The Term Limits We Need!

/in /by

We need term limits. That’s the cry we hear so often today. The question is, “Why are people so dead set on reinventing the wheel?”  Simple answer – we are ignorant of history.  We brag about studying the Constitution, yet the more critical thing to study is Constitutional History.  Our founders ALREADY GAVE US TERM LIMITS and they are the only term limits that will work.  WE GOT RID OF THEM.  All of today’s term limit proposals are too long – the founders gave just exactly the right term limit length – INSTANTANEOUS. It was called RECALL and it WAS in the Constitution.  We do not need to establish new term limits; we need to restore the ones we had when the founders created this great nation.  Our founders gave us the weapons we need to guard the Liberty given to us by our Creator and we have been derelict in our duties. John Adams said, “If we are to have a free Republican Government we must have an attachment to the Constitution and a Conscientious determination to support it.”  George Washington said, “the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake”.  Daniel Webster said, “God grants Liberty only to those who love it and are always ready to guard and protect it.” Thomas Jefferson, repeated this admonition, “the price of Liberty is eternal vigilance.”

That means the couch potatoes will not be the guardians of our children’s future.  We live in a society when more people can name all the judges on American Idol and cannot name even one Supreme Court Justice.  We live in perilous times and we must be armed with the weapons that will bring victory.  One of those weapons is TRUTH and truth is sheathed in HISTORY.  Let us unsheathe TRUTH and cut through the confusion. Our founders gave us term limits and they were stripped away by the 17th Amendment in 1913, when this country fell for a “pernicious design to subvert liberty.”  Not my words, but words of our founding fathers. The government was originally designed to have our US Senators appointed by the state legislatures. This was intended to protect each state’s power by having direct representation in Congress.  By direct, our founders meant that each Senator that was appointed was subject to automatic recall by the Legislature if the Senator was not performing his duties appropriately.  Since Senators were appointed by the state legislatures, they would carefully watch the Senators and we the people would carefully watch the State legislatures. Our founders knew that government governed best when it governed least and governed at home (and it is much easier to show up en masse to our state capitols than to D.C. – and the politicians know that). James Madison explains, “An individual who is observed to be inconsistent with his plans, or perhaps to carry on his affairs without any plan at all, is marked at once by all prudent people, as a speedy victim to his own unsteadiness and folly.” Fed 62. Their intent was to keep Senators attentive to the people and to keep the people attentive to the Senators. The Letters from a Federal Farmer XI, the author (probably Richard Henry Lee) explains: “…it is interested combinations and factions we are particularly to guard against in the federal government, and all the rational means that can be put into the hands of the people to prevent them, ought to be provided and furnished for them.  Where there is a power to recall, trusty sentinels among the people, or in the state legislatures, will have a fair opportunity to become useful…Further the circumstance of such a power being lodged in the constituents, will tend to keep up their watchfulness, as well as the attention and dependence of the federal senators and representatives.” The founders knew that immediate recall would have two results: it would force the people to be “eternally vigilant” in their watchfulness of the Senate and it would cause the Senate to be constantly checking with the people for proper direction and movement of the government. The Federal Farmer states what we know all too well, “it is a disagreeable truth, that power perverts men’s views in greater degree, than public employments inform their understandings – they become hardened in certain maxims and more lost to fellow feelings”. Have we not seen that very truth play out in our own Congress?  They seem to be more concerned about re-elections, special interests, and self-exaltation than the good of the nation. He continues in his very accurate assessment, “Men may always be too cautions to commit alarming and glaring iniquities: but they, as well as systems are liable to be corrupted by slow degrees…we are not only to guard against what men will do, but even against what they may do.”  America didn’t get into this mess overnight.  Many have said that they “woke up” one morning and realized they no longer recognized the country that we are living in.  That’s because it has been corrupted by slow degrees and its leaders have become unresponsive.  “Men in high public offices are in stations where they gradually lose sight of the people, and do not often think of attending to them, except when necessary to answer private purposes.”  Our Congressmen have become so comfortable in their stations that they no longer think of attending to the people except for election time. The founders’ intention with this principle of automatic recall is clearly stated, “members of Congress must return home, and share in the burdens they may impose and, therefore, private motives will induce them to make mild laws, to support liberty, and ease the burdens of the people.” In 1913 that all changed. Under the argument that vacancies created by the automatic recall were a great inconvenience to the efficient function of government, the 17th Amendment was proposed.  This amendment removed the automatic recall and the appointment of the Senators by the legislature and put it to a popular vote of the people on a 6 year cycle.  The proponents of this amendment championed this as truly putting the choice of the Senators in the hands of the people.  Only through time can we see that the exact opposite has happened and the fears of the Federal Farmer and our Founders have come to fruition. The 17th Amendment did not give more power to the people, it took power away.  We hear much talk about term limits today.  Why is that?  Because we understand exactly what the Federal Farmer stated; men are corrupted by slow degrees and when they sit in DC too long they no longer think of attending to the people.  The irony is that we had the ultimate term limits to begin with.  What could be a greater power than the people spotting corruption and immediately putting an end to it? So what about term limits? I am not opposed to term limits, just to term limits as they are represented in our day.  My objections are derived from the results that we have already seen.  We have lost that eternal vigilant spirit of the people.  Remember, the Federal Farmer stated that the principle behind automatic recall was to keep the people watching DC and DC listening to the people; when the 17th Amendment was ratified, that principle was defeated. The people were able to fall asleep for 5 years and the Senators were able to not often think of attending to the people, except when necessary to answer private purposes, ie. elections. Following experience as an oracle of truth as Alexander Hamilton notes, we should understand that implementing term limits that give people a limit of two terms or more, will allow people to sleep for a minimum of 11 years instead of just 5.  If we truly want term limits, why wouldn’t we want the term limits that our founders intended, automatic recall. We have to stop bouncing around like blind mice trying to find our way.  Our founders were such prolific writers, their arguments (on both sides) so well formulated and plainly discussed.  They had such an intimate knowledge of their history that they could give direct warnings that are relevant to any time.  Yet, we continue to ignore their warnings and barrel right into the destruction they believed we could avoid.  The term limits we were given in this brilliant plan our founders labored over and developed using over 700 years of historical experience are exactly what we need today.  Very simply stated we need to repeal the 17th Amendment and reinstate automatic recall through the state legislatures – and then, we have all the TERM LIMITS we need!

