Democrat Authoritarianism

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

Liberal left progressive Marxist utopian socialist collectivism understands that the way to capture a society is through the culture.  They've tried military takeover, communist revolutions, and heavy-handed iron-fisted totalitarian control and in the end their leftist systems always collapse.

In the United States, the tactic used has been creeping incrementalism.  A slow takeover of the culture by slowly injecting socialism through various institutions until authoritarianism and socialism is not only acceptable, but desired.  The socialists, after all, have the best of intentions . . . right?

Wherever a culture goes, the political nature of the system is likely to follow.  If a society cannot abide by the set standards of a moral compass, how can they expect their leaders to follow the set standards of the rule of law?  Benjamin Franklin wisely remarked, "Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom.  As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters."

Every generation says it.  The good old days are long gone, and the upcoming generation doesn't understand what they should.  Each generation witnesses an incremental deterioration of the system, and each younger generation remarks, "You just don't understand, because you're too old."

David Hogg, in his defense of gun control, said he became an activist because adults don't know how to "use a f*cking democracy": "When your old-a$$ parent is like, ‘I don’t know how to send an iMessage,’ and you’re just like, ‘Give me the f***ing phone and let me handle it.’ Sadly, that’s what we have to do with our government; our parents don’t know how to use a f***ing democracy, so we have to."

Never mind that this is not supposed to be a democracy.  We are a republic.

The natural laws of science dictate that in time the organized become disorganized.  Order descends into chaos.  And when it comes to human nature, righteousness descends into depravity.

We are seeing it happen before our eyes in Venezuela.

Venezuela has gone from being a moral and prosperous country to a corrupt, socialist dictatorship with a rapidly collapsing economy.

We are next, if we follow them down the same path.

The level of authoritarian control is deepening as Venezuela continues down its failed path.  The dictator is becoming paranoid.  His own people are zeroing in on him. Maduro's regime is collapsing and the country is paying for it.  Water and power are unreliable.  Store shelves are empty.  Pharmacies are unable to provide medicine.  Crime is rising, and death is becoming commonplace.

Venezuela is a perfect example of what will happen here in the United States if we return this country to Democrat Party leadership, and let them move us in an unfettered direction towards socialism.

The younger generation in this country have been fooled into believing that socialism is a good thing.  Our education system has been indoctrinating them with socialist propaganda.  Meanwhile, where socialism has been allowed to run wild without any obstacles, Venezuelans are eating out of trash cans and consider a roll of toilet paper a luxury item.

Authoritarianism is always a sign that we are headed into the direction of socialist system of failure.  Death is another sign.  We see it happening in our society.  Civil discourse is a thing of the past.  Opposing views are rejected in some places, like college campuses.  And, the politicians are working to increase authoritarian control through the laws they put into place.

In California, through authoritarian legislation, businesses are being forced to adjust what drinks they make available in children's meals, regardless of the business owner's choices, or the parent's choices.

Across the country laws are being passed to ban plastic straws, posing a great danger to people who medically require plastic straws in order to eat solid food, or in order to be able to drink in the first place.

California lawmakers are forcing homeowners to put into place solar panels, using falsified numbers to support their authoritarian agenda.

Various laws forcing us into using energy in ways the politicians demand are not only being shoved into place, but they are doing so using a manipulated pseudo-science they call climate change as the excuse.

The democrats have been passing laws designed to control our right to keep and bear arms.  I believe the natural conclusion of their policies will be the confiscation of all firearms.  What amazes me is that they want government to take our guns, and be the only ones with guns, while they claim that Trump is a fascist.  Think about that for a moment.

If a fascist was indeed in office, what could go wrong?

Religious liberties are being targeted and whittled away through legislation in the name of sexual lifestyles and transgenderism, essentially forcing sexual deviation into the face of religious institutions whether they like it or not through authoritarian legislation.

The leftists have been attacking the Electoral College, one of the few remaining parts of the American System that protects us from the downward spiral into suicide that would happen if we decided to embrace pure democracy.  Why?  Because they want the fooled, indoctrinated population centers to have the power to democratically vote away the rights of everyone who disagrees with the progressive agenda.

They are desperate to save the Democrat Party Plantation that has been created over time, and the problem is, Trump is beginning to even make sense to their own followers as he dismantles it.  Trump's approval rating is rising among Hispanics, and it is rising among blacks.  Unlike the Democrats, who claim they represent only certain protected minority groups, while they refuse to represent other groups who they say are just a bunch of deplorables, President Donald J. Trump has proven to be the President of ALL Americans.

