Temecula Constitution Class: Legislative Authorities

Temecula Constitution Class, Wednesdays 6:00 pm 28120 Jefferson Avenue, Temecula, CA Riverside County Republican Party Headquarters Constitution Class Handout Instructor: Douglas V. Gibbs douglasvgibbs@reagan.com   www.politicalpistachio.com www.douglasvgibbs.com www.constitutionassociation.com         Constitution Class Handout Instructor: Douglas V. Gibbs douglasvgibbs@reagan.com   www.politicalpistachio.com www.douglasvgibbs.com www.constitutionassociation.com           Lesson 03   Legislative Authorities Making Law, and Enumerated Powers   Making Law   As covered when we studied Article I, Section 1, all legislative powers belong to the Legislative Branch. According to Article I, Section 7, Clause 2, all bills must be approved by both the House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate before they can be presented to the President for signature. Article I, Section 7, Clause 1 indicates that all bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives.   The structure for making law was established by the Founding Fathers in the way that it was in order to ensure that all parts of the system had a voice in the approval, or disapproval, of the law. The people through their representatives in the House of Representatives voted their approval or disapproval of the bill, the States did the same through their voice in the United States Senate, and the federal government's voice through the executive was the final approval. If the executive did not like the proposed law, he could veto it. However, all did not stop there. If Congress felt strongly enough about the bill, and had enough votes, they could override the veto with two-thirds vote in each House and make the bill a law without the signature of approval from the President.   In 1913, the 17th Amendment changed the process in which United States Senators are chosen. Originally, the State Legislatures appointed the U.S. Senators, making the U.S. Senate quite literally the voice of the States. The Senators at that time voted with the interests of the States, and more specifically with the intent of protecting their State's sovereignty, in mind. With the House of Representatives acting as the voice of the people, and the Senate acting as the voice of the States, the dynamics of making law was quite different from what it is today.   The process of making a law as originally intended ensured that the people, the States, and the federal government, all each had the opportunity to approve or disapprove the piece of legislation. If either the people or the States did not like the bill, its journey to become a law stopped. If the federal government, via the President, felt the bill was unconstitutional, or that its passage is not in the best interest of the nation, he could veto the bill. The veto by the President in turn could be overturned with a two thirds vote from each house of Congress. The reason for this system was for the purpose of checks and balances, and to keep the States involved in monitoring the federal government through advise and consent authorities. This gave the people through the House of Representatives, and the States through the U.S. Senate, the ability to check each other, and the ability of them together to check the federal government.   The people and the States together, if in agreement, served as a united check against the federal government, or more specifically in the case of making law, the executive branch.   We The People hold original authority in the process of making law. The members of the United States House of Representatives and U.S. Senate are voted into office by direct election of the people. All of the officials involved with appointing or electing members of the branches of the federal government (as well as the U.S. Senate prior to 1913) were also originally voted into office by the general population. Our original authority also reaches even farther back than the descriptions above, because it was the people, as the sovereign states of the union, who originally held all of the authorities prior to the writing and ratification of the U.S. Constitution. Under British rule, original authority belonged to the monarchy, as per Royal Prerogative; but in the United States, original authority belonged to the people.   By Article I, Section 7, Clause 1 establishing that all bills for raising revenue originate in the House of Representatives, the Constitution grants to the voice of the people the power to fund, or defund, any function of government affected by legislative action. The power of the purse-strings gives the House of Representatives the ultimate check against the other parts of government, and ultimately gives the House of Representatives a significant amount of power. Should the House of Representatives, for example, disapprove of a military action being carried out by the Commander in Chief, the action can be stopped by the House of Representatives simply defunding the military operation by not including funding for that action in a budget proposal. Refusal to accept the proposal by the Senate, or the Executive, places at risk the funding for other parts of government as well. The Senate, though unable to originate bills raising revenue, may propose amendments to be added to such a bill that originated in the House of Representatives, but no bill raising revenue may originate in the Senate. Upon approval by the Senate, if the Senate made changes, the bill would still need to go back to the House of Representatives for approval. The approval by both houses of Congress must be for an identical bill.   If the President approves the bill, and signs it after it has been approved with a majority vote in each of the two houses of Congress, the bill becomes law. If the President does not approve of the bill, he may refuse to sign it, or veto the bill, and return it with a written explanation of his disapproval.   Should the Houses of the United States Congress determine with a two-thirds vote in each house to reconsider the bill, the bill will still become law despite the executive objection.   All votes in the two houses of Congress shall be determined by yeas and nays, which will be entered into the respective house's journal. The journal entry will include the names and votes of the members voting for, or against, the bill.   If the President refuses to sign the bill presented to him, but does not return the bill with his written objection within ten days (excluding Sundays) the bill becomes law as if the President signed it. The exception to this clause is if Congress does anything to prevent the bill's return, such as through their adjournment. In that case, the bill remains to be only a bill, and only becomes law should any of the afore mentioned processes be met.   Terms:   Original Authority: Principal agent holding legal authority; initial power to make or enforce laws; the root authority in government.   Veto: The power of a chief executive to reject a bill passed by the legislature and thus prevent or delay its enactment into law.   Questions for Discussion:   1. Why did the Founding Fathers decide to give the power of the purse to the House of Representatives?   2. How did the Senators being appointed by the State Legislatures enable State involvement in the federal government?   3. If the people have original authority, how does that affect the relationship between the people through their States, and the Federal Government?   Resources:   Joseph Andrews, A Guide for Learning and Teaching The Declaration of Independence and The U.S. Constitution - Learning from the Original Texts Using Classical Learning Methods of the Founders; San Marcos: The Center for Teaching the Constitution (2010).   Madison's Notes Constitutional Convention, Avalon Project, Yale University: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/debcont.asp     Enumerated Powers   The powers granted to the federal government in relation to legislative powers are listed in Article I, Section 8. These authorities are also known as "Express Powers."   Implied Powers is a concept invented by Alexander Hamilton while he served as treasury secretary in 1791. He wrote in a report titled, "Opinion on the Constitutionality of the Bank of the United States" that "there are implied, as well as express powers, in the Constitution, and that the former are as effectually delegated as the latter. Implied powers are to be considered as delegated to the federal government equally with the express ones."   Hamilton, in his report, went on to argue that a nationalized bank was one of these implied powers. Hamilton's argument stated that his power to create a nationalized bank was implied as "necessary and proper" for the federal government to carry out its enumerated powers, such as borrowing money, regulating currency, and providing for the general welfare of the country.   Thomas Jefferson disagreed, arguing that the express powers delegated to the federal government by Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution were expressly stated because they were the only powers granted to the federal government by the sovereign States when they ratified the Constitution. New authorities could only be granted by the amendment process, which includes the requirement of ratification by three-quarters of the States.   The Concept of Implied Powers remained, and the statists of history have used Implied Powers to rewrite the Constitution through regulatory actions, and liberal judicial activism.   From the emergence of Implied Powers came the theory that the Constitution is a living document that can be modified at will through interpretation and the use of Implied Law. Hamilton's concept of Implied Powers laid the groundwork for generations of lawyers and judges using the courts, rather than the amendment process, to alter the Constitution, and render the limiting principals powerless. The concept of Implied Powers is one of the concepts that have fed the false idea that the courts "interpret" the Constitution.   Alexander Hamilton also argued that there were "resulting powers" as well, which are powers that exist as a result of any action the government takes. These "resulting powers" are de facto constitutional by virtue of the fact that the action by the federal government occurred in the first place.   With the use of the concepts of Implied Powers and resulting powers, Hamilton believed the central government had unlimited powers to act as any member of the federal government deemed necessary.     General Welfare Clause   "If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions." --James Madison   The General Welfare Clause is one of the most misunderstood clauses in the U.S. Constitution - and it was not even supposed to be a clause.   Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 includes "General Welfare" not as an authority to the federal government, but as a description of the Republic should the laws of the land be made in accordance with the authorities granted by the Constitution.   If we go back to the Preamble, we read that one of the reasons the Founding Fathers created this new government with the writing of the Constitution was to "insure domestic Tranquility." One must ask, "Why was there a need for domestic tranquility?"   The States were much like siblings. The States fought over just about everything. They argued over commerce, borders, legal jurisdictions, currency, weights and measures, communication, religion, and a number of other issues. Yet, despite their disagreements, when it came to the American Revolution, they united against a common enemy. After the war, the quarrels resumed. The fighting between the States became such a problem that many worried it would tear apart the union. One of the many reasons for the need of a new government, as provided by the U.S. Constitution, was so that the central government would have enough authorities to act as a mediator between the States.   Acting as a referee in matters that caused disputes between the States would help the federal government provide for the General Welfare of the republic.   Another reason for the writing of the new constitution was to give the federal government enough power to defend the union from invasion and domestic insurrection. Under the Articles of Confederation, the central government was unable to provide for the common defense because the government did not have the authority, nor the financial means, to field a military. With the ability to field a fighting force, the federal government would be able to protect the States from foreign invasion, while also keeping internal conflict at bay as well.   By providing for the common defense, the federal government would also be ensuring the General Welfare of the Republic.   In other words, if the federal government was doing what it was supposed to do, as a mediator between the States, and as a protector of the States by providing for the common defense, the States would enjoy a general welfare of the republic. The Founding Fathers wanted to make sure that squabbles, internal conflict, or foreign intrusion did not place the welfare of the union in jeopardy.   General Welfare is an adjective, not an authority.   The General Welfare of the republic was the goal, which would be achieved if the federal government abided by the limiting principles of the U.S. Constitution.   