Introductory NOTE from KrisAnne Hall, JD

America was formed with the understanding that Liberty is the possession of ALL mankind:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."  Declaration of Independence, 1776 (emphasis added)

America was formed with the understanding that the Constitutional Republic we were creating would be an example to the world as beacon of Liberty.  

"...a just & solid republican government maintained here, will be a standing monument & example for the aim & imitation of the people of other countries..."  Thomas Jefferson to John Dickinson, March 6, 1801

With these fundamental truths, our legal helps ministry Liberty First Legal is often writing legal briefs and educational essays for people across the globe.  As many are becoming aware, the excuse of pandemic shutdown is actually a well coordinated attack on the Liberties of the people and most aggressively an attack on the Religious Liberty of the people.  (You can offer your disagreement to this statement, however you will be fundamentally and historically wrong and will not be able to support your disagreement with one shred of truth.)  As I type this, a pastor in Melbourne, Australia is being held in custody on a criminal charge of "inciting church."  I hope that I do not have to explain the gross error of this so-called criminal charge.

Today I am sharing with you an essay that I wrote for the people of Australia to explain the fundamental right of Religious Liberty as established by the nature of our creation and protected by the Constitution and laws of Australia.  

This is not something we need to pass of as someone else's problem.  An attack on the rights of one group of people is an assault on the Liberties of ALL people.  My hope and desire is that this essay will not only INSPIRE the Australian people to STAND in defense of their own rights, but also encourage people around the world to educate themselves on their own rights and gain a boldness to stand against this wicked attack before its too late.

PLEASE SHARE this article far and wide. Please WRITE and if you are able ALSO CALL the following officials and demand Pastor Furlong’s immediate release. 

THANK YOU from the future of America for taking just a few minutes to DEFEND LIBERTY FOR ALL! 

Australian Religious Liberty and the COVID Closure of Churches

by KrisAnne Hall, JD

When the government can arbitrarily decide that people of faith are not allowed by law, and are subject to fines and imprisonment for exercising their faith, every fundamental human right is in jeopardy.  The current COVID restrictions being placed upon Australian churches are the perfect example of that arbitrary threat to every essential right.  When citizens can freely go into a store and shop without government molestation, but when those same people, later assemble in the church house are threatened with fines and imprisonment, you have the very definition of arbitrariness that must be understood by a reasonable and ordered society as a violation of our most sacred right: freedom of conscience.

James Madison, in his historical essay “Property” (1792), gives us wisdom on the essential nature religious liberty and the limit of government authority over that inherent right:

"Conscience is the most sacred of all property; other property depending in part on positive law, the exercise of that, being a natural and unalienable right. To guard a man's house as his castle, to pay public and enforce private debts with the most exact faith, can give no title to invade a man's conscience which is more sacred than his castle..."

Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead gave a truly relevant and powerful explanation of the fundamental nature of religious liberty and the essential right to practice that religion. 

“Religious and other beliefs and convictions are part of the humanity of every individual. They are an integral part of his personality and individuality. In a civilised society individuals respect each other’s beliefs. This enables them to live in harmony. This is one of the hallmarks of a civilised society… This freedom is not confined to freedom to hold a religious belief. It includes the right to express and practise one's beliefs. Without this, freedom of religion would be emasculated.”  Regina v. Secretary of State for Education and Employment and others (Respondents) ex parte Williamson (Appellant) and others [2005] UKHL 15

The Supreme Court of Canada held:

“The essence of the concept of freedom of religion is the right to entertain such religious beliefs as a person chooses, the right to declare religious beliefs openly and without fear of hindrance or reprisal, and the right to manifest religious beliefs by worship and practice or by teaching and dissemination. But the concept means more than that.

Freedom can primarily be characterised by the absence of coercion or constraint. If a person is compelled by the state or the will of another to a course of action or inaction which he would not otherwise have chosen, he is not acting of his volition and he cannot be said to be truly free.” R v Big M Drug Mart Ltd [1985] 1 SCR 295, 336.

