Thursday, December 30, 2010

Original Intent, Preamble, Article I, Article II

December 30, 2010 - Temecula Constitution Study

Year-End Review of the Original Intent of the U.S. Constitution, The Preamble, Article I, and Article II


Original Intent

More than 200 years have passed since the Constitutional Convention in 1787 where the Founding Fathers of the United States of America provided the framework for the creation of the U.S. Government. The federal government was designed to protect, preserve, and promote the new union of sovereign states, while being limited in its authorities in order to preserve the basic rights of the individual states, and the American people. The U.S. Constitution is the law of the land, and all laws made in pursuance of the U.S. Constitution by the federal government are the supreme law of the land (Article VI, Clause II). The U.S. Constitution is the starting point from which all of our government institutions come. The founding document is the wisdom of the ages, crafted purposely to serve as the foundational base of our system of governance in order to form a more perfect union, while protecting the basic ideals of individual liberty, individual freedom, and our inalienable individual rights from the federal government, or any tyranny that may rise against us, foreign or domestic. This new government was to be based on republicanism, rather than a monarchy, while using some functions of a democracy in order to elect the representatives that would serve in the system.

A woman asked Benjamin Franklin, after the Constitutional Convention had produced the U.S. Constitution, “Sir, what have you given us?”

“A Republic,” Franklin replied. “If you can keep it.”

As a social contract between the States and the newly formed federal government, the U.S. Constitution grants to the federal government a limited number of powers, reserving the remaining powers to the States (Tenth Amendment). The limiting principles set forth by the U.S. Constitution were designed to protect the States’ sovereignty while giving the federal government enough authority to properly protect and preserve the union of individual states. As a result, the United States of America was not designed to be a nationalistic entity, but rather a federation of sovereign states that have granted the authority to maintain the union to a federal governmental system. To understand that the Founding Fathers looked upon the new country as a federation of states, and not a nationalistic entity, one must only look to the language they used.

In the following quotes by two of our founders, through the understanding of language one can recognize how the Founding Fathers viewed the new nation of united states:

"Governments, in general, have been the result of force, of fraud, and accident. After a period of six thousand years has elapsed since the creation, the United States exhibit to the world the first instance, as far as we can learn, of a nation, unattacked by external force, unconvulsed by domestic insurrections, assembling voluntarily, deliberating fully, and deciding calmly concerning that system of government under which they would wish that they and their prosperity should live." -- James Wilson, November 26, 1787 in remarks in Pennsylvania ratifying convention.

“The United States enjoy a scene of prosperity and tranquility under the new government that could hardly have been hoped for.” George Washington in a letter to Catherine Macaulay Graham, July 19, 1791.

In both quotes, if you locate the words “United States,” you will notice that in both cases the word following “United States” does not end with an “s”. This is a significant clue to understanding how the founders viewed the new country. They saw the United States not as a single nationalistic entity, but in the plural, or as a collection of sovereign states united for the purpose of protection, and the preservation of the American way of life.

To further illustrate what I mean, let’s use the word “dogs” in the place of “United States.” If you were to say “the dogs exhibit to the world,” it makes sense that there is more than one dog. If you say “the dog exhibit to the world,” your first realization is that the phrase uses bad grammar. The proper way to say it would be “the dog exhibits to the world.” Dog is singular, therefore the word following it must contain an “s” at the end of the word.

Once again, if you were to say “The dogs enjoy a scene of prosperity,” apparently there are more than one dog. If “dog” in the singular had been used instead, an “s” would be added to the word “enjoy” to make the phrase grammatically correct. Therefore, it would read, “The dog enjoys a scene of prosperity.”

Going back to our quotes, the first quote reads,

“. . . the United States exhibit to the world the first instance, as far as we can learn, of a nation. . .” The United States is a nation, the quote says so. However, the fact that “exhibit” has no “s” reveals that Mr. Wilson did not see the United States in the singular, or as a nationalistic entity, but as a nation of states - a federation of states. The United States, in this quote, is in the plural. The United States, then, in this quote, could very well have read “these states united,” and it would have meant the same thing.

Mr. Washington’s letter reads, “The United States enjoy a scene of prosperity and tranquility under the new government that could hardly have been hoped for.” Once again, there is no “s” at the end of the word after “United States,” meaning that Washington was not referring to a single nationalistic entity, but to a collection of sovereign states. As with Mr. Wilson’s quote, George Washington could have written “The States that are united enjoy a scene of prosperity,” and the sentence would have meant the very same thing.

Understanding how the founders viewed the union is important because it reveals much about why, and how, they wrote the United States Constitution. The founding document was not written to create a national government, but to create a federal government with the power to protect the union of individual states. In other words, the Constitution enables a governing body to protect and preserve the union of the States that are united.

To better understand this, one must consider the important distinction between a nationalist, and a patriot. Patriotism is the wholesome, constructive love of one’s land and people. Nationalism is the unhealthy love of one’s government, accompanied by the aggressive desire to build that governmental system to a point that it is above all else, and becomes the ultimate provider for the public good. In short, Patriotism is love of country, Nationalism is love of government.

The frame of reference of the Founding Fathers was the British Empire. In their independence, the patriots of America desired to be as nothing like the tyranny they had won their independence from as possible. The Founding Fathers, based on their own experiences, the experiences of the colonists before them, and the realities of history, determined that freedom for individuals was best served when the governmental system was limited by the chains of a constitution. Nationalists believe that government should have the authority to enact any act of government for the purpose of forceful benevolence. But if an individual is being forced, how is it benevolent?

Though a federal government could potentially be a bad thing, "no" federal government was an even more dangerous proposition. The Founding Fathers realized that if the states had not united against the British Empire, the Revolutionary War would never have been won. And as a nation, without a federal government wielding enough power to field an army, or tax in order to pay for that army, the new country would not long survive. The Articles of Confederation, a loose agreement between the States, proved to be too weak in the face of Shays’ Rebellion. So, the Founding Fathers set out to create a new government with enough power to form a more perfect union, yet limited enough that it did not become a centralized tyranny such as the one the patriots had just defeated in the War of Independence.

The British Empire was ruled by men. The King believed Britain to be his realm, therefore the concept of property ownership was limited to a small group of land owners, who were the Lords of Britain. The King, and the nobles, had complete power over making law, and imposing taxes. Therefore, the Founding Fathers realized that a nation ruled by an oligarchy of political elite was not compatible with the society that would champion liberty, and individual rights, that the founders desired.

A Democracy is a system of government ruled completely by the people. All laws and governmental functions, in such a system, are determined by the whim of the people. Historically, democracies are transitional governments that, when the people seek a governmental system more efficient and stable than their fickled democracies, become oligarchies, or a governmental system characterized by the many being ruled over by a few political elites. Therefore, the founders did not desire to create a democratic governmental system, because ultimately the system would centralize, and become nothing more than the monarchy that the Americans had fought so hard against in order to gain independence.

The conclusion was that the United States must not be subject to the laws of men, be subjected to the rule of men, or open itself up to become an oligarchy by creating a system that enables too much power to be granted to a single person or governmental entity. Therefore, the new nation needed to be a nation subject to the laws of God, governed by the rule of law, and have a republican form of government that features a representative system of governance. The States, and the people, would need to hold sovereign power. The federal government would need to be limited to authorities only necessary for protecting, preserving and promoting the union. All other authorities, specifically those authorities that would address issues directly affecting the people, would need to the responsibilities of the States, and the local governments, where the people have more control over governmental functions.

To achieve their goal, the Founding Fathers determined that the components of this new federal government, as opposed to being a national government, would need to be one with three separate branches of government, whose powers are separated so that no collusion between the branches could be possible, with numerous checks and balances to ensure no part of government wields to much power, have a limitation of authorities to the federal government granted by the States, provide due process of the law with the right of a trial by jury, and be a system that ensures that the federal government does not betray the inalienable rights of the people of the United States.

To achieve this, the Founding Fathers argued and debated heavily for four months in 1787. The result was the U.S. Constitution, a document like no other. The American Form of Government, through its constitution, would serve as a protector of the fires of liberty by preserving the union of states, and ensuring that individual freedoms and state sovereignty maintain a voice in the system. The nation would prosper, to the surprise of the world, and maintain its system of limited government for more than 200 years.

Unfortunately, the original intention of the Founding Fathers has been whittled away by the creeping incrementalism of progressive thoughts and ideas. Those that oppose the American Form of Government wish to move our nation in a direction of a more centralized government, where the central authority wields great power, which ultimately results in a system that uses its power to rule over the people through the rule of man. The rule of law, under such a system, is then transferred to the courts, and law becomes determined by the opinions of a few powerful men.

Under a progressive system, the federal government does not limit its actions to the powers granted to it by the States. The federal government seizes its powers without ratification, claiming it is acting on behalf of the common good. Ultimately, under such a system, the United States Constitution will be disregarded as simply a set of guidelines that the federal government can choose whether or not to follow, and different groups in the population would begin to receive special privileges, or a classification as a protected class, which is not uniformly granted throughout the population.