Taxes and Debt   Article I, Section 8 grants Congress the power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts, and Excises.   The authority to tax was for the express purpose of protecting, preserving, and promoting the union. The federal government could tax the States only if the taxes were uniform throughout the United States. The federal government could not originally tax the individual citizens directly.   The stated purposes for giving the Congress the power to tax are to "provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States."   The need for the central government to be able to defend the union militarily was one of the initial reasons the Founding Fathers planned the Constitutional Convention at the Annapolis Convention in 1786. Shays' Rebellion proved to the founders that the government under the Articles of Confederation was too weak to defend the union.   Some of the members of the Constitutional Convention were concerned that a military may be used by the federal government against the States, but the reality of the world they lived in was that the union would not survive without the ability to defend itself. It was argued that the independent militias needed to be joined under a single federal army, and for the protection of the trade routes a United States Navy also needed to be established. In order to have a military, however, the federal government would need the power to tax in order to pay for the military it would be afforded.   The second clause of Article I, Section 8 grants the authority to the U.S. Congress to borrow money on the credit of the United States. If the federal government ever found the necessity to enter into military operations on the battlefield, to help pay for the expensive endeavor of warfare, the federal government would need to be able to borrow money for the war effort. Therefore, the States through the new Constitution granted to the federal government the authority to create a national debt. The founders did not recognize any reason other than for war that the United States would need to borrow money. Alexander Hamilton, however, suggested that a continuous national debt was necessary to hold together the union, for if the States all felt they were responsible for the repayment of the deficit, they would be less likely to break away from the union.   Commerce Clause   Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 grants to the Congress the authority to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes.   Remember, the States did not get along too well. Like siblings, they argued over just about everything. The individual States bickered over the borders between the states, turf, and interstate trade. As sovereign entities, the States continually tried to gain the upper hand on the other States in regard to commerce across State lines. Recognizing that the squabbles between the States were actually hindering commerce across State lines, the federal government in this clause was given the authority to do what was necessary to enable the flow of commerce to be more regular.   When you turn on a faucet full blast you are regulating the flow, just as you are regulating the flow when you restrict it by turning the faucet off. Likewise, the federal government was expected to act as a mechanism that ensured that the flow of commerce between the States was more regular.   The 1828 Webster Dictionary defines regulate in its second definition: "To put in good order." Some historians state that regulate in the 18th Century meant "To make regular." The word "restrict" was not used in the 1828 definition until the third and final definition of the word. In today's dictionary "restrict" appears in the first definition of regulate.   Today, the Commerce Clause has been interpreted to mean the opposite of its original intent. The Commerce Clause in today's political atmosphere is used as a means to restrict and heavily control commerce between the States. If one was to adopt the progressive definition of the Commerce Clause, one could then surmise that the Founders wrote this clause because commerce was flowing too easily, and needed to be controlled by the federal government. Such a notion is not only untrue, but outside the normal tendencies of the Founding Fathers. The Founders believed in limiting the powers of the Federal Government, so why would they allow the Federal Government the kind of unlimited powers over interstate commerce as suggested by today's progressive?   The federal government's role according to the Commerce Clause was to act as a referee, or mediator, whenever the flow of commerce was hindered by disagreements between the States, while with foreign nations and the Indian Tribes the federal government was expected to take a more active role.   Naturalization   Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 gives the Congress the authority to establish a uniform rule of Naturalization. What this means is that all naturalization rules must be identical in all States. One State cannot decide to have rules for naturalization that are different than what the federal government has established. This is an example of an "exclusive jurisdiction." However, realize that immigration is not mentioned here. Immigration is a concurrent issue, with authorities held by both federal government and the States.   Bankruptcies   In Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 the federal government is also given the authority to establish uniform rules on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States.   Prior to the ratification of the U.S. Constitution, each State had its own rules on bankruptcy. Citizens would simply cross state lines to start over financially. The clause bringing bankruptcy under federal jurisdiction was for the purpose to stop the abuses, and to establish uniform rules nationwide.   Money, Weights, and Measures   Article I, Section 8, Clause 5 establishes that the duty of coining money belonged to Congress. Note that the Constitution called for coining money, rather than printing federal reserve notes (bills of credit). The coins produced by Congress were expected to be made of metals that reflected the worth of the coins. In other words, the gold in a coin, if taken to a goldsmith, would be worth the same as the value of the coin. Later, the banks realized they could loan on the gold in their vaults backing the currency, leaving less gold as a reserve. They did this by issuing receipts, or bills of credit. When this happened, if there was a bank run, where everyone brought their receipts in to cash it in for gold all at once, the bank would be left in a situation where they did not have enough gold to cover all of the notes.   If one goes back to the Articles of Confederation, it is important to note that under the confederation, there had been no power given to the central government to regulate the value of foreign coin, an omission, which in a great measure would destroy any uniformity in the value of the current coin, since the respective states might, by different regulations, create a different value in each. As a result, the States were prohibited in Article I, Section 10 from coining their own money, thus taking away their ability to manipulate the value of currency as a means of effecting the economies of the other states.   The authority to coin money was given specifically to Congress so that no outside interest could manipulate the value of American money. This included private banks. Nonetheless, we have seen three nationalized banks run by private bankers in the United States issuing the currency. The third is the currently existing Federal Reserve Bank.   Thomas Jefferson was against national banks. Alexander Hamilton created the "Bank of the United States" in 1791 for the purpose of acting as a depository of government funds, issuing paper currency backed by gold and silver, and creating a system of mercantilism in America. The bank's charter lapsed in 1811. The Second Bank of the United States was formed in 1817, and lasted until President Andrew Jackson vetoed the renewal of its charter in 1836. The bank existed for 5 more years as an ordinary bank before going bankrupt in 1841. In a letter to John Taylor in 1816, Thomas Jefferson wrote, "I sincerely believe, with you, that banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies; and that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale."   Article I, Section 8, Clause 5 also establishes that Congress shall have the power to fix the Standard of Weights and Measures. Fixing a standard of weights and measures was important for the reason of uniformity, and the ease of commerce. This clause suggests that before the Constitutional Convention the States were able to independently fix their own weights and measures, which not only added confusion to commerce, but enabled the States of use unsavory trading tactics against each other.   Article 1, Section 8, Clause 6 establishes that the U.S. Congress will provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States. This power would naturally flow, as an incident, from the antecedent powers to borrow money, and regulate the coinage. Indeed, without the ability to provide for the punishment of counterfeiting, the powers of coining money or creating securities would be without any adequate sanction. The word "securities," in this clause, means: a contract that can be assigned a value so that it may be traded, like a "bond."   Post Offices and Roadways   In Article I, Section 8, Clause 7 the Congress is granted the authority to establish post offices and post roads.   As with the other clauses in Article I, Section 8, this clause is designed to promote the Union. In this case, it ensures that communication remains intact. The clause gives the federal government the authority to establish post offices, but nowhere in the Constitution does the federal government have the authority to partially privatize the post office as we have seen in the modern era.   Article I, Section 8, Clause 7 gives the federal government the authority to "establish" post roads, but not create or maintain them. The Constitution does not give the federal government any other authority over roadways. In fact, this is the only reference to roadways to the federal government in the entire Constitution. This clause makes the federal highway and Interstate highway system, as well as the other workings of the federal transportation department, unconstitutional. It was up to the States to create and maintain their roadways. If the States desired to remain connected, and receive their mail, they would keep up their roads.   In 1817, Congress proposed a bill that would provide federal funding for boatways and roadways, claiming it was for the "general welfare" of the nation. President James Madison vetoed the bill, claiming it to be unconstitutional, because the federal government was not given the authority to fund transportation routes.   Patents and Copyrights   Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 authorizes Congress to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.   This clause is the basis for the creation of the U.S. Patent Office, and Copyright Office. Patent and copyright protections already existed in the British Empire, and for the protection of American inventions and writings, the Founding Fathers saw the need to establish such a power under the federal government as well, expecting that by being under federal authority, the rules would be uniform.   Federal Inferior Courts   Article I, Section 8, Clause 9 authorizes Congress to constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court. This means that the legislative branch was tasked with the duty to establish the lower federal courts. However, by enabling Congress to establish new courts whenever necessary, this has given some administrations an opportunity to abuse this power in the hopes of stacking the courts. John Adams was the first example of this abuse, when he appointed many midnight judges in order to help retain federalist power in the courts as Jefferson's Republicans gained the White House, and the majority in Congress. Some may argue that Adams' decision to expand the court was not as sinister as Thomas Jefferson made it out to be, for John Adams had been requesting an expansion of the judiciary for years.   President Franklin D. Roosevelt also sought to "pack" the court with justices favorable to his social policies. His animosity toward the Supreme Court emerged when his New Deal of social and economic reform via government intrusion was struck down as unconstitutional by justices that had been largely appointed by his rival Republicans.   The high court invalidated the Railroad Retirement Act of 1934, a law that had established pensions for railway workers, and the National Industrial Recovery Act of 1933. Roosevelt's anger against the justices for their rulings led him to hold contempt for the conservative-minded court of "Nine Old Men." In January 1936, the court ruled the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933 unconstitutional, as well.   