Crowdpac, a crowd-funding site for political causes and candidates, has joined the long list of online services and social media outlets in their attempt to shout down and shut out anyone who disagrees with liberal left talking points.  A republican candidate told me that at one point during the primary season he and all of his fellow Republicans who were using Crowdpac's services received an email stating that effective immediately (May 15, 2018) all Republican Candidates would be delisted from Crowdpac.  The organization did this three weeks before the primary election in California.

They seek to force death (abortions) onto college campuses, and not only silence their opposition on abortion, but force their opposition to advertise for them.

The liberal left claims to love the environment, but their legalization of marijuana is destroying our national forests.

At what point does the left finally realize that their policies not only don't work, but are destructive?

The answer, unfortunately, is never.

We fight an ideological war that we can never win, but must never lose.

Eternal vigilance.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Natural Phenomenon of Biblical Proportions?

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

The Bible states that as the times prior to the second coming of Christ reaches its finale, earthquakes, and other natural disasters, will increase.  Does that mean that what we are seeing in the world right now is in line with prophetic texts?

Maybe.

As it says in Matthew, only the Father knows the date and time.  But, I will admit, if anything, the things going on with a hurricane smacking Hawaii, volcanoes erupting, and earthquakes rocking has been devastating, and interesting.

Hawaii inundated by catastrophic flooding as Hurricane Lane tracks dangerously close ...

Direct hit?

DETAILS...

Price gouging probes as shoppers clear shelves...

Confusion, panic...

Not enough shelters...

LIVE: Waikiki cam...

SATELLITE...

---

Mount Etna volcano roars into action with ash and lava...

---

7.1 MAG QUAKE ROCKS PERU...

MAP...

Global Tremors 50% Above Normal... 

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Overtaking the Producers

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

The United States of America is not a democracy, we are a republic.  In democracies, the mob rules, and the problem with the mob is that once the mob realizes it can vote itself gifts from the treasury it will do so, and it will continue to do so, even if it means destroying the free market system that is responsible for the presence of those gifts in the first place.

When the takers overtake the producers, the producers will cease to produce, and the system will collapse.

Once the mob has control, they will vote away liberty, and vote away our rights, and demand more welfare from the government.  It's a drug addiction, and once a person is sticking the needle of entitlements into their arm, they become addicted, and will do anything to keep it coming.

The Democrat Party has taught Americans to not only use these programs, but to make them our way of life.

The republic will die if this continues.

The Welfare Generation:

52.1% of Kids Live in Households Getting Govt Assistance...

POLL: 70% support Medicare for all!

ObamaCare more popular than GOP tax law...

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

EBT: Food Stamps and Auto Flush Technology

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

The image you see at the top of this post is one that I snapped at a food mart in Ukiah, California while I was getting gas.

Notice that the clarifying statement at the bottom of the sheet of paper designed to help folks understand that EBT is food stamps was added by pen later, after the sign was printed.  This tells me that someone tried to use their EBT card, and when they were told the system was down and the employee pointed at the sign, the person with the welfare item in their hand said something like, "But, I have food stamps."

The response was "EBT is food stamps."

"Oh."

Remember Bill Engvall's comedy act where he talked about stupid people?  Engvall said that the problem with stupid people is that we don't know who they are.  If they had some kind of sign around their neck we'd know that they were stupid, and we wouldn't ask them anything.

After that conversation at the food mart, it would have been nice if the employee could have then pulled one out of his pocket an "I'm stupid" sign and handed it to the stupid person on the other side of the counter, as he said, "Here's your sign."

Understand something, people. These people vote.  They are too stupid to realize that EBT is food stamps, even though EBT is probably all over the paperwork they signed, all over the card in their hand, and all over the walls in the social services office they went to in order to secure their seat at the welfare table.

Also, remember that the Democrats say these people (poverty dwelling democrat voters) are too stupid to figure out how to get an ID to vote, and therefore Voter ID laws are considered to be some kind of a suppression of the vote.

If these people can't figure out that EBT means food stamps, and can't figure out how to get an ID, I have to ask . . . Do we really want these people voting?

The Democrats do, because anyone with half a brain votes Republican.

The stupidity doesn't only infest the bottom-feeding poverty dwelling democrat voters, either.  The millennials have been sucked into the pit of stupidity, too.

We stopped at a rest stop somewhere south of Santa Nella on the way back from our trip, and I was brushing my teeth at the little metal sink when, after using the toilet, a millennial approached the sink next to me to wash his hands.

