Fake News Alert! It is a deliberate false narrative that the Speaker of the House would be appointed as acting president if the popular votes are not all counted by Jan. 20, 2021. This narrative is derived from a false conflating of the Twentieth and Twenty Fifth Amendments. The fact checkers ought to be telling Americans that by law, there is no way a delay in counting the popular vote can create a delay in electing the president and no way Nancy Pelosi can legally be appointed as “acting” president until a popular vote count dispute is resolved.
The false narrative that invokes the Twenty Fifth Amendment’s “line of succession” ignores the language that indicates that the line of succession applies to vacancies in the presidency from the president’s death, disability, resignation or removal from office; it does not apply to a delay in counting popular votes nor from a normal expiration of a term of office.
The first thing that an honest fact checker would point out is that no president has ever been elected in November as a result of a popular vote count. As a matter of law, US presidents are elected on January 6 of every year (unless this date is changed prior to January 6 by passing of law), when the Senate President counts the electoral votes not the popular vote (3 U.S.C. §15). Popular vote is not used to directly elect a President, therefore having an accurate and complete popular vote count is not a factor in delaying the January election.
The next thing your fact checker would have to tell you is that the deadline for counting elector votes is set by law, therefore a delay is not legally permissible. On the contrary, federal laws were established to avoid a repetition of the extraordinary delay incident to the electoral vote controversy surrounding the 1876 presidential election.
Here is how it works according to the Constitution and according to the law:
After the electors have voted in each state, they make and sign six certificates, seal those certificates, and certify that these are all of the votes for President and Vice President. Those certificates are then sent to the President of the Senate, and the Secretary of State of their State.
Should there be delays or failures of state electors to submit electoral votes to Congress, there is no need to wonder, create, or invent a procedure, there is established precedent that guides us. Federal law establishes that if no certificates of votes or lists have been received by the President of the Senate or the Archivist from electors by the fourth Wednesday in December, then the President of the Senate is directed by law to request the State’s Secretary of State to immediately forward the certificates (3 U.S.C. §§12,13). The States whose electoral votes are missing are sent a collection notice from the Senate President warning that their electoral votes are due immediately. The process, along with specific deadlines for counting electoral votes submitted and disregarding electoral votes not submitted, is well established by historical precedent, federal law, and the Constitution.
Every fact checker should know the date for counting the electoral votes is fixed by law as January 6 following each presidential election unless the date is changed by law (3 U.S.C. §15). The votes that are submitted in compliance with the deadline are counted. The Votes that are not submitted in compliance with the deadline are not counted. The Twelfth Amendment requires only a simple majority of electoral votes to elect a Presidential. Precedent establishes what happens if some electors’ votes are not received in compliance with the deadline and are not counted. For example, in 1865 only two of the three Nevada electors cast their electoral votes and only two Nevada votes were counted and included in the “whole number of electoral votes” to elect the president. Similar instances of votes “not given” by electors that were not included in the “whole number” of electors reported, occurred in 1809, 1813, and 1817.
Additionally, pursuant to congressional act, a State's elector’s certificate of vote can be rejected if both Houses of Congress vote to accept the objection. This means the votes from the electors in question are not counted. In 1873 both Houses decided not to count the electoral votes from Arkansas and Louisiana. In 1864, all of the votes from Louisiana and Tennessee were rejected, and in 1872, all of the votes from Arkansas and Louisiana plus three of the eleven electoral votes from Georgia were rejected.
The drafters of our Constitution were concerned that a delay in counting the vote could result in a quiet, non-violent political coup by one party or one or more states, where one or more disgruntled States would hold the entire election hostage. The framers of the Constitution even warned that the President of the Senate or Speaker of the House should never be given the powers of the presidency because they are elected members of one political party and are therefore partisan. Representatives Morris and Madison warned that in order to pass their party’s political agenda those in power in the Congress could affect a political coup by indefinitely delaying the legitimate election of a president. The system they established for electing the president is clearly established through the Constitution, Amendments, historical precedent, and Congressional law to prevent any delay and prevent that sort of political coup.