In 1937, Roosevelt disclosed to his aides a bill he was going to propose that was designed to reorganize the federal judiciary. The measure called for all federal judges to retire by age 70. If they failed to do so, the president could appoint another judge to serve in tandem with each one older than 70. If the bill passed, it would enable Roosevelt to appoint six more Supreme Court justices immediately, increasing the size of the court to 15 members. The Democrat dominated Congress, he believed, would undoubtedly approve the appointment of judges friendly to Roosevelt and his New Deal agenda.   The proposal never got off the ground, as Roosevelt's explanation regarding why the proposal was necessary fell flat.   Both the federal government, and the States, have court systems. The shared power by both the federal government and the State governments to establish a judiciary is a concurrent power.   With the ability to establish the inferior courts also comes the authority to eliminate them. Congress, in addition to the authority to establish federal inferior courts, can also shut them down. When in the 2012 Republican Campaign Newt Gingrich stated that Congress should use the federal marshall to bring unconstitutional judges to face members of Congress and answer for their actions, he was accurate that Congress can do that.   Trade Routes and Offenses Against The Law of Nations   Article I Section 8, Clause 10 authorizes Congress to define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the Law of Nations.   One of the factors in having this included was the problem with piracy in the Caribbean, as well as difficulties the new nation was having with the Barbary Pirates (Muslims). Though the United States was careful to create a system of justice that included due process for the citizens of the nation, the Constitution gave the federal government the power to punish offenses by foreign forces on the high seas without having to worry about habeas corpus, while still providing a courtroom setting for the offenders. In Federalist 42, Madison carefully explains that this provision "extends no further than to the establishment of courts for the trial of these offenses," such as military courts, or international courts for international war crimes.   This clause is the only place where the Law of Nations is mentioned. Some historians claim that the capitalization of the "Law of Nations" suggests that the founders were specifically referring to Vatell's volumes of which the founders often used for definitions and the clarification of concepts like Natural Born Citizen.   War, Army, and Navy   Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 gives Congress the power to declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water.   During the debates, according to Madison's Notes on the Constitutional Convention, the delegates debated over whether or not to give the legislative branch the power to make war. After intense debate, it was decided to grant the Commander in Chief, the President of the United States, the authority to "wage" war, and Congress the power to declare war. A declaration of war is a formal declaration that warns those not involved to stay out of the conflict. If those entities become involved, they become open targets. The president, as per the debates, may wage war without prior approval by Congress, or without a declaration of war being issued.   The ability to wage war, however, is checked by the fact that the House of Representatives are able to refuse to fund any military conflict. This keeps the president from abusing his position as Commander in Chief by giving Congress a way to limit executive wartime authorities. If the President continues to act upon his war powers in a manner not approved of by Congress, and the President does so despite the lack of funding for the military operations, Congress also has the authority to impeach the President in order to stop the executive's objectionable actions.   A Letter of Marque and Reprisal was a government license authorizing a private vessel to attack and capture enemy vessels, and bring them before admiralty courts for condemnation and sale. Cruising for prizes with a Letter of Marque was considered an honorable calling combining patriotism and profit, in contrast to unlicensed piracy which was universally reviled. These mercenaries was also known as "privateers."   Congress was also given the power to make rules regarding captures on land and water. This is the clause used when the Bush administration, with the blessings of Congress, decided to hold prisoners captured during the war on terrorism at Guantanamo Bay, and to use military tribunals as the vessel of their trials.   Article I, Section 8, Clauses 12-16 authorizes Congress:   To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;   To provide and maintain a Navy;   To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;   To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;   To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;   Remember that one of the primary reasons for deciding to hold the Constitutional Convention in the first place was to defend the union with a uniformed military. Note that the fear of an army being used by a centralized government, and a potentially tyrannical government for that matter, as had been in the case with the British Empire, influenced the writings of this document, and encouraged the founders to limit the existence and funding of an army to two years at a time. A navy, however, was deemed as much more important, particularly because of the need to protect trade routes, and America's immediate waterways and inlets. Therefore, the authority to provide and maintain a navy was granted in perpetuity. The United States Marine Corps, from the beginning, falls under the umbrella of the United States Navy.   The rules for the governance of the armed forces do not fall under the purview of the Constitution. It is up to Congress to provide the governing rules. Any claim that rules regarding the military are unconstitutional is a bad argument. According to Article I, Section 8, Clause 14, it is up to Congress to set the rules, regardless of the Constitution. Military training in order for the armed forces to be well disciplined may not benefit from same social rules of the civilian world. Therefore, the basis of governance over the armed forces is not the Constitution, but instead the Uniform Code of Military Justice. However, it is the military's duty to protect and preserve the U.S. Constitution, and in a manner of tradition, Constitutional Principles have an unofficial influence on military politics.   Congress also has the authority to call forth the Militia to execute the laws of the Union (Constitutional federal laws), suppress insurrections (inserted in response to Shays' Rebellion), and repel invasions (one may consider the illegal entry into the United States an invasion, therefore this clause gives the federal government the authority to use the militia to guard the national borders). Currently, in this country, we have an organized militia (National Guard, State Militias), and an unorganized militia (you and I). U.S. Code Title 10 still defines these militias as such.   Federal Properties   Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 calls for the Congress to exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings.   This clause was for the creation of Washington DC, giving the United States Congress exclusive legislative powers over the District of Columbia and other federal properties, and to allow the federal government to erect military bases, and other necessary federal facilities by consent of the Legislatures of the States in which those properties are obtained, and for the federal government to purchase those properties. This makes land seized for conservation, and National Parks, unconstitutional, for those were not approved by the States, nor purchased by the federal government, and finally it is not being utilized for the purpose of the erection of "needful buildings."   Necessary and Proper Clause   Article I, Section 8, Clause 18 is also known as the "necessary and proper" clause. 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.   Today's government officials misuse this clause greatly. Notice the emphasis on carrying into execution the "foregoing powers" (authorities herein granted). What that means is that the Congress may make laws that fall within the authorities granted by the U.S. Constitution that the Congress recognizes to be "necessary and proper." Today's federal government has taken this clause to mean they can make "any" law they feel to be necessary and proper.   "The plain import of the clause is, that congress shall have all the incidental and instrumental powers, necessary and proper to carry into execution all the express powers. It neither enlarges any power specifically granted; nor is it a grant of any new power to congress. But it is merely a declaration for the removal of all uncertainty, that the means of carrying into execution those, otherwise granted, are included in the grant." --Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution, 1833   In order to carry out some express powers of the Constitution sometimes certain actions by the government are necessary and proper. For example, when establishing a post office, as expressly authorized by this article and section, the federal government will have to grade the land, hire construction crews, purchase the equipment for carrying out the services of the post office, and so forth. All of these things are necessary and proper in order to carry out the "foregoing power" of establishing a post office.   This clause is also sometimes referred to as the "Elastic Clause."   Terms:   Concurrent Powers: Powers that are shared by the state and the federal government. The power to enforce immigration is also a concurrent power.   Duties: A tax levied by a government on the import or export of goods.   Excise: Tax on the manufacture, sale, or consumption of goods, or upon licenses to pursue certain occupations, or upon corporate privileges.   Exclusive Powers: Sole authority over a particular power, be it for the States within their own territorial boundaries, or sole federal powers. Also known as Reserved Powers.   Express Powers: Authorities explicitly authorized to the federal government by the U.S. Constitution.   Implied Powers: Legal or governmental authority not expressly stated by the U.S. Constitution, but considered to be logical extensions or implications of the other powers delegated in the Constitution. The concept of Implied Powers is often defended by the Necessary and Proper Clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 18). Implied Powers is an unconstitutional concept.   Imposts: A tax, especially an import duty; Import Duty is a tariff paid at a border or port of entry to the relevant government to allow a good to pass into that government's territory.   Questions for Discussion:   1. True power of government is the ability to make law. Is listing the authorities in Article I the founders way of telling us that?   2. How has the unconstitutional concept of Implied Powers been used in today's political atmosphere?   3. How has the war powers been misused in recent years?   4. Name examples of how the Commerce Clause has been misused?   5. If post roads are the only mention of roadways in the Constitution, then what does that say about recent attempts by the federal government to fund public works projects?   6. The Necessary and Proper Clause depends upon the laws being within Constitutional Authority. Are there other clauses requiring this as well?   Resources:   Andrew M. Allison, Mr. Richard Maxfield, K. Delynn Cook, and W. Cleon Skousen, The Real Thomas Jefferson; New York: National Center for Constitutional Studies (2009).   Articles of Confederation, March 1, 1781; http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/artconf.asp   David McCullough, John Adams; New York: Simon and Schuster (2001).   Donald Porter Geddes, Franklin Delano Roosevelt - A Memorial; New York: Pitman Publishing Corporation (1945).   Ethan Pope, America's Financial Demise; Dallas: Intersect Press (2010).   James Madison, Federalist No. 41: General View of the Powers Conferred by The Constitution (addresses General Welfare Clause as well), http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa41.htm   James Madison, Federalist No. 42: The Powers Conferred by the Constitution, http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed42.asp   James Madison, Veto of Federal Public Works Bill 1817; Constitution dot org: http://www.constitution.org/jm/18170303_veto.htm   Jay A. Parry, Andrew M. Allison, and W. Cleon Skousen, The Real George Washington; New York: National Center for Constitutional Studies (2010).   K. Daniel Glover, FDR's Court-Packing Fiasco; Enter Stage Right: http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/0799fdrcourt.htm (1999).   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   Robert Brown, Gold and Silver Coin or Paper Money?; The John Birch Society: http://www.jbs.org/blog/gold-and-silver-coin-or-paper-money.html (2010)   Thomas J. DiLorenzo, Hamilton's Curse; New York: Three Rivers Press (2008).   U.S. Code, Title 10, Subtitle A, Part 1, Chapter 13, § 311: Militia: composition and classes; http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode10/usc_sec_10_00000311----000-.html     Copyright: Douglas V. Gibbs, 2014