We the People have the duty to ensure that our governmental system does not operate outside Constitutional boundaries. It is our duty to protect our God-given liberty, and restore our Constitutional Republic. That journey begins with understanding the original intention of the Founding Fathers, and educating ourselves and our posterity about the U.S. Constitution, and working to restore our government to the constitutional limitations our Founding Fathers intended.


The Preamble

The Preamble is an introduction, and holds no legal authority. As the opening paragraph of the United States Constitution, it serves to establish who is granting the authority to create a new federal government, and the reasons for the decision.

WE THE PEOPLE of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

We the people of the United States - The people of the states that are united. . . do ordain and establish this Constitution. As with the many quotes by the Founding Fathers, the United States in this instance is there as a plural, not a nationalistic statement. The people in the states that united for the purpose of survival proposed the contract called the United States Constitution in order to create a federal government, grant to it limited authorities, and ensure that it remained limited so as to not infringe on the individual rights of the sovereign states, and the people who resided in those states.

As was customary of the founders, the reasons for forming the federal government are listed in order of importance: . . . in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity. . .

The most important reason for the formation of the federal government, the main purpose of the U.S. Constitution, was “in Order to form a more perfect Union.” A union already existed under the Articles of Confederation, but it was too weak to protect itself. The founders wanted to form a more perfect union, one with more authorities, while remaining limited in its power and scope. As you read the Constitution, you will notice that all of the authorities granted to the federal government are limited to the union. The federal government is granted the authority to maintain an army and navy in order to protect the union from invasion, to collect taxes in order to pay for that military and the functions for preserving the union, to regulate commerce by acting as a mediator between the States so that the flow of commerce flows regularly in order to encourage a growing economy for the union, establish a uniform rule of naturalization for the purpose of ensuring the union grows through regulated immigration, to establish post offices so that the parts of the union can remain in contact, and so on and so forth.

The second reason for the creation of the federal government through the ratification of the U.S. Constitution was to “establish Justice.” Note that the word “establish” indicates that there was no justice prior to the writing of the founding document. However, we are well aware that justice did already exist in each of the States. Therefore, it is apparent that the U.S. Constitution was not written to establish justice in the States, but to establish justice at the federal level where a judicial system had not previously existed. Once again, language has provided for us a clue to the original intent of the Founding Fathers.

The first two reasons for the writing of the U.S. Constitution, according to the Preamble, was to form a more perfect union through the formation of a federal government, and to establish justice by creating a federal judicial system. Therefore, it seems reasonable to assume that the Constitution was not written for the States, but directly for the purpose of creating and limiting the newly formed federal government, which was designed to serve the states by protecting them, and preserving the union they enjoyed. You see, before the States delegated some of their own powers to the federal government through the Constitution, those powers belonged to the States. The States, however, only granted “some” of their powers to the federal government, retaining most of the powers for themselves.

The U.S. Constitution, and all language within the document, is then directed to the federal government, not to the States, unless specifically indicated to be so. This is because the States essentially “hired” the federal government to protect and preserve the union, and the contract that authorizes the federal government to do so is the Constitution. Therefore, it would be foolish to assume that the provisions of the Constitution are to be applied to the States as much as it is foolish to believe that a contract between you and a contractor to build an addition to your house requires “you” to use grade 8 bolts.

This also means that it is the States’ responsibility to ensure the federal government acts in a constitutional manner. That would mean that it is not the federal court system’s duty to do so. The power that the federal courts have to interpret the Constitution is called Judicial Review, and that authority was not granted to the federal courts by the Constitution. Therefore, Judicial Review is unconstitutional. More on that, however, when we go into Article III.

Back to the Preamble, we have to remember that the union was fragile. The States, as colonies, or as states, never got along too well. They had their own culture, religions, and laws. They fought over turf, commerce, and anything else you could think of. The States were much like siblings, fighting over everything under the sun; but when it came down to brass tacks, they were united when it came to defending each other.

The bickering between the States created an atmosphere that placed the union at risk. Therefore, when it came to creating a more perfect union, it meant that the task of the federal government was to ensure the States got along, too. Hence, the reason for the Preamble also indicating that the Constitution was written to “insure domestic Tranquility” and to “promote the general welfare.”

What those two phrases meant was that because the States didn’t seem to get along too well, the federal government was expected to ensure there was tranquility between the States by acting as a mediator in disputes. Part of that task by the federal government was to also promote the general welfare of the republic. In other words, make sure the squabbles did not place the welfare of the union in jeopardy.

If the founders meant for the federal government to create a nanny state of entitlement programs with the term “General Welfare,” not only would they have then created a system of that sort back then, but they would also have changed the wording to read “individual welfare.”

Tucked between “insure domestic Tranquility” and “promote the general Welfare” in the Preamble is the phrase: “provide for the common defence.” In other words, almost as important as ensuring peaceful cooperation between the States, and slightly more important than promoting the general Welfare of the republic, was the duty of the federal government to provide protection for the union through a military. Defending this nation helped in promoting the General Welfare, but was not listed at the beginning of the Preamble because a country that places too much importance on a military is doomed to become a police state. Dut defending this nation was not placed at the bottom of the list because a nation that refuses to defend itself ultimately becomes a conquered entity that is subject to the authority of a foreign government. However, one of the primary reasons for creating the federal government in the first place was to indeed protect the union militarily. That is why “provide for the common defence” is listed in the Preamble.

The final reason for the writing of the Constitution is to “secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.”

Sometimes, when I ask somebody what the main reason the Constitution was written for was, more often than not the response will be: “To protect our rights, liberty, and property.”

That is actually an incorrect answer. Though protecting the rights, liberty, and property is among the reasons, they are not the main reason.

You see, as indicated in the Preamble, the primary reason for the Constitution is The Union. However, by creating a federal government, the Founding Fathers realized that they were opening up the potential for the governmental system to become a tyranny. Therefore, in order to protect the rights, liberty and property of the people (more specifically to “secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity”), the federal government would need to be limited in its authorities by the rule of law. The law of the land in which the governmental system is limited to, in the case of the United States, is the U.S. Constitution.

Understand, the Constitution does not give you rights. If government gave you your rights, then it would be reasonable to assume that the government could take them away. Therefore, your rights are “God-given.” The Constitution, in turn, protects your inalienable, God-given, rights by limiting the powers of the federal government.

So, because of the Constitution, the States and the people have all the rights, except those specifically delegated to the federal government by the Constitution.


Article I

Article I establishes the Legislative Branch of the federal government.

Article I, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution establishes the two parts of Congress, and grants all legislative powers to the two houses of Congress.

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.

The funny thing about the word “all” is that it means, as shocking as it may seem, “all.” This means that all authority in regards to making law, modifying law, repealing law (all legislative powers) and anything else that has to do with affecting law, belongs to the Congress of the United States. Therefore, any court cases that modify or strike down law, any executive order that modifies or creates law, or any regulation that is put into place without being proposed and voted into existence by the Congress, is unconstitutional. And, since the U.S. Constitution is the law of the land, that would make any court opinion, court ruling, executive order, executive action, or federal agency regulation that becomes law, modifies law, repeals law, or strikes down law an illegal action by that federal entity - making those pseudo laws illegal, unconstitutional, and null.

All legislative powers belong to the Congress. The powers are herein granted. Herein means, in the simplest way, “here in.” So, the word “herein” indicates that not only do all legislative powers belong to Congress, but that those powers are listed here in the U.S. Constitution.

Who gave the federal government those powers herein the Constitution? Apparently those powers were “granted” by someone.

Granted means “to transfer legally.” Therefore, the legislative branch does not receive authorities for the sake of it. The powers are granted by someone to the federal government. As indicated in the Preamble, “We The People of the United States” grant those powers to the federal government. That way, those powers may be “vested,” or legally transferred, to a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of two houses; a Senate, and a House of Representatives.

Article I, Section 2 defines the House of Representatives. The members of the House are divided among the States proportionally. The House of Representatives is the voice of the people in the federal government. Section 7 of Article I establishes that all bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives. What that does is give the House the purse strings of the federal government, which in turn gives The People (remember, the House is the people’s voice in the federal government) the ability to stop anything they feel necessary to stop, by simply defunding it. The House also holds the sole power of impeachment.

Article I, Section 3 defines the U.S. Senate. Senators were originally appointed by the legislatures of the individual States. This was changed in 1913 through the 17th Amendment. Each State has equal suffrage in the Senate, meaning each state has the same amount of Senators, two each. The Vice President is introduced in this section as the President of the Senate, who may be involved in all proceedings if he so desires, but his vote only matters if there is a tie. The U.S. Senate was the voice of the States in the federal government.