The facts presented in this article are in a Congressional Summary Report which is available to Congress, the President and the Supreme Court. Now you know what your member of Congress should already know and what the talking heads in the media don’t know or are deliberately falsifying to create uncertainty, destroy trust in our elections and foment chaos aimed at the overthrow of our Constitutional government. These facts cannot be denied. Know these facts. Demand they be followed. Expect them to be followed.
“if a nation expects to be ignorant & free, in a state of civilisation, it expects what never was & never will be.” Thomas Jefferson, January 6, 1817.
 Counting Electoral Votes: An Overview of Procedures at the Joint Sessions, Including objections by Members of Congress, Congressional Research Service, Maskell, Jack and Rybicki, Elizabeth November 15, 2016, page 12.
 Ibid, page 4-5.
 CRS Report RL30769, Electoral Vote Counts in Congress: Survey of Certain Congressional Practices, by Jack Maskell et al.
 Congressional Globe, vol. 46 (February 12, 1873), pp. 1305-1306.
 David A. McKnight (1878). The Electoral System of the United States: A Critical and Historical Exposition of Its Fundamental Principles in the Constitution and the Acts and Proceedings of Congress Enforcing It. Wm. S. Hein Publishing. p. 313.
 Records of the Federal Convention by James Madison, August 27, 1787.
One Congress to Rule Them All
by KrisAnne Hall, JD
We may see something in November that we have never seen before and it’s all connected to the 12th amendment.
Before the ratification of the 12th Amendment, the presidential candidate receiving the greatest number of electoral votes was elected president and the presidential candidate receiving the second most votes was elected vice president. However, in the presidential election of 1800, there was a tie between the top two candidates. To provide a solution if that should ever happen again, in 1804 the States ratified the 12th Amendment to the US Constitution.
The 12th Amendment of the Constitution establishes that there must be two separate ballots in every presidential election: one for the president and one for the vice president. The Electors, casting two votes, choose the president and the vice president in two distinct ballots. If there is a tie on the presidential ballot, that tie would be broken by a vote of the House of Representatives under very specific instructions laid out in the 12th Amendment. In those instructions, the House is to select the President after January 6 but before March 4 of the same year. (Note- the new House Members will be sworn in on January 3rd, meaning the NEW HOUSE would select the President). Because separate elections for the President and Vice President are required by the Constitution, the newly elected Vice President would serve as President if the House does not settle the tie before the March 4th deadline.
In 1832, with no fanfare and no constitutional amendments, political parties began choosing presidential and vice-presidential candidates to run together on a single ballot. In the election of 1844 this practice became solidified across party lines and political parties submitted a single Presidential/Vice-Presidential ticket for that ballot; a vote for one is a vote for both. Finally, in 1940 after winning two previous elections, FDR had a political temper tantrum claiming he would not run for a third term unless HE got to choose his own running mate. This began the tradition of presidential candidates “choosing” their own running mates.
In the 2020 presidential election, some claim something could happen in our election that hasn’t happened since 1800: a tie in the electoral college vote for President. The 12th Amendment was written to provide the constitutional procedure for such an occurrence. The 12th Amendment reads:
“The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President…if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President…before the fourth day of March next following then the Vice-President shall act as President...”
However, since Americans have allowed political parties to ignore the Constitution for one hundred eighty-eight years, there is no separate ballot for President and Vice President as the Constitution demands. As a result, there is no Vice President to act as President if the House cannot submit a tie breaking vote on March 4th. Here is where it gets interesting.