Candace Owens Faces Off with Congress

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







-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Trump's Trade Win with Mexico

By Douglas V. Gibbs
Author, Speaker, Instructor, Radio Host
The President of the United States is playing poker and chess, while his adversaries are still playing the games of the past.

He was right, NAFTA was a bad deal, and the Mexico-Canada trade agreement (USMCA) that replaced it is better and worse, depending upon which paragraphs you are reading.

That said, one thing I have noticed is President Donald J. Trump is a master at winning, understanding all of the components of what is going on, and nudging his opponents in the direction he wants them to go.  He's a master bluffer, he's a master at making threats that get results, and each time his prey is 100% positive he will follow throw with his threats if they don't work with him.

Early on in his presidency I laughed about how the Democrats were absolutely positive that Mr. Trump has an itchy nuclear button finger.  Mr. Trump played on that, and even commented his button was bigger than Kim Jong Un's.  The thing is, the North Korean leader believed the rhetoric, and that is a large part of what brought him to the negotiation table.  Unfortunately, at this point, we are in a phase of that discussion where Trump has walked away from the used car lot, and Un has proven that dictators will be dictators, and he is not willing to dance with our President on the negotiations dance floor at this moment.  I am thinking that the romance with capitalism Trump has presented to Un will begin to haunt him, and he'll return to reasonability in the long-run.

The liberal left establishment has freaked out at every turn regarding Trump's dealings with the Korean communist, not understanding the game being played.  After all, they play checkers, and Trump is playing 3-dimensional chess with the addition of more, relatively complex, game pieces.

It's like they are stuck in a black and white world, and they can't understand why Trump is doing the things he's doing because they simply are incapable of seeing the swirls of color that marches throughout everything Trump does.

Now, President Trump has secured a deal with Mexico, using a chess move he calls "higher tariffs."  The liberal left screamed, and whined, and screamed bloody murder some more, but in the end, our President has won, once again.

The mainstream media either does not understand the specifics of the new deal with Mexico, or they refuse to report it, because there is not a single article out there I could find that provides those specifics.  The only way to learn anything about the text of the deal, I discovered, is to go to the White House website, or find a few smaller news sources who are trying to give us at least a little bit.

In the end, after threatening high tariffs, and threatening to maintain those high tariffs as long as the illegal alien problem remains as it is without any help from the Mexican government, Mexico has agreed to work with us.  In short, he twisted their arm, and they cried "uncle."

The reality is that if you are going to illegally cross the southern border into the United States, you have to go through Mexico first.  The majority of the illegal aliens we are seeing crossing into the United States, or are slamming against the border demanding refugee status, are not from Mexico.  They are from Central America, South America, the Middle East, Africa, and even China.  No matter who they are, however, the journey moves through Central America, and ultimately through Mexico.

Trump basically told Mexico that they need to reinforce their southern border, and better police their southern border so that these people don't get into Mexico in the first place, much less wind up on the door step of the southern U.S.

The problem has been Mexico's love affair with continuing an authoritarian style of government that is steeped with corruption, the cartels loving illegal immigration for their own nefarious reasons, and a heavy infatuation with socialist-style policies which has left our southern neighbor in economic shambles.  Illegal immigration has actually been good for Mexico economically, partly because when those border-crossers are Mexican, or have someone in Mexico as a contact, a lot of American money ends up being shipped into the country.  The people who cross the southern border of Mexico also brings a lot of money into Mexico.  So, if Trump was going to be able to break that economic incentive, he needed to counter it with an even larger economic disincentive.

Tariffs have historically been used as policy to protect domestic manufacturing, to manipulate who can join the American trade table, and as a means of revenue.  President Trump is not using tariffs as U.S. policy.  He's using tariffs as a negotiation tool.  He's been banging the drum, "You will lose more financial blocks in the economic wall if we hit you with high tariffs than any of the financial gain you think you may get by maintaining your current relaxed immigration policy."

Mexico heard the beating of the drums, and as planned by Trump's team, came rushing to the negotiations table.

Despite the media and political establishment's claims that the tariffs were dangerous, would not work, and would destroy the American economy, the tariffs worked, and worked beautifully.  It's a big win for Trump.  The fact is, we have the largest economy, and despite their attempts to be an obstacle to President Trump and American policies, the reality is that losing ground in its trade agreements with the United States in the terms of tariffs has every country nervous, and ready to work with the President.  The deal with Mexico proves it.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

The US Navy Needs to Return to Subic Bay, Philippines

By Capt Joseph R. John, June 11, 2019 Op Ed # 437

Twenty eight years ago, in September 1991, after the Philippine Senate rejected a new military-bases agreement, the US Navy hauled down the American Flag in Subic Bay Philippines and vacated the Naval Base complex.  The United States fulfilled its obligation to withdraw all US Naval forces, and ceased all US military operations in the Philippines.

For ten years, a serious conflict has been developing between the United States and China, as a result of the creation of missile and naval bases by China on Philippine claimed shoals and other reefs & shoals in international waters in the South China Sea, which is a threat to restrict the sea lanes of communication.   In addition, China has been rapidly expanding its navy, in order to have the capability to fulfill its long range goal of threatening to invade Taiwan, unless it agrees to unite with mainland China. 