Most everything the Executive Branch does is subject to the consent of the Senate. The Senate ratifies treaties, holds hearings for any appointments the Executive Branch nominates, and the Senate holds the sole power for holding hearings on impeachments.

Both houses together also have the ability to override a veto with a 2/3 vote. This system was designed to enable the People and the States to constrain each other through their appropriate congressional houses, and to constrain the executive together through the power of a vote.

Article I, Section 4 establishes that each State may have its own methods for electing members of the Congress, and mandates, or requirements, and that Congress must meet at least once per year. Understanding this, it becomes clear that when the hanging chad controversy arose (Gore/Bush), the legal case should have only gone as high as the State Supreme Court. The federal government had no authority over that case, as per this section.

Article I, Section 5 indicates that Congress must have a minimum number of members present in order to meet, and if the Congress deems it necessary, may set fines for members who do not show up. Section 5 states that each house may have its own rules, keep a journal to record proceedings and votes, and that neither house may adjourn without the permission of the other. Section 5 also establishes that if a member of a house does not follow the established rules, the house may punish its members for disorderly behavior, and by a two thirds vote may actually expel a member from Congress.

The establishment of rules, holding a hearing in regards to the breaking of those rules, and punishing a member for his behavior, as set forth by Article I, Section 5, was recently used when Charles Rangel broke the rules of the House of Representatives, faced a panel for his actions, and was punished by censure.

Article I, Section 6 goes over compensation, and the rules regarding such. Section 6 also establishes that members of Congress may not be detained while traveling to and from Congress, and that they cannot hold any other office in government while in Congress. This section also indicates that no member of Congress shall be appointed to a later office if while in Congress the office was created, or a raise in pay was enacted for that office - The position of Secretary of State received a pay raise while Hillary Clinton was in the Senate, so technically she was not eligible for the position when she was appointed. To fix this, the Democrats applied the Saxby Fix, meaning they undid the raise, and Hillary Clinton received the compensation that was in place before the vote she participated in while in the Senate. The Saxby Fix, then, is defined as a Salary rollback; an unconstitutional action in my opinion.

Article I, Section 7 explains how bills become law. Any bill that raises taxes or fees must be proposed in the House of Representatives, giving "The People" the purse strings. All bills must pass both houses of Congress in the exact same form. When they are not the same, that is when a new vote for the bill must be established, or reconciliation is used, which still requires another vote. As the government had been established, the process allowed the people (House of Representatives) and the States (U.S. Senate) to both have the opportunity to approve the bill before it went to the Executive. If the bill is vetoed by the President, it can be overridden by a two-thirds majority by both houses. This allowed the People to constrain the States, the States to constrain the People, and for them to together constrain the federal government (Executive Branch).

Article I, Section 8 lists the authorities of Congress. Since Congress has the sole power to make law, this is also commonly referred to as the list of enumerated powers of the federal government. Note that all of the authorities have something to do with protecting, preserving or promoting the union.

Article I, Section 9 is a prohibitive section, placing limits on Congress.

Article I, Section 10 is a prohibitive section, placing limits on the States.


Article II

Article II establishes the Executive Branch.

Article II, Section 1 establishes the offices of President and Vice President. The election process is by the Electoral College. Originally the State Legislatures appointed the electors, but that was later changed in 1824 to a direct vote of the electors by the people (an attempt of those that support the progressive idea of a more centralized government to move this nation in the direction of a democracy). The change was technically unconstitutional because no amendment was proposed and ratified. Section 1 also requires the President to be a Natural Born Citizen of the United States, as well as establishing his compensation.

A Natural Born Citizen was one that was not only born in the United States (or a territory) and whose father was an American Citizen. Based on the language of the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1798, a person born of two American parents overseas may also make a similar claim. The importance of the father being an American citizen when it came to being a natural born citizen was so that the President would not have divided loyalties.

Article II, Section 2 gives the President the power to be Commander in Chief of the armed forces, and of the militias of all the states, which means that he is able to wage war. The declaration of war, and the funding of war, is reserved to the Congress. The ability to wage war was an important power for the president, for due to the times, if the United States needed to mobilize its military rapidly, the President did not have to wait for all of the members of Congress to return to Washington to hold a vote. If, later, the Congress wished to Declare War, such a declaration would enable the United States military to more freely fight on the battlefield. A formal declaration warned other nations that a state of war existed, and that it was advisable to remain out of the zone. Without a declaration of war, if a non-participating party entered the war zone, any action against them would be considered an act of war. If Congress did not agree with the President waging war, they have the power to defund the war, hence providing a check against the executive branch from using its power to wage war without oversight, or without limitations.

Section 2 also states that the President may have a cabinet to assist him, but that the appointees must be through the advice and consent of Congress. He may make treaties with other nations, but the treaties must be ratified by the Senate. The President may also pick judges, and other members of government, but once again none of this can be done without the approval of the Senate. This is where the constitutionality of "czars" comes in question.

Article II, Section 3 establishes the duties of the President, such as giving a State of the Union Address, making suggestions to Congress, acting as head of state by receiving ambassadors and other heads of state, and ensuring that the laws of the United States are executed.

Article II, Section 4 explains impeachment.



As a result of the Constitution, our nation has prospered as a unique republic. In the words of George Washington, “The United States enjoy a scene of prosperity and tranquility under the new government that could hardly have been hoped for.” That is, if we can keep it.

--------------

Thank You to Faith Armory, 27498 Enterprise Circle West, #2 in Temecula, California, for the use of their classroom.

www.politicalpistachio.com

Thursday, December 16, 2010

Article II, Powers of the President

December 16, 2010 Constitution Study with Douglas V. Gibbs, Temecula, California

Article II, Powers of the President

The Founding Fathers of the United States of America, though unified under the Articles of Confederation, needed a new constitution to serve as the young nation’s backbone. The Articles of Confederation failed to effectively protect and preserve the union of the individual states. A new government under a new constitution was needed; one that could ensure the new nation succeeded as a sovereign country. Fresh in the minds of the Founding Fathers were the reasons the revolution had been fought. The colonies had been freed from the misrule of a king and the tyranny of a centralized monarchy. Knowing this, the Founding Fathers in the Constitutional Convention realized that to protect the union the thirteen states would be required to relinquish some of their sovereignty to a centralized governing body with sufficient power to protect, and preserve, the union. However, organizing a federal government was a fearful endeavor, for many of the founders feared it may mirror the body which it was to replace. The US Constitution put forth a system of checks and balances intended to protect the rights of individual states, while setting limitations on the powers that would be granted to the three branches of the federal government.

Article II of the US Constitution establishes the Executive Branch, and provides the limits of the office of President. The article sets presidential and vice-presidential term limits at four years and states the manner through which they are to be elected. The presidential compensation is fixed, and cannot be changed during a presidential term. The President’s decision making process would also always be checked by Congress, in most cases specifically by the Senate, or the voice of the States. The limits on the office of President were designed to prevent aristocratic control of the nation.

Section two of Article II establishes the President as the “Commander and Chief” of the army and navy, as well as the militias of the original thirteen states, though only when they are called into service of the United States. This allows for the President to wage war, if necessary, without Congressional approval. However, if Congress does not agree with the President’s actions, they can pull the funding, and the use of the military for whatever operations the president chose them to operate in will cease. The President is also given the power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment. Though section two granted the President with significant powers, it also placed restrictions upon the position so as to ensure that the American President would not become like a king. Unlike monarchs, who maintain control over all of a nation’s military forces without limit, the president could only exert control over state militias in order to “execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections, and repel Invasions.” This would protect the citizens from a president who would use the armed forces against the people.

The president is granted the ability to make treaties and to nominate members to the executive branch, Supreme Court, and other offices not expressly provided for in the Constitution. Agreement and consent of two thirds of the Senate is necessary for any treaty or nomination to become effective. This once again disallowed the executive branch from mirroring the centralized British Model of unilateral control under the king.

Article II, Section 3 obligates the president to inform Congress of the state of the union and to recommend measures which they feel are necessary and expedient, and “to convene Congress in emergencies; to receive foreign diplomats; to ‘take care that laws are faithfully executed;’ and to commission all executive and judicial office.”

Article II, Section 4 provides for the most significant check to presidential power. “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.” British law lacked any mechanisms for the people to get rid of a tyrannical king. The U.S. Constitution, however, by providing for the people through the House of Representatives to initiate impeachment, and for the Senate to conduct hearings on impeachment, made the president, as well as his cabinet members, responsible for any personal misconduct while serving as the nation’s leaders. Though entrusted with great powers, the president could be removed by an involved American public, who could render ultimate political judgment.

Unfortunately, as time has passed, the scope of presidential powers has changed dramatically. The presidency has become a far more powerful position than originally intended, largely through the concept of interpreting the Constitution, and through such interpretation gaining a whole host of implied powers.