It should be of no surprise that Australian courts agree with both Madison, Nicholls, and the Canadian Supreme Court when describing religious liberty. In Church of the New Faith v Commissioner for Pay-Roll Tax (1983) 57 ALJR 785, 78, the court calls religious liberty “the paradigm freedom of conscience” and the “essence of a free society.”  Additionally in Christian Youth Camps Limited v Cobaw Community Health Service Limited the court explains that religious liberty is a fundamental right because Australian “society tolerates pluralism and diversity and because of the value of religion to a person whose faith is a central tenet of their identity.”

The Australian Supreme Court in Adelaide Company of Jehovah’s Witnesses Incorporated v The Commonwealth of Australia (1943) 67 CLR 116, explains to the people that the Australian Constitution not only protects religious liberty, but also requires its protection to maintain a fair and ordered society:

“The Constitution protects religion within a community organized under a Constitution, so that the continuance of such protection necessarily assumes the continuance of the community so organized. This view makes it possible to reconcile religious freedom with ordered government.” 

Section 116 of the Australian Constitution makes it known that the Commonwealth is not allowed to make any law “prohibiting the free exercise of any religion.”  Additionally, the Australian Human Rights Act of 1986 makes it unlawful for any government to discriminate based upon religion, especially when that discrimination “has the effect of nullifying or impairing equality of opportunity or occupation.”  When a law is passed that says that a person can go shopping but not to church, that law discriminates in favor of grocery stores to the unequal nullification or impairing of those employed in the church. 

Article 2 of the 1986 Human Rights Act establishes that each State will “ensure to all individuals within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction the rights recognized in the present Covenant, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.” (emphasis added)

Even in times of emergency, the 1986 Human Rights Act declares that government power is LIMITED and denied the authority create laws that discriminate against the fundamental rights of religious liberty.  Yet in this declared emergency of COVID discrimination against religious entities is exactly what we see.  When one can lawfully meet in the stores or go exercising but those same individuals are legally molested for meeting in churches, there is no other term that can be used but discrimination.

In a globally aware society, the government of Melbourne must acknowledge a duty and obligation to the protection and preservation of the most basic human rights of its citizen.  Melbourne must also recognize in a global society, the entire world is watching this gross violation of its duty to the people.

As a government, bound by its Constitution, you must respect the human rights of your citizens.  As defenders of Liberty, we are watching, all over the world, and we will not be silent while this atrocious violation of fundamental rights continues under your watch.

Share this post

Please find below a sign created by Liberty First Legal

You can download a printable version {11in x17in) of this sign at the following link:

For Restaurants:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1xEZR2w9N5KcXzPvryTUUBcfwLp162UGd/view?usp=sharing 

For Businesses: 

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1IPuZtGEZeSxAUYf0W5FFJlExCiQlGD8d/view?usp=sharing

If you would like to read Governor DeSantis' Executive Order this is the Link: https://www.flgov.com/wp-content/uploads/orders/2021/EO_21-102.pdf

Share this post

The state governments intervening against federal encroachment on behalf of its residents is a constitutional solution because the Constitution is a contract (technically a compact) among the States which created the federal government. The States are the parties to the Constitutional Contract and the federal government is the PRODUCT of that contract. Inherent in EVERY contract is the right of the parties to that contract to control the product of the contract. The States are the representatives of the people in this contract and have a DUTY to keep the federal government within its constitutional boundaries and thus protecting the rights of the people. It is inherent in the very nature of the Constituion. This intervention is that act of the PEOPLE through their States to keep the federal government within in its “limited and defined” boundaries and should be as regularly carried out as an oil change in your car. Madison states this principle again in Federalist #49:

“As the people are the only legitimate fountain of power, and it is from them that the constitutional charter, under which the several branches of government hold their power, is derived; it seems strictly consonant to the republican theory, to recur to the same original authority, not only whenever it may be necessary to enlarge, diminish, or new-model the powers of government; but also whenever any one of the departments may commit encroachments on the chartered authorities of the others.”

