Rights Against Government Tyranny - Amendments II through IV

Preview:

Lesson 8 - Rights Against Government Tyranny.

Lesson 8.1 - Amendment II, Right to Keep and Bear Arms

The Second Amendment does not give you the right to keep and bear arms. The Second Amendment does not protect you against the government from taking away your guns. Your rights are given to you by God, and protecting your rights are your responsibility.

With freedom comes responsibility. . .

--------

Join us tonight at 6pm in Temecula for an hour of Constitution Study with Douglas V. Gibbs

Faith Armory, 27498 Enterprise Cir. W #2, Temecula, CA 92562; 951-699-7500, www.faitharmory.com

Constitution Study in Temecula: Bill of Rights, 1st Amendment

Preview:

The debates over the adoption of the Constitution found the Anti-Federalists fearful that as drafted, the Constitution created a central government that may have the opportunity to become a tyranny. These fears were based on the memory of the British violation of basic civil rights before and during the American Revolution. With past British tyranny as a frame of reference, the Anti-Federalists demanded that a "bill of rights" be written that would clarify without question the immunities of individual citizens. Though the amendments of the Bill of Rights were not proposed until 1789, several state conventions during their ratification conventions ratified the Constitution with the understanding that the amendments would be offered.

One of the fears regarding the proposal of the Bill of Rights was that by trying to protect specific rights, it might imply that any unmentioned rights would not be protected. It was believed by many that as a result, the Bill of Rights was actually unnecessary, for in the British system of common law natural rights were not defined nor quantified. Adding a Bill of Rights to the Constitution may actually limit the rights of the people to those listed in the Constitution. As a result of this argument, included in the Bill of Rights is the Ninth Amendment. . .

. . . The Bill of Rights was originally not meant to be a guarantee of individual freedoms at all, but a limitation of federal authority against our God given rights. In other words, the Bill of Rights was not written for the people, but for the federal government as a means of telling the federal government what it cannot do in regards to our unalienable rights. . .

. . . The Bill of Rights was understood, at its ratification, to be a bar on the actions of the federal government. Prior to the incorporation of the Bill of Rights to the States by the courts as based on their interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Bill of Rights did not apply to the states.

The argument used, despite original intent, that the Bill of Rights must also apply to the States is based more on philosophy, than historical evidence. One of the philosophical standpoints used is that if the specific rights given in the Bill of Rights are based on the more general rights to life, liberty, and happiness which in turn are considered to be God-given and unalienable, then state governments do not have the authority to infringe on those rights no more than can the Federal government.

The argument, however, simply suggests that the Bill of Rights ought to apply at the state level, not that it originally did.

So, if the Bill of Rights originally only applied to the Federal Government, and over time has changed to be something that was applicable on the state level through court decisions, the reality is that the Constitution itself has never allowed the Bill of Rights to be applied to the States. The change was done by judicial means, meaning that the Constitution has been changed by judicial activism. The problem, however, is that according to the Constitution, the only way to change the Constitution is through an amendment process. Therefore, the incorporation of the Bill of Rights to the States occurred unconstitutionally. . .

Join us at 6pm in Temecula at Faith Armory, 27498 Enterprise Cir. W. next to Birth Choice. Class is free. Pocket Constitutions are handed out to all attendees.

U.S. Constitution: Federal Spending, The Founding Fathers, and Andrew Jackson

"No pecuniary consideration is more urgent, than the regular redemption and discharge of the public debt: on none can delay be more injurious, or an economy of time more valuable. ... Cherish public credit. One method of preserving it is to use it as sparingly as possible: avoiding occasions of expence [and] avoiding likewise the accumulation of debt ... not ungenerously throwing upon posterity the burden which we ourselves ought to bear." --George Washington, December 3, 1793

By Douglas V. Gibbs

Article I, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution grants all legislative powers to the U.S. Congress. Article I, Section 7 of the U.S. Constitution authorizes only the Congress to originate any bills that raise revenue. Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 grants to the U.S. Congress the power to collect taxes. Article I, Section 8, Clause 2 gives the Congress the sole authority to borrow money on the credit of the United States.

The idea of a perpetual debt in the United States was originally conjured up by statist Alexander Hamilton, who was also the country's first Secretary of the Treasury. He believed that the government should be able to manipulate the economy at will, and that debt was good for bringing in additional funding so as to be able to afford big government programs, while also forcing the States to remain a part of the union - after all, if the States are obligated to the repayment of a national debt, they will not secede from the union. In other words, he saw a national debt as a means of holding together the union.

The other founders, people like Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, and James Madison, believed that an excessive national deficit was a dangerous thing. Any debt accrued, they believed, should be repaid by the administration that incurred the debt, or at very worst, by that generation. Also, the United States, they believed, should only borrow when necessary, which in most cases would be to fund a war, since military operations are an expensive endeavor.

In the early decades of this nation, the U.S. made it a deliberate policy to pay off the national debt entirely. The seventh president of the United States, Andrew Jackson, used as the platform for his campaign that he would pay off the debt entirely. During his campaign in 1824, Jackson called the debt a "national curse."

Once elected, Andrew Jackson succeeded in paying off the national debt. We were debt free as a nation for over two years. That time period to this day is the only time in history the United States, or any other major country for that matter, has been debt free.

Though a Democrat, and often considered the father of the modern Democrat Party, Jackson was a Jeffersonian through and through. He believed in a laissez faire approach to politics - in other words, the smaller the federal government, the better.

Like Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson was not a big fan of the banks, speculators, and the "money interest." He saw the banks, and a federal bank that issues the currency, to be more dangerous than a standing army, so he campaigned to put an end to the Second Bank of the United States, as well. Born poor, Jackson had enough encounters with banks and debt to understand the dangers of both.

Jackson considered a national debt to be a "monied aristocracy," and saw the growing debt as a means for federal tyranny to ultimately destroy the liberty of our country.

Andrew Jackson took residence in the White House with a national debt that began at $125 million at the end of the War of 1812, and had so far been reduced to $48 million. To get the debt down to zero he decided to not go along with federal funding for "internal improvements" (now known as infrastructure projects), saying that it was the States that should be responsible for any improvements within their own borders. This very same attempt by Congress to create federal spending for internal improvements had also been vetoed by James Madison in 1817, but Madison's reasoning was simply that federal involvement in roadways and boatways was simply unconstitutional. The federal government had no authority to use federal funds for such projects.

By the end of 1834, Jackson reported in his State of the Union message that the country would be debt free as of Jan. 1, 1835, with a Treasury balance of $440,000. Government revenues that year would be twice expenses.

A debt free America did not last long. The politicians, using changing economic events as an excuse, resumed their heavy government spending ways. An economic slowdown later ensued, and revenues dropped by half. The national debt returned, but this time it would never go away again.

Now, under Barack Obama, we have a national debt in the trillions. Obama has spent more in the last two and a half years than all past presidents, combined. Though there is no hope of completely paying off the debt, as Jackson had accomplished, in the near future, a reduction of the debt has become a necessary need. Current levels of spending, which includes an atrocious array of entitlement programs, foreign aid packages to countries that even profess themselves to be our enemies, and ridiculous projects like a neon light museum in Las Vegas, are unsustainable. We are reaching a point where we just don't have the money to continue these spending levels. If we don't cut spending now, the fate of Greece may be in our future.

The founders saw a national debt that is transferred to the next generation as immoral. They viewed unconstitutional federal spending as illegal. The founders would not approve of today's level of spending, or the size of our national debt.

We should not approve of it either. This is why we must continue to vote in people committed to reducing the national debt, not liberal statists determined to continue to increase the debt until this nation faces complete economic collapse as a result.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

U.S. Constitution: Why the Liberal Judges and Liberal Media are so Dangerous

"No man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause, because his interest would certainly bias his judgment, and, not improbably, corrupt his integrity." --James Madison, Federalist No. 10, 1787

By Douglas V. Gibbs

Reading Madison's quote, it becomes apparent that judicial review, and the liberal activist judge's political agenda that comes into play when they hear a case, are such dangerous propositions. In the case of judicial review, in fact, the concept goes against everything the U.S. Constitution was supposed to be about.

