people, and took control of some of the most vital parts of government. The destructive reasoning by the statists of the Progressive Era for the passage of the 17th Amendment was fulfilled. The 17th Amendment, combined with the creation of the Federal Reserve, and the implementation of an income tax, was all a part of a scheme to change the American System into a model of socialism through the guise of democracy. We are not a democracy, and we were never meant to be a democracy. The 17th Amendment moved us in that direction. The Founding Fathers continuously spoke out against the dangers of democracy. They knew that democracies lead to mob-rule. As much as the government couldn't be trusted with too much power, neither could the voting public. The Constitution is filled with checks and balances. Yet, the people of that time period were fooled so easily by the statists. James Madison five times in his Federalist Papers writings wrote, "We are a Republic, by which I mean. . ." and then he would explain what a republic is. He felt the need to do so because those who opposed the Constitution because they believed the political system should be one of nationalism argued that democracy and republicanism were the same. Thomas Jefferson said, "Democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those that are willing to work and give to those who would not." John Adams said, "While it lasts, Democracy becomes more bloody than either an aristocracy or a monarchy. Democracy never lasts long; it soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There is never a democracy that did not commit suicide." Thomas Jefferson said, "A democracy is nothing more than mob-rule, where 51% of the people may take away the rights of the other 49%." James Bovard said, "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner." A friend of mine, the late Tim "Loki" Kerlin, added that a republic is "two wolves, and a well-armed sheep contesting the vote." Benjamin Franklin, after asked what the Founders created in the Constitutional Convention, replied, "A republic, if you can keep it." With freedom comes responsibility. It is up to us to repeal the 17th Amendment.   Terms:   Activist Judge - A public officer charged with applying the law in order to administer justice, but also interprets the law, and modifies the law according to his opinion; a judge who legislates from the bench.   Checks and Balances - An internal system in government where each part of government can counter the actions or decisions of the other parts. This arrangement ensures transparency, and prevents domination of the government by any part.   Collusion - Conspire together.   Constitutional Republic - Government that adheres to the rule or authority of the principles of a constitution. A representative government that operates under the rule of law.   Democracy - A form of government in which all citizens have an equal say in the decisions that affect their lives. Such a system includes equal participation in the proposal, development and passage of legislation into law.   Direct Vote - Citizens vote themselves; popular vote.   Ideology - A set of political or economic ideas that forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy.   Indirect Vote - Representatives of Electors vote instead of the citizens. The indirect vote may be based on criteria that includes the will, or portions of the will, of the citizens; before the 17th Amendment, United States Senators were chosen by an indirect vote of the people, in which State representatives who attained their office by a direct vote of the people appointed U.S. Senators to represent their State in Congress; the President is elected by an indirect vote of the people through electors who traditionally follow the popular vote of their State, but have the choice to change that vote if believed to be necessary, and a President may be elected based on an Electoral majority that does not reflect the national popular vote.   Mob-Rule - A government ruled by a mob or a mass of people; the intimidation of legitimate authorities; the tyranny of the majority; pure democracy without due process.   Nationalism - Political ideology which involves a strong identification of a group of individuals with a political entity defined in national terms. There are various strands of nationalism. The ideology may dictate that citizenship in a state should be limited to one ethnic, cultural or identity group. Nationalism may also include the belief that the state is of primary importance, which becomes the unhealthy love of one's government, accompanied by the aggressive desire to build that governmental system to a point that it is above all else, and becomes the ultimate provider for the public good.   Republic - Form of government that uses the rule of law through a government system led by representatives and officials voted in by a democratic process. The United States enjoys a Constitutional Republic.   Republicanism - Rule by law through a government system led by representatives and officials voted in by a democratic process. The United States enjoys a Constitutional Republic.   Separation of Powers - A division of governmental authority into three branches: legislative, executive, and judicial; division of powers between the States and federal government.   Statists - Individuals that hold that government should control the economic and social policies of the system it serves.   Questions for Discussion:   1. Why are the originally intended checks and balances so important to safeguarding freedom?   2. What was the concept of the separation of powers designed to protect against?   3. How does the Seventeenth Amendment add to the withering away of State Sovereignty?   4. How is socialism and democracy related?   5. Why would dividing powers include dividing the voting power of the people?   Resources:   Allison, Maxfield, Cook, Skousen, The Real Thomas Jefferson; New York: National Center for Constitutional Studies (1983). David McCullough, John Adams; New York: Simon and Schuster (2001) Devvy, 36 States Did Not Ratify The 17th Amendment: What Will States Do?; rense.com, http://www.rense.com/general95/36_dev.htm Earl Taylor, Jr., The Seventeenth Amendment and the Destruction of Federalism; National Center for Constitutional Studies, http://www.nccs.net/2013-03-seventeenth-amendment-and-the-destruction-of-federalism.php James Madison, Federalist Paper No. 45, http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed45.asp Jon Wolverton, II, J.D., 17th Amendment Mudslinging; The New American (November, 2010) http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/7826-17th-amendment-mudslinging 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). Richard Aynes, On Misreading John Bingham and the Fourteenth Amendment; Yale Law Journal (October, 1993) http://www.constitution.org/lrev/aynes_14th.htm   Copyright 2014 Douglas V. Gibbs

Killer Progressivism: Poop and Plague

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

When you tolerate crap, that's what you get.