In Federalist #46 he further states:

"should an unwarrantable measure of the federal government be unpopular in particular States, which would seldom fail to be the case, or even a warrantable measure be so, which may sometimes be the case, the means of opposition to it are powerful and at hand. The disquietude of the people; their repugnance and, perhaps, refusal to co-operate with the officers of the Union; the frowns of the executive magistracy of the State; the embarrassments created by legislative devices, which would often be added on such occasions, would oppose, in any State, difficulties not to be despised; would form, in a large State, very serious impediments; and where the sentiments of several adjoining States happened to be in unison, would present obstructions which the federal government would hardly be willing to encounter."

The Supreme Court of the United States in Printz v. United States has also affirmed these clear constitutional principles in its articulation of the anti-commandeering doctrine stating, "The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States’ officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program."

Or as Chief Justice John Roberts writes in NFIB v. Sebelius (2012), "...we look to the States to defend their prerogatives by adopting “the simple expedient of not yielding” to federal blandishments when they do not want to embrace the federal policies as their own. Massachusetts v. Mellon, 262 U. S. 447, 482 (1923) . The States are separate and independent sovereigns. Sometimes they have to act like it.”

Based upon these principles, there are presently numerous bills moving through the state legislatures to protect Americans’ natural right to keep and bear arms.  These bills need your support.  If you live in these states and you believe you can support the bill, contact your representatives, and tell the bill in your state.  Go to the link below to find your representatives.  Also look for the committee members that are hearing the bill and contact them.

Click Here to FIND YOUR LEGISLATORS

Some things to consider:

1. In the legislative process you don’t always get the perfect bill the first time. What you need to determine is whether it moves in the direction of liberty. Make a first step, then you continue to work to make it stronger going forward.
2. Some law enforcement will oppose such measures to curtail federal gun control. They use the feds as a force multiplier, and they receive funds and equipment that they don’t wish to lose. That it why a constitutional sheriff is so important.
3. Don’t be threatening or obnoxious; you’ll undermine your own cause.
4. If you can, attend hearings where you can make public comment.

Click the Bill to see its status:

Alabama HB157

Arizona HB2111

Florida H1205

Georgia HB597 and SB268

Iowa HF518

Minnesota HF1265

Missouri HB85 – and SB39

Montana HB238

Nebraska LB188

North Carolina H189

Ohio HB62

Oklahoma SB486

South Carolina H3042

Texas HB635

Utah HB76

West Virginia SB353

Wyoming HB124 and SF81

Most of these bills mirror one another to a great extent and follow the Second Amendment Preservation Act (SAPA) model which draws largely upon the model legislation created by the Tenth Amendment Center.  Many counties are passing SAPA resolutions as well.  Here is a model from the Missouri counties:

___________ County, Missouri,
Second Amendment  Preservation Resolution

WHEREAS, The 2nd Amendment to the Constitution for the United States reads as follows, A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed; and

WHEREAS, Article I, Section 23 of the Constitution of Missouri reads as follows, That the right of every citizen to keep and bear arms, ammunition, and accessories typical to the normal function of such arms, in defense of his home, person, family and property, or when lawfully summoned in aid of the civil power, shall not be questioned. The rights guaranteed by this section shall be unalienable. Any restriction on these rights shall be subject to strict scrutiny and the state of Missouri shall be obligated to uphold these rights and shall under no circumstances decline to protect against their infringement. Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent the general assembly from enacting general laws which limit the rights of convicted violent felons or those adjudicated by a court to be a danger to self or others as result of a mental disorder or mental infirmity; and

WHEREAS, The right to be free from the commandeering hand of the federal government has been most notably recognized by the Supreme Court of the United States in Printz v. United States when the Court held: The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States’ officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program; and

WHEREAS, The anti-­commandeering principles recognized by the Supreme Court of the United States in Printz v. United States are predicated upon the advice of James Madison, who in Federalist #46 advised “a refusal to cooperate with officers of the Union” in response to either unconstitutional federal measures or constitutional but unpopular federal measures, and

WHEREAS, In Section 21.750 RSMo, “The general assembly hereby occupies and preempts the entire field of legislation touching in any way firearms, components, ammunition and supplies to the complete exclusion of any order, ordinance or regulation by any political subdivision of this state.” And, thereby leaves the statutory defense of the right to keep and bear arms largely in the hands of the general assembly.