Before the Constitutional Convention of 1787, all of the powers belonged to the States. The States decided for themselves how to regulate commerce, immigration, the right to bear arms, and every other issue one can think of. After a number of events, including Shays' Rebellion in 1786, the founders realized that the confederation in place under the Articles of Confederation (America's first Constitution) would not be able to protect the fragile union. There needed to be a new government, a federal government, a central government strong enough to form a better union, establish a federal judicial system to oversee cases affecting federal issues, serve as a mediator between the States to resolve the issues that divided them, protect the union with a military, and make sure that an overall general welfare envelope the States that were united under this new government by providing for the aforementioned issues, which in turn would secure the liberty fought for in the American Revolution for themselves, and all future generations (See PREAMBLE: 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).

Creating a central government, however, also posed a great risk, for it was central governments that were the culprits when it came to the rise of tyranny. The new Americans needed a lion strong enough to serve the union, and protect the union, yet a cage strong enough to restrain that lion so that it didn't eat the people.

The Constitution, with its limiting principles, would serve as that restraint on the new federal government.

The States, in order to allow the federal government to perform the tasks necessary to protect, preserve and promote the union, transferred some of their authorities to the federal government. The powers vested in the new system were limited, and those were the only authorities given. The States created the federal government, and wanted to make sure it remained limited to the authorities it was given, and if the federal government needed more power, it could only be the States that could give the government any new authorities. The Tenth Amendment explains it nicely, basically saying that any powers not given to the federal government, nor prohibited to the States, remained a State authority (10th Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people).

To put it in a nut shell, the Constitution (that includes all amendments) tells the federal government what it is allowed to do. If the authority is not given to the federal government by the States, the federal government is not supposed to have that authority. If the federal government desires a new authority, the Congress can propose a new amendment, and the States then can decide through ratification whether or not to give the federal government permission to have that authority. The States, likewise, can give, or take away, powers to or from the federal government through the amendment process (Article V. Convention).

Like all centralized governments in history, the United States Government yearns for more power. The people that govern think they should have access to more authority than what is provided by the U.S. Constitution. And this is not a recent development. The drive for more federal authorities, regardless of whether or not the Constitution provides for those authorities, became an issue early on. Alexander Hamilton and John Marshall were a couple of the early statists that pushed the envelope, working to circumvent the Constitution in their quest for big government, and a federal leviathan that granted itself power at will.

Alexander Hamilton, during the Constitutional Convention of 1787, argued for bigger government. He proclaimed that the President should be an American King, the United States should be an empire, and through mercantilism the government should be able to manipulate the economy, and gain political and financial favors and fortunes by playing favorites with the corporations. The rest of the delegates had other ideas that were contrary to Hamilton's suggestions, and in fact Hamilton's fellow New Yorkers, who held an extreme opposite opinion to his (they were Anti-Federalists) actually walked out of the convention, leaving Hamilton alone to represent New York - alone, and with no vote since one man could not represent their State through a voting power.

Having failed to make America a new empire with a strong centralized government at the helm, Hamilton turned to economic manipulation, and the courts. Alexander Hamilton created the Bank of the United States (the first of two) that worked much like today's Federal Reserve so as to guide the economic policy, and manipulate the markets. During the process of creating the national bank, Hamilton also conjured up the concept of Implied Power, which also has served as a means of circumventing the Constitution so that the federal government may do as it pleases.

Through his buddy, Chief Justice John Marshall, Hamilton's statist goals also made headway in 1803. The statists wanted the courts to be able to interpret the Constitution so that they could bend and twist it at will. In the case Marbury v. Madison, Marshall wrote in his opinion that the federal courts have the power of Judicial Review. What this means is that he decided the federal courts have the authority to decide if laws passed by Congress, and signed by the President, were Constitutional. By giving the courts this power to interpret the Constitution, the States were cut out of the constitutional process, and if the right people were put into Congress and the White House, they could use the courts to verify that their tyrannical actions were Constitutional, even if the opposite were true (the 17th Amendment in 1913 completed the process of cutting the States out of the picture, taking away State representation from the Congress).

Understand that first, the courts gave themselves this power (some may even say "seized" this power, or "stole" this power). The States never authorized the federal courts to be the final arbiters of the U.S. Constitution. Second, one must realize that the federal courts are a part of the federal government, and to determine if something is constitutional is to determine if the federal government may possess the power being discussed. So, when the Supreme Court decides that a federal law is constitutional, as we have all been conditioned to believe is the way things are supposed to go, the federal government is literally deciding for itself what its own authorities are.

Is that what the Founding Fathers had in mind when they wrote the Constitution, and filled it with limiting principles?

Today's judges take that ill-gotten power to the hilt, and the liberal media cheers them on, as if they think it is a good thing that government intrudes more and more in the lives of the citizens. Because of the media, and the indoctrination we receive through a liberal-infiltrated education system, we have been conditioned that the courts have the powers they say they have, and there's nothing we can do about it since that's the way it has always been.

Fact is, there is something we can do about it. It may take a couple generations, but we have to start the process, and we have to teach the next generation how to continue the process - otherwise, there may not be a free America for our children and grandchildren in the future.

The Founding Fathers gave us four tools for taking back our country. One of those methods is a last resort, and the tool the founder's used - violent revolution. The other three tools for taking back America are what we are working to use now.

A peaceful revolution is used through voting, being active in your local area, and taking active steps to change the government from the ground up by putting patriots into local offices while also working to put statesmen (as opposed to politicians) in Washington. The peaceful revolution is achieved by speaking out at townhall meetings, being active in organizations like your local Tea Party, and being in constant contact with your representatives.

Nullification requires your involvement at the State level. It is up to you to be a voice for the Constitution, reminding your State representatives that it is the States and the People that are the final arbiters of the U.S. Constitution, not the U.S. Supreme Court. Vote in people who understand this at your State level of government. Call them. Email them. Write them. When the federal government tries to force a State to abide by an unconstitutional federal law, urge your State to nullify that law by ignoring it, and to ignore the federal court orders that demand the State comply. If the law is unconstitutional, the States do not have to abide by them. The Constitution is the Law of the Land, a contract that is breached every time the federal government passes unconstitutional laws. California, for example, should ignore the federal courts when they tell the State that Proposition 8 (California State Constitutional Amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman) is unconstitutional, because marriage is not a federal government issue. It is up to the States to decide how that issue is approached.

Finally, the founders gave us as a way to change the Constitution, and the federal government, the amendment process. We are taught that the only way to amend the U.S. Constitution is by the U.S. Congress proposing amendments, and that is not true. In fact, originally the Founding Fathers were not going to give Congress that authority. The decision to give Congress the authority to propose amendments was granted during the final days of the Constitutional Convention of 1785. Originally, on the States were going to be allowed to propose amendments. In fact, The Bill of Rights were proposed by the States.

Article V. of the U.S. Constitution keeps in place the power of the States to propose amendments. This process is called an "Article V. Convention." Whenever two-thirds of the States apply for a convention, the U.S. Congress is tasked with the responsibility to set up a place and date for said convention. The States can then send delegates, chosen in a manner as each State deems fit, to propose amendments. On voting to determine if the proposed amendments should go to the State Legislatures for ratification, each State gets one vote. This is a way to change the Constitution without federal government influence. Through the Article V. Convention we can add amendments to the Constitution requiring the federal government balance the budget, require bills pass constitutional muster before going to the President for signature, and clarifying the limited powers of the courts (like taking away the unconstitutional power of Judicial Review for good).

All 50 States have applied for a convention (nearly 750 applications since 1791), and the federal government has refused to call one. The federal government fears an Article V. Convention, and will do anything it can to avoid allowing such an event to take place. This is why we must make noise, and educate people about this very important tool given to us by the Founding Fathers. If we work and work and work at this, eventually the noise will get so loud that we will come to a tipping point, and the federal government will have no choice but to call a convention.