The 12th Amendment provides that in the event of a tie for the office of the President the House gives the tie breaking vote. If there is a tie in 2020, the House will pick the President, but the House is NOT authorized by the Constitution to pick the Vice President. The 12th Amendment establishes that in the event of a tie for vice-president, the Senate gives the tie breaking vote:
“The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President…if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President…”
With the creation of single ticket running mates, there would be a tie in both the presidential and vice-presidential candidates. This means if there is a tie in 2020, the President would be chosen by the House and the Vice-President would be chosen by the Senate. For the first time in the history of America, the President and Vice President would be chosen entirely by the Legislative Branch rather than by the electoral college or vote of the people. Our long slow march away from our Constitutional foundations will blur the lines of separation of powers beyond recognition. The separation of powers doctrine ensures that one branch of government does not assume total control over another branch. James Madison remarked in Federalist #47, "There can be no liberty where the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person, or body of magistrates.” The power to appoint is the power to control. Because we have allowed our federal government to ignore our Constitution and operate our elections based upon the needs of parties and not the rule of law, our present Constitutional Republic is being transformed, as James Madison warned in 1798, “into an absolute, or, at best, a mixed monarchy.” Having traded the rule of law for the law of rulers, we are a nation far adrift from its Constitutional moorings. If we want to avoid the crash against the rocks we best reconnect with our anchor.KrisAnneHall.com#LibertyFirst
2020 Florida Amendment Voter GuideBy KrisAnne Hall, JD Constitutional Education & Consulting, LLCPrint and Share this 2020 Florida Amendment Voter Guide as a .pdf Here: http://bit.ly/FLAmendVoterGuide2020
This guide is designed to inform the voter on the 2020 Amendments to the Florida Constitution. The voter is always ultimately responsible for their vote. I do not take responsibility for anyone’s vote; we will all answer individually for our choices. With that in mind, be sure that you VOTE YOUR CONSCIENCE!
As a general rule, I am opposed to Constitutional Amendments, unless it is a truly Constitutional issue. Our Constitution is supposed to be the Supreme Law of the State, establishing guidelines for government, fundamental rights belonging to Floridians, and principles by which we are to govern. Statutes, on the other hand, are supposed to be the instrument we use to enact laws through legislation in our Republican form of government. Florida has gotten very lazy about these distinctions.
I had hoped we had learned about cluttering up our Constitution when we passed the “pregnant pig” and the “super train” amendments. With those two examples in mind, I would like those who view this guide to keep in mind a few things:
When you vote YES and pass a Constitutional Amendment you are creating an established RIGHT to something which includes the appropriate government protections and assignments.
These rights must be provided under equal access of the law to all citizens of the state, without discrimination.
If you do not agree with part of an Amendment you should vote No.
If you cаn’t understand any part of the Amendment, then you should vote No.
If you vote YES on a Constitutional Amendment, the only way to fix that amendment is through another Constitutional Amendment which requires a 60% vote in favor of that change.
This Amendment would change the wording of Article VI section 2 of the Florida Constitution as follows:
Every citizen Only a citizen of the United States who is at least eighteen years of age and who is a permanent resident of the state, if registered as provided by law, shall be an elector of the county where registered
This is a Constitutional issue. The Amendment doesn’t really change the meaning of the text but is intended to clarify that Only US Citizens who are 18 years of age or older, permanent residents of Florida, and registered to vote will be qualified to vote in the State of Florida.
A YES VOTE ON AMENDMENT 1 would: Change the wording of Article VI section 2 in an effort to ensure that only permanent residents of Florida who are citizens under the Uniform Rule of Naturalization as established by the US Constitution are qualified to vote in State & Federal elections in the State of Florida.
This Amendment will change the wording of section Article X section 24 of the Florida Constitution as follows:
(c) MINIMUM WAGE. Employers shall pay Employees Wages no less than the Minimum Wage for all hours worked in Florida. Six months after enactment, the Minimum Wage shall be established at an hourly rate of $6.15. Effective September 30th, 2021, the existing state Minimum Wage shall increase to $10.00 per hour, and then increase each September 30th thereafter by $1.00 per hour, until the Minimum Wage reaches $15.00 per hour on September 30th, 2026. On September 30th of 2027 and on each following September 30th, the state Agency for Workforce Innovation shall calculate an adjusted Minimum Wage rate by increasing the current Minimum Wage rate by the rate of inflation during the twelve months prior to each September 1st using the consumer price index for urban wage earners and clerical workers, CPI-W, or a successor index as calculated by the United States Department of Labor. Each adjusted Minimum Wage rate calculated shall be published and take effect on the following January 1st. For tipped Employees meeting eligibility requirements for the tip credit under the FLSA, Employers may credit towards satisfaction of the Minimum Wage tips up to the amount of the allowable FLSA tip credit in 2003
Amendment 2 would increase the state minimum wage from $8.56 in 2020 to $15.00 in 2026 by yearly increments:
$10.00 on September 30, 2021;
$11.00 on September 30, 2022;
$12.00 on September 30, 2023;
$13.00 on September 30, 2024;
$14.00 on September 30, 2025; and
$15.00 on September 30, 2026
This is not a Constitutional issue. It does not concern fundamental rights of Floridians. It deals with the minutiae of various benefits, the details of which are apt to change frequently due to external variables. The taxpayers pay the legislature to pass such measures. This type of "legislation" should have NEVER become a Constitutional Amendment
This issue should be returned to the Florida Legislature and removed from the Florida Constitution.