For 8 years, the Obama administration did nothing to blunt the growing threat being posed by China in the South China Sea, and to oppose its increasing threats to Taiwan.  The Trump Administration recognized the strategic threat posed by China, and the need to have shipyard repair availabilities for its ships in the Western Pacific.  Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has been negotiating with the government of the Philippines to permit ships of the Seventh Fleet to operate out of seaports in the Philippines; he informed Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte that the US is willing and ready to honor its commitment to the Philippines under the 1951 U.S.-Philippines Mutual Defense Treaty (MDT).  

In order to maintain a continuous forward presence in the Indo-Asia Pacific region, without having a number of the ships of the Seventh Fleet always in transit the long distance from Western Pacific to Hawaii for shipyard overhaul, repairs, and availability, there is a need for the same type of adequate shipyard repair facilities in the Western Pacific region; that facility currently exists in Subic Bay. 

That Subic Bay shipyard repair facility was created by the US Navy.  After the US Navy vacated that facility in 1991, the facility was modernized with the investment of $2.3 billion by South Korea’s Hanjin Heavy Industries and Construction Company that operated there for 25 years; Hanjin’s parent company filed for Bankruptcy in 2017 and since then, the facility has been vacated. 

Having access to the shipyard repair facility in Subic Bay Philippines would relieve ships of the US Seventh Fleet, the largest of the US Navy’s numbered fleets, from requiring an increased number of US Navy ships being deployed to the Western Pacific, from the US Navy’s projected fleet of 355 ships, to allow for a number of ships to be away, transiting to and from Hawaii for shipyard repairs. 

China has been trying to drive a wedge between the United States and the Philippines, encouraging its Communist allies in the Philippines Senate, to terminate the MDT.   At the same time, China has been negotiating with the government of the Philippines, to take control the Naval Base and the Shipyard Repair Facility at Subic Bay. 

The below listed article by Captain Brian Buzzell, USN (Ret) the Navy’s Political-Military Officer formerly assigned to the Philippines, explains why, during this time in history, the Navy has a Golden opportunity to return to Subic Bay, where US Navy ships were once based and the fleet was welcomed for 94 years. 

For the overriding strategic concerns discussed above, and the increasing threat that China poses to the United States and its allies in the Western Pacific region, the US Navy needs to return to the Naval Base and Shipyard Repair Facility complex in Subic Bay, Philippines.

Copyright by Capt Joseph R. John.  All Rights Reserved.  The material can only posted on another Web site or distributed on the Internet by giving full credit to the author.  It may not be published, broadcast, or rewritten without the permission from the author.  

Joseph R. John, USNA ‘62

Capt    USN(Ret)/Former FBI

Chairman, Combat Veterans For Congress PAC

2307 Fenton Parkway, Suite 107-184

San Diego, CA 92108

http://www.CombatVeteransForCongress.org

https://www.facebook.com/combatveteransforcongress?ref=hl

Then I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, “Whom shall I send, and who will go for Us?” Then I said, “Here am I. Send me!”
-Isaiah 6:8

The amphibious assault ship USS Wasp (LHD-1) makes a port visit to Subic Bay, Republic of the Philippines in early April.

U.S. Navy (Daniel Barker)

The Navy’s Golden Chance to Return to Subic Bay

By Captain Brian Buzzell, U.S. Navy (Retired)

June 2019

Proceedings

Vol. 145/6/1,396

COMMENTARY

In recent years, the United States has struggled to persuade the Philippine government and the country’s citizens it is serious about honoring its commitments under the 1951 U.S.-Philippines Mutual Defense Treaty (MDT). China has been feeding this growing mistrust, hoping to drive a wedge between the two long-standing allies to the point one or both will move to terminate the treaty.

Twenty-seven years ago, the stars and stripes were hauled down for the final time at Naval Base Subic Bay, Republic of the Philippines, fulfilling the U.S. obligations to withdraw all military forces and vacate all bases after the Philippine Senate rejected a new military-bases agreement in September 1991. This ended 94 years of U.S.-military basing arrangements in the Philippines. At the time there was no peer competitor in the western Pacific, and then-Pacific Commander Admiral Charles Larson announced a new Pacific and Indian Ocean regional strategy of “places not bases,” which remains the strategy today. In 1998, a new visiting forces agreement was finally signed, allowing U.S. military personnel and ship visits to the Philippines. In 2014, the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement (EDCA) was signed.1

For more than two decades neither the U.S. nor Philippine governments were terribly concerned about the territorial defense of the Philippines or naval challenges to U.S. interests in the western Pacific. However, Philippine Secretary of National Defense Delphin Lorenzana recently said, “the [mutual defense] treaty needed to be reexamined to clear ambiguities that could cause chaos and confusion during a crisis.”  He cited China’s aggressive seizure in the mid-1990s of a Philippine-claimed reef, saying, “The U.S. did not stop it.”2

When the MDT was negotiated in the late 1940s, China was not a naval threat and the U.S. military was unchallenged in the Pacific. No one foresaw the emergence of China as a political, economic, and military juggernaut that would assert historical claims to South China Sea, islands, reefs, and territory. The U.S. Navy’s freedom of navigation operations and U.S. Air Force’s overflights are not deterring China from using a variety of asymmetric tactics to gradually secure de facto sovereignty over the South China Sea. Some Philippine officials have indicated that the MDT needs “tweaking” to update it for these asymmetric threats.3

In early March, U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo stopped in Manila on his way home from the North Korea summit in Hanoi to reaffirm the U.S. commitment to defend the Philippines under the MDT. A public affirmation had not been done since Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen and U.S. Ambassador Thomas C. Hubbard issued a joint statement in 1999. Pompeo’s stop helped but did not fully assuage the Filipinos. While many Philippine leaders are increasingly worried about the U.S. meeting its commitments, others and much of the public are equally concerned the Philippines could be dragged into a conflict between China and the United States.

Despite the anti-U.S. rhetoric from the current Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte and others in his administration, the bond between the Filipino people and Americans remains strong, as evidenced by the recent return to the Philippines of the Bells of Balangiga (taken by U.S. soldiers from a Catholic church in 1901), removing a significant irritant in U.S.-Philippine relations. The United States should continue to look for and take advantage of opportunities to strengthen the relationship and keep China’s influence at bay.

As luck would have it, a new opportunity is now at hand, with the United States intending to grow its fleet to 355 ships and an acknowledgment it does not have enough public shipyard capacity to build and maintain a fleet even close to that number.

The U.S. Shipyard Problem

During five rounds of Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) between 1988 and 2005, Congress agreed to close naval shipyards in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Charleston, South Carolina; and Hunters Point, Long Beach, and Mare Island, California. A shipyard in Guam was temporarily put in a caretaker status before being privatized and reopened in a limited capacity, primarily for Military Sealift Command merchant ships. The Navy retained shipyards in Portsmouth, Virginia; Kittery, Maine; Puget Sound, Washington; and Pearl Harbor, Hawaii (intermediate maintenance facilities were also retained in Pearl harbor and Bremerton, Washington). One of the most cost-effective naval shipyards prior to BRAC was in Subic Bay, but that obviously was lost when the United States pulled out of the Philippines in 1992.

While closing public shipyards was inevitable after the Cold War ended, the BRAC closures in hindsight went too far. In 2017, the Government Accountability Office wrote, “Navy data show that the cost of backlogged restoration and maintenance projects at the shipyards has grown by 41 percent over 5 years, to a Navy estimated $4.86 billion, and will take at least 19 years (through fiscal year 2036) to clear.” It further said, “The shipyards’ facilities and equipment remain in poor condition,” although the Navy in 2013 had invested to fix the yards. The report goes on to depict an even bleaker picture regarding the Navy’s 18 drydocks split among the four yards, which are on average 89 years old.4

At the January 2019 Surface Navy Association symposium, Ronald O’Rourke from the Congressional Research Service argued that for the Navy to achieve a 355-ship fleet, it needed to articulate a plan to Congress to—among other things—fix current shipyard capacity by investing in yards executing Navy programs and provide options for expanding shipyard capacity.