These tools mean nothing, however, if the people do not get involved and demand their use.

We have been afraid of the courts, and the cesspool of Washington, for too long. Get active, get involved, and let's take back America. . . together!

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Worksheet 4A - Article II, Section 1

Lesson Four-A Worksheet, Temecula Constitution Study June 23, 2011

Terms:

Executive Branch:

Electoral College:

Democracy:

Republic:

Leveling:

Key Questions:

1. The powers of the President are ____________________ by the States.

2. The Election of the President and Vice President is accomplished by

_____________________ election.

3. The Electoral College protects the United States from the excesses of ________________.

4. U.S. Senators were initially appointed by the _________________ __________________.

5. A Natural Born Citizen is a person in which _______________ parents were citizens at the time of the child’s birth.

6. Many of the requirements regarding the executive branch in terms of eligibility were

designed to guard against divided ____________________________.

Key Concepts:

1. The President was expected to be a strong leader, while understanding the limitation of the authorities granted to the federal government.

2. The election of the President and Vice President through the Electoral College is an example of indirect election, which was designed to protect the United States from the excesses of democracy. The founders viewed democracies as temporary governments doomed to collapse.

3. The redistribution of wealth was a concept understood by the founders. They called it “leveling.” The Founding Fathers saw leveling as dangerous, because it would ultimately lead to democracy with the politicians granting entitlements in exchange for votes, and then to tyranny where liberty would be lost.

4. Natural Born Citizen is a concept different from that of “Citizen.” The aim of requiring the President to be a Natural Born Citizen was primarily in regards to guarding against divided loyalties, or dual allegiances.

5. The compensation for the President is not allowed to be increased or decreased in order to eliminate the opportunity for corruption.

6. This nation was founded on Christian principles, but the Founding Fathers understood that when it comes to the freedom of religion, that meant understanding that not all Americans would be Christian, or have a faith identical to that of early America. Therefore, they ensured religious freedom even in the oath or affirmation of office, by giving newly elected officials the opportunity to affirm rather that swear an oath to God.

Lesson 3 Worksheet, Article I, Sections 7-10

Lesson Three Worksheet, Temecula Constitution Study June 9, 2011 at Faith Armory

Terms:

Original Authority:

Veto:

Express Powers:

Implied Powers:

Duties:

Imposts:

Excise:

Exclusive Powers:

Concurrent Powers:

Habeas Corpus:

Bills of Attainder:

Ex Post Facto Law:

Direct Taxation:

Indirect Taxation:

Joint Resolution:

State Militia:

Key Questions:

1. We The People hold original authority in the process of ___________________________

______________.

2. The Congress can override a veto with a _______________ ________________ vote in each House.

3. The powers granted to the federal government are enumerated, making those authorities

_______________________________ powers.

4. Unconstitutional government authority not expressly stated by the U.S. Constitution, but

considered to be implications of other powers are called _____________________

_______________________ .

5. The federal government’s role according to the Commerce Clause is to act as a

_______________________ or _______________________.

6. Article I, Section 8, Clause 7 gives the federal government the authority to establish post

offices and post ______________________.

7. The power to make rules regarding captures on land and water belongs to

______________________.

8. The Elastic Clause authorizes Congress to make laws that fall within the authorities granted

by the U.S. Constitution that Congress recognizes as _________________________ and

________________________ .

9. The Founding Fathers did not believe their should be foreign influences in the affairs of our

________________________.

10. Each state may have a State Militia with the consent of _______________________.

Key Concepts:

1. All powers of the federal government were granted by the States, but the people have original authority in all powers, including the process of making law.

2. The power of the purse strings gives the House of Representatives the ultimate check against the other parts of government, and the House of Representatives was originally intended to be the voice of the people in the federal government.

3. The Legislative Branch is the strongest of the three branches, shown by one example by their ability to override a veto with a 2/3 vote by each House.

4. The enumerated powers are express powers granted to the federal government. No other powers exist for the federal government. Implied and Resulting powers are unconstitutional.

5. The power to tax by the federal government was primarily for the purpose of paying for the necessary functions of government. Taxation on Americans was originally designed to only be by indirect taxation.

6. The Commerce Clause grants to the Congress the authority to regulate commerce between the States, meaning that the federal government may act as a referee, or mediator, to ensure commerce flows freely.

7. Many of the powers granted to the federal government was to ensure that important factors in protecting, preserving or promoting the union were uniform throughout the States.

8. A National Bank was considered to be dangerous by Thomas Jefferson, to the point that he said a National Bank (like the Federal Reserve) is “swindling futurity on a large scale.”

9. The only mention of roadways in the Constitution is that the Congress has the authority to establish post roads. This makes our highway system created through federal funding unconstitutional, as well as an opportunity for the federal government to extort the States by withholding highway funds.

10. The Founding Fathers feared the federal government using the army against the States, therefore limited the funding of the army to two years at a time. The Navy, however, is permanent, deemed as necessary for the protection of trade routes.

11. Washington DC was originally intended to be the seat of government, and that is it. Congress has sole authority over the legislative powers of the District of Columbia.

12. The “Necessary and Proper” Clause is only supposed to be used in conjunction with federal laws that meet constitutional muster.

13. The federal government has the authority to prohibit who can immigrate into this country, but cannot dictate to the State which persons must be admitted.

14. Habeas Corpus was originally designed to protect American Citizens from being detained without due process of law.

15. Bills of Attainder are prohibited to both the States and the federal government. Bills of Attainder declare the guilt of a person or group, and punishes them, without the benefit of a trial (due process).

16. Ex Post Facto Law is a retroactive law, changing the consequences of actions committed prior to the enactment of the law. Amnesty laws are Ex Post Facto laws. Ex Post Facto laws are prohibited to both the federal government and the States.

Temecula Constitution Study: A New Government (Preamble, Article I Sections 1-6)

Constitution Study, Temecula, California at Faith Armory www.faitharmory.com, 27498 Enterprise Cir. W. #2 from 6:00 pm to 7:00 pm. Q&A afterward. Free pocket Constitution handed out to all attendees. Also, detailed study material available as well.


Lesson Two Worksheet, Temecula Constitution Study May 26, 2011

Terms:

Federalism: _________________________________________________________________

Unalienable Rights: ___________________________________________________________

President pro tempore:________________________________________________________

Impeachment: ______________________________________________________________

Quorum: ___________________________________________________________________

Adjourn: ___________________________________________________________________

Censure: ___________________________________________________________________

Saxbe Fix: _ _________________________________________________________________

Key Questions:

1. The Preamble is an introduction to the U.S. Constitution. Therefore, it holds no _____________________ __________________________.

2. The Constitution is a contract that created the _______________________ ________________________ .

3. The most important reason for the formation of the federal government was in order to form a more perfect _____________________.

4. The U.S. Constitution, and all language within the document, is directed to the

_____________________ _______________________ .

5. To ensure tranquility, the federal government was to act as a _______________________.

6. Article I establishes the ________________________________ branch.

7. The authorities of the federal government were granted by the ______________________.

8. The House of Representatives is the voice of the ________________________ .

9. The census is a head count used to determine the number of ________________________ each state will receive.

10. Each state has equal suffrage, or representation, in the _______________________.

11. The rules for electing members of Congress is established by the ____________________.

Key Concepts:

1. The Preamble lists the reasons for the decision to create a new federal government by writing a new constitution.

2. The most important reason for the formation of the federal government was in order to form a more perfect union, which in turn would protect the sovereign states from invasion and internal conflict..

3. The Constitution was designed to protect our rights because a centralized government has the potential for tyranny.

4. The Constitution grants all federal legislative powers to the legislative branch, which means that no other branch can make law, modify law, or repeal law constitutionally.

5. The House of Representatives was originally designed to be the voice of the people, and the U.S. Senate was originally designed to be the voice of the States. They served as checks against each other, and together as a check against the executive branch.