But, the Democrats aren't happy with just covering cities with the feces of the homeless.  Along with these things comes more misery and more health concerns, consequences, if you must, that continue to pile higher and higher.

According to Dr. Drew, Los Angeles is in similar shape, with poop, typhus and the Bubonic Plague on the streets, along with a serious rat problem.  Even the cops are sick of it . . . literally.  

Hey, city dwellers, do you still love your democrats, their policies, and what they are doing to your neighborhoods?

The mayor of Los Angeles denies it's the homeless causing the problems, blaming it on illegal dumping.

And who, pray tell, is doing the illegal dumping?  And how is it that the illegal dumping problem suddenly appeared as the homeless problem emerged thanks to their sanctuary city policies, as well as policies that refuse to deal with vagrancy, yet, somehow, according to the mayor, is not related to the rise of the homeless population?

The mental stupidity of these people in the cities rival that of our governor's.  Governor Gavin Newsom, after the Democrats slammed us with special gasoline blends, higher gas taxes, and another hike in gas prices as a result of their climate change legislation, has now asked for an investigation into why gas prices are so high in California.

You can't make this stuff up, folks.

I was in Brookings, Oregon recently.  Gas was $3.32 per gallon (rather than just under $5.00 like we see here in the Golden State), and I saw a sign that said in the city exchange of money or products with vehicles on the road is illegal.  Guess what?  There's no homeless standing on the street corners with their hands out.  California Democrats may need to take a lesson from that, but I doubt they will.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

California Democrat Convention Booing Reveals Extremes in Party

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

Karl Rove remarked on Fox News that when Congressman and Democrat Party presidential candidate John Delaney took the stage at the California Democratic Convention, and then was booed when he criticized socialized medicine ("Medicare for all" is the current catch phrase), it revealed a divide among Democrats as we approach the 2020 Presidential Election season.  Both Delaney, and former Colorado Governor Hickenlooper, were booed for denouncing socialism, even though they "chose their words carefully and intentionally."

Rove was essentially saying that now there are two Democrat Parties.  One yearns for the more fundamental and traditional party that moves toward the center when the leftwing air gets too thick, and the other is the extreme socialist version nurtured by the Democrats in our education system and by Hollywood.  The socialists have now come of age, and they are a significant voice in a party that is trying to cope with the kind of change they thought they had hoped for.

I believe the divide in the party largely runs along geographical lines.  In other words, if the convention had been held by the Kansas Democratic Party, or the Georgia Democratic Party, I don't think the vitriol and audible discontent would have glowed so brightly.  When I tell people I am from California, even out-of-state Democrats quickly quip, "Ah, you mean Kommiefornia?"

I tell my fellow Californians all the time, when the doom and gloom fears begin to percolate, remember that the rest of the country is nothing like California (except maybe for New York City, Chicago, and a few neighborhoods in a handful of large cities).

This is, and will be, a large concern for the national party.  The fringe is no longer the fringe.  The socialists have now multiplied into a faction large enough to be a factor in the direction that will be taken by the Democrat Party.  While they are for the most part still confined to college campuses, MSNBC, CNN, Hollywood, San Francisco, the California Coast, and the three largest population centers in the country, the reality is that like a cancer, they are growing and spreading.  The old mantra of only injecting socialism a little at a time so that the voters won't realize that what is going on is truly Marxist has gone out the window.  The socialist rooster has come home to roost, and the Democrats had hoped that when that day came America would be ready for it.  And while the Millennials are more than happy to proclaim by more than 50% that they think there is nothing wrong with socialism, the voters older than they are, and the younger generation behind them, are not exactly in the same mindset.

The socialist revolution has come to America, but there aren't enough revolutionaries to carry it out.

Meanwhile, President Trump is winning over an ever-growing percentage of Hispanics and Blacks, which leaves the Democrats with the Millennials beating the socialist drum, the old guard refusing to go to that extreme, and a small group of newly protected groups (homosexuals and transsexuals) even beginning to believe things are getting a little ridiculous.

As a result, many of them have decided to #walkaway.

Could we be seeing the beginning of the Democrat Party going the way of the Whigs?  Could we see a great divide, and an era of Republican control that lasts decades?

The radicals will take to the streets before they let that happen.  And, that's my fear.  I believe the radical extreme wing of the Democrat Party houses a faction that is just itching to launch a campaign of blood in the streets.

Funny thing is, they were saying the same thing about the Tea Party only a decade ago.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Constitution Study TV: Activism

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





-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Constitution Association: Human Trafficking through Churches, and the Deep State

Constitution Radio, Mueller, China and Alan Myers

I will be out of town, but Alan takes over today to discuss the issues of the week.

Saturday, 1:00 pm, KMET 1490-AM