Presidential power is strictly limited. The powers of the executive extend only to those specifically enumerated in the Constitution. U.S. presidents up to the Civil War conveyed a shared desire to uphold such a literal interpretation of presidential power as stipulated by the Constitution.

Progressive theories entered into the political debate after the Civil War, arguing that a president of the United States could do anything that was not expressly forbidden in the Constitution or by laws passed by Congress working within its constitutional authority. The powers of the president were expanded, and has increased with each presidency since. These post-Civil War presidents have taken their interpretation of their enumerated powers beyond what might be considered legitimate. The Constitution was created with the goal of uniting the nation while preventing the national government from coming to resemble that of the British Empire. However, the continuous expansion of the presidency and presidential powers has cycled America into reverse, bringing us ever closer to becoming the despotic empire the Founding Fathers fought so bravely to be freed from.

--------------

Thank You to Faith Armory, 27498 Enterprise Circle West, #2 in Temecula, California, for the use of their classroom.

www.politicalpistachio.com

Thursday, December 9, 2010

Article II, The Executive Branch

December 9, 2010 Constitution Study with Douglas V. Gibbs, Temecula, California

“The common law of England is not the common law of these States.” —George Mason

Article II, The Executive Branch

Key Terms:

Executive Power: Executive power is vested in the President by the U.S. Constitution in Article 2. The principal responsibility of the President is to ensure that all laws are faithfully carried out. The President is the chief executive officer of the federal government. He is the leader of the executive branch and the commander in chief of the armed forces. He has the power to make treaties with other nations, with the advice and consent of two-thirds of the Senate. The President also appoints, with Senate consent, diplomatic representatives, Supreme Court judges, and many other officials. Except impeachment, he also has the power to issue pardons and reprieves. Such pardons are not subject to confirmation by either house of Congress, or even to acceptance by the recipient. Another important power granted to the President is veto power over all bills, but Congress, as noted above, may override any veto except for a pocket veto by a two-thirds majority in each house. When the two houses of Congress cannot agree on a date for adjournment, the President may settle the dispute. Either house or both houses may be called into emergency session by the President.

Natural Born Citizen: One universal point most all early publicists agreed on was natural-born citizen must mean one who is a citizen by no act of law. If a person owes their citizenship to some act of law (naturalization for example), they cannot be considered a natural-born citizen. This leads us to defining natural-born citizen under the laws of nature - laws the founders recognized and embraced. French Philosopher Emmerich de Vattel’s “Law of Nations” was a book the Founding Fathers used for many of their definitions. The Law of Nations defined a natural-born citizen as not only being a person who was born in his country, but also whose father was a citizen of that same country at the time of the birth of the subject in question. Citizenship by descent through the father is natural law. When a child inherits the citizenship of their father through natural law they become a natural-born citizen of the nation their father belongs regardless of where they might be born. All natural-born citizens are also native born of the location of their birth, but not all native born are natural-born citizens.

Commander in Chief: A commander-in-chief is the most senior commander of a nation's military forces or a major division of those forces such as the navy, army or air-force. In modern times the head of the combined forces may not be a serving member of the military but the president or monarch. As with any other commander, he has the ability to put those in his charge into action without having to wait for an approval, if he deems it necessary. In other words, the President has the authority to wage war. However, his actions are checked by Congress’ ability to fund, or defund, the military action. Though a President can send troops into battle, the Congress is capable of constraining that executive power through their control over the budget.

---------------------------

Article II establishes the Executive Branch.

Section 1 establishes the offices of President and Vice President. The election process is by the Electoral College. Originally the State Legislatures appointed the electors, but that was later changed in 1824 to a direct vote of the electors by the people. The change was technically unconstitutional because no amendment was proposed and ratified. Section 1 also requires the President to be a Natural Born Citizen of the United States, as well as establishing his compensation.

Section 2 gives the President some important powers. As Commander in Chief of the armed forces, and of the militias of all the states, he is able to wage war. Declaration of war, and the funding of war, is reserved to the Congress. Section 2 also states that the President may have a cabinet to assist him, but that the appointees must be through the advice and consent of Congress. He make make treaties with other nations, but the treaties must be ratified by the Senate. He may also pick judges, and other members of government, but once again none of this can be done without the approval of the Senate. This is where the constitutionality of "czars" comes in question.

Section 3 establishes the duties of the President, such as giving a State of the Union Address, making suggestions to Congress, acting as head of state by receiving ambassadors and other heads of state, and ensuring that the laws of the United States are executed.

Section 4 explains impeachment.

--------------

Thank You to Faith Armory, 27498 Enterprise Circle West, #2 in Temecula, California, for the use of their classroom.

www.politicalpistachio.com

Thursday, December 2, 2010

Article I Review, Article II Preview

December 2, 2010 Constitution Study with Douglas V. Gibbs, Temecula, California

Article I Review, Article II Preview


Article I establishes the Legislature.

Section 1 of the first article establishes the two parts of Congress, and grants all legislative powers to the two houses of Congress.

Key words:

Herein: Within this document, meaning that the authorities of the federal government are contained "herein."

Granted: Legally transferred, meaning that the authorities of the federal government are given to them through a legal transfer of power by the authority of this social contract between the States and the newly formed federal government. The "givers" of these powers are noted in the Preamble: We The People of the United States (note United States is in the plural, meaning that it is not being stated in the Preamble as a single nation, but as a collection of sovereign states).

Vested: Legally transferred, meaning that the We the People of the United States give the power to legislate to the U.S. Congress, provided that the laws made are within the authorities granted by the U.S. Constitution.

Section 2 defines the House of Representatives. The members of the House are divided among the States proportionally. The House of Representatives is the voice of the people in the federal government.

Section 3 defines the U.S. Senate. Senators were originally appointed by the legislatures of the individual States. This was changed in 1913 through the 17th Amendment. Each State has equal suffrage in the Senate, meaning each state has the same amount of Senators, two each. The Vice President is introduced in this section as the President of the Senate, who may be involved in all proceedings if he so desires, but his vote only matters if there is a tie. The U.S. Senate was the voice of the States in the federal government.

Section 4 establishes that each State may have its own methods for electing members of the Congress, and mandates, or requirements, and that Congress must meet at least once per year. Understanding this, it becomes clear that when the hanging chad controversy arose (Gore/Bush), the legal case should have only gone as high as the State Supreme Court. The federal government had no authority over that case, as per this section.

Section 5 indicates that Congress must have a minimum number of members present in order to meet, and if the Congress deems it necessary, may set fines for members who do not show up. Section 5 states that each house may have its own rules, keep a journal to record proceedings and votes, and that neither house may adjourn without the permission of the other.

Section 6 goes over compensation, and the rules regarding such. Section 6 also establishes that members of Congress may not be detained while traveling to and from Congress, and that they cannot hold any other office in government while in Congress. This section also indicates that no member of Congress shall be appointed to a later office if while in Congress the office was created, or a raise in pay was enacted for that office - Secretary of State received a raise while Hillary Clinton was in the Senate, so technically she was not eligible for the position when she was appointed. To fix this, the Democrats applied the Saxby Fix, meaning they undid the raise, and Hillary receives the compensation that was in place before the vote she participated in while in the Senate. Saxby Fix: Salary rollback.

Section 7 explains how bills become law. Any bill that raises taxes or fees must be proposed in the House of Representatives, giving "The People" the purse strings. All bills must pass both houses of Congress in the exact same form. When they are not the same, that is when a new vote for one of the bills must be established, or reconciliation is used, which still requires another vote. As the government had been established, the process allowed the people (House of Representatives) and the States (U.S. Senate) to both have the opportunity to approve the bill before it went to the Executive. If the bill is vetoed by the President, it can be overridden by a two-thirds majority by both houses. This allowed the People to constrain the States, the States to constrain the People, and for them to together constrain the federal government (Executive Branch).

Section 8 lists the authorities of Congress. Since Congress has the sole power to make law, this is also commonly referred to as the list of powers of the federal government.

Section 9 is a prohibitive section, placing limits on Congress.

Section 10 is a prohibitive section, placing limits on the States.

One will note that the authorities given to the federal government all have a common theme - they are for promoting, preserving, and protecting the union. After all, the primary purpose for the writing of the U.S. Constitution was in order to form a more perfect union.

--------------




Article II establishes the Executive Branch.

Section 1 establishes the offices of President and Vice President. The election process is by the Electoral College. Originally the State Legislatures appointed the electors, but that was later changed in 1824 to a direct vote of the electors by the people. The change was technically unconstitutional because no amendment was proposed and ratified. Section 1 also requires the President to be a Natural Born Citizen of the United States, as well as establishing his compensation.

Section 2 gives the President some important powers. As Commander in Chief of the armed forces, and of the militias of all the states, he is able to wage war. Declaration of war, and the funding of war, is reserved to the Congress. Section 2 also states that the President may have a cabinet to assist him, but that the appointees must be through the advice and consent of Congress. He make make treaties with other nations, but the treaties must be ratified by the Senate. He may also pick judges, and other members of government, but once again none of this can be done without the approval of the Senate. This is where the constitutionality of "czars" comes in question.