6. All methods for electing members of the Congress are determined by the State Legislatures.

7. All of the internal rules of Congress are determined by the Houses.

8. Though the Constitution contains guards against corruption in Congress, the politicians have devised ways to attempt to circumvent these restrictions, such as in the case of the Saxbe Fix.

Session II, Lesson 1 Worksheet

Lesson One Worksheet, Temecula Constitution Study May 19, 2011

Terms:

Separatists: _________________________________________________________________

Protestant Reformation: _______________________________________________________

Theocracy: _________________________________________________________________

Confederation: ______________________________________________________________

Democracy: ________________________________________________________________

Oligarchy: __________________________________________________________________

Nationalism: ________________________________________________________________

Republicanism: _____________________________________________________________

Key Questions:

1. The _____________________ colonization of the New World was sought through military conquest.

2. English _______________________ enabled the British government to enable colonization with little financial risk to the monarchy.

3. The English Charter system created the American virtue of _____________________.

4. Under the English 1559 Act of Uniformity, it was illegal not to attend

_____________________ of _______________________ services.

5. The Articles of __________________________________ established a government too weak to protect the union.

6. To protect against the excess of democracy a system of limits, ________________, and

___________________ was devised.

7. The U.S. ________________________________ is the law of the land.

8. The ________________________ _________________________ could also be referred to as “these states that are united.

9. Patriotism is the wholesome, constructive love of one’s land and people. Nationalism

is the unhealthy love of one’s __________________________________.

10. The federal government was created to protect, preserve and promote the

_______________________.

Key Concepts:

1. Exploration did not occur for the sake of exploration, but as the result of European nations seeking a better route to the riches of the Far East. The land route was no good because of Muslims demanding payment for passage, and the route around the horn of Africa was no good because of how long it was, and because of the danger of pirates.

2. The English Charter system was created after the English watched the difficulties Spain was having with holding together their empire.

3. The northern English colonies were the result of the Puritans and Pilgrims (among other religious groups) seeking religious freedom, which was a direct result of the persecution these groups received because of the existence of an established church in England.

4. The theocracies in the New World reveals that the desire for religious freedom for these early settlers was for themselves, not other groups. However, the tyranny of the theocracies led to a cry for religious freedom in America. Rhode Island is an example of this desire for religious freedom.

5. The nature of living in the New World, combined with the charter system, heavily influenced the development of the character of America. This tendency of the colonies to be self-sufficient led ultimately to the concept of state sovereignty.

6. Experience taught the Americans the dangers of a monarchy, utopianism, a democracy, a theocracy, an oligarchy, and nationalism. Therefore, the logical conclusion was that the new nation needed a system fashioned like none of these governmental systems or concepts. Therefore, the obvious conclusion was that the United States needed to be a republic.

7. The Constitution was the result of over a hundred years of the growth of the character of America. The combined experiences of the colonists, and the study of history, led the Founding Fathers to pursue a system like no other. Hence, the American Experiment.

8. The United States, before the American Civil War, was seen as “these states that are united,” or The United States “are,” rather than “is.”

9. The Rule of Law comes from the concept of natural law as presented by John Locke. The Founding Fathers saw natural law as God’s law, therefore established our system of government on the concept that our rights are given to us by God, not by government.

Amendments 25, 26, and 27

Adopted in 1967, the Twenty-fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution establishes the current line of succession to the Presidency, and creates the procedures for filling vacancies. The aim was to clarify Article II, Section 1, Clause 6, as that part of the Constitution was unclear.

The first time this became a major issue was in 1841, when President William Henry Harrison became the first U.S. President to die in office. Representative John Williams had previously suggested that the Vice President should become Acting President upon the death of the President. Vice President John Tyler concurred, asserting that he would need to succeed to the office of President, as opposed to only obtaining its powers and duties. Though Tyler became took the oath of President (precedent for full succession was established, became known as "Tyler Precedent"), nothing was done to amend the Constitution regarding the procedure.

When President Wilson suffered a stroke, no one officially assumed the Presidential powers and duties.

It was clear that a set of guidelines needed to be established.

In 1963, a proposal enabling Congress to enact legislation establishing a line of succession by Senator Kenneth Keating of New York based upon a recommendation by the American Bar Association in 1960 surfaced, but it never gained enough support.

On January 6, 1965, Senator Birch Bayh proposed in the Senate and Representative Emanuel Celler proposed in the House of Representatives what would become the Twenty-fifth Amendment. Their proposal provided a way to not only fill a vacancy in the office of the President by the Vice President, but also how to fill the office of the Vice President before the next presidential election (something Keating's proposal failed to address).

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

The Twenty-sixth Amendment establishes the voting age at the age of 18 (rather than 21 as it was previously). The amendment was proposed in 1971, in an attempt to respond to student activism against the Vietnam War. Originally, President Nixon had signed a law making the voting age 18, but a number of states challenged the law, and under pressure the amendment was proposed and ratified.

The slogan, "Old enough to fight, old enough to vote," which surfaced as far back as World War II, finally had won its fight. Arguments of various viewpoints regarding the wisdom of this amendment continue to this day.

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

The Twenty-seventh Amendment prohibits any law that increases or decreases the salary of members of the Congress from taking effect until the start of the next set of terms of office for Representatives. Ratified in 1992, the proposal remained in place for 203 years after its initial submission in 1789.

Amendments 22, 23 and 24

Amendments 22, 23, 24

Added Note: During the first part of class tonight we will be visited by the designer of the Constitution Quest game to allow you the opportunity to meet him, and see the game first hand. He will have extra games on hand in case you desire to purchase one.

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

The Twenty-Second Amendment was passed in 1951. It was designed to ensure no president could seek a third term. Though the Constitution did not limit the number of terms a president could serve prior to this amendment, many consider the fact that George Washington choosing not to seek a third term as evidence that the Founding Fathers saw two-terms as the expected standard.

James Madison and James Monroe also adhered to the two-term principle. Few Presidents sought a third term, and no President achieved it, until Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1940 became the only president to be elected to a third term. World War to has often been cited as the reason. In 1944, while World War II continued to rage, Roosevelt won a fourth term. He died before he could complete that term.

----------

The Twenty-Third Amendment allows the citizens in Washington DC to vote for Electors for President and Vice President. The amendment was ratified in 1961.

Washington DC, prior to this amendment, was literally being taxed without representation. However, one must consider that Washington DC was not supposed to have a population in the first place. The District of Columbia was intended to only be the seat of government.

Since Washington DC is not a State, the district is still unable to send voting Representatives or Senators to Congress.

The amendment restricts the district to the number of Electors of the least populous state, irrespective of its own population. That number is currently three.

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

The Twenty-Fourth Amendment disallows poll taxes. A poll Tax is a tax levied on people rather than on property, often as a requirement for voting.

A poll tax is a uniformed tax levied on every adult in the community. Poll taxes have their roots in ancient tax systems and have been criticized as an unfair burden on the poor. Historically, in the U.S., they were enacted in the South as a prerequisite for voting disfranchising many African Americans and poor whites.

The 24th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution ratified in 1964 made it illegal for a state to use payment to all taxes as a requirement to vote in national elections. Few blacks could vote because they had a little money. The poll tax to vote was $1.50. A woman decided to take the poll tax issue to court. In October 1965, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear Evelyn T. Butts' appeal. In 1966 the Supreme Court of the United States declared Poll Taxes unconstitutional.

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

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.

www.politicalpistachio.com

www.temeculaconstitutionclass.blogspot.com

Amendment XX

Twentieth Amendment of the United States Constitution

Ratified in 1933, the Twentieth Amendment establishes the beginning and end of the terms of the elected federal offices.

The amendment moved the beginning of the Presidential, Vice Presidential and Congressional terms from March 4. Congress would convene on the third day of January, reducing the amount of time a lame duck Congress would be in session. The terms of the President and Vice President were moved to the 20th day of January.

Also, another key point as a result of this amendment, is that if the Electoral College fails to resolve who will be the President or Vice President, the newly elected Congress, as opposed to the outgoing one, would choose who would occupy the unresolved office or offices.