A YES VOTE ON AMENDMENT 2 would: Make it a Constitutional RIGHT to be paid a minimum of $15/hour by the year 2026.
This amendment would ADD a section to the Florida Constitution as follows:
ARTICLE VI, SECTION 5. Primary, general, and special elections. —
(c) All elections for the Florida legislature, governor and cabinet shall be held as follows:
(1) A single primary election shall be held for each office. All electors registered to vote for the office being filled shall be allowed to vote in the primary election for said office regardless of the voter’s, or any candidate’s, political party affiliation or lack of same.
(2) All candidates qualifying for election to the office shall be placed on the same ballot for the primary election regardless of any candidate’s political party affiliation or lack of same.
(3) The two candidates receiving the highest number of votes cast in the primary election shall advance to the general election. For elections in which only two candidates qualify for the same office, no primary will be held and the winner will be determined in the general election.
(4) Nothing in this subsection shall prohibit a political party from nominating a candidate to run for office under this subsection. Nothing in this subsection shall prohibit a party from endorsing or otherwise supporting a candidate as provided by law. A candidate’s affiliation with a political party may appear on the ballot as provided by law.
(5) This amendment is self-executing and shall be effective January 1, 2024.
This is a Constitutional issue. This Amendment would change the way primary and general elections are conducted in Florida for the executive offices: Governor, Lt. Governor, Attorney General, Commissioner of Agriculture, and Chief Financial Officer. Florida elections for these officers would stop being closed primary elections and become top-two open primaries.
CURRENTLY IN FLORIDA:
Primary elections are funded with the tax dollars of every Floridian, yet only registered members of political parties are allowed to vote. There are currently at least 17 states that have open primaries for some or all offices.
First, this Amendment creates an OPEN PRIMARY so every executive candidate is on the same ballot and every registered voter is permitted to vote in the primary regardless of the political affiliation.
Secondly, it establishes a “top-two” voting system for primaries. “Top-Two” voting means that the top two vote recipients would move forward to the General Election regardless of party affiliation.
If approved by 60% of the voters, the top-two primary system would begin in 2024.
A YES VOTE ON AMENDMENT 3 will do ALL the Following:
Establish Florida as an Open Primary State where all registered taxpayers may participate in the primary election they are paying for. Currently all taxpayers pay for the Primary but only those registered to the political parties can vote in the Primary.
Establish that the top two vote recipients from the Open Primary will move on to the General Election, regardless of party affiliation; the candidates in the General Election will be those chosen by the majority of voters instead of only members of the political parties.
This amendment would amend Article XI sections 5 and 7 of the Florida Constitution by adding text as follows:
SECTION 5. Amendment or revision election. —
(a) A proposed amendment to or revision of this constitution, or any part of it, shall be submitted to the electors at the next general election held more than ninety days after the joint resolution or report of revision commission, constitutional convention or taxation and budget reform commission proposing it is filed with the custodian of state records, unless, pursuant to law enacted by the affirmative vote of three-fourths of the membership of each house of the legislature and limited to a single amendment or revision, it is submitted at an earlier special election held more than ninety days after such filing. If the proposed amendment or revision is approved as provided in subsection (e), it shall be submitted to the electors a second time at the next general election occurring at least ten weeks after the election in which the proposed amendment or revision is initially approved.
(b) A proposed amendment or revision of this constitution, or any part of it, by initiative shall be submitted to the electors at the general election provided the initiative petition is filed with the custodian of state records no later than February 1 of the year in which the general election is held. If the proposed amendment or revision is approved as provided in subsection (e), it shall be submitted to the electors a second time at the next general election.
(c) The legislature shall provide by general law, prior to the holding of an election pursuant to this section, for the provision of a statement to the public regarding the probable financial impact of any amendment proposed by initiative pursuant to section 3.