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the County of __________, Missouri hereby reaffirms its full commitment to the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution for the United States and Article I, Section 23 of the Constitution of Missouri.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the County of ______ considers all federal acts, laws, orders, rules or regulations restricting firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition to be violations of the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution for the United States; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that pursuant to and in furtherance of the principles of federalism enshrined in the Constitution for the United States, the federal government may not commandeer officers, agents, or employees of the County of _______, or any political subdivision of the state of Missouri, to participate in the enforcement or implementation of any federal act or regulatory program; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that is the intent of this Resolution to support legislation in the Missouri General Assembly that would protect the employees of this county, including law enforcement officers, from orders or other pressure to participate in actions that would violate their oath of office and the individual rights affirmed under the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution for the United States and Article I, Section 23 of the Constitution of Missouri; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Commissioners and Sheriff of the County of ______ express full support for the passage of House Bill 85, as passed by the House of Representatives on February 4, 2021, or Senate Bill 39, as passed by the Senate General Laws Committee on January 26, 2021, including accountability provisions; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the County of ______ urges all other political subdivisions of the State of Missouri, on behalf of their residents, to pass a similar resolution in support of passing House Bill 85 and Senate Bill 39 into law during the 2021 legislative session; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the County of ______ intends to vigorously uphold the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

__________________________________
Presiding Commissioner

__________________________________
Associate Commissioner

__________________________________
Associate Commissioner

__________________________________

There are several resources that help you quickly identify the gun laws in your state so that you can see how constitutional your state is and what needs to be changed:

Gun Owners of America and the Tenth Amendment Center have SAPA models on their websites.

The NRA-ILA website has a list of gun laws by state which give you a good overview of the status of gun rights in your state even though the NRA has fought for several pieces of legislation that infringe on the right to keep and bear arms.

The ATF website has an excellent resource – State Laws and Published Ordinances - where you can see how they are infringing on your rights in each state.

We must protect state and local authority against federal consolidation.  We are a republic of independent sovereign states.  Our states created the federal government through the Constitution. Our states must do their duty to enforce their compact and protect each state’s residents. Our states must protect each American’s right to defend life, liberty and property. Encourage your state to take this stand.

There are also several constitutional carry measures being forwarded, such as the one in Georgia: Georgia Constitutional Carry Act of 2021

Share this post

Over the years there have been a few presidential administrations who have proposed adding additional seats the Supreme Court.  Court packing is not a new or novel proposal.  However, if the American people are to allow their federal politicians to increase, or decrease, the number of Supreme Court justices, it is essential that we understand how this high court was created and its proper limited and defined authority as established by the Constitution. 

Those who ratified our Constitution were deeply concerned about the tendency for courts to expand their authority over time and they did everything they could to ensure that America would not be ruled, as Britain often was, by an Oligarchy of judges.  Whether you have 3 justices or 13 is not as important as making sure those justice stay confined to the boundaries of their authority as delegated by the Constitution.  If we have justices that believe their authority is supreme, if Americans are taught to believe that the Supreme Court is the ultimate authority to their own power and the power of the federal government, we will have created, not by fact but by error, the very government our founders separated from.

Americans, whether liberal or conservative, must know these six facts about the Supreme Court and the Constitution that created it.

1. “The powers not delegated to the federal government…are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Tenth Amendment

The Tenth Amendment of the Constitution makes it clear; if a power is not specifically delegated to the federal government is a power that is reserved to the States. Powers that have not been specifically delegated to the federal government are not powers the federal government can lawfully exercise.  The powers delegated to the courts are enumerated in Article 3 of the Constitution and thorough read of Article 3 proves there are powers specifically not delegated to the Supreme Court so they will remain at the State level.  In fact, the majority of judicial authority was to remain at the State level without federal court involvement.  The legal proof of this comes from those who ratified the Constitution, the true authority for the meaning and application of the Constitution.