Section 3 establishes the duties of the President, such as giving a State of the Union Address, making suggestions to Congress, acting as head of state by receiving ambassadors and other heads of state, and ensuring that the laws of the United States are executed.

Section 4 explains impeachment.

-------

United States is a federation of states, not a nationalistic entity. Two quotes that show this to be true from the Founding Fathers:

"Governments, in general, have been the result of force, of fraud, and accident. After a period of six thousand years has elapsed since the creation, the United States exhibit to the world the first instance, as far as we can learn, of a nation, unattacked by external force, unconvulsed by domestic insurrections, assembling voluntarily, deliberating fully, and deciding calmly concerning that system of government under which they would wish that they and their prosperity should live." -- James Wilson, November 26, 1787 in remarks in Pennsylvania ratifying convention.

“The United States enjoy a scene of prosperity and tranquility under the new government that could hardly have been hoped for.” George Washington in a letter to Catherine Macaulay Graham, July 19, 1791.

--------------

Thank You to Faith Armory, 27498 Enterprise Circle West, #2 in Temecula, California, for the use of their classroom.

www.politicalpistachio.com

America is a Federation of Sovereign States

"Governments, in general, have been the result of force, of fraud, and accident. After a period of six thousand years has elapsed since the creation, the United States exhibit to the world the first instance, as far as we can learn, of a nation, unattacked by external force, unconvulsed by domestic insurrections, assembling voluntarily, deliberating fully, and deciding calmly concerning that system of government under which they would wish that they and their prosperity should live." -- James Wilson, November 26, 1787 in remarks in Pennsylvania ratifying convention.

By Douglas V. Gibbs

I began a recent article with the quote above. When I first read that quote, it struck me as fascinating that in the second sentence, after "United States," the word "exhibit" does not end with an "s". The missing "s" denotes that what comes before that word is in the plural, rather than the singular. In other words, the writer did not view the United States as a single entity as each nation of Europe is seen as, but as a collection of several sovereign states.

Every Thursday I host a Constitution Study in Temecula, California, and I often emphasize to the class the importance of state sovereignty, and how the idea of state sovereignty resonates throughout the U.S. Constitution. The early Americans saw themselves as citizens of their states before that of a citizen of the new nation.

Before the colonies declared their independence, they were as unique, and as quarrelsome, as siblings. Each colony had its own culture, currency, religion and customs. They quarreled over tariffs, commerce, borders, and travel routes. But, also like siblings, though they did not get along too well, they defended each other no different than a brother would for his sister. So, after the Articles of Confederation failed to provide the new country with a union capable of defending the new nation from an internal insurrection (Shays' Rebellion), the Founding Fathers decided they needed to form a more perfect union; one strong enough to protect, preserve, and promote the union, while still leaving the States with their sovereignty intact.

The Preamble, as an introduction to the U.S. Constitution, does not hold any legality, but it does establish the party that is giving authority to the new federal government (We The People of the United States - once again note that the United States is in the plural, not the singular) and the reasons for the creation of the Constitution. Also, the Preamble lists these reasons in order of importance, as was customary in the writings by the Founders.

When I ask people what the main reason for the writing of the U.S. Constitution is, most people state that the document was written to protect the rights and properties of the citizens of America. By creating a federal government, the Founding Fathers recognized the potential of such a government to exhibit tyrannical behavior and to ultimately pose a danger to the protection of a citizen's rights and allowance to own property, so they placed limitations in the Constitution to restrain government to functioning within only the authorities granted to it. Though protecting our rights and property was an important aspect during the writing of the U.S. Constitution, it was not the reason for the writing of the document.

As the Preamble lists, the primary reason for the Constitution was "in Order to form a more perfect Union." The union was necessary to protect the states so that they may be sovereign entities and handle their own affairs without having to worry about threats like foreign invasion, and the duties of promoting the general welfare of the republic as a whole. And as one reads the U.S. Constitution, while keeping in mind that the Constitution was written with the preservation of the union, and protecting state sovereignty, as its primary intention, it becomes apparent that all of the authorities granted to the United States Government are for the benefit of the union, while all other powers not granted to the federal government are reserved to the states so that they may handle their own affairs as sovereign entities.

This is why quotes, such as Mr. Wilson's, reference the United States in the plural, and not the singular. The States are a federation of sovereign states, not a single nationalistic entity as the opponents of the U.S. Constitution may claim. The union was designed to protect, preserve, and promote the sovereignty of the sovereign states, not rule over them.

Such is the beginning of understanding the principles that forged this great nation, and the principles we must maintain if we are to continue as the most exceptional, prosperous nation on the face of this Earth. . . God willing.

Thursday, November 18, 2010

Thanksgiving Gives Thanks for a Miracle, and the Defeat of Socialism

"Governments, in general, have been the result of force, of fraud, and accident. After a period of six thousand years has elapsed since the creation, the United States exhibit to the world the first instance, as far as we can learn, of a nation, unattacked by external force, unconvulsed by domestic insurrections, assembling voluntarily, deliberating fully, and deciding calmly concerning that system of government under which they would wish that they and their prosperity should live." -- James Wilson, November 26, 1787 in remarks in Pennsylvania ratifying convention.

By Douglas V. Gibbs

John Adams once wrote, "The Revolution was effected before the War commenced. The Revolution was in the minds and hearts of the people."

The Revolution that forged America into existence began long before the first shot was fired on Lexington Green, and continued after the British surrender at Yorktown. The idea of Thanksgiving goes all the way back to the pilgrims, where they thanked God for their survival and bounty, while sharing their bounty with their new found friends, the Indians. However, the holiday didn't find its first governmental recognition until President George Washington recognized it in 1789 with a proclamation. Thanksgiving wasn't celebrated nationally on the fourth Thursday of every November until President Abraham Lincoln proclaimed it to be in his Thanksgiving Address of 1863. Thanksgiving was not a formal federal holiday until 1941.

In 1787, in an effort to create a more perfect union, the federal government was born through the pages of the U.S. Constitution. It took the sovereign States uniting as one to defeat the great British Empire, so it was reasonable to assume a strong union would be necessary to weather the storms the new nation would encounter in the future. With God's guidance, the Founding Fathers studied history, and labored for four months to give us the greatest document, second only to the Holy Bible, this world has ever seen: The U.S. Constitution.

Understanding that history reveals the danger of too much power in any one group's hands, the Founding Fathers aimed to divide power as much as possible, and rather than make this nation a democracy fully run by the vote of the people, or an oligarchy fully run by the whims of a few powerful men, the Founders chose to make this nation a republic based on law, operating under the rule of law, and that law was not to be the opinions of a bunch of judges, but the U.S. Constitution as the supreme law of the land.

The Founding Fathers used history, and the guiding principles of their faith in God, to structure this government. This is one nation under God, with a federal government that has only limited powers granted to it by the States, and those authorities are enumerated in the U.S. Constitution. If the federal government desires a new authority, they may propose an amendment, but such authority is not to be granted unless the States approve the request by ratifying the amendment with a 3/4 approval. The States can propose amendments as well, though they never have since the creation of this nation. The federal government, however, as history has proceeded, has seized power without the consent of the people through a ratification process, and is becoming a governmental system the Founding Fathers feared may emerge. . . hence the reason for the detail that went into the U.S. Constitution - to stop the formation of a tyranny before it can take root.

Storms were on the horizon, and the Founding Fathers knew this. They recognized that there were those out there that desired a more centralized government, those that place as much faith, if not more, in government than they did God. These learned men understood that challenges would arise. Knowing these things, they wrote the Constitution with the intention to address each of those issues, and ensure that the great experiment the United States of America was becoming would stand the test of time.

The Constitution, and the principles of America contained within its pages, are not out of date, no more than liberty and freedom can be out of date. The philosophies of the Founding Fathers are contained within the pages of that founding document, and if we as a nation were to simply adhere to its wisdom, our nation would continue to prosper. George Washington realized that the U.S. Constitution was not written only for the age of America's founding, but to outlast empires and other foreign governments as a government structured to fit the requirements of human nature. Freedom is the same regardless of the time period, and for the United States to survive the obstacles it had experienced, and for the U.S. Constitution to be such a sound document rooted in the wisdom of the ages, George Washington felt it important to give credit where credit is due, and proclaim a day of thanksgiving to the Lord for the miracle that was, and is, the United States of America.

The original Thanksgiving, the one that the Pilgrims celebrated, was more than just giving thanks to God for their bounty. You see, the Pilgrims had tinkered with many forms of government, and one of those systems was one of a community basket, or socialism. The socialistic system failed, and many pilgrims went hungry. Without personal incentive, the people did not work their fields as they should, becoming dependent on others to supply the food and supplies to the community stash. However, when the system was changed to one of a free market, where the citizens kept most of what they produced, and then were able to sell or trade their excess in a free market, the new settlements began to flourish, and prosper.