Stolen Education, Stolen Children, Stolen Future

/in /by

kah-stolen-education-stolen-futureThis is an informational presentation I gave at a rally in Ft. Walton Beach, FL. Much of this information can be found in Charlotte Iserbyt’s book The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America. As shocking as it may be, it is all factual and verifiable. Please educate yourself on this vital issue.

As we are consumed by the media frenzy over the debt crisis, we must understand the real problem and therefore obtain the real solution. If we are to restore America, we must recognize what has brought us to where we are today. We cannot overcome the enemies if we do not know who they are. One of the greatest contributors to America’s march toward Marxism is the brainwashing of generations of America’s children. America’s children have been kidnapped by the enemies of American Liberty. Our educational system has become concentration camps of brainwashing and Marxist programming.

If we are to correct this menace, we must know the people and principles upon which our educational system has been built since the 1800’s.

  • · Wilhelm Wundt in 1832 was the founder of Experimental Psychology and the Force behind its dissemination throughout the western world. His foundational theory became the basis for teacher training for over 150 years: he taught that children were nothing more than a stimulus response mechanism – nothing more than animated meat made up of neurons and electrochemical reactions.
  • · Edward Lee Thorndike, in 1903 was a professor of education and writer of 507 books on the methods of teaching which helps form the basis of teacher training and philosophy today. He said that children could be equated to “rats, monkeys, fish, cats, and chickens” animals that simply needed to be programmed.
  • · John Dewey, heralded as the father of modern education, is actually the father of progressive education. He wrote the book Psychology, the most widely-read and quoted textbook used in schools for teachers in this country. Dewey taught that the primary commitment to literacy was the greatest problem that the American school system faced. Look at some of the quotes from this father of modern education and one of the signers of The Humanist Manifesto:

“The plea for the predominance of learning to read in early education seems to me a perversion.”

 “Undue premium is put upon the ability to read at a certain chronological age…the entertainment plus information motive for reading conduces the habit of solitary self-entertainment”

“we violate the child’s nature and render difficult the best ethical results, by introducing the child too abruptly to a number of special studies, of reading, writing, geography. The true center of correlation on the school subjects is not science, nor literature, nor history, nor geography, but the child’s own social activities”

“The mere absorption of facts and truth is so exclusively an individual affair that it tends very naturally to pass into selfishness. There is no obvious social motive for the acquirement of learning; there is no social gain therein.”

  • · G. Stanley Hall (1844-1924) John Dewey’s professor – taught that it was better to be illiterate – “the knowledge which illiterates acquire is probably a much larger proportion of it practical. Moreover, they escape much eye strain and mental excitement and other things being equal are probably more active and less sedentary”…“Illiterates escape certain temptations, such as vacuous and vicious reading. Perhaps, we are prone to put too high value both upon the ability to read and the discipline involved in doing so.”

