Constitutional Ignorance in Congress

Republican Representative Bob Goodlatte or Virginia is the Chairman of the House Judiciary committee. Over the weekend, he stated that there would be no impeachment for the President because "no criminal act" had been broken.

Folks, here's what I want you to see if you're interested...here we have the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee....of all the members of the U.S. House of Representatives, the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee OUGHT TO KNOW WHAT THE CONSTITUTION SAYS!

Goodlatte, makes the claim that it takes a "criminal act" to warrant impeachment. He is either ignorant of our Constitution or he intentionally misstates the Constitutional threshold because he thinks your stupid. I have said for a long, long time...that the vast majority of those serving in the Congress are absolutely clueless to our United States Constitution. This man is an embarrassment.

Article II, Section 4 clearly states the following:
"The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors."

The Constitutional threshold for impeachment is actually pretty low....it has NOTHING to do with "criminal acts" although criminal acts would certainly meet the threshold if they occurred. Impeachment can even occur for "misdemeanors".  We need look no further than the founders to see what they meant...and for what purpose is the process of impeachment.

Alexander Hamilton wrote the following in Federalist 65: "those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust."
In other words, the Impeachment is the vehicle for removing those that "abuse or violate public trust".  Impeachment has ABSOLUTLY NOTHING to do with "criminal acts".  Representative Goodlatte is nothing more than a feckless, ignorant politician....or he is a liar. Either one of those options are not good.

"Sweeping away key textual limitations"

"On its way to that result, the majority sweeps away the key textual limitations on the recess-appointment power." - Justice Antonin Scalia, Concurring Opinion (Presidential Recess Appointment Abuse)

These are the words Scalia uses in his concurring opinion....look at them...see the reference to "textual limitations"....you don't hear the "Living Constitution" justices (the Libs) talking like that. Scalia and Thomas ALWAYS talk like this in their court opinions....they hold to the original text as best as humanly possible....that is the VERY HIGH calling of a federal judge (especially on the SCOTUS). The only way our Constitution works as an "anchor" and "limiter" of government power is when we do our best to be faithful to its original meaning and intent. This is called "Constitutional Originalism" or "textualism". The alternate philosophy is what is known as the "Living Constitution"...that is where you make it mean whatever you want it to mean. One can easily see the danger and fallacy of that philosophy. There is no limit to what you can do with the text. The "Living Constitution" is how we have arrived at where we are today....the documents text has been stretched, pulled, contorted, twisted, and perverted for so long....that major portions of the limiting powers have been made to mean something entirely different than originally intended. Another reminder of the absolute failure of Senator Graham on SCOTUS confirmations. He never talks about this requirement for a SCOTUS justice.

 A bigger reminder that we need clear amending language to reset the decades long perversion of textual meaning of key limiting powers. The founders understood this tendency among men....to stretch and pull on the limits of power....and they gave us a specific process to deal with it in Article V of the Constitution. The states can do what the Congress will not do....and propose amendments to the United States Constitution in order to reset the modern perverted interpretation back towards the founders intent.

"Amendments Will Therefore Be Necessary"

I'm hearing people talk out both sides of their mouths. Today I heard someone suggest that the United States Constitution does not need to be amended. They went further to imply that amendments are not ever necessary anymore. The implication is that we just need to follow it...and that it is somehow a perfect document. Now to be sure, few have spent more time, sweat, and their own personal resources than I have defending, teaching, espousing the brilliance of the United States Constitution than I have in the last 15 years. No one presses the case for our adherence to that document than I.  No one presses the case that we need to only elect officials to office that will OBEY that document more than I.

So they are opposed to amendments to our Constitution. So they are either ignorant of the fact that our Constitution has been amended 27 times, including the Bill of Rights (1st 10 Amendments). Granted, I would reject the 16th and 17th, if I was breathing back in 1913 but alas I was not. Or, they are ignorant of the purpose of the amendment process as envisioned by the founders.