So, one must remember that in addition to giving thanks to God for the birth of this great nation, and giving thanks for the miracle of the U.S. Constitution, Thanksgiving is also an opportunity to thank God for our defeat of socialism way back in the 1600s, which may have very well destroyed America before she had the chance to take her first deep breath. It was freedom, liberty, and a free market that gave the Pilgrims their bounty, and the Founding Fathers understood that. The real question now is, though the Founding Fathers understood the principles of liberty, do we?

Happy Thanksgiving, and may America continue to be the shining beacon on the hill - the light of the world that serves as an example of freedom, prosperity, and one nation under God for all to see, and emulate.

Thursday, November 11, 2010

Capitation and Article I, Section 9, Clauses 4-8

Temecula Constitution Study with Douglas V. Gibbs
November 11, 2010

Last week Marvin asked in regards to Article I, Section 9, Clause 4, “What’s Capitation.” For some reason I was unable to pull the answer out of the normally accessible file drawers of my mind, so I told him I would have the answer to him tonight.

Capitation is a Poll Tax, and in the context of the period, any tax that singles out groups both directly and indirectly regardless of possession of lands or personal property. Since Article I, Section 9 is a prohibitory section, the specific call by the Founding Fathers in that clause was that there shall be No Capitation, which included No Poll Tax.

In early New England, in keeping with traditions from the homeland, capitation (caput, meaning head), or poll taxes, were common. These taxes were levied as a way to manipulate the people for the good of the government.

Our good leftist friend Alexander Hamilton, though condemning capitation taxes in his Federalist Papers writings, was in favor of “head taxes” for emergency revenue reasons. He felt that since sources for revenue were so few, if the government needed to expand for any reason, the ability to lay head taxes, or direct taxation, needed to be an option. However, most of the Founding Fathers disagreed, not only because of their belief that taxation must be indirect and small, but also because of their opinion that the federal government must remain limited to the few authorities granted to it by the U.S. Constitution.

Article I, Section 9, Clause 4 forbids Congress to lay a tax upon individuals except uniformly, and in proportion to the census provided for in Article I, Section 2, Clause 3, where this subject is first brought up.

As we have learned, the U.S. Constitution is not designed to necessarily tell the federal government what it can't do as much as it is designed to tell it what few authorities it has. But the Founders felt this to be so important that in addition to not giving such taxation to the Federal Government as an authority, they felt they must also spell it out that the Federal Government cannot tax in this manner. This clause restricts the Congress a lot more because it is prohibitive. Article 1, Section 8 provides a list of "enumerated powers," but knowing that politicians would bend and twist meanings to gain more power, as they have with the Commerce Clause of Section 8, Article 1, Section 9 was designed to spell out some very specific things the Congress is prohibited from doing (such as direct taxation and capitation taxes).

The intent of the Founding Fathers was to provide as little power as necessary to Congress (the part of the Federal Government that “makes law”). The fear, however, was without some specificity on certain things that the Federal Government cannot do, there would be a tendency toward using what may be considered unclear for power grabs.


Within a few years of the ratification of the Constitution, these fears found their way into the Constitution in the form of the Bill of Rights. The first eight amendments restricts the powers of Congress much more specifically, even though the main text of the Constitution already forbid such actions by not giving the Federal Government those powers in the first place.

In regards to Article I, Section 9, Clause 4 we must also remember that the 16th Amendment in 1913 rendered this clause obsolete.

When The South tried to apply poll taxes in elections, meaning that one must pay a tax in order to vote (which would make blacks unable to vote because they could not afford the tax), Article I, Section 9, Clause 4 was used to stop the practice (even though technically the clause only applied to Congress).

After 1913, with the passage of the 16th Amendment (which created the Federal Income Tax), the clause was no longer in force. So when the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s resulted in Southern States once again applying poll taxes, one of the arguments was that poll taxes was no longer unconstitutional because of the passage of the 16th Amendment. As a result, the 24th Amendment was ratified in 1964, which in addition to requiring that all citizens shall not be denied the opportunity to vote for any reason, the amendment also provided the prohibition once again against poll taxes. This time, however, the law was careful to ensure that included in the wording was that the Federal Government, or any State, could not deny anyone the ability to vote by reason of failure to pay any poll tax, or any other tax.

---------------------------------------------------------

Article I, Section 9, Clause 6:

No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.

This proposal was placed before the Constitutional Convention by the delegates from Maryland, their fear being that congressional legislation might prefer Chesapeake Bay ports of Virginia to those of their State. Under the Articles of Confederation, each State was free to impose duties and make regulations to the disadvantage of others, and it was desired that equality in commerce be maintained in the future. This also gives us a clue to the intentions of the Commerce Clause in Article I, Section 8. The Founding Fathers did not wish to give the Federal Government control over commerce, only the ability to ensure that commerce was maintained in an equitable manner in regards to the several States.



Article I, Section 9, Clause 7:

No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.

This clause was inspired by the lessons learned in regards to merry old England. The Founding Fathers did not believe it should be in the power of the Executive alone, or of the legislature alone, to raise or spend the money at will. In Section 7 is the requirement that all bills for raising money must originate in the House of Representatives; but they must then pass the Senate and be signed by the President. In 1842 Congress began to make appropriations by joint resolution; but as that also must be signed by the President, there is no real difference. Also, in the interest of transparency to the people, the records of all monetary transactions both of receipts and expenditures must be made available for public scrutiny.

Article I, Section 9, Clause 8:

No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.

The Founding Fathers did not believe there should be any foreign influences in the affairs of our government, which is why I believe that today’s call by some politicians for taking in account international law would make the Founding Fathers tremble.

This provision was taken from one in the first section of Article VI of the Articles of Confederation. It permitted persons holding office under a State to accept, with the consent of Congress, the objectionable gifts or distinctions; but the constitutions of at least two of the States at that time forbade them altogether. This republic, being a nation born as a result of the tyranny of a monarchy should not grant titles of nobility, that much was easily understood. Nobility betrayed the trust and honor of the people through the use of prestige and favoritism. This was the kind of government that did not protect the liberties of the people.

Jefferson, as President, accepted from Alexander I of Russia a bust of that Emperor, which he said would be "one of the most valued ornaments of the retreat I am preparing for myself at my native home." He said that he had laid it down as a law of his official conduct not to accept anything but books, pamphlets, or other things of minor value; but his "particular esteem" for the Emperor "places his image in my mind above the scope of the law." However, without the consent of Congress, who was the final determining factor, he could not have accepted that gift.

In 1810 Congress proposed an amendment, the original Thirteenth amendment (some would call it the lost 13th Amendment because some records showed it was ratified, then suddenly disappeared - as explained below), to add a heavy penalty to this clause by this wording:

"If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive or retain any title of nobility or honor, or shall, without the consent of Congress, accept and retain any present, pension, office or emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king, prince or foreign power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the United States, and shall be incapable of holding office of trust or profit under them, or either of them."

The people were told that the proposed amendment lacked the necessary ratifying votes. Ongoing research has shown that the proposed amendment was indeed properly ratified, the State Department WAS notified and was on the books and records of the various States until at least 1876. From 1810 to 1812, twelve states ratified this amendment. The War of 1812 destroyed the library of Congress and these documents were thought destroyed, but in 1994 it was discovered they still exist. After receipt of an inquiry from President James Monroe and Secretary of State John Quincy Adams in 1818, Virginia confirmed the ratification March 12, 1819 with the act authorizing the publishing of the VA Revised Code in 1819. The Revised Code contained the Constitution -- including the original Thirteenth Amendment as proposed to the states for ratification in 1810, which the Virginia House and Senate quite propery had done May 1, 1810 The Virginia legislature subsequently authorized the distribution of the Revised Code of 1819 -- with ten copies designated for the executive branch of Virginia, five copies for the Clerk of the general assembly, and four copies for the Secretary of State of the United States, received not later than 29 August 1821; one copy each for Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and President James Monroe; one copy each for the federal Senate, House, and Library of Congress, and one copy for every judge in the courts of the United States in Virginia. Thus was the Federal government notified of the ratification by Virginia. By February of 1820, sufficient copies of the Revised Code had been printed to make it available for public sale, and it was advertised as such in a Richmond newspaper. Research conducted on this subject indicates that at least six or seven other Virginia newspapers also carried advertisements for the new Code.

Article V of the Constitution does not stipulate that the States, having ratified or rejected a constitutional amendment, be required to report their actions in any one particular way. Therefore, under the Tenth Amendment, each State is left free to publish the actions of its legislative bodies in any manner whatsoever. Federal law as of 1818, and as amended in 1820, requires that the Secretary of State give public notice of such ratifications as may be reported by the States. That law cannot and does not impair the rights of the States to issue their notices in any manner that their lawfully elected representatives deem proper. Indeed, the Revised Code of 1819 was, and is, the fulfillment of a contract made between those in government and those who have given their consent to be governed, in this case the free men of Virginia.