No surprise we graduate our high school seniors at a 50% illiteracy rate, having this as the very foundation of America’s educational system.

What about the actions of our own government?

The General Education Board was incorporated by congress in 1902; endowed by John D. Rockerfeller, Sr. The purpose was to set up an educational laboratory to experiment with the very educational system Wundt, Thorndike and Dewey proposed. The Director of this congressionally-established organization, Frederick Gates said, “In our dream, we have limitless resources, and the people yield themselves with perfect docility to our molding hands. The present educational conventions fade from our minds; and, unhampered by tradition, we work our own good will upon a grateful and responsive folk.”

The 1917 Congressional Record of the US Senate published this statement:

“The General Education Board was authorized to do almost every conceivable thing which is anywise related to education, from opening a kitchen to establishing a university, and its power to connect itself with the work of every sort of educational plant or enterprise conceivable will be especially observed.”

In 1918, in an issue of New York World, William Boyce Thompson, Federal Reserve Bank Director and founding member of the Council on Foreign relations made the following observation:

 “Russia is pointing the way to great and sweeping world changes. When I sat and watched those democratic conclaves in Russia, I felt I would welcome a similar scene in the United States.”

Dr. Augustus Thomas, Commissioner of Education for the State of Maine stated to a conference of world educators in 1927, “If there are those who think we are to jump immediately into a new world order, actuated by complete understanding and brotherly love, they are doomed to disappointment. If we are ever to approach that time, it will be after patient and persistent effort of long duration.”

John Eugene Harley, Law Professor at Harvard published a book called International Understanding in 1931 and made this statement: “And the builder of this new world must be education. Education alone can lay the foundation on which the building is to rest. Plainly the first step in the case of each country is to train an elite to think, feel, and act internationally.”

President Herbert Hoover in 1932 appoints a research committee on recent social trends, not approved or funded by Congress, but an Executive action underwritten by the Rockefeller Foundation. No report was ever made to Congress or to the people. It assembled the largest community of social scientist ever assembled to assess the social condition of the nation.

NEA federally chartered in 1906, created the Educational Policies Commission in 1932 and published a document titled Education for all Youth with the following goals for solving problems in the educational system and working toward the new progressive education:

  • · Federal programs for health, education, and welfare combined into one bureau
  • · Head start programs
  • · Getting preschool children into the system
  • · Youth services through a poverty program
  • · Removal of local control of political and educational matters “without seeming to do so”
  • · Sex education

In 1942 the American Federation of Teachers published a book titled America, Russia and The Communist Party in the Postwar World “If this war is to be followed by a just and lasting peace, America and Russia must find a way to get along together…the UN, including America and Russia, is the only agency that can establish such peace.” The UN Charter becomes effective on October 24, 1945 with the US Chamber of Commerce as a prime mover in establishing the UN. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization(UNESCO) and its mandate for international intellectual co-operation had already been working under a League of Nations resolution on 21 September 1921.

Right in line with the General Education Board, Thompson, Thomas, and Harley, in 1958 Eisenhower signed the first set of agreements with the Soviet Union, which included an education agreement. Agreements just like this have been signed by every single president since Eisenhower.

George Bush, Sr. has stated time and time again, “we have an unprecedented opportunity to build a new world order.”

The concerted effort on every front continues to make our children believe they are global citizens. On May 2011 Superman relinquished his US citizenship. In the 900th Issue, Superman says, “I intend to speak before the United Nations tomorrow and inform them I am renouncing my US Citizenship”.

Now we have Race to the Top, the established and printed purpose of this program, as stated in national education directives is to transfer loyalty from the family to the government. The teacher manuals state that we are to be teaching Constructivism where “students construct [their own] understanding of reality, and [realize] that objective reality is not knowable” (p.10)

Our children have been manipulated by a pernicious design since before the mid 1800s. Our elected representatives on the state and local level have the ability to restore education according to the intent of the founding of this nation and the will of the people.

What is that going to take? We as parents, grandparents must say our children are NOT animals.

Our children are NOT fodder for experimentation. Our children are OUR CHILDREN and will not be manipulated to love government more than us.

Our children are the future of this great nation and we will NOT surrender our future to ideals and programming that is Anti-American, Anti-God, and Anti-morality.

We should NOT surrender our Children. We need to take back our children, take back their education, and WE TAKE BACK the future of America.