In addition to the 20th Amendment, tonight we will also be discussing The Electoral College.

-----------

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 every Thursday night at 6:00 pm.

www.politicalpistachio.com

www.temeculaconstitutionclass.blogspot.com

Amendments 18, 19, and 21

Temecula Constitution Class, April 21, 2011

Amendment XVIII

Amendment XVIII was ratified January 16, 1919, bringing the prohibition of alcohol to the United States. The amendment was repealed by Amendment XXI, December 5, 1933.

Christian churches worked to bring about prohibition as far back as the 1840s. Through the use of pressure-politics the goal of nationwide prohibition was achieved during World War I with the ratification of the Eighteenth Amendment.

Congress passed the "Volstead Act" on October 28, 1919, to enforce the law, but most large cities refused to enforce the legislation. As the federal government went after bootleggers, it became quickly apparent that the understaffed agencies were fighting a losing battle. Meanwhile, though there was a slight decline in alcohol consumption around the nation, organized crime increased in the larger cities. Alcohol became a high demand cash crop that the criminal element could not resist.

As Prohibition became increasingly unpopular, the perceived need for tax revenue during the Great Depression encouraged a repeal movement. The hope for tax revenue, and weakening organized crime, led to the Twenty-First Amendment, which repealed the amendment that had brought Prohibition to America. The repeal returned the legalities of alcohol to the States. Though Prohibition was over nationwide, some counties remained "dry counties," forbidding the sale of alcoholic beverages.

Amendment XIX

The Nineteenth Amendment is the Amendment that gave the right to vote to women. It was ratified on August 18, 1920.

The Constitution gives the States the right to determine its own rules for elections. Though a few states allowed women to vote, for the most part women were not allowed to vote around the nation. The women's suffrage movement worked to bring about an amendment that would give women voting rights nationwide. The amendment was first proposed in 1878, and it took forty-one years before it was submitted to the States for ratification. It took about a year to receive enough votes for ratification.

A challenge to the Nineteenth Amendment (Leser v. Garnett, 1922) claimed that the amendment was unconstitutionally adopted, and that the rules for elections was implicitly delegated to the individual states because of the need to preserve state sovereignty. However, the very fact that the change in voting rules was through amendment made the argument against the Nineteenth Amendment a moot point.

--------

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.

www.politicalpistachio.com, www.temeculaconstitutionclass.blogspot.com

Amendments XVI and XVII

Amendment XVI

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

Amendment XVII

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.
When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.

This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

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.

www.politicalpistachio.com

www.temeculaconstitutionclass.blogspot.com

Amendments XIII, XIV, & XV

Temecula Constitution Study with Douglas V. Gibbs

Wednesday, April 7, 2011

Amendments XIII, XIV, and XV


Amendment XIII (1865)

Section 1

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2

Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Amendment XIV (1868)

Section 1

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2

Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.

Section 3

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4

The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5

The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.


Amendment XV (1870)

Section 1

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

Section 2

The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

---

The Emancipation Proclamation, which was a political move and did not actually free the slaves, resulted in Maryland and Missouri freeing their slaves within two years. The Fugitive Slave Act was repealed during this time, and Congress passed the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution in 1865. The Thirteenth Amendment outlawed slavery. The nation was reunited, and slavery was a thing of the past. However, after the Thirteenth Amendment, Lincoln felt he needed to make sure the South did not reinstitute slavery in some other form, while bringing the Rebels back into the union.

The Fourteenth Amendment, whose ratification is still today questioned, because the southern states ratified it under duress, and with northerners in their government, was ratified in 1868. The provisions, according to some, change the Bill of Rights to apply to the States, and eliminates State Sovereignty. Originalists have challenged that interpretation, and indicate that the 14th Amendment does nothing of the sort.

In Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment, the subject of citizenship is addressed. Note that Natural Born Citizenship is not addressed in this clause. Also note that through the anchor baby argument hinges on this clause, the clause does not say that anyone born in the U.S. is a citizen. It more specifically says "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States. . .

Since illegal aliens are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, their children born in the U.S. are not automatically American citizens.

The equal protection clause, and due process clause, that winds down this section are not necessary. All citizens are already protected under Article IV.

Section 2 ensures that all citizens are counted, including former slaves, for the purpose of apportionment.

Section 3 handicaps the opportunities for rebels to hold office.

Section 4 ensures the war debts belong to the States that caused them.

Amendment XV ensures that all citizens can vote.

Contrary to popular opinion, these amendments were specifically written to correct the wrongs of slavery, and apply to the emancipated slaves, not to gender, lifestyle, or other non-race groups.

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


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.

www.politicalpistachio.com

www.temeculaconstitutionclass.blogspot.com

The Road to the Abolition of Slavery

Constitution Study, March 31, 2011

The Road To The Abolition of Slavery

Slavery was a huge issue during the time the U.S. Constitution was written. The word "slavery" actually never appeared in the U.S. Constitution until the addition of the 13th Amendment. It is possible that the Founding Fathers avoided using the word "slavery" because they recognized the contradiction of the idea that "all men are created equal," while many of those same men were also slaveholders. One thing is for sure, the Constitution is filled with many compromises primary because the slave states to the south were needed in order to ratify the Constitution.

There were many at the Constitutional Convention that wanted the new federal government to have the power to abolish slavery immediately, or for the United States to become a nation without the defiant slave states to the south. Instead, the necessary compromises were made, while making sure that neither the free states, or the slave states, had too much power in government.

One of the compromises is found in Article I, Section 9, where it is provided that in 1808 the Congress may pass legislation to prohibit the Atlantic slave trade. True to the Constitution, on January 1, 1808, legislation was passed to do just that. The importation of slaves from other countries was banned, but the selling of slaves within our borders continued.

The northern states had all abolished slavery by 1804, beginning with Rhode Island in 1774, and ending with New Jersey in 1804. By 1820, the worry was that if the free states were to begin to outnumber the slave states, they would use their power to overpower the slave states, and vice versa.

Missouri Compromise of 1820

Population differences produced a disparity in House seats, despite the three-fifths ratio. As long as the number of slave states equaled the number of free states, the Senate would not be lost. The Missouri Compromise would help keep the number even, they figured. Missouri would be added as a slave state, but in the future no slave state could be added north of the parallel 36°30' (the southern boundary of Missouri).

The Fugitive Slave Act 0f 1850

Article IV, Section 2, Clause 3 of the Constitution called for escaped slaves to be returned to their owners, even in the event that the slave escaped to a non-slave state. The northern states, however, were not abiding by this clause, so the southern states appealed to the federal government to ensure that the northern states follow the Constitution. In 1850 Congress passed the Fugitive Slave Act. Its main provision was that any federal marshal who did not arrest an alleged runaway slave could be fined $1,000. A person suspected of being a runaway slave could be arrested and turned over to any person who gave sworn testimony of ownership. A suspected slave could not ask for a jury trial nor testify on his or her own behalf. Any person who aided a runaway slave by providing shelter, food or any other form of assistance would be sentenced to six months' imprisonment and a $1,000 fine. Officers who captured a fugitive slave were entitled to a fee, and this encouraged some officers to kidnap free African Americans and sell them to slaveowners.

Northern States failed to abide by this law, and the federal government failed to enforce it.

The Kansas-Nebraska Act

In 1854, Stephen Douglas introduced his Kansas-Nebraska bill to the Senate. It allowed people in the territories of Kansas and Nebraska to decide for themselves whether or not to allow slavery within their borders. The Act effectively repealed the Missouri Compromise of 1820 which prohibited slavery north of latitude 36°30´. Southerners entered the area with their slaves, while active members of the Antislavery Society also arrived. Henry Ward Beecher condemned the bill from his pulpit and helped to raise funds to supply weapons to those willing to oppose slavery in these territories.