This a Constitutional issue because it involves the process of amending the Florida Constitution.
Currently, the Florida Constitution can be amended by a single ballot initiative when 60% of the voters approve the initiative. This amendment to the Florida Constitution would require any future amendments to approved by 60% of the voters through two consecutive elections instead of one.
Since 1968 the Florida Constitution has been amended 140 times. In 2018 alone the Constitution was amended 11 times. Included in the 140 Amendments are Constitutional Amendments for:
According to proponents for this Amendment, requiring two subsequent ballot approvals would reduce the number of “whimsical” and costly constitutional amendments.
The ability of the voters of Florida to amend their Constitution via ballot initiative is an important tool that should not be made “twice as hard” and “twice as costly” to utilize. The opponents argue that Constitutional Amendments will not reduce in number, but this amendment will establish that only wealthy groups will be able to afford the cost of a ballot initiative twice.
A YES VOTE ON AMENDMENT 4 will require every Amendment to the Florida Constitution to pass by 60% of the votes in two subsequent elections.
This amendment would amend Article VII section 4 and ADD a new section to Article XII of the Florida Constitution by adding text as follows:
FINANCE AND TAXATION
SECTION 4. Taxation; assessments.—
(8)a. A person who establishes a new homestead as of January 1, 2009, or January 1 of any subsequent year and who has received a homestead exemption pursuant to Section 6 of this Article as of January 1 of any either of the three two years immediately preceding the establishment of the new homestead is entitled to have the new homestead assessed at less than just value. If this revision is approved in January of 2008, a person who establishes a new homestead as of January 1, 2008, is entitled to have the new homestead assessed at less than just value only if that person received a homestead exemption on January 1, 2007.
Transfer of the accrued benefit from specified limitations on homestead property tax assessments; increased portability period.—This section and the amendment to Section 4 of Article VII, which extends to three years the time period during which the accrued benefit from specified limitations on homestead property tax assessments may be transferred from a prior homestead to a new homestead, shall take effect January 1, 2021.
This is a legislative issue and should not be in the Florida Constitution. It does not concern fundamental rights of Floridians. It deals with the minutiae of various benefits, the details of which are apt to change frequently. The taxpayers pay the legislature to pass such measures.
A YES VOTE ON AMENDMENT 5 will extending the period during which a person may transfer Save Our Homes (Constitutional Amendment, 1992) benefits to a new homestead property from two years to three years. Currently, if a person moves to a new home, they have two years to transfer their "Save Our Homes" benefit to have the new home assessed "at less than just value." The amendment would increase that time to three years rather than two.
This amendment would amend Article XII section 6 of the Florida Constitution by adding text as follows:
Text of Section 6: Homestead Exemptions
(2) If a veteran who receives the discount described in paragraph (1) predeceases his or her spouse, and if, upon the death of the veteran, the surviving spouse holds the legal or beneficial title to the homestead property and permanently resides thereon, the discount carries over to the surviving spouse until he or she remarries or sells or otherwise disposes of the homestead property. If the surviving spouse sells or otherwise disposes of the property, a discount not to exceed the dollar amount granted from the most recent ad valorem tax roll may be transferred to the surviving spouse's new homestead property, if used as his or her permanent residence and he or she has not remarried.
Text of Section 36
Ad valorem tax discount for surviving spouses of certain permanently disabled veterans.—The amendment to Section 6 of Article VII, relating to the ad valorem tax discount for spouses of certain deceased veterans who had permanent, combat-related disabilities, and this section shall take effect January 1, 2021.
This is a legislative issue and should not be in the Florida Constitution. It does not concern fundamental rights of Floridians. It deals with the minutiae of various benefits, the details of which are apt to change frequently. The taxpayers pay the legislature to pass such measures.
The section has already been amended 12 times since 1980. Thus, it exemplifies the very argument against legislation through Constitutional amendments. If the original provisions had been passed through the appropriate channels of legislation, a simple amendment to the statute could have been easily passed while the legislature was in session. Instead, Floridians will incur the cost of employing our legislators to (not) do their job, AND the cost of amending the Constitution over and over.