I watched as the guy put his hands under the faucet, and then waited for the water to come on.  He did it a few times, confused as to why the sensor wasn't picking up his hand movement under the faucet.  Then, I pushed the button on the wall next to mine to run the water, cleaned off my toothbrush, and hand-cupped some water into my mouth.  He looked momentarily at me in a dumb manner, as if he was trying to figure out the process.  Then, he pushed the button on his little sink.

After I was finished brushing my teeth, I went into a bathroom stall to change my clothes.  I glanced over at the toilet, and around the button on the wall to flush the toilet there was a small sign that read, "push button to flush".

I wondered what initiated the realization that the sign to push the button to flush the toilet was needed. Then I remembered the kid at the sink, and how he was confused that the faucet did not turn on automatically based upon his presence.  Had people been thinking the toilet was an automatic flushing toilet could not figure out how to get it flush when it didn't flush automatically?

Here's your sign.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Temecula Constitution Class: 3/5s Clause

Constitution Education Douglas V. Gibbs Wednesday, August 22, 2018 6:00 pm, Temecula, Temecula Constitution Class.  Riverside County Republican Party headquarters, 28120 Jefferson Ave., Temecula.  This week's lesson: Constitution Class Handout Instructor: Douglas V. Gibbs   www.politicalpistachio.com www.douglasvgibbs.com www.constitutionassociation.com   Lesson 02   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

California Democrats Vote Away Bail

SB10, the bill to eliminate the requirement to pay bail, just passed. I guess now everyone will just have to pinky-swear to report for their court date. MM

— Melissa Melendez (@asmMelendez) August 21, 2018

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

S.B. 10 has passed both houses in the California legislature.  What is right and reasonable is not what's in the Democrat Party's mind when it comes to laws.  They only wish to increase taxes, cater to criminals and illegals, and destroy our system of liberty.  They hate capitalism, so they pass laws they think will stick a beam into the eyes of the wealthy.

Eliminating wealth as a determination in pretrial detention would be a groundbreaking first step in making our criminal justice system fairer and safer. -- Senator Bob Hertzberg

What the Democrats are doing is further weakening our ability to fight crime and keep our neighborhoods safe.

Senator Jim Nielsen: 

“This is a stay-out-of-jail card. 

The current bail system serves as an incentive for those accused of a crime to appear before a judge. Without a bail system and the fear of being tracked down by a bail bondsman, what is the motivation for anyone to appear in court? And what standard will be used to determine whether the accused is a flight risk?

This measure, if signed into law, will result in a worse system where victims and their loved ones will not get the justice they deserve. 

Criminals will thumb their noses and dismiss court orders. With our criminal justice system already weakened by AB 109, Proposition 47 and Proposition 57, this bill will further deteriorate our public safety. 

With parole supervision virtually eliminated, bail agents are the only boots-on-the- ground supervision for most convicted felons. 

Under realignment reform, burglars receive nothing but a notice to appear, with little to no consequences if they do not show up in court. 

The effect is no justice, and criminals are free to continue victimization.”

The effort is to create chaos so that the Democrats have an excuse to use authoritarian control to ensure "peace and safety."  I wonder, now that there is no bail, how many illegal aliens will be released back into the community by leftist judges, only to vanish and never show up to any court date ... ever?

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Trump, Cohen, and Hush Money

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

Fox News was talking about the Michael Cohen guilty plea of being involved in sending hush money to women for Donald J. Trump.  I knew that this was something I needed to talk about on Political Pistachio.  As I normally do before writing about an item, I went online to seek both liberal left and conservatively written articles on the issue.  I like to read all sides of a story by leftists, conservatives, and #nevertrump writers on both sides of the political spectrum to make sure I understand everyone's take on an issue before I set pen to paper.

I entered into Google: cohen pleads guilty hush money

Under the ALL function I received six pages of choices that were all mainstream media choices (New York Times, Washington Post, New York Post, CNN, various local media outlets, etc.).  Not a single link to pages like Fox News, Breitbart, Townhall, or any other non-hard left liberal press destinations.

I hit the NEWS function at Google, because sometimes that is where the Washington Times, Fox News, and Washington Examiner links often lie.  I got three pages of liberal left only choices.

Was it possible that not a single conservative website has talked about President Donald Trump, Michael Cohen, and the fact that Cohen plead guilty to signing the checks of hush money to a porn star?

Fox News was on my television, and they were talking about it.

When I entered the same search words at 4conservative.com a whole litany of both liberal and conservative sites appeared, including REASON, Fox News, the National Sentinel, Red State, Right Scoop, LA Times, NBC News, Daily Caller, Zero Hedge, CNN, and the Washington Examiner.  Is it possible that the conservative search engine is actually the only one that is truly fair and balanced?