Kansas elected its first legislature in March, 1855. Although less than 2,000 people were qualified to take part in these elections, over 6,000 people voted—mainly Missouri slave-owners who crossed the border to make sure pro-slavery candidates were elected. The new legislature passed laws that imposed the death penalty for anyone helping a slave to escape and two years in jail for possessing abolitionist literature. In 1856, Abraham Lincoln joined the Republican Party and unsuccessfully challenged Stephen Douglas for his seat in the Senate.

In 1858 when he made a speech at Quincy, Illinois. Lincoln argued: "We have in this nation the element of domestic slavery. The Republican Party think it wrong—we think it is a moral, a social, and a political wrong…that affects the existence of the whole nation."

Dred Scott

John Emerson was an Army Doctor that traveled from army base to army base. His slave, Dred Scott, followed him to these army bases in both slave states and free territory. Dr. Emerson died in 1843, at which time the Dred Scott and his wife became the property of his widow Irene Emerson. And in 1846, Dred Scott filed a lawsuit against Irene Emerson in the courthouse in St. Louis, claiming he was a free man by virtue of the fact that Dr. Emerson had, for extended periods of time, taken him to parts of the country where slavery was outlawed.

When Dred Scott originally filed his lawsuit asking for his freedom, due to the fact that many other similar lawsuits had been filed before, Scott and his lawyer were convinced that Dred Scott would win his case. In 1850 the judge ruled that Scott was free and that Mrs. Emerson even owed him the money she had received from "leasing him out."

However, Irene Emerson appealed the case to the Missouri Supreme Court. Two years later, in 1852, the Missouri high court struck down the lower court ruling -- deciding, in effect, that Scott was still a slave and that it didn't matter that he had been taken into free territory.

Another group of attorneys came forward and decided to continue fighting on behalf of Dred Scott. Irene Emerson then transferred her ownership of Dred Scott to her brother, a New Yorker named John Sanford. Since the case now involved people from two different states, it shifted from the Missouri state court to U.S. federal court.

In 1856 the Supreme Court heard the case and rendered its decision in March 1857. The court ruled that Dred Scott was still a slave, that any person descended from black Africans, whether slave or free, could not be a citizen of the United States, and it also ruled that the Missouri Compromise of 1820 was unconstitutional.

This verdict affected a lot more people than Dred Scott. It effectively meant that the series of compromises that had been worked out over the previous generation regarding the issue of slavery were no more. Southern slaveholders could take their slaves wherever they wanted, and they could take legal action to have runaway slaves from years past returned to them. Most importantly, it opened up the entire American west to slavery.

The American People, primarily in the north, were opposed to the verdict in the Dred Scott case. The issue became a key factor in the 1860 presidential election.

After the Dred Scott case finally concluded, Taylor Blow stepped forward and purchased Scott, his wife and his two daughters from John Sanford. He then took the legal steps to set them free.

------

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.

www.politicalpistachio.com

www.temeculaconstitutionclass.blogspot.com

Temecula Constitution Study: Amendment XII, and the Lost 13th Amendment

Constitution Study with Douglas V. Gibbs, March 24, 2011

The Twelfth Amendment, and the Lost Thirteenth Amendment

Amendment XII

Text of the 12th Amendment: Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and all persons voted for as Vice-President and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted. The person having the greatest Number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President. The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.

The Twelfth Amendment changes the procedure for electing the President and Vice President originally provided for in Article II, Section 1, Clause 3. The procedure has remained the same since its ratification, save for the States changing their procedures from appointing the electors by the choice of the state legislatures, thus following the instructions of the state legislatures, to the citizens voting for who the electors are expected to vote for. Though the electors are free to vote for anyone eligible to be President, in practice they usually vote for the candidates chosen by the voters in their state. 1824 is the last election in which electors were appointed by their state legislature. In that election, six states followed that procedure.

Each state is constitutionally allowed to choose how to appoint or elect their electors, and the methods vary state to state. Generally, electors are nominated by their state political parties in the months prior to Election Day. In some states, the electors are nominated in primaries, the same way that other candidates are nominated. Other states nominate their electors in party conventions.

The need for the Twelfth Amendment became apparent after the problems that arose in the elections of 1796 and 1800. The Twelfth Amendment was proposed by the Congress on December 9, 1803, and was ratified by the requisite number of state legislatures on June 15, 1804.

Before the Twelfth Amendment, electors could vote for two candidates, though at least one had to be from a state different from that of the elector. A majority of the vote needed to be received in order to win the presidency. If more than one candidate received a majority vote, then the House of Representatives chose the President.

In 1800, after a tie in the Electoral College, the House tied 36 times. That particular election was marked by a battle between the Federalists, and Jefferson’s Democratic-Republicans. Even though Burr was Jefferson’s running mate, Aaron Burr wound up Jefferson’s adversary when the vote went to the House. The lame-duck House controlled by the Federalists threw their support behind Burr, because they did not trust Jefferson’s philosophy of a limited government.

Before the Twelfth Amendment, the choice of the Vice President went to the second place winner. The Vice President, unlike the President, did not require the votes of a majority of electors. If a tie arose, the Vice President was chosen by the Senate, with each Senator casting one vote. Though it was not specified in the Constitution whether the sitting Vice President could cast a tie-breaking vote for Vice President, because the sitting Vice President is President of the Senate and casts the tie-breaking vote, it is assumed that if that situation had arisen, the sitting Vice President would indeed be the deciding vote for his successor. Because the second place winner became Vice President, it was very possible for the President and the Vice President to be from different parties. In fact, that is what happened in the 1796 election. John Adams won that election as the Federalist Party candidate, and Jefferson became the Vice President as a Democratic-Republican candidate. The fear was that by the two men being of different parties, the Vice President may do what he could to impede the ability of the President, or could even launch an effort to remove the President from office so that the Vice President could succeed to the office of the President.

The Twelfth Amendment eliminated the possibility of problems arising between the President and Vice President due to them being from different parties by having the President and Vice President elected as a ticket, thus lessening the Vice President's motivation for staging a coup.

The Twelfth Amendment also eliminated the “two votes for presidential candidates” method, changing it instead to the electors casting distinct votes for President and Vice President.

The Twelfth Amendment indicates that no elector may vote for both candidates of a presidential ticket if both candidates inhabit the same state as that elector.

The Twelfth Amendment also clarified language to not allow those constitutionally ineligible to be President from being Vice President.

A majority of electoral votes is still required for one to be elected President or Vice President. As in the case before the Twelfth Amendment, when nobody has a majority, the House of Representatives, voting by states and with the same quorum requirements as under the original procedure, chooses a President. The Twelfth Amendment requires the House to choose from the three highest receivers of electoral votes, rather than the top five as was the process under Article II, Section 1, Clause 3.

The Senate chooses the Vice President if no candidate receives a majority of electoral votes.

The Twelfth Amendment requires a quorum requirement of two-thirds for balloting.

--------

The Lost 13th Amendment

"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 any office of trust or profit under them, or either of them."

The original 13th Amendment was proposed in December of 1809, and ratified March 12, 1819. The amendment addressed the founders distrust of nobility.

The original Thirteenth Amendment instituted a penalty of the loss of citizenship for accepting or using a "Title of Nobility or Honor" to set oneself apart from, or superior to, or possessing of any special privileges or immunities not available to any other citizen of the United States, and to eliminate the widespread use of "emoluments" as bribery and of the legislatures and judiciary used to further the causes and positions of "Special Interests". It was an attempt to keep politicians and civil servants "Honest" in their service to the citizens. It added to Article I, Section 9, Clause 8, which disallowed any person holding office to accept any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State. The original Thirteenth Amendment, however, applied the penalty to “any citizen of the United States.”

The original Thirteenth Amendment was proposed and properly ratified. Yet, over the years, it disappeared. The amendment was deleted without ever being repealed. Quietly faded out. It is believed it was finally completely stamped out in 1865, just in time for the new 13th Amendment.