A YES VOTE ON AMENDMENT 6 will allow a homestead property tax discount to be transferred to the surviving spouse of a deceased veteran. The discount would be in effect until the spouse remarries, sells, or otherwise disposes of the property. If the spouse sells the property and does not remarry, the spouse's new primary residence may receive a homestead tax discount not exceeding the dollar amount from the most recent ad valorem tax roll. The amendment would take effect January 1, 2021.
How KrisAnne Hall would vote:
©2020 KrisAnne Hall www.KrisAnneHall.com
Four Things You Need To Know About Our US Constitution
by KrisAnne Hall, JD
“…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, PA Ratifying Convention, 1787
2. The Constitution is a contract between the States that created the federal government. It is not an agreement between the feds and the people. That is a temporal impossibility. The federal government cannot be a party to a contract when they didn't even exist until the contract was ratified.
"...consequently, that the ultimate right of the [States], 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." ~James Madison, 1800 Report on the Virginia Resolutions
3. Original Intent is the only legal way to apply the terms of the Constitution. Contract law dictates that the "meeting of the minds" is the controlling standard for any contract. Ask your professor, pundit, or politician if they will allow their employment contract to be applied as a "living breathing document" and quickly see how hypocritical they really are.
"There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void." ~ Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #78, 1788
4. The Constitution created a Constitutional Republic; a government limited and defined by specific enumeration of authority where laws are made by equal representation of the people. If it is not enumerated, it is not Constitutionally authorized. We are not a democracy and our government and it's laws are not dictated by majority mob rule.
“I sir have always conceived—I believe those who proposed the Constitution conceived—it is still more fully known and more material to observe, that those who ratified the Constitution conceived—that this not an indefinite government…but a limited government tied down to the specific powers.” ~ James Madison, to the House of Representatives, 1792
This is merely a short list of the many truths we neglect to teach and learn about our Constitution. The miseducation perpetrated upon the American people is not by accident. It is a coordinated effort to expand the power of those in office and extinguish the inherent liberties of the people. Our founders warned us of this danger:
"No people will tamely surrender their Liberties, nor can any be easily subdued, when knowledge is diffused and virtue is preserved. On the Contrary, when People are universally ignorant, and debauched in their Manners, they will sink under their own weight without the Aid of foreign Invaders." ~ Samuel Adams to James Warren, 1775
America has the greatest history in the world of Liberty and inherent rights for ALL. None other compares. We have the greatest Constitution in the world.
“In that instrument I hold there is neither warrant, license, nor sanction of hateful things; but, interpreted as it ought to be interpreted, the Constitution is a GLORIOUS LIBERTY DOCUMENT. Read its preamble, consider its purpose.” ~ Frederick Douglass, 1852
Our government problems are not because of the failings of the Constitution. The many crises in America are because we are failing to enforce our Constitution and demand those in government operate according to this standard. That will change and our American experience will cease to decline when the people have the knowledge and courage to turn away from the dictated errant narrative and learn to speak and stand for truth.
~ KrisAnne Hall, JD
Learning From Natural Disasters: FEMA & Federal Aid
by KrisAnne Hall, JD
Patrick Henry, a designer of our Constitutional Republic said, “I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past.” What history lessons about the design of our republic can we learn from natural disasters?
As Americans we believe in helping each other in time of need, so the question is not SHOULD we help, but instead where should disaster help come from? Looking at the design of our Republic, here are some hard observations.
Disaster Relief is Not Within Federal Authority
Constitutionally there is no delegation of authority for the federal government to act as emergency funding services for the States. James Madison, father of the Constitution and 4th president declared before congress in 1792:
“I, sir, have always conceived — I believe those who proposed the Constitution conceived — it is still more fully known, and more material to observe, that those who ratified the Constitution conceived — that this is not an indefinite government, deriving its powers from the general terms prefixed to the specified powers — but a limited government, tied down to the specified powers, which explain and define the general terms.”
If the power is not expressly delegated through a specific Article, section, or clause, then the federal authority does not lawfully exist. We know that to be a factual statement by the terms of those who wrote and ratified the Constitution:
“…an affirmative grant of special powers would be absurd as well as useless, if a general authority was intended. ~Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #83
The only way to change or expand federal power is through the amendment process described in the Constitution which in either process includes the creators of the Constitution, the States. No single branch of the creation can expand its own power by any other means. Remember:
Congress cannot expand its own or another branch’s delegated power by legislative act. Alexander Hamilton, a designer of our Constitution wrote in Federalist #78: “There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid.”