This monster will not be changed overnight – during the decade or more it will take us to regain control of the system, our children will still be being brainwashed. I believe we must get our children out, until we can reclaim the government education industry and return it to the people. Now knowing the globalist objectives, I believe We MUST no longer participate in government manipulated education. We MUST make the sacrifice worthy of our founders and say, my child/ grandchild is MY responsibility, and I will teach them according to the values and Ideals we hold dear. We MUST utilize private and homeschooling options, we must form community alliances and homeschooling cooperatives; I believe we must use private citizens and private donors to build a new system of education that belongs to the local communities. We must set about separating ourselves from this system of indoctrination before it’s too late.

We are either serious or we are not. Our future is at stake or it’s not. Our voting will be all in vain unless we raise up a new generation of patriots. WE MUST RESCUE OUR CHILDREN.

The Threat of Foreign Law

/in /by

Once again great controversy has arisen over the building of a Mosque; this one in Murfreesboro, TN. Once again no one is getting to the heart of the problem. The fear is not over Islam, but of Sharia Law and the solution lies in preventing foreign law not interfering with a religious practice. We have a nation built on fundamental principles of liberty and law, not fear. If we are ruled by fear, we will lose liberty.

How serious did our founders take the threat of foreign law?

John Adams warned in his 1797 inaugural address:

“[If our nation can be influenced] by foreign nations by flattery or menaces, by fraud or violence, by terror, intrigue, or venality, the Government may not be the choice of the people but of foreign nations. It may be foreign nations that govern us and not we the people who govern ourselves;”

George Washington in his farewell address says this:

“Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government.”

How adamant were they, that we must support Constitutional liberty?

John Adams said if we are to have a free republican government, then we must have an attachment to the Constitution and a conscientious determination to protect it. George Washington said “the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake”; John Philpot Curan stated in 1790, “the condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance”, (a quote apparently repeated by Jefferson), and the list goes on.

Our founders were adamant that we the people resist the encroachment of foreign law AND defend Constitutional liberty. Can we do BOTH?

First and foremost we must protect religious liberty for ALL faiths (and non-faiths). We were established as a government of the people, by the people, for the people. However, our founders knew through history and experience, to truly protect liberty we must have a representative form of government and not a democracy. Democracy can never grant true liberty, because the voice of the majority will always silence the rest. Were we a democracy instead of a Constitutional Republic, women would still be unable to vote and the civil rights movement would have certainly failed. A republican form of government grants a voice to those outside of the majority. Jefferson explained in his Notes on the state of Virginia, “One hundred and seventy-three despots would surely be as oppressive as one. An elective despotism was not the government we fought for.” Jefferson knew in order to maintain liberty we must be educated in its principles; else we would digress to a “mob rules” mentality and become a country ruled by a tyranny of the majority.

The issue of building Mosques anywhere in the United States must be viewed within this Constitutional framework. We cannot allow the government to dictate the practice of religion, even if the majority of the people demand it. Our Constitution stands as a guardian against the encroachment of foreign law, yet its 1st Amendment stands as a sentinel against the restriction of religious liberty.

Richard Henry Lee remarked, “It is true, we are not disposed to differ much, at present, about religion; but when we are making a Constitution, it is to be for ages and millions yet unborn, why not establish the free exercise of religion, as a part of the national compact.”

Our founders envisioned a nation “whereas all should be equally free, Jews, Turks, Pagans, and Christians” to worship “in that way that he can best reconcile it to his conscience”. (John Leland, The Rights of Conscience Inalienable, A Chronical of His Time in Virginia 1789-1805) It is proven through history and experience that where the government is involved it will dictate and regulate. Many of our founders knew that to preserve religious liberty for all was to preserve Christianity. We cannot give the government the power to dictate the conscience of men, because today’s majority is tomorrow’s minority and there is liberty for no one.

What then is the solution to the conundrum of Islam and Sharia Law?

The conscientious determination to support the Constitution cuts both ways: for many Muslims, Islam is not only a religion but also a theocracy, it mixes religion and government. The other side of this Constitutional sword is the key to solving the conundrum of Islam and Sharia Law. When we stand on the foundation of the Constitution, we acknowledge that it cannot support the infiltration of foreign law. George Washington made this point abundantly clear in his farewell address noted above.

Our founders’ own Bill of Rights, the English Bill of Rights of 1689 required their representatives – including the King and Queen – to take the following oath: “And I do declare that no Foreign Prince, Person, Prelate, or Potentate hath or ought to have any jurisdiction, power, superiority, preeminence, or authority ecclesiastical or spiritual within this realm, so help me God.” We must have representatives that are willing to step up and name the enemy; its name is FOREIGN LAW.