The Navy recently released its first-ever long-range ship maintenance and modernization planto Congress. The report highlights a shortage of drydocks, the need to improve existing infrastructure at both public and private shipyards, and the need for process improvements across the shipbuilding enterprise. The report goes on to indicate the ratio of drydocks to ships in the Pacific is a significant challenge, “that reduces margin for schedule changes and growth.”5

Meanwhile, Admiral Phil Davidson, the commander of Indo-Pacific Command, in a March 2019 letter to Congress addressed what he needed to fulfill the FY19 National Defense Authorization Act’s requirement for an Indo-Pacific Stability Initiative (IPSI). One request was for military construction investments to allow Indo-Pacific Command to reset the joint force’s posture in the region.6 Clearly, the Navy will struggle to meet its mission in the western Pacific if it has to send ships all the way to Pearl Harbor for maintenance or repair.

The Subic Bay Hanjin Shipyard

In 2006 the Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority leased 300 hectares in the Subic Freeport Zone to Korea’s Hanjin Heavy Industries and Construction Company to build and operate a shipyard. Hanjin invested an estimated $2.3 billion and the first ship was produced in 2008. It quickly became the fifth-largest shipyard in the world. Since 2008, Hanjin has built 123 large cargo container vessels, bulk carriers, and carriers of crude oil, liquified petroleum gas, and mineral ores. It was the largest employer in Subic with more than 30,000 Filipinos, mostly skilled welders. However, its parent company, Hanjin Group of Busan, Korea, declared bankruptcy in February 2017. The shipyard closed in February 2019 with Hanjin Philippines filing for bankruptcy through the Regional Trial Court in Olongapo City, the biggest corporate bankruptcy ever in the Philippines.

Since the shipyard closed in February, there has been interest from foreign companies including at least one U.S. company, but the most active suitors are Chinese. This has compounded security concerns in the Philippine defense establishment.

The confluence of all these factors gives the U.S. Navy a perfect opportunity to return to Subic Bay, except this time as an equal partner respecting the laws and sovereignty of the Philippines and benefitting the Filipino people and economy. It also would send a strong message to Beijing that, despite its efforts, the alliance between the United States and the Philippines is strong and unbreakable.

To take advantage, several actions are required as soon as possible:

·         The Navy needs to indicate to the Secretary of Defense it is interested in Hanjin shipyard

·         The Secretary of Defense needs to inform the State Department of the Navy’s interest in Hanjin, and the State Department in turn must inform the Philippine government

·         The Navy needs to gauge the interest of U.S. private shipbuilders in a public-private partnership to run Hanjin, including committing to sending work there

·         Indo-Pacific Command must initiate a study to analyze the impact on operational readiness of more repair capacity in the western Pacific, including the impact on current workloads at Ship Repair Facility Yokosuka, Japan, and the Guam Shipyard Division

·         The Philippine government needs to indicate it is willing to enter into a public-public-private partnership with the United States7

The Navy may not be able to grow to 355 ships, but adding a fifth public-private shipyard will go a long way to ensuring the ships in the Pacific are available and ready to fight. The party with the most to lose in a U.S. return to Subic will be the Chinese. And they know it.

1. EDCA allows for a small permanent U.S. military presence on a rotational basis at five designated bases: Antonio Bautista Air Base, Palawan; Basa Air Base, Northwest of Manila; Fort Magsaysay, North of Manila; Lumbia Air Base, Mindanao; and Mactan-Benito Ebuen Air Base, Cebu.

2. Jim Gomez, “Philippines Frets About War at Sea for U.S.,” Navy Times, 5 March 2019.

3. Author discussion with Philippine Senator Dick Gordon, former Mayor of Olongapo and 1st SBMA Chairman, 19 February 2019.

4. Robert McCabe, “The Navy’s 4 Public Shipyards Are in Bad Shape, and it Will Take 19 Years to Restore Their Facilities, Study Says,” The Virginia Pilot, 12 September 2017.

5. Megan Eckstein, “Navy Needs More Dry Docks for Repairs, Says First-Ever Maintenance Report,” USNI News, 21 March 2019.

6. Sam LaGrone, “Pacific Commander Davidson Asks Congress to Fund ‘Regain the Advantage’ Plan Aimed at China,” USNI News, 18 April 2019.