"The great mass of suits in every State lie between Citizen & Citizen, and relate to matters not of federal cognizance."   Madison to Washington 18 Oct. 1787

"The foundation of this assertion is that the national judiciary will have no cognizance of them, and of course they will remain determinable as heretofore by the state courts only, and in the manner which the state constitutions and laws prescribe.: -Federalist #83

2. “…the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; …shall be the supreme Law of the Land.” Article 6 sec 2

Only laws created by the federal government that are made pursuant to constitutionally enumerated powers are the “supreme Law of the Land.” Laws created by Congress, executive orders created by the executive branch beyond that delegation of power have no force or legal binding power over the States or the people; i.e. it is not the supreme Law of the Land.  The language of Article 6 section 2 establishes that any law made by Congress that is inconsistent with the Constitution, in this case outside delegated power, is an invalid law, not binding upon the States or to the people.  There are many proofs of this principle in the texts of those who created the federal government, here are just two:

“No law, therefore, contrary to the Constitution can be valid.” -Federalist #78

“…for the power of the Constitution predominates. Any thing, therefore, that shall be enacted by Congress contrary thereto, will not have the force of law.  -James Wilson, Pennsylvania Ratifying Convention, 1787

Additionally, Article V of the Constitution outlines the only legal way the Constitution can be amended and judicial opinion is not one of those ways.  Therefore, if the Supreme Court renders an opinion that is contrary to the Constitution, that opinion ought to be seen by the people as "null and void" as well.  As Article 6 clause 2 establishes, the judges of the States are not bound by any act that is established outside the authorization of the Constitution.

3. “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States,”

Although we often hear people refer to Supreme Court Opinions as the "law of the land" that is Constitutionally incorrect. The writing of law is a power exclusively held by Congress. Court Opinion cannot be law without violating the express limits separation of powers established by the Constitution. A violation of separation of powers is a per se violation of the Constitution which renders the court opinion invalid (see #2).

Violations of separation of power were of the utmost concern to the drafters of the Constitution. James Madison explains, quoting Montesquieu, Spirit of Laws (1748), in Federalist #47:

“there can be no liberty where the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person, or body of magistrates," or "if the power of judging be not separated from the legislative and executive powers,"

Montesquieu, Spirit of Laws, warns of the consequences of allowing the judiciary to violate separation of powers to be violated:

“Again, there is no liberty, if the judiciary power be not separated from the legislative and executive. Were it joined with the legislative, the life and liberty of the subject would be exposed to arbitrary control; for the judge would be then the legislator. Were it joined to the executive power, the judge might behave with violence and oppression.”

4. “The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;” Article 3 sec 2 cl 1

The power of the Supreme Court is limited to matters “arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties” made “under their Authority.” If a power is not specifically delegated it is not a matter over which the Supreme Court has jurisdiction.  Article 3 of the Constitution specifically enumerates those powers.  The Constitution is not a document of government "can'ts," it is a document of government "cans."  If the power is not specifically delegated, it is not authorized.  Hear the words of Alexander Hamilton in Federalist 78:

“…an affirmative grant of special powers would be absurd as well as useless, if a general authority was intended." -Federalist #83

To those who ratified the Constitution this was simple logic, but it is a very important fact that is misconstrued and disregarded all too often in modern America.  Therefore, using reason, fact, and logic we must conclude Supreme Court Opinions regarding State land, Environment, Education, Firearms, etc... are not binding upon the States. To claim otherwise violates the Tenth Amendment, Article 3, and Article 6 section 2 of the Constitution. (See #1)

5. The Supreme Court is Designed to be the Weakest Branch of Government

When you look at Article 3 you will notice the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is very limited and very specifically established.  As a matter of fact as the Constitution and newly proposed federal government was being debated, Alexander Hamilton explained:

"The judicial authority...is declared by the constitution to comprehend certain cases particularly specified.  The expression of those cases marks the precise limits beyond which the federal courts cannot extend their jurisdiction..."   - Federalist 83

"The judiciary on the contrary has no influence over either the sword or the purse, no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society, and can take no active resolution whatever.  It may truly be said to have neither Force nor Will, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments…" -Federalist 78

"It proves incontestibly that the judiciary is beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power..." -Federalist 78

6. The Supreme Court is Not the Ultimate Authority on Any Federal Authority... Including its own.

For the Supreme Court to be the arbiter of its own power asserts that the federal government’s only limitation is its own judgement and will. Such a premise would negate the very existence of the Constitution that created the federal government. The judiciary is just as limited in its power by the Constitution as the other two branches of government.