Evidence has been found that only 10 States may have been required to ratify in 1812, not 13, as two of the States, Connecticut and Rhode Island, did not become full States until 1818 and 1842 respectively, as they were still operating under their original charters and had not instituted a proper State constitution as required by the Constitution until these dates. However, the proposed Thirteenth Amendment was properly ratified with the publishing of the Virginia statutes in 1819. Research has proven that this amendment was unlawfully deleted from the Constitution of the United States of America in random years until 1876 without legislation from any state, or congressional action on the national level.

Avenues are being sought to reinstate this original and lawful Thirteenth Amendment as it was never repealed, but only deleted by outright fraud. Because of this fraud and others, the members of the judiciary and law professions now control all three branches of government. Jefferson warned of this. It is thought that one effect of this original Thirteenth Amendment would have precluded any member of the Bar Associations from citizenship and the ability of holding any office under the Constitution of the United States. If the original Thirteenth Amendment were reinstated, as members of the Bar Associations retain a title of honor, i.e. "Esquire", setting them apart from the common man, or as possessed of special privileges or immunities before the courts and in government not available to the common man, they would therefore be excluded from citizenship and eligibility to office in government. There is some doubt in this, however.
The main effect that restoration and implementation of the original Thirteenth Amendment would have in these times in the 21st Century would be the heavy penalty to the members of the judiciary, politicians, and the political "war chests" which are on the "take" of emoluments from the lobbyists of the foreign nations, foreign special interest groups, and foreign/multinational corporations.

"They saw all the consequences in the principle and they avoided the consequences by denying the principle." -- James Madison

----------------------------------------------------
A Special Thanks to:

Faith Armory, 27498 Enterprise Cir W #2, Temecula, CA 92562
951-699-7500, www.faitharmory.com - For providing us with a classroom to meet in.

Political Pistachio.com for Donating Pocket Constitutions.

Thursday, October 28, 2010

Constitution is a Social Contract; A General Will; Exclusive and Concurrent Jurisdiction

The Constitution is the Solution
Temecula Constitution Study with Douglas V. Gibbs
October 28, 2010

The Contract Between the States and the United States Federal Government

Elements of a Contract

1. An agreement reached to do, or refrain, from doing an action.

2. Validated when two of more parties with capacity make an agreement.

These elements must be reached after sufficient consideration.

Three basic components of a contract are:

1: Offer
2: Consideration
3: Acceptance

Agreement is essential to any contract.

Does the U.S. Constitution fit the criteria of a contract?

The U.S. Constitution is a Social Contract, which is one of the foundations of our system of government. Our social contract was agreed upon with the belief that government only exists to serve the people. They can choose to give, or withhold, this power. In America the contract was designed to be an agreement to only give government enough power to provide protection of their well being.

Supporters of a large centralized system took it a step further, proposing that government must exist because of the existence of a “General Will.”

A General Will

The General Will according to Jean Jacques Rousseau is a will not necessarily expressed by the general public in any way, but is presumed to be known by the ruling elite. No aspect of life is excluded from the control of the General Will. Whosoever refuses to obey the General Will must in that instance be restrained by the body politic, “forcing them to be free.”

Those believing in the General Will wished to dissolve the people into a homogenous mass, abolish decentralization, and remove representative institutions.

The Founding Fathers hated and feared the concept of the General Will, and designed the contract known as the U.S. Constitution with protecting the union against this kind of tyranny; hence, the existence of the Limiting Principles, State Sovereignty, Individual Rights, and a Separation of powers. In order for such a tyranny to dominate a governmental system such as ours, the wool would need to be pulled over the public’s eyes using rhetoric like “these laws are for the public good.”

Exclusive and Concurrent Jurisdiction

Exclusive Jurisdiction: An authority that only a State, or the Federal Government, has.

Concurrent Jurisdiction: An authority that both the states and the federal government has.

--------------------------------------------
A Special Thanks to:

Faith Armory, 27498 Enterprise Cir W #2, Temecula, CA 92562
951-699-7500, www.faitharmory.com - For providing us with a classroom to meet in.

Political Pistachio.com for Donating Pocket Constitutions.

Thursday, October 21, 2010

Article I, Section 9, Clauses 2 and 3: Habeas Corpus, Bill of Attainder, ex post facto law

Constitution Study with Douglas V. Gibbs, Thursday, October 21, 2010

Topic: Article I, Section 9, Clauses 2 and 3 - Habeas Corpus, Bill of Attainder, ex post facto law

We must remember that Article I, Section 8 is a list of authorities granted to the federal government, but Article I, Section 9 is prohibitive. This means that Section 9 is a list of things the federal government shall not do. Clauses 2 and 3 are integral to the working of our judicial system, as well as being prohibitive in nature to our U.S. Congress.

Article I, Section 9, Clause 2:

“The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.”

Habeas corpus is a legal term that means quite literally in Latin: "you may have the body." In legal terms, Habeas corpus is a writ that releases a prisoner from unlawful detention. Habeas corpus comes from British common law, and has historically served as an important legal instrument safeguarding individual freedom against arbitrary state action that includes detention without the due process of law.

A writ of habeas corpus is a summons with the force of a court order that demands a prisoner be taken before the court, and that the custodian present proof of authority, allowing the court to determine if the custodian has lawful authority to detain the person. If the custodian does not have authority to detain the prisoner, then the prisoner must be released from custody.

Habeas corpus is designed to protect citizens against any detention that is forbidden by law. The U.S. Constitution specifically includes the habeas procedure, and instructs the Congress not to suspend such unless the detainment is the result of a “Rebellion or Invasion,” adding that “the public Safety may require it.”

Normally, habeas corpus proceedings accompany questions of jurisdiction and authorities of the court that sentenced a defendant. The suspension of habeas corpus has recently become an issue regarding the detainment of terrorists, but one must ask if the public safety requires the suspension of habeas corpus in the case of terrorists, as prescribed in the Constitution. Secondly, one must consider that the Constitution applies to American citizens, so the question on whether or not Article I, Section 9, Clause 2 applies to captured combatants seems to be a moot point since it is obvious that the detained are not American Citizens, and therefore are not protected by Constitutional protections.






Article I, Section 9, Clause 3:

“No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.”

A Bill of Attainder is when the legislature declares the guilt of a person or group of persons, and punishes them without due process (the benefit of a trial).

In Britain, bills of attainder were used as a convenient way for the King to convict subjects of crimes and confiscate their property without the bother of a trial, and without the need for a conviction or indeed any evidence at all. Such actions were seen as tyrannical, and the Founding Fathers did not wish to give the new federal government those same kinds of powers. Some states, prior to the Constitution, did use attainders against British loyalists, but the practice all but disappeared after the Constitution so specifically forbid the use of attainders by the U.S. Congress.

A question regarding bills of attainder arose regarding President Obama’s treatment of British Petroleum. The President considered BP guilty of the crime of spilling oil in the Gulf of Mexico, and demanded they pay retribution without the benefit of due process. However, the argument was that the President did not legislate a bill of attainder, and therefore was innocent of acting in an unconstitutional manner.

In reality, that made him even more guilty, for it was evidence that President Obama was acting in lieu of the Judiciary and Legislature. In other words, he took on their authorities without even the consideration that what he was doing was a usurpation of the powers of the other branches of government.

Prohibiting the use of bills of attainder serves a number of purposes. One purpose is that by disallowing the bills of attainder the separation of powers is reinforced. By disallowing bills of attainder, it literally forbids the legislature from performing judicial functions. Another purpose is in regard to the protection of the concept of due process, which was later reinforced by the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution.

The true danger of a bill of attainder is that such a legislative act inflicts punishment without a judicial trial, and takes away the life, liberty or property of the target.

Ex post facto Law is literally retroactive law, or a law that retroactively changes the legal consequences (or status) of actions committed or relationships that existed prior to the enactment of the law. Ex post facto law could criminalize actions that were legal when committed, or in the case of amnesty laws, decriminalize certain acts or alleviate possible punishments. Generally speaking, ex post facto laws are seen as a violation of the rule of law as it applies in a free and democratic society. Ex post facto laws are expressly forbidden by the United States Constitution.
--------------
Thank you to Faith Armory, 27498 Enterprise Circle West, Temecula, California for the use of their classroom for our Constitution Studies. Be sure to visit www.politicalpistachio.com to read my daily writings.

Thursday, October 14, 2010

Definition of "Limited Government"; Shays Rebellion; Article I, Section 9, Clause 1

Constitution Study, Temecula, California with Douglas V. Gibbs
October 14, 2010

Limited Government

Folks sometimes fail to understand what a limited government truly is. The assumption is that limited government means less government, and that is not necessarily the case. A limited government is one that limits its functions to the authorities granted to it.