The President has no authority to change the Constitution; he doesn’t have the authority to make laws of any sort. “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 1 section 1. Since any legislative act contrary to the Constitution is invalid, the president making legislative acts, is a clear violation of the Constitution and per se in valid.
The Judiciary cannot expand federal power beyond the Constitution. James Madison, addresses such a violation in 1800: “…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…”
If elected representatives in Washington DC cannot identify the Article, section, and clause that authorizes the federal government to engage in emergency funding services to the States, then that authority, very plainly does not legally exist. Any reference to a congressional act, does not create that authority. If legislative act is the only authority, then as Hamilton so accurately announced, that legislative act is void and no law at all. A supreme Court opinion, nor series of opinions cannot be the basis for undelegated authority since the judiciary cannot exercise or sanction any authority that is not tied down to a specific power delegated through the Constitution. The existence of executive agencies designated to perform a function beyond the grant of the Constitution cannot provide legal justification for pretended authority.
Sadly, what we hear is that “We must have the federal government’s help; without it we cannot function.” According to William Pitt, the Younger, in 1783 “Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.” The purpose of the Constitution is to “preserve the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.” The plea of necessity over the limited nature of the Constitution is yet another unconstitutional argument. This cry of necessity is annulled because the terms of the Constitution binds the federal government to expressed powers. If the people through their states want the Federal government to have a new authority then they must amend the document that enumerates its abilities. To put forth any or all of these extra-constitutional assertions as legal justification for powers that are not enumerated is to suggest that the Constitution is NOT the foundation for the rule of law in our Republic. In that case, then Congress, the President and the courts would have ZERO authority, because without the Constitution they have no basis to even exist.
How Should Disaster Relief Be Handled
If the federal government wasn’t stealing and extorting money and power from the people and their States to fund and operate all their unconstitutional federal agencies and programs throughout year, the States would have plenty of money to manage their own disasters. Under a properly operating Constitutional Republic, our States would have a surplus beyond our modern comprehension and the States (in addition to the millions in private donations we see after major disasters) could individually provide relief as they see fit. In fact, the designers of our Constitutional Republic speculated about unexpected burdens that one State may not be able to handle.
Throughout the eighty-five published Federalist Papers, the authors of these papers repeatedly assert that the establishment of the union of the States would create a fiduciary relationship between the States. This “brotherhood” would create a feeling of friendship and duty amongst the States for economic and defensive support. They postulated that if there were such an unforeseen and unreasonable burden placed upon one State, the remaining States would voluntarily and individually administer aid as their citizens felt appropriate. The designers of our Constitutional Republic never once asserted that the federal government would have the authority to engage in charity in any form. As a matter of fact, they spoke against the federal exercise of charity on multiple occasion.
James Madison proclaimed before Congress in 1792, that for the federal Congress to engage in public charity with tax dollars, “would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited government established by the people of America.”
He repeated this truth in 1794, when he said most definitively: “I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.”
The Bottom Line
There is no Constitutional reason and no Constitutional authority for the feds to become involved with these kinds of domestic affairs. There is and never has been any constitutional reason to look to any President to be the savior after a storm, during a pandemic , or other natural disaster.* The only reason to look to any President in a time is crisis is political - to encourage love or hate of a personality - so parties can build power. However, because America has been errantly trained for over 150 years that this is the purpose of the federal government, most do not even have an inclination that their cries for federal aid are transmuting the mutual brotherhood of the States into a “nanny-hood” of the federal government. Charity is a voluntary gift of the individual. Government cannot give charity as they don't take money voluntarily and they cant "give" what they don't actually own. So the solution is very simple: (1) Give to your neighbor who is actually in need. (2) Don't be a pawn in the political game for power by blaming someone in government or crying out to government to fix the hurt.
*If you have a questions about "Emergency Powers" then you must read THIS ARTICLE.
Study a complete course on the proper power placement of the State and Federal governments here: www.LibertyFirstUniversity.com