James Madison explains the limitation of the power of the Judiciary in his Virginia Assembly Report of 1800:

“If the decision of the judiciary be raised above the authority of the sovereign parties to the Constitution [States]… dangerous powers, not delegated, may not only be usurped and executed by the other departments, but that the judicial department, also, may exercise or sanction dangerous powers beyond the grant of the Constitution…consequently, that the ultimate right of the parties to the Constitution, to judge whether the compact has been dangerously violated, must extend to violations by one delegated authority as well as by another--by the judiciary as well as by the executive, or the legislature.”

Thomas Jefferson, 1812: 

“The great object of my fear is the federal judiciary. That body, like gravity, ever acting, with noiseless foot, and unalarming advance, gaining ground step by step, and holding what it gains, is ingulfing insidiously the special governments into the jaws of that which feeds them…government will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we Separated.”

Courts don't issue rulings, Kings issue rulings. Courts issue Opinions and when those Opinions are not consistent with the Constitution those opinions are no more binding upon you than your next door neighbor's opinions.

In short, it really doesn’t matter how many Supreme Court justices we have.  What matters will they follow the limited and defined delegation of power as those who created that authority intended and hold the other branches within those same limits?  If they answer to that question is “yes,” then pack away.  We know, however, the politicians who are seeking to “pack the court” are not doing so to get judges who will be true to the Constitution.  These politicians seek to manipulate the people and the laws for their political favor by seating activist judges who will ignore the standards over their own authority to increase the power and influence of those who put them in power.  Americans of all political ideologies must see the long term damage of this action and deny our members of Congress that authority.  To ignore these self-evident truths will ensure Jefferson’s warning becomes prophecy and will reconstruct the Supreme Court into the “venal and oppressive government from which” they separated.

~ www.KrisAnneHall.com 

Share this post

 

On March 23, 1775 Patrick Henry gave a very famous speech.  In that speech he said:

“For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it.”

The facts I am going to provide may cause aguish to some.  However, if you will follow me all the way to the end, I will show you that the knowledge of this precedent as preparation and instruction, could cause as much good as distress.

Impeachment is a provision within the Constitution the drafters, and those who ratified the Constitution, gave us as means to not only dismiss those from office who have violated their solemn trust, but to also ensure those impeached could never hold office again and therefore hold the opportunity to violate that trust again.  Impeachment is found in several sections of the Constitution; Article 1, Section 2, Clause 5; Article 1, Section 3, Clauses 6 and 7; Article 2, Section 4; Article 3, Section 1- each section adding to the other the proper meaning, purpose and application of the power of impeachment.

Impeachment is a Criminal NOT Political Process

Impeachment begins when members of the House of Representatives draw up an Article(s) of Impeachment in which these members alleged that the “The President, Vice President and [any] civil Officer of the United States” has committed a crime.  Article 2 section 4 outlines the very specific terms for a Constitutionally authorized impeachment.  Every Article of Impeachment must find its origin in the conditions of the Constitution as outlined in Article 2 section 4.

Article 2 section 4:

“The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

The standard for impeachment is criminal NOT political.  The only relevant question is Did a person in the trust of a federal office violate that trust by committing an actual crime?  Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist 65, gives us a bold warning of what will go wrong when impeachment is used for political punishments instead of strictly holding to the criminal terms of impeachment outlined in Article 2 section 4.

“In many cases it will connect itself with the pre-existing factions, and will enlist all their animosities, partialities, influence, and interest on one side or on the other; and in such cases there will always be the greatest danger that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties, than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt.”