Shays’ Rebellion

Shays' Rebellion played an important role in the writing of the U.S. Constitution, and was even a key event that led to the Founding Father's decision to hold a constitutional convention in the first place.

The Founding Fathers did not intend to write a new constitution. Their intentions were to update the Articles of Confederation. However, at the Annapolis Convention in 1786 it became apparent to the Founders that there was no saving the document. A new constitution would need to be written. They originally scheduled the convention for a new constitution to begin May 2, 1787.

Shays' Rebellion began a month before the Annapolis Convention, in August of 1786. The new nation found itself on the verge of a civil war. The rebellion against the republic threatened to disunite the new United States, though from France Thomas Jefferson proclaimed, regarding the conflict, that "A little rebellion now and then is a good thing. It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government. God forbid that we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion."

The rebels during Shays' Rebellion caused riots, raids, and the shut down of courts. They were men of the fields, and their agrarian way of life was being destroyed by high taxes and mounting federal debt put into place by New England's merchants and shippers who held a more cosmopolitan social structure than the rural majority. The merchants, who held the positions of power in the new government, were putting into place trans-Atlantic trade that they felt was good for the new nation. Free trade with Europe without protections in place for America, combined with the mounting debt, depressed the economy that was already struggling in the postwar years.

Many of the farmers were veterans of the Revolutionary War who had poured their blood, sweat, and tears into the battles against England. Their service was not paid by a single month's pay, but instead by government certificates many had sold away to speculators along the way. Now, back on their farms, the fragile financial structure of the new nation, along with high taxes, made it difficult to provide a living. The rural communities found that their furniture, grain, livestock, and other food stuffs were being sold for much less than their value. To fight the debtors' in court the members of the agrarian communities were charged high legal fees, and were threatened with prison if they did not pay their debts. The farmers of Massachusetts feared that they were incrementally being reduced to the status of tenant farmers.

The farmers worked to modify the government to work in their favor, but as 1786 wound down the only favors the agrarians received were only token reforms designed to keep them happy for the moment. These small reforms came a little too late, as far as the farmers were concerned.

As debtors' courts remained a reality, the farmers found that they had no redress but to engage in open rebellion.

Daniel Shays served at the Battle of Lexington, was distinguished for his service at the Battle of Bunker Hill, and had participated in the crucial Battle of Saratoga in 1770. Though reluctantly, he found himself commanding an insurgency Springfield, Massachusetts.

Shays' men wore no uniforms, save for the coats and hats some wore during the Revolutionary War as soldiers. They identified themselves by wearing a sprig of hemlock (evergreen) in their hats.

During the autumn of 1786 organized groups of farmers formed into squads and companies so that they may march on the hated debtors' courts and force them to postpone their business. Shays and his men blocked the Springfield courthouse, and the coastal merchants and legislators in Boston viewed these court closings fearfully, seeing such actions by the farmers as being severely detrimental to the very foundations of their society. In response, the Congress of the Confederation authorized the raising of troops to combat the rebels, but the national government proved powerless to gather the financing necessary to form a cohesive military force.

Finding that the U.S. Government did not have the ability to rise to the occasion, Massachusetts' governor James Bowdoin, and other merchant leaders in Massachusetts, used their own funds to field an army.

Shays and his men never anticipated their actions would lead to charges of sedition, and treason, against the republic. In fact, they held dear the republican principles they had fought for in 1776. However, some political leaders saw the uprising as being a recipe for undoing the gains of the Revolution, calling the farmers "knaves and thieves" who "intended tyranny." Governor Bowdoin warned that interference with the legal system would "frustate the great end of government -- the security of life, liberty and property."

One of the demands of the farmers was the need for a circulating paper currency. The commercial sector in Boston, however, felt that such a currency would bring depreciation and fiscal chaos.

While the rebellion remained in place, the politicians also realized that the non-payment of state taxes put the wealthy who had lent large sums of money to the war effort at a financial disadvantage. The States, and the wealthy merchants, may face bankruptcy instead of an economic expansion they had been anticipating. By the beginning of 1787, Massachusetts had divided into two armed camps.

In January of 1787, the rebels marched on the government arsenal at Springfield in the hopes of standing off the troops that were advancing from Boston. At the arsenal, the defending militia fired their cannons into the ranks of the advancing insurgents, killing four and injuring 20.

"Murder!" became the cry of the farmers who never anticipated that their fellow war veterans would fire upon them. Shays' men retreated, pursued by government soldiers.

As 1787 proceeded, the rebellion became isolated flareups. The rebellion had been broken, however, and Shays himself fled to Vermont, which was not yet a part of the union and not bound to obey the appeals for extradition by Massachusetts.

Though the rebellion had ended, Massachusetts' officially declared state of insurrection remained in place. 200 rebels were indicted by a special court. In April 1787, five Shays men charged with treason were condemned to hang

In the election of June 1787, Governor Bowdoin was roundly defeated by the state's most popular politician, John Hancock, famous signer of the Declaration.

Clemency was requested, but Samuel Adams, the influential Revolutionary patriot and head of the governor's advisory council, called for the execution of convicted traitors to the republic.

The Hancock administration continued to hedge on this potentially explosive problem. At last a formula was devised which would equally dramatize the justice and the mercy of government. The rebels were paraded at the gallows on June 21, 1787, before a large crowd of spectators -- and were reprieved only at the last instant.

Shays' Rebellion further convinced those pushing for a stronger national government that the Articles of Confederation were too weak. George Washington, for whom the insurrection was a large reason for his own attendance at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, said, "there could be no stronger evidence of the want of energy in our governments than these disorders."

Shays' Rebellion was a recurring example used in the debates of the Constitution. For the Federalists, Shays' Rebellion was evidence enough to adopt the "Virginia plan," which called for an unprecedented and powerful centralized government. Those opposed to a strong central government touted the alternative "New Jersey plan," which favored state sovereignty.

The Virginia plan was adopted, with compromises attached. Though the government would have a number of powers authorized to it, the government would be limited to only function within those authorities. Checks and balances were inserted throughout the Constitution. A federal government was formed to protect the rights and properties of the people, while also insuring the States retained much of their sovereignty. The vote was seven to three on June 19, 1787. The proposed Constitution of the United States, safeguarding the institution of property from financial disruption and from future taxpayer rebellions, was signed by 39 representatives of 12 states on September 17, 1787

Nearly all of the rebels were reprieved or pardoned, although two were hanged (for burglary) in 1787. Daniel Shays was pardoned in 1788 and lived to an old age in New York state.

Article I, Section 9, Clause 1

Article I, Section 9, Clause 1 is obsolete, or so we are told. The clause addressed the importation of slaves and the migration of people into the United States. Slavery was abolished by Amendment 13 so the part of Article I, Section 9, Clause 1 that addresses slavery is obsolete. But is the part about migration still in force?

One could say that the “migration” portion of the clause is still in force because the 13th Amendment only addresses slavery. The standard belief among historians is that the entire clause is no longer in force.

The ramifications of this clause, as well as how it affects today's issue regarding illegal aliens, reach farther than most people realize. But one must ask, why would the Founding Fathers include a mention of migration in a clause that is essentially geared toward the abolition of the importation of slaves?

The word “importation” in this clause applies wholly to slaves.

The word, migration, then, would seem to apply wholly to free whites, or at least to non-blacks, or ultimately to non-slaves.

The intention was that since the Constitution, as the contract that created our federal government, is a document that grants powers to the federal government, and that all authorities not expressly delegated, is reserved to the people or the States, it was supposed, that, without some express grant to them of power on the subject of migration, Congress would not be authorized ever to touch the question.

All governments possessed the power to prohibit migration as it saw fit, so the Founding Fathers determined that the new United States Government must have that same authority.

The word migration was placed, and according to the clause, from the year 1808, Congress would possess the complete power to stop the importation of slaves, as well as the migration of people the Congress felt must be prohibited from entering this country as immigrants.

As with the power to prohibit the importation of new slaves, the power to prohibit migration was put off for twenty years after the writing of the Constitution, giving Congress the authority to legislate on the matter in 1808. The reason for delaying the power to prevent migration were, to be simply put, to give the States twenty years to attract as many people as possible without Congressional regulatory consideration. After all, at this time in history we had immense and almost immeasurable territory, peopled by not more than two and a half million inhabitants. Therefore, migration was encouraged, especially of the kind of people that would bring a benefit to the new nation. The immigration of able, skilful, and industrious Europeans was encouraged.

-----------------------

Thank you to: Faith Armory, 27498 Enterprise Circle West, #2 in Temecula, California for giving us a classroom to study in.

Thank you for joining in the cause of preserving our God-given Liberty and
restoring our Constitutional Republic. After all, if you don’t defend Liberty, who will?