No foreign law affords the protections to liberty that our Constitution does, and much of foreign law would directly threaten the liberty of individual Americans.Properly upholding the Constitution, maintaining the laws of this nation, is the way to prevent foreign law’s baneful attack. The Constitution will not support the interference of religious liberty. If we push the courts to decide these issues the results will likely be disastrous. The courts will either follow the Constitution and rule in favor of the Mosques, empowering the Islamic theocracy as a by-product; or the courts will not follow the Constitution, allowing the government to dictate where and how worship can take place. Our forefathers had already been down that road.

We know the Constitution and the history that produced this foundational document will support the exclusion of foreign law. What we are concerned about is the apparent danger of the courts ignoring the both the Constitution and the warnings of history and our founders, thus allowing foreign law to infultrate our nation. This is where we need representatives on the state and national level to step up to support and defend the Constitution. These true Patriot leaders will say, “we love our country and our Constitution so much that we will allow Mosques, but we will not allow foreign law”. They will put the courts on notice that the people will not allow the Constitution to be destroyed by either ignorant or activist judges. Foreign law has no place in this nation regardless of whether it is called religion or not. Think about it. The same principles that do not allow the practice of poligomy or human sacrifice in the name of religion will support the denial of unconstitutional Sharia Law.

The point is, Islam is not the enemy, foreign law is the enemy. We cannot preserve the Constitution by picking and choosing which provisions are convenient. The same Constitution that gives us religious liberty, gives us a foundational law that rejects foreign law. We must make a conscientious decision to support the Constitution, IN ITS ENTIRETY, or it will be destroyed by the very people charged to protect it. We must remember that tyranny is no different whether it is in the hands of one man or in the hands of many.

We the people MUST educate ourselves on our history and Constitutional principles. We the people MUST make a conscientious decision to stand for the Constitution, every part of it. We the people MUST require our elected representatives to do the same. As Daniel Webster said, “Hold on, my friends, to the Constitution and to the Republic for which it stands. Miracles do not cluster and what has happened once in 6,000 years may not happen again. Hold on to the Constitution, for if the American Constitution should fail, there will be anarchy throughout the world.”

More Victims in the Casey Anthony Trial?

/in /by

Many Americans voiced their outrage at the recent Casey Anthony verdict. Some thought she was guilty and wondered what in the world was going through the minds of the 12 jurors. Some jurors are talking, and some may be willing to share their thoughts in a book. However, Florida Representative Scott Randolph (D-Orlando) wants to put legislative duct tape over the mouth of the jurors or at least their word processors. He says that the jurors are free to talk about their experience, they just can’t publish it until he says so. What makes Mr. Randolph think he has such authority? Does he not understand that free speech is a right of the individual and not a privilege doled out by government? Will the First Amendment be another victim of the Casey Anthony saga?

The First Amendment is not the first one by accident. Our founders believed the rights protected by this monumental Amendment were foundational to Liberty. Daniel Webster, one of the greatest orators of our time and extraordinary founding father said, “If all my possessions were taken from me with one exception, I would choose to keep the power of communication, for by it I would soon regain all the rest.” So why, is Representative Scott Randolph attempting to weaken the First Amendment?

The First Amendment actually charges the government to protect five rights held by the people:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people to peaceably to assemble and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The right to speech and press are fundamental to the concepts of Liberty. Where would we be without the pen of Thomas Paine and his pamphlet “Common Sense,” which helped stir the people to throw off the bonds of a tyrannical government? John Adams reportedly said of Paine “Without the pen of the author of ‘Common Sense,’ the sword of Washington would have been raised in vain.” Such writings were suppressed under the dictatorship of Adolf Hitler. Joseph Goebbels’ Ministry of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda acted as a central control point for all media, private and public, issuing orders as to what could and could not be printed. Anyone who crossed Goebbels’ ministry were routinely imprisoned or shot as traitors. Our Constitution stands as a sentinel to protect Americans against such extreme tyranny.

Besides the ignorance of Constitutional principles and Constitutional history, the primary problem here is reactionary legislation. In the aftermath of the Casey Anthony trial we were immediately bombarded with reactionary legislation. First came the proposition for Caylee’s law; a law that makes it a felony offense to not report a child missing within 24 hours of the child’s disappearance. Sounds like a great idea, I’m sure, but trust me, creating laws based upon reactions to social injustice is never a sound legislative practice. Good legislation takes an informed and reasoned process. Imagine you were the parent of a rebellious teenager who frequently makes himself “unaccountable”. Does the parent have to suffer the embarrassment of dealing with a private family issue publicly, under the threat of felony prosecution? What if the parent has been told by the teen that he is staying the night at a friend’s house, when in fact, he is actually engaging in dangerous behavior that results in his death at the hand of another? Suppose further that the parent believes the child to be on a weekend trip with friends and it is later determined that he has been murdered. Do we now prosecute this parent for not reporting the child missing because under the law the parent “should have known” the child was missing? Now, if we want to create a law that makes it a crime to not report your child’s known death (more in line with the facts of this case), I can understand the foundation for that law.