Such a simplistic viewpoint put forward by those that would have you believe they are scholars. Here's a lesson in history and reality. The framers knew that their document was imperfect. I think it is the most brilliant document for government ever devised by man because I know that God was behind the scenes providentially guiding their hands. But the document was made by imperfect men who understood it was imperfect and hence gave us not one but two processes to amend it when the need arose. Indeed, we all cherish our Bill of Rights, so I dare say that the document was made better with those amendments and other amendments that would follow.

The founders understood the natural tendency among fallen men to pull, push, and try to stretch on the limits of power that would be in their hands. They knew that over time men would twist the language and text of the Constitution to make it mean what they wanted it to mean. Col. George Mason told us that "amendments would therefore be necessary" (June 11th, 1787), so they wisely gave us a process to make course corrections.  Ladies, the next time you hear someone tell you that we don't need to amend our Constitution, take them to task for the fact that you would not have the right to vote without the 18th amendment to the United States Constitution. We would not have Presidential term limits without the 22nd Amendment. And we will never have term limits imposed on the United States Congress or the Supreme Court without an amendment to the United States Constitution. I could go on and one with other examples of other amendments but suffice it to say that thinking people understand why we have an amendment process.

What is pathetic is listening to folks that bark loudly as if they know what they are talking about, but their statements and arguments betray a complete lack of scholarship and a frankly basic effort to think what they are saying through.

The Check on Tyranny

One by one Americans are coming to understand and embrace the wisdom of the founders and our God given provision within the Rule of Law to rein in a runaway federal government.

The founders understood the principle of the Depravity of Man and designed a system of government that separated power in order to prevent the tyranny they were accustomed to when power was centralized in one individual. They designed a system of limited, enumerated powers in order to protect state and individual sovereignty and liberty. They designed a system with "checks" to power in the case where office holders abused their power. They also understood that as time progressed, one of the ways that office holders would abuse their power would be by stretching and pulling on the boundaries and interpretation of the text of the enumerated powers. So they designed a system whereby the text of the Constitution could be amended when necessary to correct those "twists" and "perversions". We have done that (amendments) 27 times to date in our nation. They gave us two methods to propose and ratify amendments in Article V of the Constitution. The method that has been employed all 27 times, has been the first method listed in Article V, where the Congress proposed those amendments and sent them out to the states for ratification. They also understood that there might come a time where the Congress became so intoxicated with its own power that it would never propose amendments to reign in its out of control abuses. So they inserted a 2nd method where the States and People could propose amendments when Congress was to the point where it could not, and would not control itself, or take measures to control itself. Those proposals from an Article V Convention of States would still have to go back to the 50 states for ratification just like the method in the first process. The Article V Convention of States is the Constitutional pushback for the states to use on an out of control federal government.

It is imperative that we understand that history and how our system was designed. They gave us the 2nd process in Article V for exactly where we find ourselves today. Rome is burning. It is time to answer the call and use the Constitution to fix the abuse.

Warren Burger as Exhibit "A"? Really??

Many years ago, when I first started working as the South Carolina State Director for the Convention of States Project effort, I debated with the SC Field Representative for the John Birch Society on the merits of an Article V Convention of States and the COS Project. One of the pieces of "evidence" used by the JBS to argue against an Article V COS is a letter written in 1988 by former United States Supreme Court Justice Warren Burger. In the debate, each of us had 20 minutes to present our side. When the JBS rep had his turn I was astounded that he chose to use this letter as part of his argument. You see, Chief Justice Warren Burger was the Chief Justice that presided over the Roe v Wade Supreme Court decision that struck down every law in the nation that protected unborn children. This is the decision that our federal government handed down that has sanctioned the butchering of 60 million unborn children to date. Burger was one of the chief architects of the decision where our government made war against the unborn lawful in our nation. Our federal judiciary, with Chief Justice Warren Burger at the helm sanctioned a holocaust on unborn children. It would be one thing if the JBS field rep didn’t know this…that would be bad enough, but friends….we have been beating them up about this since they began to use it in their opposition to us over 6 months ago. The JBS touts itself as THE protector of the Constitution.