7. Potential partners would be a Philippine government agency, Philippine Navy, SBMA, U.S. Navy, and a U.S. shipyard.

Corona Constitution Class: Prohibition, Women's Rights, Elections

Tuesday Night at 6:00 pm at AllStar/CARSTAR Collision (522 Railroad St., Corona, CA)  Constitution Class Handout Instructor: Douglas V. Gibbs douglasvgibbs@reagan.com   www.politicalpistachio.com www.douglasvgibbs.com www.constitutionassociation.com     Lesson 20   Prohibition, Women's Voting Rights, Election Rules Prohibition Amendment 18 was ratified January 16, 1919, bringing the prohibition of alcohol to America. The amendment was repealed by Amendment 21, December 5, 1933.   Christian churches worked to bring about prohibition as far back as the early 1800s, largely through the campaigning by women and young adults who had been adversely affected by husbands and fathers who were heavy alcohol consumers. Alcohol was considered to be one of the most prevalent social problems in America. The concerns over the dangers of alcohol brought about the Temperance Movement. The American Temperance Society was founded in 1826, with the specific goal of outlawing alcohol in the United States.   Local organizations that encouraged abstinence from alcohol existed as early as 1808. It was not until 1826 that a nationwide temperance society was created. As the American Temperance Society gained steam, national and international temperance societies sprang up. Organizations like the Washington Temperance Society did not consider temperance to be a religious issue, while other groups felt compelled by God to proclaim temperance. Considering the involvement in the movement by a diverse menu of denominations, no one religion was able to claim to have been the originator of temperance ideals.   The most effective weapon of temperance was to advocate total abstinence from alcohol through personal pledges. The societies gave out pledge cards or medals with various types of pledges written on them. Not all of the pledges, however, demanded total abstinence, as indicated by the following pledge:   "We agree to abstain from all intoxicating liquors except for medicinal purposes and religious ordinances."   Concerned that being too strict may discourage many from joining their society, some organizations gave people the option to choose the extent of their pledge. One common practice was to have those who joined a society to sign a book indicating their commitment. If the person was willing to commit to total abstinence, they would place a capital "T" by their name. The "T" stood for Total or "Total Abstinence". Hence came the term "Tee Totaler" as one who has committed himself to total abstinence.   Through the use of pressure-politics the goal of nationwide prohibition was achieved during World War I with the ratification of the Eighteenth Amendment in January of 1919.   Congress, in response to the new amendment, passed the Volstead Act on October 28, 1919, to enforce the law. Most large cities refused to enforce the legislation. As the federal government went after bootleggers, it became quickly apparent that the understaffed agencies were fighting a losing battle. Meanwhile, though there was a slight decline in alcohol consumption around the nation, organized crime increased in the larger cities. Alcohol became a high demand cash crop that the criminal element could not resist.   As Prohibition became increasingly unpopular, and the element of organized crime had reached its height, the perceived need for tax revenue during the Great Depression also encouraged a repeal movement. The hope for tax revenue from the legal sale of alcohol, and the need to weaken organized crime, led to the 21st Amendment, which repealed the amendment that had brought Prohibition to America. The repeal returned the legalities of alcohol to the States. Though Prohibition was over nationwide, some counties remained dry counties, forbidding the sale of alcoholic beverages.   In our current society there are calls for the legalization of Marijuana, and other drugs. Existing federal drug laws enforce a prohibition of drugs. There is a movement in some parts of government pushing for the legalization of certain drugs, like marijuana. If at the federal level a number of politicians decided that the legalization of drugs is good for the nation, we could very well see such legislation pass through Congress. By studying the U.S. Constitution, and taking a lesson from the 18th Amendment, it is apparent that the federal government does not have the authority to ban, or legalize, drugs in America without receiving such an authority through the Amendment Process (as we saw with the 18th Amendment in regards to Alcohol). The regulation of drugs is a State issue, as per the Tenth Amendment. This means that all federal drug laws are unconstitutional, and laws in California legalizing marijuana for medicinal purposes, and in the States of Washington and Colorado for recreational use, are completely constitutional.   Terms: Dry Counties - Counties in the United States whose government forbids the sale of alcoholic beverages within the county.   Great Depression - A severe worldwide economic depression in the decade preceding World War II.   Organized Crime - Transnational, national, or local groupings of highly centralized enterprises run by criminals for the purpose of engaging in illegal activity, most commonly for monetary profit.   Prohibition - Period in United States history during which the manufacture and sale of alcohol was prohibited. Drinking alcohol itself was never illegal, and there were always exceptions for medicinal and religious uses. Temperance Movement - A social movement urging the reduced use of alcoholic beverages during the 19th and early 20th centuries.   Volstead Act - Officially The National Prohibition Act; the law that was the enabling legislation for the Eighteenth Amendment which established prohibition in the United States.     Questions for Discussion:   1. Why were women a major factor in the temperance movement?   2. What were some of the factors that contributed to the growing popularity of The Temperance Movement?   3. What challenges did The Temperance Movement encounter, and how did they adjust (i.e. through the style of pledges, exceptions to abstinence, etc.)   4. What was the reaction of many local governments to the Volstead Act?   5. What happened to the presence of organized crime when Prohibition was enacted? Why?   6. What were the reasons for repealing Prohibition?   7. What did Prohibition say about individualism and personal responsibility from the point of view of the federal government?   8. In what form does Prohibition continue to exist in the United States even today?   9. What lesson regarding the legalization of other drugs does the 18th Amendment teach us?     Resources: Joseph Andrews, A Guide for Learning and Teaching The Declaration of Independence and The U.S. Constitution - Learning from the Original Texts Using Classical Learning Methods of the Founders; San Marcos: The Center for Teaching the Constitution (2010)   Kobler, John, Ardent Spirits The Rise and Fall of Prohibition, New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons (1973)   The Temperance Movement, US History.com; http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1054.html   Steven Mintz, Moralists & Modernizers: America's Pre-Civil War Reformers; Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press (1995)   Women's Voting Rights The 19th Amendment established uniform voting rights for women nationwide. It was ratified on August 18, 1920.   Women, despite popular opinion, did vote in elections prior to the ratification of the 19th Amendment. In 1869, women in the newly created territory of Wyoming became the first women in the United States to win the right to vote. Colorado gave voting rights to women in 1892, and both Utah and Idaho gave women the right to vote in 1896.   The Constitution gives the States the right to determine their own rules for elections. The women's suffrage movement worked to bring about an amendment that would give women voting rights nationwide. The amendment was first proposed in 1878, and it took forty-one years before it was submitted to the States for ratification. It took about a year to receive enough votes for ratification.   Susan B. Anthony, already known for her crusade for the abolition of slavery, and the prohibition of alcohol, added women's suffrage to her plate. By 1878 she was able to induce a Senator from California to introduce a resolution in Congress calling for an amendment to the Constitution which would give women throughout the United States the right to vote.   The drive for an amendment that would grant uniform voting rights for women was nothing new. Aaron Burr, the Vice President during Thomas Jefferson's presidency, was a fervent believer in women's rights, and took personal charge of his daughter's course of study, insisting she learn Greek, Latin, and French, along with literature, philosophy and sciences. His proposals for the uniform voting rights for women, however, never gained traction.   John Adams, the second President of the United States, also supported expanding women's freedoms. As a great admirer of his wife, Abigail, he often went to her for advice. In 1776, as the Founders put into full gear their drive for American independence, Abigail offered in a letter, "I long to hear that you have declared an independency. And, by the way, in the new code of laws which I suppose it will be necessary for you to make, I desire you would remember the ladies and be more generous and favorable to them than your ancestors. Do not put such unlimited power into the hands of the husbands. Remember, all men would be tyrants if they could. If particular care and attention is not paid to the ladies, we are determined to foment a rebellion, and will not hold ourselves bound by any laws in which we have no voice or representation."   A challenge to the 19th Amendment (Leser v. Garnett, 1922) claimed that the amendment was unconstitutionally adopted, and that the rules for elections were implicitly delegated to the individual States because of the need to preserve State Sovereignty. However, the very fact that the change in voting rules was through amendment made the argument against the 19th Amendment a moot point.   Once the 19th Amendment was ratified, with this new power, women were able to attempt to elect those who shared their beliefs, hoping that other measures that would push forward the fight for women's rights would also emerge.   After the 19th Amendment passed, the percentage of women in the workforce increased to about 25%. Though some discrimination continued, and women rarely held decision-making positions, it was definitely a step in the right direction for the purpose of encouraging the rights of women.   During World War II, women were needed in all areas since many of the men went overseas to fight. The percentage of women in the workforce increased to 36%. The boom for women was short-lived, however. When the war ended, and the soldiers returned home, two-million women were fired within fifteen months after the end of the war to make room for the men.   Despite such setbacks, by the 1980s, the percentage of women in the workforce exceeded 50%. However, the percentage of women voting has not equaled the original push shortly after the ratification of the 19th Amendment.   Advocates for family values, though supportive of equal opportunity, often view these advancements as promotion for the break-up of the family unit. With mothers participating in the workforce, advent of women's rights has also given rise to the emergence of latch-key kids.   The greatest right for women is choice, which includes the choice not to pursue the numerous opportunities available for the purpose of following a more traditional role, should they desire to make such a choice. Women in today's society have the choice to pursue a career, be a stay-at-home mom and wife, or attempt to juggle both. For the purpose of protecting the family unit, and the traditional nature of the American society, wife and mother remains the more popular choice.   Terms: Women's Suffrage - The right of women to vote and to run for office. The expression is also used for the economic and political reform movement aimed at extending these rights to women without any restrictions or qualifications such as property ownership, payment of tax, or marital status.   Questions for Discussion:   1. Were women allowed to vote in national elections before the ratification of the Nineteenth Amendment?   2. How did the abolition movement and temperance movement lead some to also support women's suffrage?   3. On what grounds was the Nineteenth Amendment Challenged?   4. How has the drive for the rights of women changed to an opposite extreme?   5. How has the Women's Rights Movement affected the concept of the traditional family unit?   Resources: Aaron Burr Biography, Essortment; http://www.essortment.com/aaron- burr-biography-20550.html   Abigail Adams urges husband to "remember the ladies", History.com; http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/abigail-adams-urges-husband-to-remember-the-ladies   Andrew M. Allison, K. DeLynn Cook, M. Richard Maxfield, and W. Cleon Skousen, The Real Thomas Jefferson; New York: National Center for Constitutional Studies (2009)   David McCullough, John Adams; New York: Simon and Schuster (2001)   W. Cleon Skousen, The Role of Women in Healing America, Latter Day Conservative and The Constitution magazine, November 1985; http://www.latterdayconservative.com/articles/the-role-of-women-in-healing-america/   Election Rules Ratified in 1933, the 20th Amendment establishes the current rules regarding the beginning and end of the terms of elected federal offices.   The amendment moved the beginning of the Presidential, Vice Presidential and Congressional terms from March 4. Congress, under the new rules established by the 20th Amendment, convenes on the third day of January, reducing the amount of time a lame duck Congress would be in session. A lame duck Congress, no longer fearful of the effect their decisions may have on re-election, may be more apt to support otherwise unpopular legislation during a lame duck session.   The 20th Amendment moved the terms of the President and Vice President to begin on the 20th day of January.   Section 2 of the 20th Amendment begins, "The Congress shall assemble at least once in every year." The phrase is consistent with the language used in Article I, Section 4, though one wonders if the delegates debating the 20th Amendment viewed meeting one day a year as overburdensome as did the Framers of the Constitution, or if they considered themselves to be professional politicians who must be constantly legislating, as does today's legislators.   The 20th Amendment's Section 3 addresses vacancies to the presidency before the new President has the opportunity to take office. The clause assigns the presidency to the Vice President in the case of the death of the President, if the President dies before he can take office. Assigning the presidency to the Vice President was in line with Article II, Section 1, Clause 6, and the 12th Amendment assigning to the Vice President the Office of the President should the President die after he took office. In the case it turns out the President does not qualify for the office, this article grants to Congress the authority to declare who shall act as President. "Failing to qualify for office" refers to an occasion that the Electoral College fails to resolve who will be the President or Vice President. A key point of this provision, and a critical protection against an outgoing faction attempting to retain some semblance of power, in the case that the candidates fail to qualify for office, is that the decision still devolves to Congress, but to the newly elected Congress, as opposed to the outgoing one. As established in Article II, Section 1, the decision for President would continue to rest upon the House of Representatives, and the choice of Vice President would continue to be the choice of the United States Senate.   Section 4 of the 20th Amendment addresses succession, giving Congress the authority to establish a line of succession, in the case of death of the President, or of the Vice President. The more astute student may recall that today's constitutional protocols calls upon the President to appoint a new Vice President, should that seat be vacated, but that provision did not become law until the ratification of the 25th Amendment in 1967.   The final two sections of the 20th Amendment address when the amendment would take effect should it be ratified, and a time limit of the proposal should the States not ratify it in a timely fashion. Section 5 states that the first two sections of the amendment, the parts of the amendment that alters the date the terms of President, Vice President, and members of Congress shall begin, "shall take effect on the 15th day of October following the ratification of this article." If ratification reached completion during an election year, that would put the new amendment into effect a couple weeks before the next election. The amendment was ratified January 23, 1933, not in time for Franklin Delano Roosevelt's victory in the 1932 Election. FDR had to wait until March of 1933 to take office.   In Section 6 of the 20th Amendment, for the first time in American History, a limitation was placed upon a proposed amendment, requiring that the amendment be ratified within seven years from the date of its submission. The same stipulation would be added at the end of the 21st and 22nd amendments, as well as a number of proposals that failed to be ratified within the allotted time period (like the Equal Rights Amendment). The 27th Amendment, ratified in 1992, reveals that without a limitation, proposed amendments remain in place and can stay on the active list indefinitely. The 27th Amendment was originally proposed as a part of the original Bill of Rights, submitted September 25, 1789.     Terms:   Lame Duck Congress - A lame duck session of Congress in the United States occurs whenever one Congress meets after its successor is elected, but before the successor's term begins.   Line of Succession - The order in which individuals are expected to succeed one another in some official position.     Questions for Discussion:   1. Why did the framers of the Twentieth Amendment see a need to move forward the dates of Presidential and Congressional Terms?   2. In what way can Lame Duck Sessions be dangerous?   3. Why do you think the Amendment changed the duty of electing the President, should the Electoral College fail to do so, to the newly elected Congress from the outgoing one?     Resources:   Joseph Andrews, A Guide for Learning and Teaching The Declaration of Independence and The U.S. Constitution - Learning from the Original Texts Using Classical Learning Methods of the Founders; San Marcos: The Center for Teaching the Constitution (2010)   United States Senate, Lame Duck Session Definition: http://www.senate.gov/reference/glossary_term/lame_duck_session.htm     Copyright 2015 Douglas V. Gibbs