Now Rep. Scott Randolph is proposing more reactionary legislation in the wake of the Casey Anthony trial. Only this legislation is a direct attack on the very fundamental principles of the First Amendment. Randolph proposes legislation that allows jurors to speak of their experience in the trial process but prevents them from contracting with publishers to write about it. The premise is that jurors should not be able to profit from their experience as a juror. Some might ask, “What is wrong with that?” First it is illogical. Mr. Randolph suggests a cooling off period of 270 days will prevent jurors from profiting from their experience. The desire to profit and the thirst for drama will not end after 270 days. It will only delay the inevitable. What then? Does Mr. Randolph then readdress the issue and make legislation to extend that “cooling off” period, or worse yet a permanent gag order? Where does this legislation stop? What else must I not write about or profit from?

The First Amendment is clear; the Government shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech or press. That word “abridge” means “to lesson, diminish, deprive, or cut off”. From a Constitutional perspective Rep. Randolph has no right to push legislation that would diminish any person’s right to free speech or press. I am certain Mr. Randolph would argue that he is not interfering with the First Amendment; he is interfering with the profiting from that form of speech. In the article outlining the plan for this legislation, Randolph states, “The purpose of this legislation is to preserve the integrity of the jury process. It balances the First Amendment freedom of speech with the Sixth Amendment guarantee to a fair trial.” Is Mr. Randolph suggesting that jurors are somehow manipulating the verdicts in order to create situations where they will optimize their profits? If so, then book deals are not the problem, the problem goes much deeper than that. The solution is not limiting the Constitutional rights of the people. You will not prevent profiteering by “cooling off” periods, you will however succeed in “lessoning, diminishing, depriving, and cutting off” the First Amendment rights of the people. Removing or altering Constitutional Rights is NEVER the solution to a moral deficiency.

Alexander Hamilton stated in the debate over the incorporation of the Bill of Rights in our Constitution, that enumerating the rights inherently held by the people would be dangerous. In Federalist Paper 84, Hamilton states, “What is the liberty of press? Who can give it any definition which would not leave the utmost latitude for evasion?” Hamilton was afraid that by including an enumeration for the protection of speech and press would inevitably serve as a handle “which would be given to the doctrine of constructive powers” and would furnish to “men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming power.” What power would be claimed? The power to regulate a right and “balance” that right with another in the name of fairness, equality, safety… Any legislation, according to Supreme Court precedent, that is a prior restraint on free speech and creates “chilling effect” on speech is unconstitutional.

Reactionary legislation is often bad. Reactionary legislation that interferes with a Constitutional Right is worse. The fact that we have become unmoored from or Constitutional principles and are ignorant of its history is why I wrote my book and created the DVD seminar; perhaps I should forward them to Mr. Randolph.

Morethanvictims

Impeach! Now!

/in /by

Abuse of Separation of Powers: A Long-standing Evil

It is a common misconception that our founders had no Bill of Rights before 1776.  They, in fact, had their own – the English Bill of Rights of 1689. In this document grievances against King James II were listed, just as grievances against King George III would be listed in the Declaration of Independence 87 years later.  Among those grievances was the following:

“By assuming and exercising a power of dispensing with and suspending of laws and the execution of laws without the consent of Parliament;…”

The King was overstepping his authority and bypassing Parliament – the lawmaking body.  In 1689, the British people saw this as an attempt to completely destroy liberty. In our system of government, Congress is the lawmaking body.  For the Executive to take up the power of making laws is for that Executive to engage in an act of tyranny.

Separation of Powers Essential to Liberty

One of the most fundamental characteristics of our Republic is the Separation of Powers among the three separate branches of government.  The checks and balances in the American system were instituted for the express purpose of combating the rise of a tyrannical and oppressive government.

James Madison points out in Federalist 47 that “The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.”