The very existence of the original amendment was unknown until it was discovered in 1983 when researchers discovered in the public library at Belfast, Maine an 1825 copy of the U. S. Constitution, which included the lost amendment. More research since then has revealed numerous records listing the ratifying states, and showing the original Thirteenth Amendment in various state and territory records. In fact, the 1867 Colorado Territory edition of the Constitution actually includes both the "missing" Thirteenth Amendment and the current 13th Amendment, on the same page. The current 13th Amendment is listed as the 14th Amendment in the 1867 Colorado edition.

The 1876 Laws of Wyoming also shows the "missing" Thirteenth Amendment, the current 13th Amendment on the same page. The current 13th Amendment is listed as the 14th, the current 14th amendment is omitted, and the current 15th Amendment is in its proper place.

More amazingly, there was yet a third 13th Amendment tucked in between the original, and the current amendment, signed by President Buchanan on March 2, 1861, two days before Lincoln's inauguration, which would have permanently legalized slavery. Not enough states ratified it, however, and the onslaught of the Civil War kept it from going any further.

On December 18, 1865, the "new" 13th Amendment prohibiting and abolishing slavery (and according to some surrendering states rights to the federal government) was proclaimed adopted by Secretary of State Seward, replacing and effectively erasing the original Thirteenth Amendment that had prohibited acceptance of "titles of nobility" and "honors" and "emoluments."

Part of the reason for the amendment was to stop foreign influence on the American court system, which under John Marshall had been seizing power and growing as a political influence on the law. The fear was that a judicial oligarchy was forming, and that the lawyers would act as the henchmen of an activist judiciary.

The lawyers realized, it is theorized, that the original 13th Amendment would keep them in check; therefore, the lawyers saw the need to eliminate the amendment. Coincidentally, it was not until after the Civil War and after the disappearance of the original 13th Amendment, that the American Bar Association began to appear and exercise political power.

After the deletion of the original 13th Amendment, the newly developing Bar Associations began working diligently to create a system wherein lawyers took on a title of privilege and nobility as "Esquires" and receive the "honor" of offices and positions (like District Attorney or Judge) that only lawyers may now hold. By virtue of these titles, honors, and special privileges, lawyers have assumed political and economic advantages over the majority of U.S. Citizens. These privileges have given to the lawyers a two-tiered citizenship in this Nation where a majority may vote, but only the minority of lawyers may hold the afore mentioned political offices (often used to launch them into other political offices). This two-tiered system is contrary to America's political interests, economic welfare, and the Constitution's spirit of equal protection and uniform opportunities.

The lost 13th Amendment demonstrates that the Founding Fathers recognized the danger of an activist judiciary, and how the conniving methods of lawyers made the members of the legal community enemies of the people and of the United States.

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

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.

www.politicalpistachio.com

www.temeculaconstitutionclass.blogspot.com

Amendment XI

Constitution Study with Douglas V. Gibbs, March 17, 2011

Amendment 11

The Judicial Branch was added almost as an after thought. The judiciary was originally designed to be the weakest of the three branches of government. The Anti-Federalists feared the judicial branch becoming a judicial oligarchy, and therefore the judicial branch was constructed to only apply the law to cases they hear. All opinions the judges may have of the law after reviewing the law was considered to be only opinion. Any changes to law, regardless of what the courts felt about the law, could only be made legislatively. However, soon after the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, fears of a tyrannical court arose, and so additional limits were placed on the federal courts by the 11th Amendment. No case against a state by citizens of another state, or by the citizens or subjects of a foreign state, shall be heard by a federal court.

The 11th Amendment changes the intent of Article III. As limited as the courts were supposed to be, the Founding Fathers realized the courts weren't limited enough, and as a result, the 11th Amendment wound up being ratified in 1795.

Federal judges maintained that the federal courts should have the power of judicial review, or the power to determine the constitutionality of laws. In response to the judicial urgings for the powers to judge the extent of the federal government's powers, in the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions of 1798, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison warned us that giving the federal government through its courts the power of judicial review would be a power that would continue to grow, regardless of elections, putting at risk the all important separation of powers, and other much-touted limits on power. The final arbiters of the Constitution are not supposed to be the courts, argued these Founding Fathers who were believers in the limiting principles of the U.S. Constitution. The power of the federal government must be checked by state governments, and the people. The States and the People are the enforcers and protectors of the U.S. Constitution.

The problems of federal intrusion on the states via the federal court system arose in the case of Chisholm v. Georgia in 1793, which eventually led to the proposal, and ratification, of the 11th Amendment. A citizen of South Carolina sued Georgia for the value of clothing supplied by the merchant during the Revolutionary War. After Georgia refused to appear, claiming immunity as a sovereign state, as per the Constitution (Article III, Section 2) the federal courts took the case. The nationalist view of by the judges deemed that in this case Georgia was not a sovereign state, therefore the Supreme Court entered a default judgment against Georgia. What ensued was a conflict between federal jurisdiction and state sovereignty that reminded the anti-federalists of their fears of a centralized federal government consolidating the states, and destroying their right to individual sovereignty.

Realizing that the clause in Article III gave the federal courts too much power over state sovereignty, Congress immediately proposed the 11th Amendment in order to take away federal court jurisdiction in suits commenced against a state by citizens of another state or of a foreign state. This is the first instance in which a Supreme Court decision was superseded by a constitutional amendment, and evidence that the founders saw the legislative branch as being a more powerful part of government over the judiciary.

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

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.

www.politicalpistachio.com

www.temeculaconstitutionclass.blogspot.com

Amendments IX and X

The Bill of Rights was unnecessary. Each of the first eight amendments were addressed in the text of the first seven articles. However, these rights were so important that the founders felt it necessary to write a bill of rights so as to clarify what the federal could not do in relation to our God-given rights. James Madison wrote the amendments, and they were added to the Constitution in 1791.

Knowing that there would be attempts to misinterpret the Constitution, the Ninth and Tenth Amendments were included.

Amendment IX: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

In other words, just because a right may not be mentioned here, it does not give the government the allowance to deny such right. All of our God-given rights are protected.

Amendment X: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The Tenth Amendment was intended to confirm the understanding of the people at the time the Constitution was adopted that powers not granted to the federal government of the United States were reserved to the States or to the people. The authorities of the federal government are listed in the Constitution in Article I, Section 8, or any amendments. If the authority is not listed as being one that belongs to the federal government, and no place is the issue denied to the States (such as in Article I, Section 10), then the power is retained by the States.

------

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

www.politicalpistachio.com

www.temeculaconstitutionclass.blogspot.com

Amendments VI, VII, VIII

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Rights afforded in all criminal prosecutions are set forth in this amendment. Remember that we have discussed that the Constitution applies only to the federal government, unless it states otherwise. The Sixth Amendment is one of those articles that includes the States. The word "all" provides that this amendment is not only to be applied to the federal courts, but to the State, and lower, courts as well.

This article gives the accused the right to a speedy and public trial, an impartial jury, notice, to be confronted with the witnesses against him as well as obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have counsel afforded for his defense (Remember "Miranda Rights" from last week?).

Amendment VII

In suits at Common Law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

The Seventh Amendment guarantees the right to a jury trial in most civil suits heard in federal court. The goal of the amendment was to create distinction between the work of a judge and that of a jury in operation in Federal civil court. Judges were to instruct juries, determine which evidence could be legally heard, and to advise juries on matters of law. The jury needed to hear the evidence, and determine if the lawsuit brought was viable or not.

In civil court and in common law in England, on which the Seventh Amendment is based, a judge’s responsibility should not include barraging the jury with opinions about the case or instructing jurors how to rule. Both judge and jury had vital roles, which were separate and discrete, and the system worked most fairly when these roles were maintained. The framers of the constitution sought the same distinction in American courts, resulting in inclusion of the Seventh Amendment.

State courts don’t have to honor this provision in the Seventh Amendment, and often don't. People bringing a suit do not have to have a jury trial. Individuals can waive their right to a jury trial if they so choose.

The Seventh Amendment also expressly forbids federal judges to re-examine any "fact tried by a jury" except as allowed by the common law. This means that no court, trial or appellate, may overturn a jury verdict that is reasonably supported by the evidence.