During one of the questions that we fielded after our 20 minute statements, I turned to the audience and asked if anyone could tell me what the most egregious court decision has been in the history of our nation. Almost unanimously they responded with “Roe v Wade”. I then asked them if they knew who wrote and approved of that decision...they didn't...so I informed them that Warren Burger was the Chief Justice that was part of the majority decision that found the right for women to chop up their unborn children in what the court called the “penumbras” or shadows of the Constitution. It was the most radical departure from Originalism in the history of the Supreme Court. So the John Birch Society holds up Warren Burger, one of the most radical, left wing SCOTUS Justices in our nation’s history that twisted and perverted the Constitution in order to arrive at the most abominable decision a court could make under our Constitution. A Constitution designed to protect and implement the principles of Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness found in the Declaration of Independence. You could have heard a pin drop, when I dropped that bomb.

Now, it would be one thing if my JBS debate “opponent” had just heard this information for the first time, but he knows it….he has heard us explain this before. One has to wonder why the JBS (an organization that claims to be devoted to protecting the original intent of the Constitution) would continue to use one of the most activist, liberal, far left, statist Justices (who continually showed his contempt for the Rule of Law and Originalism in his decisions) to make their point. Thinking people would ask why a Judge, whose normal mode of operation was to subvert the Rule of Law and pervert the Constitution...thinking people would ask why would he NOT oppose the use of Article V by the states since it's very use would potentially strip him of his power to pervert our Rule of Law?

Someone needs to ask the John Birch Society, all those that support them, and this particular JBS representative, why they continue to hold up this pathetic, radical, leftist Chief Justice that gave us the most abominable decision in our nation’s history as their poster child.

Smoke and Mirrors

This is one of those "please permit me to provide some Constitutional training" afternoons. I'm going to tick some of my Republican friends off with this....but that's ok, swallowing illogical garbage just because I vote Republican is not something I can and will ever do. So, here we go....

The Republican controlled House of Representatives passed a bill this week called the "Enforce The Law Act".... I am told by other "astute" republicans that they needed to do this because they will never be able to impeach the President.

So, let's follow the logic...there is so much here to either laugh or cry at, I don't know where to begin.

The Constitution gives the House of Representatives sole power to indict, or bring charges against any federal official for "high crimes and misdemeanors". With the term "misdemeanors" used in the Constitution, the threshold for "indictments" is pretty low. These indictments are called "Articles of Impeachment".

In the current administration, from the President on down, this is what one might call a "target rich" environment when it comes to indictable offenses. Indeed, the name of the law passed out of the House of Representatives this week clearly indicates that the Republicans in the House know that the President is not enforcing the law. Article II, Section 3 states the following "...he [The President] shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed..." Wa la, there you have it...not a misdemeanor by any stretch....but rather a high crime being committed right in front of their (and our) eyes by the President of the United States. This fact is not in dispute, the House passed a bill because of this fact.

Yet, we are told by the members of the House of Representatives, and I'm hearing from the Republican Party faithful, that "meh, we cannot impeach, the Senate will not convict"

Friends, you have heard me say this before, that is a lame excuse since it is not the job of the House or for that matter you or me to determine whether or not there is an environment in the U.S. Senate to convict. If there are impeachable offenses, the House members, that swore to uphold and defend the Constitution mind you, are DUTY BOUND to bring indictments called Articles of Impeachment. The process cannot begin in the Senate until the Republican House members put on their big boy pants, step up to the plate, and do their Constitutional duty. If the House of Representatives brings Articles of Impeachment, the Senate MUST conduct a trial. Even though we know the Democrat controlled Senate would likely never convict the President, the media would be forced to cover it and this President would go down in history as being only the third President to be impeached. Remember, impeachment does not mean removal. Under our Constitution, the House of Representatives Impeaches, and the Senate conducts a trail for removal.

So let me close this by bringing you back to the crazy logic and inanity of a bill (proposed future law) called the "Enforce The Law Act". The proponents of this bill say they need to do this because the Senate will not convict if the House impeaches the President.

Friends, I'm not the brightest light bulb in the house....but (1) can anyone tell me what the chances are of the United States Senate (with a majority of Democrats led by Harry Reid) voting to pass this bill? (2) Can anyone tell me what the chances are of Harry Reid even permitting a vote on this bill from the House? (3) Can anyone tell me what the chances are of the President of the United States signing a bill into law that is designed to drag him into court for not enforcing the law?

But mind you, we are all supposed to clap and put meme's on our facebook page showing that the Republicans passed a bill called the "Enforce The Law Act" out of the United States House of Representatives this week. And we are also supposed to face the "reality" that impeachment is a waste of time because the "Senate will not convict the President".

Folks, is it just me? Am I the one in Bizarro World? Or is it the folks that think the Republicans did something worthy of a ticker tape parade this week? You tell me.

Friends, this is the kind of stuff that tells you that the three branches of government are literally in collusion today. Washington D.C. (and a lot of others outside) are living in a dream world. There is virtually no chance left that Washington D.C. will do anything meaningful to roll back its power usurpation or roll back the size of the federal government. We are witnessing the EXACT events play out that the founders knew could occur in government...and they gave us, the people in the states a mechanism, a way back to the limited government they gave us in 1787. It's called the Article V Convention of States. Today, there is only one organization that has put together a viable plan for a grassroots effort to get our states to do this, that organization is called the Convention of States Project.

 

The Erosion of "Free Exercise"

The fact that so few Christians today understand the gravity of what is going on with the erosion of the First Amendments Free Exercise clause is staggering.

Under the Constitutional right of Free Exercise of Religion, believers in our nation have specific Constitutional protection to the free exercise of their religion according to the dictates of their own consciences...that means they should not ever be forced to violate their own beliefs unless those beliefs lead to actions that do physical harm to another. I hear some believers saying that they agree with not having to perform weddings for homosexuals. But they disagree with denying services in other areas. If a Christian, has convictions about not providing his/her service to homosexuals because they feel they may be sanctioning that activity by providing their skills...that is there call. Our government, federal or state is not supposed to be permitted to force them to violate their conscience. Some agree that Christians shouldn't have to do it for the weddings, but then imply that we shouldn't be able to deny some other service. The problem with that kind of reasoning is that it makes you, I, or worse, the government the arbiter of another Christians conscience...rather than the Holy Spirit working in that individuals life. They may be convicted not to provide their skills or services because they are sanctioning that activity by doing so. Its not your call, my call, or the governments call, it should never be your or my call when it comes to a persons convictions unless those convictions obviously do physical harm to another.

This is so VERY crucial for Christians to understand...I simply cannot over emphasize this....we are sitting idly by (the Church) and watching specific rights given to us by God in our nation, for the express purpose of the free gospel dispensation...which includes believers taking a stand against what they believe is sin. No other nation has this kind of protection codified in it's Constitution or laws. Once again, our ignorance of the Constitution and the protections it affords us all, once again, that ignorance is causing us to lose those protections, and at an alarming rate I might add. Our ignorance of history creates an ungodly lack of appreciation for what God has providentially given to us in our nation and we are watching it slip away. I believe that lack of understanding on the part of the church and that lack of action to protect what God has richly blessed us with is a great abomination to God.

The erosion of Free Exercise in our nation is going on unabated at an alarming rate...when the day comes where Pastors are arrested for "hate speech" ...it will be a direct result of what we see happening now...and we think its ok...each link in the chain of Constitutional protection is breaking away from another link every day.

Maybe the American Church needs to be stripped of these God given protections in order for the American church to come under intense persecution to strengthen it...and shake it out of its sin of apathy.