Federalist Papers 47 through 51 deal specifically with this issue of separation of powers.  The debate of the time was not whether these branches SHOULD be separate, but to WHAT DEGREE they should be separate.  Madison begins by pointing out that all Founders understood that a separation of the three branches of government was necessary to preserve Liberty.  They all agreed that the accumulation of all powers by one person or a single group of people is the very definition of tyranny.  “Where the accumulation of power is possible, no further argument is necessary” to support a division and separation of those powers. Madison declares:

“…by so contriving the interior structure of the government as that its several constituent parts may, by their mutual relations, be the means of keeping each other in their proper places. “

No Branch is a Ruler Unto Itself

Madison further explains that the branches are not completely separated, but where one has any authority over the other that authority is very specific, and that the separate responsibilities of one are not to be usurped by the other.  Hence, law making authority is invested solely in Congress and may not be taken up by the Executive.  Yet, checks have been invested in each to ensure that one body does not become tyrannical and oppressive.  The executive has its veto, the Legislative has its impeachment power and the Judiciary has its legal oversight…and don’t forget the people.

Notice how Madison describes the necessity of these checks:

”But the great security against a gradual concentration of the several powers in the same department, consists in giving to those who administer each department the necessary constitutional means and personal motives to resist encroachments of the others. The provision for defense must in this, as in all other cases, be made commensurate to the danger of attack. Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place. It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government.”

Madison continues:

“But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.”

So, if such strong checks were and are necessary to resist the tyranny of men, then why are these checks not being employed? Consider the following overreach by our current tyrannical Executive:

1.     In May Democrats put forward the Dream Act.  Before a vote was even held, Obama passes the Dream Act through Executive Order.

2.     “Cap and Trade” legislation was defeated in Congress, yet President Obama pushes his agenda into law through the EPA, an executive branch agency.

3.     Obama signs an Executive order on July 12 restricting the 2nd Amendment rights of citizens in the southern border states of Texas, California, New Mexico and Arizona.

4.     Obama’s FCC decided last year to assume authority over the internet regulation despite a ruling by a federal appeals court explicitly denying the commission that authority. In contradiction to the court’s ruling FCC voted 3-2 in December to pass the first ever federal regulations on internet traffic.

5.     Obama unilaterally decided he should declare war on Libya.  When Congress disagreed, he simply ignored them, their lawsuit, and the War Powers Act which is just a restatement of the separation of powers that already exists in the Constitution.

6.     On January 28, Transportation Security Administration (TSA) head John Pistole announced that the Screening Partnership Program, which allows airports to privatize their security procedures, would no longer be available.  TSA’s decision is directly contrary to the Aviation and Transportation Security Act of 2001, which statutorily grants this ability for airports to privatize.

7.     Rather than push Congress to repeal federal laws against Marijuana, the Justice Department decided in 2009 that it would simply stop enforcing the federal laws. Proposals to legalize Marijuana at the federal level consistently fail, but that has not stopped the Obama administration.

8.     The Department of Justice has announced that they would no longer enforce the Defense of Marriage Act.  The Administration did not agree with the law, so they simply ignore it.

9.     Congress removes the card check provision from the Employee Free Choice Act to maintain the rights of the people to choose not to unionize.  The National Labor Relations Board moves to reduce the length of time for elections in order to limit employer’s ability to present their own case against unionization, having the effect of overriding Congress and limiting the people’s choice to not unionize.

10.  Obama Administration suggests that they could ignore Congressional authority and raise the Debt Ceiling unilaterally by reinterpreting the 14th Amendment.  Now Mitch McConnell apparently wishes to surrender the Constitution to the President, rather than protect it from ALL enemies foreign AND DOMESTIC.

Following the November elections where President Obama’s party lost control over the House Obama told America, where he cannot legislate he will regulate.  The Executive Branch is not the law making body of our Constitutional Republic.  In 1689 and in 1776 this type of overreach was seen as tyranny; an attempt to completely destroy Liberty.

In the Federalist Paper 69, Hamilton responds to those who fear that the executive branch looked too much like a king and would have too much power.  He points out a very vital and distinct difference that would put the minds of the people to rest:

“…there is not comparison between the intended power of the President and the actual power of the British Sovereign.  The one can perform alone what the other can only do with the concurrence of the branch of the legislature.”

What is our reassurance as the President does exactly what Hamilton assured could not be done?  Where is our protection as in the Supreme Court decision in 1952 (Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer) that ruled President Truman’s executive order unconstitutional as he attempted to place all steel mills under federal control.  The Supreme Court said executive orders cannot make law.  More importantly in the Colonial Constitutions this was the very behavior that drew IMPEACHMENT time and time again.

History and experience prove that Obama’s attempts to completely destroy liberty must be stopped.  Congress must override these executive orders with proper legislation.  Congress must exercise Congressional oversight over these Executive agencies and defund them. Congress must begin the impeachment process and end this unconstitutional usurpation by the executive branch.

So, I ask you again Congress when will you do your job?

Do your Job, Congress!