Together with the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment, the Seventh Amendment guarantees civil litigants the right to an impartial jury.

Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

As a nation founded on principles, the United States legal system is expected to be fair and just. This would mean that Americans should insist upon a due process that protects individuals from excesses and abuses by the judicial system. Such expectations would include that no individual should be singled out, or treated differently, in the eyes of the courts. This means that there should be no excessive bails or fines, or cruel and unusual punishment, for one person while others guilty of similar crimes do not receive similar.

A lack of specific definitions lead us to believe that it was common knowledge what would be considered as excessive, or cruel and unusual. Unfortunately, because of the lack of clear definitions, this provision has been often the subject of "interpretation."

-------

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

Fifth Amendment

Temecula Constitution Class with Douglas V. Gibbs; Thursday, February 24, 2011

Amendment V

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

Key Terms:

Capital Crime: One for the punishment of which death is inflicted, which punishment is called capital punishment.

Double Jeopardy: The act of putting a person through a second trial for an offense for which he or she has already been prosecuted or convicted.

Due Process: The essential elements of due process of law are notice, an opportunity to be heard, the right to defend in an orderly proceed, and an impartial judge. It is founded upon the basic principle that every man shall have his day in court, and the benefit of the general law which proceeds only upon notice and which hears and considers before judgement is rendered. In short, due process means fundamental fairness and substantial justice.

Grand Jury: A group of citizens convened in a criminal case to consider the prosecutor's evidence and determine whether probable cause exists to prosecute a suspect for a felony. At common law, a group of persons consisting of not less than twelve nor more than twenty-four who listen to evidence and determine whether or not they should charge the accused with the commission of a crime by returning an indictment. The number of members on a grand jury varies in different states.

Infamous Crime: A crime which works infamy in the person who commits it. Infamous crimes tend to be classified as treason, felonies (offenses of graver character than misdemeanors, especially those commonly punished in the U.S. by imprisonment for more than a year - Felonies include Capital Crimes as well), and any crime involving the element of deceit.

Miranda Rights: Your "Miranda Rights" are named after the U.S. Supreme Court case, Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436 (1966). Miranda Rights are a warning given advising the accused of their right to remain silent, their right to an attorney, and the right to an appointed attorney if they are unable to afford counsel - prior to conducting a custodial interrogation. From the Fifth Amendment: ". . .nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." Miranda Rights exist to secure the Fifth Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination, and to make the individual in custody aware not only of the privilege, but also of the consequences of forgoing it. The judicial opinion from The Miranda v. Arizona case also indicated that in order to protect the person's life, liberty or property with the due process of law, the individual must have the right to an attorney. With a lawyer present the likelihood that the police will practice coercion is reduced, and if coercion is nevertheless exercised the lawyer can testify to it in court. The presence of a lawyer can also help to guarantee that the accused gives a fully accurate statement to the police and that the statement is rightly reported by the prosecution at trial.

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

The Fifth Amendment attests to the Founding Father's understanding that his is a nation of property owners. As a republic of property owners, when in jeopardy of legal trouble, our rights and properties must be safeguarded.

The Fifth Amendment brings to the U.S. Constitution Thomas Jefferson’s words in the Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

Following the tradition of John Locke, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison believed that men could be free only if their lives, liberty, and property were protected by the rule of law.

Having a sense of independence, individuals must be protected, then, from the tyrannical trappings of a governmental system that may try to use the judiciary against them (as the King of England had done often). The protective mechanism, or "the rule of law," would be the U.S. Constitution and clauses like the Fifth Amendment which were designed to provide protection to the populace from unfair legal practices.

The words of the Founders continues to resonate today as the majority of the American people seem to firmly agree with the Founders’ insistence that no one should be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. We can take satisfaction that most of our fellow citizens in our republic still hold these truths to be self-evident.

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

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.

www.politicalpistachio.com

www.temeculaconstitutionclass.blogspot.com

Amendments III and IV

Temecula Constitution Study with Douglas V. Gibbs, February 17, 2011

Amendments III, and IV

Amendment III:

The Founding Fathers feared a centralized government with a powerful military. One of the final straws that began the road to the American Revolution was the Quartering Act of 1765 where the colonists became required to house and feed the British troops they despised.

The Quartering Act was one of the reasons for the writing of the 3rd Amendment, which reads: No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Tyrannical governmental systems use unwarranted influence through military means. To guard against the potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power, the founder’s concerns about standing armies became evident in the 3rd Amendment.

To help the populace protect themselves, and be able to enforce the 3rd Amendment, in case the federal government violated the clause, the Founding Fathers also gave us the 2nd Amendment: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The concept is Militia. The suggestion is that the United States will not be one where there is a standing army. Article I, Section 8, Clause 12 gives the Congress the power to raise and support armies, but limits them to no more than two years funding.

When a military arm of a tyrannical government can compel the citizenry to house the military machinery of defense, a police state is present and liberty is at risk. Such is the thinking behind the 3rd Amendment.

Until the Revolutionary War, the American states had no military, and the militias were populated by the colonists. The Constitution gave the U.S. Government the authority to build a military for the defense of the union. A military establishment, in the minds of the Founders, was a potentially dangerous thing. The Founding Fathers desired to protect the union, but did not desire that the American military become a tool of a potentially tyrannical federal government.

Amendment IV

The 4th Amendment to the United States Constitution was added as part of the Bill of Rights on December 15, 1791. It was written with the purpose of protecting people from the searching of their homes and private property without properly executed search warrants.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

What this means is that the federal government, in order to search a person's home, business, papers, bank accounts, computer or other personal items, in most cases, must obtain a search warrant signed by the proper authority, which usually means by a judge.

The issuance of a warrant must accompany reasonable belief that a crime has been committed and that by searching the premises of a particular location, evidence will be found that will verify the crime. The government officer does not have to be correct in his assumption, he just has to have a reasonable belief that searching someone's private property will yield evidence of the crime.

The 4th Amendment idea that citizens should be protected from unreasonable searches and seizures goes back into English history. The British Government was known for searches and seizures that were unlawfully conducted. Often these searches were conducted by the king's representatives.

The British government saw the American Colonies as a source of revenue. As a result, taxation against the American colonies was a continuous practice, in the hopes of generating as much money from the colonists as possible. The colonists resented this and engaged in substantial smuggling operations in order to get around the customs taxes imposed by the British government.

The King responded to the Colonist’s smuggling activities by using "writs of assistance," which were search warrants that were very broad and general in their scope. British agents, once obtaining these writs, could search any property they believed might contain contraband goods. They could enter someone's property with no notice and without any reason given. Tax collectors could interrogate anyone about their use of goods and require the cooperation of any citizen. Searches and seizures of private property based on very general warrants became an epidemic in colonial America.

In 1756, the Massachusetts legislature passed search and seizure laws outlawing the use of general warrants. The friction created between the Royal Governor and the people of Massachusetts grew with each passing moment.

In 1760 James Otis, a Boston lawyer, strongly objected to these arbitrary searches and seizures of private property and consequently resigned his position with the government, and then became the lawyer for a group of over 50 merchants who sued the government claiming that the writs of assistance were unjust.

James Otis represented these merchants for free. His speech condemning British policies, including writs of assistance and general search warrants, was so powerful and eloquent, that it was heard of throughout the colonies and catapulted him to a place of leadership in the swelling tide of disillusionment toward Great Britain.

Twenty-five year old John Adams, who would become the second president of the United States some time later, was sitting in the courtroom and heard Otis' famous speech that served as a spark that originated the American Revolution."

The 4th Amendment is a part of The Bill of Rights, which became law on December 15, 1791.

The 4th Amendment applies only to the federal government, but state constitutions are written similarly, and the States also have laws that are consistent with the intention of the 4th Amendment. The 4th Amendment provides protection from illegal search and seizure by government officials, but not by private citizens. So, if an employer unreasonably searched your possessions at work, the 4th Amendment would not have been violated.

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

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.

www.politicalpistachio.com

www.temeculaconstitutionclass.blogspot.com