Do Google users realize they are only getting one side of the story?

One thing is for sure, the liberal left Democrats and all of their fellow Trump-haters are all excited over the possibility of finally nailing President Donald J. Trump for something.

What we are seeing is true tyranny of epic proportions.  During the years approaching the American Revolution the British utilized a tool called "Writs of Assistance."  These "writs" were actually general warrants that allowed British troops to search all homes under the assumption that while the searchers had no specific expectations, they knew that if they fully searched all of the homes they would find something incriminating.  In other words, there was no proof of a crime, but they figured if they searched long and hard enough they'd find something to nail the colonists with.

That's what the Democrats have been doing. They hate Trump, they fear him because he wants to dismantle the establishment system infecting our government, and because during his long life he hasn't exactly been an altar boy they figure there must be something, somewhere, that they can use to either impeach him, or make his base turn against him, so that they can regain their seat of power in the United States Government and continue our country down the path towards socialism.

Like most Trump supporters, I didn't vote for Donald J. Trump because I think he had a clean and squeaky life before he threw his hat in the ring.  He's rich.  He's a man.  Men are horn-dogs, so there is no doubt that in his past life Mr. Trump did things he is now, in his new life, not so proud of.  I am not condoning it, I am simply recognizing that these kinds of things happen.

However, the original premise by the Democrats was not that Trump was a horny guy who was willing to get with porn stars.  From day one their accusation has been Russian collusion into the 2016 Election, and that Trump either knew about it, or participated in it.  These things Cohen has plead guilty to don't have anything to do with Trump's political campaign.

Nonetheless, the Democrats and liberal media are all jittery trying to create a narrative that somehow this is all connected to an attempt to influence the election.

Was a non-disclosure agreement, with a payoff included, something that happened?  According to Michael Cohen the answer is "yes."  Was it designed for the purpose of influencing the election?  Not necessarily.  If Trump had acted less than faithfully to his wife, silencing a porn star about sex was probably more a part keeping his wife from finding out than trying to influence an election.  In other words, the payment would likely have happened whether he was running for President, or not.  So, what that all means is that Trump isn't guilty of Russian Collusion, or of using his money to influence the election in an illegal manner.  He was guilty of trying to keep his wife from finding out that he was having sex with someone other than her.

The liberal left, however, is screaming that those payments were unreported campaign funding violations.  Such payments are not considered campaign finance violations by the FEC.  The payments would have happened anyway, irrespective of the campaign.  To be a campaign funding violation it would have needed to be a payment that would only have happened because of the campaign.

The Democrats are reaching for straws, but the legality doesn't matter, and they know it.  It's all about public perception, and the leftists are playing that tune carefully and in such a way that many voters are falling for the propaganda.

Cohen knows he's in hot water, and he doesn't want to do a lot of jail time, so he's trying to throw Trump under the bus knowing that if the leftists are happy with his offering to the gods of socialism they may be merciful when it comes to his penalty for his own, non-Trump related offenses.

Remember, if Cohen didn't flip against Trump, the President could pardon him.  But Cohen decided he'd rather throw in with the liberal left, figuring he had a better chance of staying out of jail if he sold his soul to the evil god of progressivism.

The truth is, none of all of this ultimately matters.  The Justice Department is not going to go after Trump while he's President.  They can't.  It all comes down to impeachment.  The only way for the Democrats to get rid of Trump is to impeach him, and they need an overwhelming victory in November, and will need a two-thirds majority to accomplish the task . . . and they just don't have those kinds of numbers, and they won't get those kinds of numbers.  There is no blue wave, and what they are doing with Mueller, Cohen and Manafort will not scare off Trump supporters enough for them to get their way.

Who cares what President Trump did in his past life?  The economy is booming, North Korea has come to the negotiating table, the Iran Deal that would enable Iran to further their nuclear ambitions has been killed, we are out of the disastrous Paris global climate change accord, Jerusalem in the eyes of the U.S. is being recognized as the capital of Israel, unemployment rates are down, and thanks to Trump's monkeying with tariffs a balance in trade is being achieved.  I didn't vote for Trump because I think his past life was golden, crisp and clean.  I voted for him because the policies he was verbalizing were better for my country than the ones being spewed by Hillary Clinton.

I knew we weren't getting an altar boy, but I knew we would be getting a tough S.O.B. who understands that a leftist political establishment system has been screwing up the country, and he was willing to roll up his sleeves and turn our country around.

Leave him alone, and let him continue to Make America Great Again.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Corona Constitution Class: Legislative Branch Introduction

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