/in /by

On November 19, 2001, Congress passed The Aviation and Transportation Act, (ATSA), as a reaction to the September 11 attacks.  Reactionary legislation is never a good solution to any problem.  However, even with reactionary legislation, proper checks are in place to detect and prevent poor administration, waste, abuse, arbitrary and capricious behavior, or illegal and unconstitutional conduct.  Congressional Oversight is the “check and balance” that must apply here. So why isn’t Congress doing their job?  If we want to require Congress to do their job and not fall prey to their excuses, we must understand the very power of oversight that they hold.

Congressional oversight refers to the review, monitoring, and supervision of federal agencies, programs, activities, and policy implementation.  Congressional Oversight is a “derived power” and even the Congressional Research Service refers to it as an “integral part of the American system of checks and balances”.  (CRS Report for Congress 97-936, p. 2 2001)

Our founders spent a great deal of time discussing separation of powers and believed that such separation was essential to the protection of our liberty.  Our Founders also believed that a certain amount “blending” of these departments was necessary to prevent one Branch from usurping the power over the other.  In Federalist Paper 47, Madison discusses this very issue.

Quoting Montesquieu, James Madison relates that, “There can be no liberty where the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person or body of magistrates,” nor “if the power of judging be not separate from the legislative and executive powers.” Madison reasons that the departments are not intended to be so separated that they have no partial agency in, or no control over each other. (Fed. 47)  Montesquieu was concerned with the “whole” power of one department exercised in the hands of another department.  Madison assures the Constitutional critics that the current Constitution provides safeguards against such encroachment and abuse of liberty.

Madison demonstrates this principle of checks and balances by pointing out the very existence of them in the several state constitutions that existed at the time of the writing of the proposed Constitution.  He points out that nearly all of the constitutions blend these powers, not for the purpose of usurping, but for the purpose of partial agency and control. For example, the Senate, which is a branch of legislative department, is also a judicial tribunal for the trial of impeachments.  Finally, in response to the proponents of ABSOLUTE separation, Madison explains that the very cause of liberty for which they fight is only obtained through proper blending of power to achieve control and oversight:

It was shown in the last paper that the political apothegm there examined does not require that the legislative, executive, and judiciary departments should be wholly unconnected with each other.  I shall undertake, in the next place, to show that unless these departments be so far connected and blended as to give each a constitutional control over the others, the degree of separation which the maxim requires, as essential to a free government, can never in practice be duly maintained. (Fed. 48)

In summary, what Madison was saying is if you truly want liberty, separation of powers along with mutual checks is vital.  Madison understood that simply enumerating powers and identifying boundaries on paper would be an insufficient barrier “to the encroaching spirit of power.”  Liberty cannot be preserved unless you allow for departmental oversight.

In light of the founder’s perspective and the truth behind separation of powers and each branch’s responsibility to check the power of the other and maintain oversight, we must ask, where is our current congressional oversight even within the same Branch? We see statement after statement of how appalled or outraged our Senators are at the gross display of authority by the Transportation and Safety Administration (Incidentally they make the same statements about executive overreach and do nothing about it). They demand everything from control to dissolution of the TSA.  What is with all the posturing?  THEY created the TSA in 2001.  THEY passed an Act that allowed for privatization of airports after two years.  How can the TSA turn around and tell Congress that it will not privatize. Congress has oversight over TSA, not TSA over Congress.

Congress needs to be reminded that the Congressional Research Service stated in 2001 their job in Congressional oversight is to:

  • improve the efficiency, economy, and effectiveness of governmental operations;
  • evaluate programs and performance;
  • detect and prevent poor administration, waste, abuse, arbitrary and capricious behavior, or illegal and unconstitutional conduct;
  • protect civil liberties and constitutional rights;
  • inform the general public and ensure that executive policies reflect the public interest;
  • gather information to develop new legislative proposals or to amend existing statutes;
  • ensure administrative compliance with legislative intent; and
  • prevent executive encroachment on legislative authority and prerogatives.

As we see a 95-year-old cancer patient strip-searched and 6-year-old girls groped and other outrages on a daily basis by the Transportation Security Agency, must we be reminded that we are a “government of the people, by the people, and for the people?”  When a Nigerian immigrant can fly coast-to-coast with an expired, stolen boarding pass and passport is too much to ask that Congress step up and DO THEIR JOB?  Hey Congress YOU WORK FOR US.  Your job descriptions are clearly identified in the law, in the Constitution and in the “operator’s manual” written by those who wrote the Constitution.  Do your job or be fired!  We don’t accept your “outrage,” stop flapping your gums and making excuses and start doing the job you’ve been tasked to do.