When the House votes and ratifies an Article(s) of Impeachment, that Article(s) becomes a criminal charging document.  When that criminal charging document is delivered to the Senate, the next stage of impeachment begins: The Trial by the Senate.  To reinforce the judicial nature of this process, the chief justice of the Supreme Court presides over this Senate Trial. 

Senators are expected to review the Article(s) of Impeachment, conduct an evidentiary trial, and then judge the Impeachment based upon due process and criminal legal standards.  For the Senate to conduct a trial based upon political bias rather than evidence and due process makes a mockery of the process Impeachment and transmute America into a Banana Republic.

Precedent For After Office Impeachment

The “ALL CIVIL OFFICERS” phrase in Article 2 section 4 is a catch all that includes everyone who currently works for the federal government as an elected or appointed officer or has worked for the federal government in that past.  Some may argue that once a person leaves federal employment, the option for impeachment is no longer viable.  However, the precedent of impeachment tells us otherwise and a view of history can help us understand why.

William Belknap served as Secretary of War under Ulysses S Grant from October 25, 1869 – March 2, 1876.  While Secretary of War, Belknap’s extravagant life style came into question.  You see, Belknap only made $8k a year but was known for his extravagant lifestyle and expensive parties.  Congress launched an investigation into his finances and found corruption that extended back to 1870.

According to Senate records, in 1870, “Belknap’s luxury-loving first wife assisted a wheeler-dealer named Caleb Marsh by getting her husband to select one of Marsh’s associates to operate the lucrative military trading post at Fort Sill in Indian territory.  Marsh’s promise of generous kick-backs prompted Secretary Belknap to make the appointment.  Over the next five years, the associate funneled thousands of dollars to Marsh, who provided Belknap regular quarterly payments totaling over $20,000.”

Some of the accusations against Belknap included, indirectly selling weapons to France and for accepting illicit kickbacks in exchange for making political appointments.  Gun running, kickbacks, political deals for financial gain…isn’t that exactly what evidence strongly suggests Hillary Clinton is or was involved in?

According to Senate records, “On March 2, 1876, just minutes before the House of Representatives was scheduled to vote on articles of impeachment, Belknap raced to the White House, handed Grant his resignation, and burst into tears.”

Belknap’s resignation did not stop his impeachment.  “Later that day, members voted unanimously to send the Senate five articles of impeachment.”  What was Congress’ chief accusation against Belknap: “criminally disregarding his duty as Secretary of War and basely prostituting his high office to his lust for private gain.”

Testing That Precedent

Precedent is often established in error.  Whether precedent is legally or historically correct doesn't stop the modern system from asserting it as authority and knowing that precedent is essential in creating an argument for or against it.  The precedent of Belknap has yet to have been tested, so in the legal world that makes it controlling.  But if modern politicians try to use the Belknap precedent to attack someone for political vengeance, they may end up getting more than they bargained for.  For example, Hillary Clinton was accused of a very serious federal crime.  Although the Department of Justice decided not to criminally prosecute her for that crime, under the Belknap precedent there would be nothing to stop Hillary from coming under the prosecution of impeachment, in today’s Congress, or any Congress in the future, causing her to lose her pension and to be blocked from running for federal office every again.  Do not forget, the Department of Justice disclosed very damning criminal evidence against Eric Holder in the “Fast and Furious” scandal.  Under this precedent Eric Holder could also be impeached. 

The character of Belknap can be seen in numerous modern politicians.  If members of this Congress choose to test the Belknap precedent, how many of them could find themselves on the impeachment chopping block in the future?  With this knowledge in hand, while civil officers in Congress are throwing around the threat of impeachments, there is no excuse as to why James Comey, Eric Holder, Lois Learner, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and yes several Supreme Court justices ought not be impeached even today.

So there is a precedent to allow impeachment after office for the president, vice president, and every civil officer.  The question remains, do those with the power to impeach really want to open that Pandora’s Box only to find themselves consumed when the change in political winds come, because all of history dictates they will come.

Share this post