Veterans

Opinion by Allan McNew

As I watched the coverage of the D-Day anniversary I felt a wave of emotions concerning veterans from that day to now.

I had the image of men exiting the beached Higgins boats, moving forward through the chaos and terror of heavy incoming fire creating an open air slaughterhouse, running over bodies and parts of what used to be their comrades to do what they were trained to do. It had to be a horrific experience.

The elderly survivors of that invasion, when described as heroes, invariably said that they were not heroes, that the heroes were those who died while they themselves were merely doing what needed to be done.

Ira Hayes, who participated in raising the flag on Mount Suribachi on Iwo Jima and was subsequently paraded around the United States as a prop for selling war bonds, died an itinerant, virtually face in the gutter alcoholic. There was no autopsy performed, the immediate cause could have been dying from alcohol poisoning and exposure or by being beaten after a drunken card game gone wrong. However, from reading his story I think the ultimate cause was his wartime memories combined with a guilt, common among veterans with ugly combat experiences, that he had lived while so many of his Marine Corps brothers died and Corporal Hayes certainly rejected the notion that he was a hero. The only thing different was one day a picture was taken of him and five other guys that had patriotic value to the public, three of them dying in action before Hayes left Iwo Jima.

In 2007 there was a sign on the exiting side of the gate at Fort Irwin: In large capital letters it proclaimed “Not all wounds are visible” then continued about suicide.

Korea is often described as “The forgotten war”. The only first hand mention I have heard was from an older man who said he didn’t go camping, he camped out in Korea for a year and that was enough for him.

A coworker friend in the early 80’s was perhaps the funniest man I have known. However after an evening of substantial alcohol consumption he suddenly broke down crying, telling me terrible things he experienced as a Seal in Viet Nam and the nightly dreams he had. Next day he asked me to not tell anyone what he said. For almost 40 years I have not divulged specifics, and he never talked about it again. Perhaps humor was his way of dealing with what tormented him.

A second veteran coworker once dived under the truck after a sonic boom, and a third would go into stress mode whenever a helicopter flew over. Another vet scoffed when Viet Nam tour packages came out because he went to Viet Nam every night.

In about 2012 I had a conversation with an active duty Seal about veterans. One of things he said was it made a big difference that my friend had a moment of involuntary weakness when he told me about Viet Nam. I take it if my friend had spoken about it under any other circumstance it would have been a grave sin against his Seal brethren. He added that that Viet Nam vets were done wrong many ways by the government they served, the general civilian population at the time wasn’t much of a peach to come home to either.

Not long ago I had a conversation with a young veteran who was in Afghanistan, he has nightmares too. He said it doesn’t mean anything to hear “thank you for your service”, it was like thanking him for drinking a beer or going to a movie. He told me he would prefer to hear “thank you for my freedom.”

So to all vets, thank you for my freedom.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Next MTRA Meeting

Constitution Study TV: Dead Center

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



-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Globalists: Old People Pose Global Risk

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

Old people cause healthcare costs to rise.  Old people cause labor shortages for the younger folks.  Old people put a strain on our financial services, and government services, system.  So, according to internationalists (who are also probably "population bomb" and "climate change" prognosticators), the elderly are a global risk, especially with shrinking birthrates (except among Muslims and illegal aliens).

The G20 finance ministers and central bank chiefs are meeting in Japan, where, according to AFP, a rapidly ageing population is becoming a major domestic problem.

"What we are saying is, 'If the issue of ageing starts to show its impact before you become wealthy, you really won't be able to take effective measures against it'," Japanese Finance Minister Taro Aso, the meeting's host, told reporters late Saturday.

So, in other words, wealthy elite old people are not the problem, it's the rest of you peasants that are putting a strain on the system.  But who will they be able to reduce your numbers, old folks, you know, before you "naturally" reach the end of the rail-line?

Aging, according to all of these experts, piles pressure on the economy.  It can't be helped.  Thanks to science we have longer life-expectancy.  However, unless you are Muslim, or an illegal alien in the United States, your group of peers is also experiencing a sliding birth rate.  

What to do, what to do.

By 2050, the world is projected to have more than two billion residents aged 60 and above, more than double the number in 2017, OECD says.

But many economies have failed to update their pension and employment systems to adjust to the changing demographics, experts warn.

This has resulted in fiscal and debt risks for whole countries, as well as individuals.

What to do, what to do.

Logan may know (you know Logan, don't you?  He was a runner.  You know, from Logan's Run, the mid-seventies movie where getting old means death . . . I mean renewal through carousel).

"You basically have a very large portion of mankind that is ageing and then the workforce is shrinking. But I would say the G20 in particular are ageing faster," the OECD secretary-general told AFP.

"These are trends that will continue, I am afraid. It's not something you can suddenly stop."

In other news, euthanasia ... oh, I mean "Death with Dignity" ... cases are on the rise.

Experts say in order to guarantee the minimal physical ingredients of a decent life to everyone the population needs to be dropped to 1.5 to 2 billion people rather than the 7 billion who are alive today or the 9 billion expected in 2050.

Hmmmmm, how would we be able to drop that kind of population weight so quickly to save the planet?

Could the global left be on the verge of calling for genocide?  They won't use the word, it might alert the locals.  You know, like how they want to confiscate all of our guns, but are careful not to actually use that word.  For the wholesale slaughter of those they don't believe to be beneficial to their engineered society they'll find a fancy and more acceptable name for it later so that the normal public will just nod and agree.  

"Carousel!  Carousel!  Carousel!"

If you are a Christian Conservative, or elderly, be prepared to hide.  If the democrats get their medicare for all, it'll be easy.  They'll just begin denying services to certain people.  But don't call those committees "death panels" ... that might give away the truth.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Bazaar and Constitution Radio

today's schedule... come meet me at the Temecula Valley 2019 Summer Bazaar, 8:30-3:00, 28314 Mercedes St., Temecula I will be broadcasting live from the bazaar at 1:00 pm on KMET 1490-AM

Constitution Study TV: Medicare for All

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




-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Constitution Study TV: Prison Vote

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

Should Prisoners be allowed to Vote?





-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Constitution Study TV: Impeachment

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






-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

What Mueller Really Said ...

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


Email of the week:

An "Old West" Texas analysis and summary of the Mueller Report, and the Democrat efforts, in one sentence:

"While we recognize that the subject did not actually steal any horses, he is obviously guilty of trying to resist being hanged for it."

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary