Constitutional Corner – The War in the Courts

Open as PDF

In his 1833 Commentaries on the Constitution,[1] the eminent jurist Joseph Story wrote:

“The truth is, that, even with the most secure tenure of office, during good behavior, the danger is not, that the judges will be too firm in resisting public opinion, and in defence of private rights or public liberties; but, that they will be ready to yield themselves to the passions, and politics, and prejudices of the day.”

It is no secret that the Left has declared war on Donald Trump. From his election on November 8th onward it has been “open season” on all things Trump, whether rampant vandalism[2] at his various commercial properties to perpetual protests to snide remarks over Melania’s choice of apparel at official functions.[3]

It is also no secret that certain federal judges have “yield[ed] themselves to the passions, and politics, and prejudices of the day.” Not content with that, some seem to have actively enlisted in the Left’s “army.” While rank-and-file Progressives can only don sackcloth, wail and gnash their teeth over Trump’s dismantling of the Progressive edifice Obama labored eight years to erect, progressive federal judges are actually in a position to act with effect.

Not that they should be. Alexander Hamilton, in one of his most famous statements, called the judiciary the “least dangerous branch.” How wrong he was. Today, federal judges are the “go-to guys” for bypassing representative government; helping Progressives achieve in the courtroom what they have no chance of achieving in the Congress. But this is the doctrine the American people have been lulled into embracing:

“To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy,” said Jefferson.

Progressives seem quite comfortable with “despotism of an oligarchy” – particularly when the oligarchs share their own progressive views.

Which brings us to District Judge Mark A. Goldsmith.

Judge Goldsmith, nominated by Barack Obama, has ordered a temporary injunction[4] against the Justice Department’s attempts to deport hundreds of illegal immigrants they either have in custody or whose locations are known.  Judge Goldsmith believes that the courts should have a say in whether a particular alien should or should not be deported. He even carved out a new Constitutional duty for the courts: “Constitutional First Responders:” “Under the law, the federal district courts are generally the ‘first responders’ when rights guaranteed by the Constitution require protection.” Really? I’ve searched Article III high and low; neither the term “First Responder” nor the concept are to be found therein. I can’t think of a better example of a “judicial activism.”

“First Responder?”Congress takes a different view. The law in question, Title 8 U.S. Code § 1227, prohibits interference in deportation cases; it flat out says:

“No court shall have jurisdiction to review a [deportation] decision of the Attorney General to grant or deny a waiver …”

This is called “jurisdiction stripping,” a power the Congress was granted in Article 3, Section 2:

“In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.” (Emphasis added)

This little-known provision of the Constitution has even been tested in the Supreme Court. During the Reconstruction period, Congress withdrew jurisdiction from a case the U.S. Supreme Court was in the process of adjudicating (ex parte McCardle).[5] They had heard oral arguments but had not yet rendered a decision. Upon being informed of the bill Congress had just passed limiting their jurisdiction in the matter at hand, lo and behold, the high court shut down the case mid-stream. Congress has the power and the Supreme Court agrees.  Or you could say: the people, through their elected representatives, have the power, the courts must follow orders. Abraham Lincoln would agree:

“We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.” (Emphasis added)

One might argue that judicial stripping only applies to the Supreme Court, since that is the only court mentioned in the clause, that it does not apply to the federal courts below. But recall that the Constitution requires only “one supreme Court, and … such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.” All these “inferior” courts exist at the pleasure of Congress; Congress created them and Congress can dissolve them through a simple act of Congress (provided the bill survives a Presidential veto). Sort of like the angry Mom saying to the up-start child: “I brought you into this world, I can take you out.” Does it make sense that the lower courts would enjoy a power denied the Supreme Court?

Apparently Judge Goldsmith believes this feature of the Constitution is, well, unconstitutional. To be clear, he admitted he was not completely certain whether or not he had jurisdiction in deportation matters, but he then went on to announce that it was up to him to decide this question! Say what? To give him time to figure it out, he ordered a stay to the deportations. Wrong answer, judge.

Certainly when Judge Goldsmith went through law school he was exposed to a legal principle called: “Nemo judex in causa sua;” which translates to “no man should be a judge in his own cause.”  This is a universal principle of justice; the saying itself was first attributed to Sir Edward Coke in the 17th century. Rendered another way: “no person should judge a case in which they have an interest.”

So what do we the people do when we have federal judges “going rogue,” making indefensible decisions, judging their own jurisdiction in a matter?  The word that comes to mind is “impeachment.”  In Federalist 65, Alexander Hamilton calls impeachment “a method of national inquest into the conduct of public men.”

Can you impeach a judge for an improper decision?  That’s where it gets tricky.

We’ve impeached a bunch of federal judges and justices over the years.  Wikipedia puts the count at sixty-one as of 2003.[6] But none of these were impeached for their decisions, only for misbehavior. There’s an unwritten rule – a sort of “gentlemen’s agreement” — to help keep the courts separate from partisan politics, judges (and justices) will not be impeached for their decisions.

But where is the line between a horrendous decision and judicial malpractice?  Dred Scott, Plessy v. Ferguson, Roe v. Wade, and few other decisions come to mind.

Over the years Congress has impeached (and the Senate convicted) federal judges for all sorts of misbehavior; Drunkenness, graft/corruption, Tax evasion, to name just a few. There have also been judges impeached for “abuse of power.”  The impeachment of district Judge James H. Peck[7] provides an example.  Peck was impeached for “usurping a power which the laws of the land did not give him.”  He was subsequently acquitted, but “usurping power” sounds suspiciously similar to “deciding one’s own jurisdiction.”

If there is any good news to this story, it is that there are over a hundred vacancies in the federal court system (120) and Trump has begun to fill them, with conservatives.  The only wrinkle is an archaic Senate rule that requires both of a state’s senators to agree to advance a judicial nomination of someone from their state by forwarding what are called “Blue Slips.”[8]  No “Blue Slips,” no nomination.  To their credit, Republicans have threatened to revoke the rule if Democrats start using it to stop otherwise qualified nominations.  Like the filibuster, time to get rid of another archaic Senate rule.

If you are upset by any of this, what can you do? Term limits on federal judges might solve some of the problem, or at least minimize the chances for continued judicial malpractice, but even that could backfire.  Might a judge facing a limited term be even more tempted to misbehave knowing he has only a short time to do so and face any consequences?

Opening up impeachment in response to decisions which clearly do not respect the original understanding of the Constitution (its not that hard to discern) would be another remedy.  One or two impeachment proceedings would send a strong message to judges that it’s time to dust off those old copies of Federalist.

And of course you can ask your two Senators whether they intend to use the Blue Slip method to block judicial appointments.

The last remedy I’ll mention comes from my co-commentator on my radio show: “We the People – the Constitution Matters,”[9] Phil Duffy. Phil is convinced that Article 3 was drafted in haste and is woefully deficient in delineating the powers of the judiciary.  It is hard to argue given the problems we’re experiencing today with these black-robed tyrants. Article 3 begs a complete re-write.  That would require either an Article V convention or a full-blown Constitutional Convention, both extremely high hurdles in today’s environment.

America has to come to grips with what the federal judiciary has become. It is not what the Framers intended. Both sides of the aisle are guilty of “judge-shopping” and that only exacerbates the problem. Only judges who pledge to interpret the Constitution in the context of its original meaning should sit on the federal bench.

The American people need to step up to the plate and once again become “the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts.”  Just saying.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commentaries_on_the_Constitution_of_the_United_States

[2] http://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-vandalism-golf-courses-walk-fame-star-567057

[3] http://www.westernjournalism.com/melania-trumps-fashion-choice-at-wounded-warrior-event-makes-waves-on-social-media/

[4] http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jul/12/judge-rules-courts-can-stop-trump-deportations/

[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_parte_McCardle

[6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_investigations_of_United_States_federal_judges

[7] http://tinyurl.com/y99vts4h

[8] https://www.getamericapraying.com/blog/senate-blue-slip-procedure-and-judicial-appointments/

[9] http://www.1180wfyl.com/programs.html

Constitution Corner – The Rights of Illegal Aliens

Open as PDF

Let’s say a Mexican national decides to illegally enter America and is successful in doing so, but he then unfortunately steps into a quicksand pit and is slowly being sucked down despite his efforts to extricate himself.

A passerby, an American citizen, observes the man’s predicament.   Does the citizen first ascertain whether or not the man is a U.S. citizen, or even in the country legally, before deciding whether or not to throw him a lifeline?  Of course not; as Jefferson said, or implied: We are all created equal in the sight of God and are equally entitled to the enjoyment of certain unalienable rights endowed to us by our Creator; among which are the right to pursue happiness, enjoy liberty, and escape from quicksand, or something like that.

I think all Americans would agree that every human being should enjoy these unalienable, natural rights.  Obviously, many Americans do not.  Many Americans believe that until a person has first filled their lungs with air, and for some, even after that time, they can be killed, murdered, terminated, have their little spinal cord snipped or cranium crushed, whatever, all for the convenience of the person who carries them, or moments ago carried them, in their womb.

So as we approach the subject of rights for illegal aliens, we must realize that we as a nation have a long way to go before claiming Jefferson’s ideal of equality at creation, and that some in our country are far more willing to extend certain rights to lawbreakers than they are to the unborn.

Whether I think, or you think, or any American thinks illegal aliens should enjoy any of the rights secured by our Constitution, is, in the end, not that important.  What matters, at least in the near-term, is what does the Supreme Court think?  We’ll get to that in a moment.

I know, even as I say those words concerning the court, that I’ve committed an heresy , and even contradicted statements I’ve made in the past: the Supreme Court doesn’t have the final say on anything Constitutional, the people do.  But until the people act on the authority they have, the Court does.  That, unfortunately, is what our system of government has become.

Ever since Marbury v. Madison, when Chief Justice John Marshall carved out this special privilege the Court now enjoys, Americans have generally yielded to the Court’s opinion on any matter, even when the Court has been clearly wrong.

When the Court ruled, in 1896,[1] that separate bathrooms and drinking fountains for blacks were entirely proper and constitutional, it took nearly 60 years[2] for the people to say they disagreed, and “encourage” the Court to agree with them.

So here’s a question: in 1865, when Congress began working on what became the 14th Amendment, did they intend to have the privileges it extends and the protections it provides cover aliens in this country illegally?  The answer has to be clearly and unequivocally: no – for two reasons.  First, the focus at that time was clearly on slavery and how to rid the United States of it and its effects.[3]  Second, in 1865, the concept of an illegal alien was unknown.

Prior to the 14th Amendment Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1866,[4] guaranteeing citizenship to all Americans without regard to race, color, or previous condition of slavery or involuntary servitude. The Act was a direct attack on the infamous “Black Codes” that were passed by most of the southern states after the War for Southern Independence.  Black Codes restricted the movement of blacks, controlled the type of labor contracts they could enter into, prohibited them from owning firearms, and prevented them from suing or testifying in court.

When the Civil Rights Act reached his desk, President Andrew Johnson vetoed it.  Johnson objected to the fact that, at the time, 11 of 36 states were not yet represented in the Congress; he also thought the Act discriminated against whites and in favor of African-Americans.  Even after overriding Johnson’s veto, there were concerns in Congress whether the Act was constitutional.  In response, they drafted the 14th Amendment, and forced the southern states to ratify it or face continued martial law.

The 14th Amendment’s Section 1 states:

“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.”

The critical clause for our discussion is the last one.  What did Congress mean by “any person?”  Did they mean to extend these protections to all “persons,” i.e., all human beings, regardless of their legal status in our country?  They distinguished between “citizens” and “persons” but did not consider a “person’s” lawful status.

Until 1875, there was no such thing as an “illegal alien.” Anyone in the country who had not become a citizen was simply an “alien.”  Aliens entered and left America at will.  If they stayed long enough to meet the rules for naturalization, they could voluntarily apply for citizenship, or not; if they choose not to become citizens, they could stay indefinitely as nothing more than an “alien.”

The Page Act of 1875[5] was the first attempt by Congress to control who would be allowed to legally immigrate to America.  That year it became illegal to enter the country if you were Asian, and you were coming to America to be a forced laborer, were intent on engaging in prostitution, or were considered to be a convict.  The “illegal alien” was born.

In 1921, Congress established the first immigration quotas[6] based on country of origin. Quotas based on national origin continued until 1965 when the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965[7] initiated a system of preferences based on immigrants’ skills and family relationships with U.S. citizens or U.S. residents (while retaining by-country limits).

In “Yes, illegal aliens have constitutional rights,”[8] immigration activist and political consultant Raoul Contreras cites none other than James Madison in claiming that aliens should have the full protection of the Constitution.

In the Report of 1800, Madison wrote:[9]

“…Aliens are not more parties to the laws, than they are parties to the constitution; yet it will not be disputed, that as they owe on one hand, a temporary obedience, they are entitled in return, to their protection and advantage.”

According to Madison, “aliens” are entitled to “protection and advantage.”  But which aliens, those who are in the country legally, or illegally?  And which “protections and advantages.”

Would James Madison have extended his undefined “protection and advantage” to aliens in the country legally?  I think so.  Would Madison have extended these protections to aliens in the country illegally?   I think not, but I’m willing to be convinced otherwise.  And just what specific protections would Madison extend to aliens in either category?  We can’t know for sure.

After citing Madison, Contreras discusses several Supreme Court decisions which he says support his contention that illegal aliens enjoy “the full panoply of constitutional protections American citizens have with three exceptions: voting, some government jobs and gun ownership (and that is now in doubt).”  So what has the court said?

In the 2001 case of Zadvydas v. Davis,[10]  the Court decided that the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment applies to all aliens in the United States whether their presence here is “lawful, unlawful, temporary, or permanent.”

In 1982, in Plyler v. Doe,[11] the court said: “The illegal aliens who are … challenging the state may claim the benefit of the Equal Protection clause which provides that no state shall ‘deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.’ Whatever his status under immigration laws, an alien is a ‘person’ in any ordinary sense of the term.”

So thus far the Court has granted due process and equal protection provisions of the 14th Amendment to illegal aliens, based on the unrefined definition of “person.”  But then we encounter a problem with Mr. Contreras’ interpretation of Supreme Court opinions.

Almeida-Sanchez v. United States (1973)[12] centered on the warrant-less search of an automobile, 20 miles from the U.S. border, belonging to a Mexican national with a valid work permit to be in the U.S.  The search, conducted by the Border Patrol to determine whether illegal aliens were being carried in the car, instead found a large quantity of marijuana.  Almeida-Sanchez was convicted of the marijuana trafficking and the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction.  But the Supreme Court found the warrant-less search to be unreasonable and reversed the lower court.

According to Contreras, the Court decided that “all criminal charge-related elements of the Constitution’s amendments contained in the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and the 14th, such as search and seizure, self-incrimination, and trial by jury, protected all non-citizens, whether in the country legally or illegally.”  Unfortunately for Mr. Contreras, the court reached no such conclusion (don’t take my word for it, read the opinion).[13]  Instead, the (6-3) majority ends by stating: “those lawfully within the country, entitled to use the public highways, have a right to free passage without interruption or search unless there is known to a competent official, authorized to search, probable cause for believing that their vehicles are carrying contraband or illegal merchandise.”  So while the Court affirmed the protection of the 4th Amendment for those aliens lawfully in the country it extended no such protection to those in the country unlawfully, nor do I find evidence that it found that any other protections of the Bill of Rights should be applied.

Based on this evidence, it seems clear that, in the eyes of the Court, at least the “due process” and “equal protection” provisions of the 14th Amendment apply to illegal aliens.  Aliens legally in the country enjoy additional protections as well, at least those of the 4th Amendment, perhaps extending to much of the Bill of Rights.

So I return to my earlier question: in 1865, when the 14th Amendment was drafted, did Congress see its protections extending to “persons” who had broken the law to arrive here?  I think not.  But as I have stated in the past, it is not so much what the drafters of a Constitution, Amendment or Statute intended, it is what they achieved that counts.  The drafters of the 14th Amendment used the word “person” in a general sense without discriminating between “lawful” and “unlawful” persons.  In 1865, no such distinction of aliens even existed; that came ten years later.  Had such a distinction existed, would the drafters have been more elaborative? One would hope.

In the eyes of the Court, perhaps this question is settled; but is it settled with the owners of the Constitution?  In that regard, I think the jury is still out. What do you say, America?  What rights should illegal aliens enjoy?  Are you content with those that have already been extended to them or would you like to see more, or fewer? If you think the Court erred in its use of the 14th Amendment’s “person,” you need to let someone know (and who would that be?).  Or you could just sit back and let the Supreme Court continue to dictate the policy of the United States.  I’m just saying…

“Constitutional Corner” is a project of the Constitution Leadership Initiative, Inc.  To unsubscribe from future mailings by Constitution Leadership Initiative, click here

[1] Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 US 537 (1896).

[2] Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954)

[3] Slaves were freed by the 13th Amendment.

[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1866

[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Page_Act_of_1875

[6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Quota_Act

[7] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Act_of_1965

[8] http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/immigration/255281-yes-illegal-aliens-have-constitutional-rights

[9] https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/01-17-02-0202

[10] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zadvydas_v._Davis

[11] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plyler_v._Doe

[12] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almeida-Sanchez_v._United_States

[13] https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/413/266

Constitutional Corner – Musings on the Article V Convention Simulation

Open as PDF

Although I would have much preferred to have been able to observe the Article V Convention simulation last week[1] from on site, the livestream of the event had to suffice; alas, I have no official affiliation with Convention of States.  But I will admit upfront to being a big fan.  Our nation suffers from a myriad of problems; some of them can only be remedied through amending the Constitution.

I know the words “amend the Constitution” send shivers up the spines of some.  “How could you even consider such a thing?”  After all, the Constitution is the “the most wonderful work ever struck off at a given time by the brain and purpose of man,”[2] is it not?  I answer: “Yes, it was, and no, it is no longer.”

The Constitution has suffered serious injury in the hands of the Supreme Court (and through the people’s neglect).  It no longer represents the limitation, the constraint on government that was intended by the Framers.  Instead, the federal government today can, in the eloquent words of former California Congressman Peter Stark: “do most anything in this country.”[3]

The most convincing evidence of this ability is our nearly $20 Trillion in debt.  “Do[ing] most anything in this country” means spending money with abandon, much of which we didn’t have and which we had to literally print.  But thanks to the Supreme Court, whose decisions have rendered the Commerce Clause, the General Welfare Clause and other key provisions into grants of plenary power over, respectively, business and, well, everything else, the Congress and its executive agency minions can regulate any aspect of business in America, and spend money for any purpose it deems to fit its own definition of “general welfare.”

I don’t care how many conservatives you elect to Congress, nothing is going to change this paradigm.  Short of a rewording of the two relevant clauses, forcing them back to their Founding Era meaning, Congress and the rest of the federal government will continue to do what they do best: drive this country towards economic ruin.

Now, we could sit back and wait for Congress to select “Option One” of Article V.  Those hundreds of “Constitutional Conservatives” we intend to elect, someday, could indeed propose amendments which restore the original intent of both clauses, stripping themselves, the Congress, of near-plenary power over the American economy in the process — but I’m not holding my breath.  There’s a greater chance of Colin Kaepernick getting booted out of the NFL, restoring honor to a sport millions of Americans schedule their lives around.  But, actually, that’s not going to happen either.

No, the only way to return those two clauses to their original intent, their original strength, and restore these two original “chains” on government,[4] is to have the states, in convention, propose modifications to the Constitution’s wording, utilizing “Option 2” of Article V.

“But a convention called under Article V is way too dangerous,” claim the skeptics, whose paranoia over safety inexplicably still allows them to drive on public highways.  “A whole new Constitution could result.  We know such a document is laying in a dusty drawer somewhere awaiting its opportunity to save our nation from itself.”  Poppycock!

As vividly demonstrated last Thursday and Friday at the Williamsburg Lodge in historic Williamsburg (both James Madison and Patrick Henry made appearances), a convention of the states, conducted under the auspices of Article V, will likely be a controlled, measured, ruled, even sometimes boring affair.  Certainly no “running away” or even running around was in evidence.  Instead, the commissioners from 50 states crafted eight well-thought-out changes to our Constitution that would either impose long overdue fiscal restraints on the federal government, reduce the enormous power and horizon-to-horizon jurisdiction of the federal government, or impose limits on the terms of some of its “serving essentially for life” officials — the three criteria which would have been found in the applications of 34 states who insisted Congress call such a convention and, presumably, in the instructions the commissioners carried.

The second day of this two-day event was livestreamed to the Williamsburg Public Library (and thousands of other locations and individual computers around the country).  We witnessed commissioners grappling with the exact meaning of words and the looming specter of “the Law of Unintended Consequences.”  Only six of the eight proposed amendments passed with a majority floor vote of the convention, the remainder being declared “only half baked.”  And even those that passed often underwent drastic modification from their committee versions before a majority of state delegations were happy with them.  Of course, this was merely a simulation, a demonstration for effect, a chance to show that rules for such an event could be promulgated, agreed to, and followed with respect and decorum. 

And they were.  I cringed as the poor parliamentarian and convention president had to sort out layers upon layers of motions to amend the amended amendments.  But it was all done with style and grace and no one was told to “go to the corner,” or “shut up and color.”

Now yes, all these commissioners were there because they believed in the potential efficacy of such an event, even the commissioners from what we consider “hard-core” liberal states.  In the real event (when it occurs — and it must) the discourse is certain to be more rancorous, the debates more strident, and the output perhaps even more sparse, knowing that real changes are being proposed to a real 200+ year old document.

But let’s return to the central question: Do we continue down the path we are on, with a federal government exploiting limitless power, overburdening American businesses, spending money like there’s no tomorrow, with hundreds of unelected judges and career politicians serving essentially “for life,” protected either by the words of the Constitution itself or returned to their elected offices by the sheer power of corporate donations?  Do we continue this way until the “whole house of cards” collapses of its’ own ungovernable weight? 

Or do we pull from the remnants of our tattered Constitution: “Option 2” of Article V? — an option placed there with exquisite foresight, the Framers knowing full well that “a fondness for power is implanted, in most men, and it is natural to abuse it, when acquired.”[5]

Ultimately the choice is ours.  We can work hard to persuade the remaining holdouts that this is our best and perhaps our last chance to restore Constitutional sanity before the Debt Clock implodes, or we can turn back to watching Dancing with the Stars, and hope for the best. 

Which will it be?[6]

“Constitutional Corner” is a project of the Constitution Leadership Initiative, Inc.  To unsubscribe from future mailings by Constitution Leadership Initiative, click here.

[1] http://www.conventionofstates.com/cossim

[2] William Gladstone, four time British Prime Minister,  (1809-1898)

[3] Stated at a Town Hall meeting, Hayward California, July 24, 2010.

[4] Thomas Jefferson, fair copy of the draft of the Kentucky Resolution of 1798

[5] Alexander Hamilton, The Farmer Refuted, 1775

[6] For more information of the Convention of States Project, see www.conventionofstates.com.

Constitutional Corner – The Contingent Election

What if neither Hillary Clinton nor Donald Trump receives a majority of electoral votes on November 8th?  Can’t happen?  Oh yes it can!  Our country has had two elections where none of the candidates for an office received a majority of the electoral votes (and one where there was a tie).[1]  Let’s look at a what could happen.

First, we should dispense with the notion that the popular vote for President will count for anything.  It does not.  A popular vote is not even contemplated in the Constitution.  To be precise, having the people vote for President is not even required under the Constitution.  “Electors” elect the President and Vice-President, and the selection of those electors is left entirely up to the states.  For many years the electors were appointed by the state legislatures.

Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the Constitution states:

“Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.”

There are currently 538 electors, corresponding to 435 Representatives, 100 Senators and (by means of the 23rd Amendment) 3 electors for the District of Columbia.  A candidate receiving a majority of electoral votes (270) becomes President (the same for Vice-President).  When no candidate receives the necessary 270 electoral votes, the House of Representatives gets to choose the President and the Senate chooses the Vice-President.

In the House, a vote is taken of the three candidates receiving the most votes overall, with each state delegation allowed one vote.  The winning candidate must receive a majority of the votes, meaning 26.  If no candidate receives 26 votes on the first ballot, the voting continues until a candidate does receive that number of votes.

In 1800[2], due to mis-communication in the Democratic-Republican party, Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr received an the same number of electoral votes, sending the election to the House.  In the contingent election neither man initially received the necessary nine votes needed to be declared the President.  Thirty-five votes and seven days later, Jefferson still lacked the one vote needed to put him in the White House.  The efforts of Representative Alexander Hamilton broke the logjam and Jefferson was able to claim the prize.  There’s a lot more to the story and it makes a good read.

A recent poll by RealClearPolitics[3] found more than one third-party candidate “surging” in the polls (their definition of “surging” differs from mine).  If this trend continues for the next three months, however, the chances of an outright win of 270 electoral votes by either Hillary or Donald diminishes significantly.

So let’s say, for the sake of the discussion, that Donald Trump receives 265 electoral votes, Hillary 260, Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson receives 15 and Green Party candidate Jill Stein the remaining 8 votes.  The contingent election in the House would occur on 6 January 2017, immediately after the joint session of Congress officially counts the cast electoral votes (see 12th and 20th Amendments).  Senators would immediately head for their chamber to conduct an election of the Vice-President (the Vice-Presidential candidates would presumably receive the same number of votes as their running mates).

In the Senate, Senators would vote individually, not as state delegations, and would select from only the top two Vice-President candidates.  Fifty-one votes would be required and the sitting Vice-president would preside, but not vote.

What would be the outcome?

If the contingent elections were held with the present Congress, Donald Trump and Mike Pence would likely win their respective elections.  Republicans hold a slim majority of 53/47 in the Senate and a wider majority of 273/162 in the House;[4] as long as no Member “defected,” the outcome would likely be Republican.  Except that these contingent elections will be conducted by a new Congress, which will have taken their seats on January 3rd.  Every single Representative and one third of the Senators are up for re-election in November and the new mix is anyone’s guess at this point.  I should also point out that Congressmen would not be bound to vote by party affiliation, they could vote anyway they feel led.  Of course, they would be expected to explain their vote to their constituency.

One final note: in the House, voting is by state delegation.  Where a delegation is split between the two major parties (Maine has one Republican and one Democrat, New Hampshire the same, and New Jersey six of each) the delegation would presumably cast a null vote, which would count for no candidate.

Over the next three months it would behoove everyone one to keep an eye on the polling for third-party candidates.  This is a critical election for America; it could even be an exciting one.

There is a lot more to discuss.  If this short essay piqued your interest, on September 12th I’ll be speaking on the “Genius of the Electoral College” as part of the Foundation for American Christian Education’s Lessons in Liberty series.  From 7-9pm, I’ll discuss the history of the College, why “contingent elections,” as we call them, now were expected to be the norm, and the project gaining traction across the country to replace the Electoral College with a National Popular Vote (without amending the Constitution!).  You can attend this event in person in Chesapeake, VA or online via Livestream.com.  Cost either way is a whopping $10 per person.  Hope to see you there.

“Constitutional Corner” is a project of the Constitution Leadership Initiative, Inc.  To unsubscribe from future mailings by Constitution Leadership Initiative, click here.

[1] In 1824, Andrew Jackson received a plurality of the electoral votes but not a majority.  The House elected second-place candidate John Quincy Adams instead.  In 1837, “faithless” electors prevented Vice-Presidential candidate Richard Johnson from gaining a majority of electoral votes.  The Senate easily elected him.

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1800#Results_2

[3] http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/289859-third-party-support-surging.

[4] I’m counting Independents with the Democrats.

Constitutional Corner – Impeaching Hillary

 

Andrew McCarthy has an article in the latest National Review magazine entitled “Impeach Her” – the “Her” of course refers to none other than Hillary Clinton.[1]  McCarthy argues: “If the government were functioning properly, Congress would impeach Hillary Clinton, not refer her misconduct to the same administration that indulged it in the first place.”  While I highly respect McCarthy’s impressive track record of fighting corruption and terrorist threats, on this constitutional point, I believe he’s wrong.

Impeachment had been a part of English politics and law for centuries (at least since 1376).  Under the British Constitution, Parliament could (and still can) impeach anyone for any crime, even after they had left office.  Fortunately, Parliament doesn’t seem to have run amok with this unrestrained power.  In fact, it appears Parliament has impeached fewer officials than has the U.S. Congress.[2]

If you read Madison’s notes of the Grand Convention and/or Hamilton’s two Federalist essays which address the subject,[3] you clearly see that impeachment in the U.S. Constitution was intended by the Framers as a way to remove someone from federal office.  It follows therefore that someone no longer in federal service can’t be (or shouldn’t be) impeached.  Unfortunately for that theory, Congress has indeed impeached at least one federal official who was no longer in office.

In 1876, the Secretary of War, William W. Belknap, was accused of graft and corruption.  As articles of impeachment were being prepared in the House of Representatives, Belknap, knowing this, tendered his resignation to President Grant, literally hours before the House was scheduled to vote.  Instead of dropping the matter, as later Congresses would do when the accused party resigned,[4] the 1876 Congress continued with their impeachment.  Belknap was acquitted in his Senate trial.

I hesitate to point out that just because Congress does a thing doesn’t make it Constitutional.   I hope we can all agree on that point.  Just because the 1876 Congress failed to view impeachment correctly (in my opinion) and continued with a proceeding intended to discover, apparently, if now-citizen Belknap should be “removed from office,” this doesn’t make their action constitutional.

The eminent jurist, Joseph Story, seems to back me up, stating in his 1833 Commentaries on the Constitution that the impeachment power should be confined to “persons holding office.”[5]  In another place Story writes: “If, then, there must be a judgement of removal from office, it would seem to follow, that the constitution contemplated, that the party was still in office at the time of the impeachment.  If he was not, his offence was still liable to be tried and punished in the ordinary tribunals of justice.  And it might be argued with some force, that it would be a vain exercise of authority to try a delinquent [6]for an impeachable offence when the most important object, for which the remedy was given, was no longer necessary, or attainable.”[7]

But let’s recall that there are actually two penalties connected to impeachment in our Constitution: removal from office, AND “disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States” (Article 1, Section 3, Clause 7).  As written, imposition of the first penalty is clearly intended to precede imposition of the second.  But can an impeachment proceed for the sole purpose of imposing the second penalty?  The Constitution is silent on this question, so I’ll admit it resides in a gray area.  But I believe it would violate the whole tenor of impeachment to proceed on the basis of the “disqualification” penalty alone.

By the way, of nineteen Congressional impeachments of federal officials (excluding two Presidents), only two of the eight removed from office were additionally disqualified from future office-holding; Congress seems reluctant to permanently penalize someone removed from federal office.

A similar question came up recently on Quora,[8] with an important difference.  The requester asked “Could Hillary Clinton’s mismanagement of highly classified information be grounds for Day One impeachment proceedings against her?”  While it might be improper and unconstitutional to impeach Hillary now, as a private citizen, could she be impeached once she is re-established in federal service, even as President?

In other words, are the actions sparking the impeachment linked in some way to the office the individual held or are they attached to the individual herself (in this case)?

Most of the respondents on Quora said “No,” she couldn’t (or shouldn’t) be impeached.  But they based their opinion on the fact that Hillary was not indicted by the Justice Department (acting on the recommendation of the FBI).  No one approached the question from a Constitutional perspective.

Constitutional impeachment is appropriate when “High Crimes and Misdemeanors” have been committed.  “Crimes” are the violation of statute law and “misdemeanors” are maladministration or misconduct falling short of criminal activity.  Either, committed by a “high” official, constitutes grounds for impeachment.  The FBI decided only that Hillary was not guilty of criminal wrongdoing because she did not display criminal intent (mens rea).  They did not address (because it wasn’t their responsibility) whether Hillary was guilty of committing a “high misdemeanor” in the context of impeachment.

If Hillary Clinton was still performing as Secretary of State, it is clear she could and, I think, should be impeached, despite the FBI’s findings.  As long as she remains out of federal service I think she remains unimpeachable.

But what happens when Hillary resumes federal service in a capacity other than Secretary of State?  Does she then become impeachable?  Clearly she becomes impeachable, but on what charges?  Would her misconduct, her gross negligence in handling classified information of several years prior still be impeachable?  Obviously there is no statute of limitations on “High Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

Given the sparse words of the Constitution and a compliant Court, Congress now has the power to do most anything it wants, and I’m sure the Supreme Court would find the impeachment of a President Hillary Clinton, for her failures as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, to be non-justicable.  So in the end, the judgment of propriety would fall on the owners of the Constitution: the people.  For a Republican-dominated Congress to proceed this way would be political suicide.

It is indeed unfortunate that Hillary Clinton’s recklessness with the handling of classified information, information she knew to be classified, even to the Special Access Program level, information almost certainly now in the hands of foreign governments and/or independent hackers, did not come to light until after she had left office.  Had the sequence been different I think it likely she would have, and should have been impeached and at least removed from office, if not disqualified from further office for that egregious breach of trust.  But I think the impeachment ship has sailed.

If you want to “impeach” Hillary, you’ll have to do so at the ballot box.  And that means you’ll have to show up; there is no sitting this one out.

“Constitutional Corner” is a project of the Constitution Leadership Initiative, Inc.  To unsubscribe from future mailings by Constitution Leadership Initiative, click here.

[1] Note: I can’t seem to locate the article on National Review Online, but a slightly modified version is found here: http://www.ruthfullyyours.com/2016/07/30/impeach-her-why-the-e-mail-scandal-should-bar-hillary-from-high-office-by-andrew-c-mccarthy/

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment#United_Kingdom

[3] Federalist #65 and #66.

[4] In 1926, Congress stopped impeachment proceedings when federal Judge George English resigned.  In 1974, the Senate terminated impeachment of President Richard Nixon when he resigned the office, and in 2009, Congress once again terminated proceedings when federal Judge Samuel Kent resigned.

[5] Joseph Story, Commentaries on the U.S. Constitution, 1833, §788.

[6] “One who fails to perform his duty, particularly a public officer who neglects his duty; an offender; one who commits a fault or crime.” Webster’s 1828 Dictionary

[7] Joseph Story, Commentaries on the U.S. Constitution, 1833, §801

[8] https://www.quora.com/Could-Hillary-Clintons-mismanagement-of-highly-classified-information-be-grounds-for-Day-One-impeachment-proceedings-against-her

The Constitution’s Week in Review – 23 July 16

Article 1 – The Legislature: Apportioned Representation

I discussed on my radio show not too long ago and in these pages the fact that there is at least one proposed Constitutional Amendment floating around out there without a time limit for ratification.  Just as the original 2nd Amendment became, 200 years later, our 27th Amendment, so could the original 1st Amendment become our 28th.  David Zuniga, of America Again.net is proposing we ratify that old amendment and begin restoring truly representative government to America.  Communications technology has advanced to the point where it is feasible to have telepresence meetings of thousands of participants.  Imaging only having to drive a few minutes to sit down with your Congressman in a district office, instead of communicating with them in a distant Washington, D.C. office.

Well, I was investigating a Quora question recently when I chanced upon this article[1] from a few years ago which argues that the original First Amendment was indeed ratified by the requisite number of the states back in 1789.  Evidence came to light recently that both Connecticut and Kentucky may have ratified the Amendment but failed to send their ratification instrument to Congress and thus their ratification was never recorded.

What would this Amendment do if put into effect?  It would permit the ratio of representation in America to change from the average of 1 to 750,000 residents to 1 to 50,000 residents.  The House of Representatives could grow to around 6400 members.

Congress would have to revoke the Congressional Reapportionment Act of 1929 that set the current limit at 435 Representatives, but that is a simple (?) legislative process.

The discoverer of the lost documents, Frederick John LaVergne, has taken his case to court and lost, so it is likely the original ratifications will never be judged sufficient, but that does not prevent the Amendment from being ratified today by the additional states needed to bring the total to 38, as college student Gregory Watson discovered with the original 2nd Amendment in the late 1980s.

One complaint I have with the linked article is that the version they cite of what is commonly called the Congressional Apportionment Amendment (originally titled Article the First) is not the final version passed by the joint houses of Congress but rather the version passed in the House alone, as this Wikipedia article[2] makes clear.  The substitution in the final version of the word “more” for the word “less” changes the effect substantially, but not fatally.

According to the linked article, an opinion piece published in 2010 in the New York Times complained that “Americans today are numerically the worst-represented group of citizens in the country’s history.”

You can’t argue with the math, but what do you think of the proposed solution?  How about chatting with your representative and see what he or she thinks?

Article 2 – The Executive: The Candidates and the Constitution

On Friday, we had a great discussion of character as it relates to Presidential candidates.  The show gets rebroadcast on Sunday, 24 July at 2pm and I expect the podcast to be posted sometime Monday on the station’s podcast page.[3]

Article 3 – The Judiciary

Sometimes the decisions of courts seem to defy logic.  Usually this is due to the abject politicization of judges.  It would appear that a federal judge in Michigan succumbed to this common ailment.[4]  Michigan had been one of only ten states that offered citizens the opportunity to vote for a straight partisan ticket, i.e. mark their ballet with a single stroke to record a vote for all Democrat or Republican candidates in a particular election.  In my view, this panders to those too ignorant or lazy to walk into a polling station informed of the candidates, their respective parties, and the issues at stake.

The Michigan legislature passed and Governor Synder signed into law a measure striking down this feature of Michigan balloting, but U.S. District Court Judge Gershwin A. Drain ruled instead this would place a “disproportionate burden on African Americans’ right to vote.”  Right.  That says more about African American voters in Michigan than it does the legislature’s actions.

Cultural Issues in the Courts.  Here’s Focus on the Family’s latest review.[5] A new update was posted Friday.

1st Amendment – Right of Conscience

You may recall I’ve followed the plight of a Colorado baker, Jack Phillips, who was convicted of violating Colorado’s anti-discrimination laws by the Colorado Civil Rights Commission and sentenced (and his staff) to “re-education” classes.

On Friday, Phillips, with the help of Alliance Defending Freedom, petitioned the Supreme Court to hear an appeal of his case: Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission.[6]  ADF’s website[7] contains a nice synopsis of the case.

4th Amendment – Illegal Search

The government of Highland, California has decided[8] they can inspect the apartments and rental homes of the city’s landlords at will to determine their compliance with city ordinances.  Hmmm.  A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away, there used to be a country where your “persons, houses, papers, and effects” were secure against warrantless search and seizure.  Perhaps no more, at least for the residents of Highland, CA.  One more reason to “Come East, young man!”

Recommendations and Events:

Christian Financial Concepts Presentation – The Constitution as Solution

Monday night, 25 July from 8-9pm EDT, I’ll be presenting a webinar on the topic of “The Constitution as a Solution to Problems.”

Few Americans take time to reflect on the fact that the Constitution was not created ab initio, it was created within a historical context.  That we have a Constitution at all illustrates that the Articles of Confederation had proven inadequate.  Although the Articles had been designed to make amendment difficult (unanimous consent was needed), in the end needed improvements proved impossible to enact.   Conditions in the thirteen states deteriorated to the point where talk of splitting the federation into three began to be heard.  Something had to be done, and the result was the Constitution of 1787.

But what exactly had been deficient about the Articles and what problems did this create?  By studying and understanding the problems created by the Articles we will better understand the solutions proposed by the Constitutional Convention to fix those problems.

What was Shay’s Rebellion and what role did it play?  Who sat down and analyzed the deficiencies in the Articles to prepare himself for the “Grand Convention?”  Did American troops really mutiny and march on Congress?  What did America’s Founding Fathers have to say during this period?  These questions and more will be answered in this exciting presentation.

Go to https://attendee.gotowebinar.com/register/7811182755684673537 to register for this free event.

We The People – The Constitution Matters Radio Show.

On Friday, 29 July, we will discuss the next paragraph we encounter in the Declaration of Independence; here Jefferson recounts the attempts of the colonists to enlist the aid of their “Brittish Brethren,” to no avail.  If you have complaints or petitions for the government, to what extent should you make those known and should you try to enlist the help of fellow citizens?  Please join the discussion by browsing to www.1180wfyl.com  (Friday, 7-8am EDT). If you miss the recorded show, aim for the re-broadcast Saturday at 11am and Sunday at 2pm or download the podcast at leisure.

Lessons in Liberty – Preserving America’s Religious Liberty.

On August 18th, the Foundation for American Christian Education’s Lessons in Liberty series will play host to Mrs. Victoria Cobb, President of the family Foundation of Virginia, located in Richmond, Virginia.  Victoria will speak on “How We Can Preserve America’s Religious Liberty.  How do Christians navigate a world trying to redefine marriage and even gender?  Victoria will discuss how we got to where we are with these issues and how Christians should respond.  The event, as all Lessons in Liberty presentations, will be livestreamed to those who register. Registration and cost information can be found on the FACE website at www.face.net.

The “Constitution’s Week in Review” is a project of the Constitution Leadership Initiative, Inc.  To unsubscribe from future mailings by Constitution Leadership Initiative, click here.

[1] http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/14223-article-the-first-is-congress-ignoring-an-amendment-ratified-by-the-states

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Apportionment_Amendment

[3] http://www.1180wfyl.com/we-the-people.html

[4] http://www.gopusa.com/?p=12881?omhide=true

[5] http://www.focusonthefamily.com/socialissues/understanding-the-issues/cultural-issues-in-the-courts-2016/cultural-issues-in-the-courts-july-2016-update?utm_campaign=Supreme+Disappointment+on+Abortion&utm_medium=email&utm_source=nl_thrivingvalues

[6] http://adflegal.org/detailspages/case-details/masterpiece-cakeshop-v.-craig

[7] http://adflegal.org/detailspages/blog-details/allianceedge/2016/07/22/5-reasons-the-u.s.-supreme-court-should-agree-to-hear-christian-cake-artist-jack-phillips%27-case?sourcecode=05K30001

[8] http://www.wnd.com/2016/07/city-surrender-4th-amendment-rights-or-else/#!

The Constitution’s Week in Review – 2 July 16

Happy Birthday America!

Most people associate July 4th with our nation’s “birth” (the day was declared a national holiday after all), overlooking the fact (or perhaps they’ve never been taught) that it was two days earlier, on July 2nd, when the Continental Congress actually voted to pass Virginia’s resolution calling for independence.  Writing the next day to Abigail, John Adams gushed:

“The Second Day of July 1776 will be the most memorable Epocha, in the History of America.  I am apt to believe that it will be celebrated by succeeding generations as the great anniversary festival.  It ought to be commemorated as the day of deliverance, by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty.  It ought to be solemnized with Pomp and Parade, with Shews, Games, Sports, Guns, Bells, Bonfires, and Illuminations from one End of this Continent to the other from this Time forward forever more.”

The day after Adams wrote those words, the draft of the Declaration was “wordsmithed” and finally approved, leading to our national holiday being recognized on that day instead.  The story of the passing of Lee’s resolution is full of drama and intrigue.  Enjoy the read.[1]

While it is fitting and proper to wish the nation a “happy birthday,” it is also fitting and proper to note the precarious situation the country finds itself in.  Immense challenges: economic, cultural and constitutional, threaten our future prosperity and freedoms.

Take time to celebrate – and then get back to work reversing the wounding of our great nation that has taken place over the last eight years.

Article 3 – The Judiciary

Showing us in vivid detail the value of term limits for federal judges, Judge Richard Posner of the 7th Circuit declared study of the original Constitution to be a complete waste of time,[2] at least for judges: “I see absolutely no value to a judge of spending decades, years, months, weeks, day, hours, minutes, or seconds studying the Constitution, the history of its enactment, its amendments, and its implementation,” waxed the jurist, who was appointed to the bench in 1981 by President Ronald Reagan (who probably regrets the appointment).   I agree in part with the judge, however.  The Supreme Court has indeed turned the Constitution into a system of common law, judge-made law, departing from the idea of a fixed standard of law, to be modified only by “amendment in the way which the Constitution designates.”[3]

The judge’s amazing statement joins a host of equally controversial ones in the past that make it unlikely (in the eyes of some at least) that the judge would ever be nominated to the Supreme Court.  Condemning Justice Antonin Scalia for making politically charged public statements[4] while doing the same hardly enlarges one’s credibility.  So, since Congress seems unwilling to propose a term limits amendment, even one focused exclusively on jurists, and since the Article V Convention project is still being rabidly fought by some on the Right, it appears unlikely that we will ever have access to a mechanism for removing jurists whose opinions make them unsuitable for continued service.  Oh well.

1st Amendment – Right of Conscience

As I’ve hinted numerous times in these pages, if you want a chance to express your right of conscience, you best do it soon – the right may not be around much longer.

If you care to let your conscience peek out on the campus of the University of Northern Colorado, at least in some non-politically correct way, you might find yourself the subject of an inquisition by the “Bias Response Team.”[5]  At the moment, the teams seems content to merely point out apparently unperceived “bias” (translation: anything the Left does not believe in); but how long will it be before an unfavorable ruling by the “bias police” results in disciplinary action or worse for some unlucky college student?

In related news, the Mississippi state legislature’s attempt to provide some protection to their citizens to act within the limits of their conscience came screeching to a halt as  a U.S. District Judge ruled[6] that Mississippi’s House Bill 1523,[7] violated the U.S. Constitution.  The Bill was an attempt to pushback against last year’s Obergefell v. Hodges decision legalizing homosexual “marriage.”  LGBT groups applauded the ruling.

Hopefully, the ruling will be appealed but at the moment that is not certain.

So the question remains: is there any aspect of Christian faith/Christian conscience which should be allowed to inform your public actions?  What do you think?

2nd Amendment – Never Let a Shooting Go To Waste

Sensing a change in the mood of the American public over whether persons on the government’s “no-fly” list should be allowed to purchase guns, Congressional Democrats are preparing to turn their “sit-in demonstration” into a road-show.  If you are comfortable with people who find themselves, for whatever reason, on a secret government list being denied the ability to purchase a gun, than go about your business, nothing to see here.  I see potential problems.

 Recommendations and Events:

Constitution Seminars.  I have no Constitution Seminars scheduled at the moment.  If you have a group of 10 or more individuals within a day’s drive of Yorktown, Virginia, and would like one presented, let me know via email to: gary@constitutionleadership.org.   Keep in mind that I’ll be unavailable from 1 August to 18 September.

Lessons in Liberty.  On Monday, July 11, from 7:00-9:00 p.m. EDT, The Foundation for American Christian Education’s Lessons in Liberty series will welcome Jim Wallis, who will speak on the topic: Was Jesus a Socialist?  You can attend in the FACE classroom in Chesapeake, Virginia, or live online via Livestream.

This lecture explores the divergence of both Christianity and the Jewish people from their covenantal, Hebrew roots. And will take on a related questions such as, “Was the early church communal in the modern Marxist sense?” and “How about the Moses/Joshua Hebrew model, was it a republic or a theocracy?”

The cost to attend, either in the classroom or online, is $10.  Register at http://www.face.net/.

On Friday, 8 July, we’ll begin a new feature on “We the People, the Constitution Matters” that I will call, for lack of a better term: Constitutional Tennis.  Just after the break at the midpoint of each show, one of our three commentators will pose a question about the Constitution, to be answered by any caller who knows the answer.  The first caller to answer the question correctly will be allowed, in turn, to pose a question of their own to any of our commentators.  If the question can’t be answered on the spot that commentator will be assigned the task of researching and answering the question at the start of the following week’s show.  “Team Listener” will get a point for each correctly answered question and “Team Scholar” will get a point for each on-the-spot question answered correctly.  We’ll announce the running point total each week.

You can listen to “We the People, the Constitution Matters” at www.1180wfyl.com each Friday from 7-8am EDT.  The recorded show is also re-broadcast each Saturday at 11am and Sunday at 2pm.

On 8 July, we’ll resume our continuing discussion of the principles of the Declaration of Independence by examining the principle that a “long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evince[ing] a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism” is a necessary precondition for a people to legitimately change their form of government.   We will also contrast what comprised that “long train” in 1776, with what we are experiencing today.  It should be an interesting comparison.

[1] http://udspace.udel.edu/bitstream/handle/19716/4467/article3.pdf;jsessionid=6CF19E9A57FD05120A914311C63B1D7C?sequence=1

[2] http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/06/has_richard_posner_committed_an_impeachable_offence.html

[3] George Washington, Farewell Address, 1796.

[4] http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/supreme-court-justice-antonin-scalias-political-outbursts/story?id=16694778

[5] http://www.gopusa.com/?p=11819?omhide=true

[6] https://mississippitoday.org/2016/06/30/federal-judge-strikes-down-house-bill-1523/

[7] http://billstatus.ls.state.ms.us/documents/2016/html/HB/1500-1599/HB1523SG.htm

Constitutional Corner – Toilette Tyranny

Open as PDF

The quest to fundamentally transform America continues unabated.  Doesn’t that just warm the cockles of your heart?  Not content to glide out the remaining months of the President’s eight-year reign as our supreme leader, the Obama administration has effectively ordered all the nation’s public schools to allow gender-confused school kids to use whatever bathroom and shower-room facilities they choose to “identify” with.

Here’s the background: On February 22nd, the City of Charlotte, North Carolina, passed an ordinance prohibiting businesses from discriminating against LGBT individuals.  The ordinance also ordered businesses to allow such individuals to use any public bathroom they choose.

In a one-day special session on March 23rd, the North Carolina legislature passed HB2, with the support of 11 Democrats, I might add, which made it illegal for any municipality to expand upon the state’s existing anti-discrimination laws, which is essentially what Charlotte and a few other cities had done.  The new law contained a list of classes of people who are to be protected against discrimination, they included race, religion, color, national origin, age, handicap or biological sex as designated on a person’s birth certificate.  “Sexual orientation” and “gender transition” were conspicuously absent from the list.

The homosexual community vowed a court fight.  But before that could be mounted the Obama Administration filed a civil rights suit against the state and the state countersued.  Then came the bombshell, last week, on Friday the 13th no less, the Department of Education issued a “Dear Colleague” letter which stated that the Department expects any school receiving federal funding (hint) to allow transgender students to use whatever bathroom and locker room facilities they request to use.

Contemporaneous with the North Carolina issue is a controversy taking place right up the road from me in Gloucester County, VA.   A female student at Gloucester High School, Gavin Grimm, has self-identified as a boy.  With the support of her parents, Gavin is taking hormone treatments to facilitate a presumed future “transition” through gender surgery.  Grimm was offered the use of a unisex bathroom at the school and things were fine for awhile, until she apparently decided this accommodation was unacceptable and sued the school district.  Initial judgement went against Grimm and her parents appealed (I wonder who is financing their suit?).  A three-judge panel of the 4th Circuit ordered the district to allow Grimm the use of whatever facilities she requests and the district responded by asking for an en banc review by the entire Circuit.  How the DOE directive impacts the 4th Circuit ruling is unclear.

So “Can the federal government constitutionally order the nation’s schools to allow gender-confused kids to use any bathroom or locker-room, and, we assume, shower-room, that they “identify” with?”  That is the legitimate question that we will explore today.

There are several constitutional issues attached to this, beginning with why we have a Department of Education at the federal level when the Constitution grants no specific power to establish one nor empowers it to set policy over education for the country’s public schools.  The Northwest Ordinance of 1787, which is a full 25% of our country’s organic law, says that “Religion, morality and knowledge being necessary to good government, schools and the means of education will forever be encouraged” – encouraged, not controlled.  So the constitutionality of the Department of Education is one issue.

Next is the issue of delegation of legislative authority by the Congress to this unconstitutional executive department.  According to John Locke, that power cannot be delegated unless the people say so, and to my knowledge they have not.  But according to the Supreme Court in Mistretta v. U.S. (1989) such delegation is not only authorized, it is absolutely necessary in today’s complex world.  Hogwash!  We can only fix that by electing Congressmen and women who understand the Constitution.

My own Congressman told me that Congress sees itself as setting the broad policy guidelines and then lets the executive agencies “fill in the details.”  To my mind that is a dereliction of duty, a failure to support and defend the Constitution, and an impeachable misdemeanor in and of itself.  But that’s just my opinion.  Regardless, if Congress sets the policy guidelines, where does the Department of Education find the authority to change those guidelines at will?

Congress passed Title IX of the Education Amendments  in 1972.  Title IX reads:  “No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving federal financial assistance.”

In 1972, the word “sex” meant only one thing: biological sex.  But today there are people who want to redefine the word sex, just as they successfully (at least in the eyes of the Supreme Court) redefined the word “marriage.”

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.”

“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”

“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master — that’s all.”[1] (emphasis added)

In 2014, the Department of Education issued guidelines stating that transgender students were to be allowed to attend sex-segregated classes based on their professed “identity,” not their genetics.  There was no mention of bathrooms; what a difference two years make.

Martin Luther King is owed an apology for the way Attorney General Lynch couched this whole affair in civil rights terms and some in the Black Community have protested.  Fighting for the right to be free of discrimination based on something you can’t control, like the color of your skin, is quite different from claiming a supposed right to use whatever public bathroom you choose because today you decide you’re a member of the opposite sex.  By no means is this a civil rights issue, this is yet another attempt by this lawless administration to bypass the will of the people expressed in the Congress, and cram the LGBT agenda down American’s throats.

The ultimate goal of that movement has nothing to do with “equality.”  It is aimed at destroying the traditional American family, pure and simple.  They don’t aim to destroy Christianity, I think they recognize the futility of that, they only want to render the Christian church irrelevant, which the church has already accomplished, without outside help.  The church is sticking its head in the sand and hoping this will all blow over.  It will not.  Bathrooms and locker rooms are merely the next logical step in erasing all distinctions between men and women.  In an article entitled: “We’ll Win the Bathroom Battle When the Binary Burns,”[2] a homosexual activist says the real goal is to kill the notion of male and female altogether; to eradicate what he calls our “heterobinary structure.”  If only God had created us as male, female and “other,” we wouldn’t have this mess, right?  😉

While the focus is on the schools, the Department of Health and Human Services quietly issued a proposed rule change (and rule changes do have the force of law) in which “sex discrimination” in health care was unilaterally rewritten to include “gender identity.”  HHS is demanding that the entire health care industry include gender transition treatment as part of their services.  Refuse, they warn, and kiss your Medicare and Medicaid dollars goodbye. The rule doesn’t includes no religious exemption, which is not surprising for this administration — so much for hospitals run by religious organizations.

If only all states followed Utah’s lead in at least considering severing their educational system from federal educational funding and the extortion that comes with it.  As I said on a local radio show recently, it is long past time for states to regain control of their educational systems; yes, state taxes will have to go up, that is the price of independence.  But we were willing to pay a price for independence in 1776; we should be today as well.

To their credit, 73 Congressmen have sent a letter[3] to the Attorney General asking her to explain “why schools must disregard the privacy, ‘discomfort,’ and emotional strain imposed on other students during use of bathroom, showering, and changing facilities and overnight accommodations as these schools comply with this guidance.”  The letter also asks General Lynch to explain what will happen to “a teacher, school administrator, educator, school contractor, or person volunteering at a school who does not comply with this guidance.”  Whooptedo!  These are softball questions.  Finally, the letter gets to the heart of the matter, it asks AG Lynch to: “delineate the statutory authority under which the ED and DOJ issued this guidance.”  Now we’re talking!

To put a stop to this silliness all Congress need do is pass a clarification to the Title IX legislation which makes it clear gender refers to sex at birth.  Or make the clarification in the Dictionary Act.[4]  Will they do that?  Not unless the people demand it.

In the meantime, every parent needs to be talking with their child’s principal and learn what he or she intends to do about this.  Is the school going to roll over and implement this policy with the mere threat of the loss of funding, or will they choose to protect the safety and privacy of the 99.9% of the school’s students?

Pastors need to be talking about this with their congregations, but most won’t.  Most will don their cultural blinders and “re-double their efforts to win souls for the Kingdom,” fiddling while Rome burns.  Lest I be misunderstood: bringing souls into the Kingdom is important, but so is leaving a legacy of freedom for our kids and grandkids.

Ten other states have joined – you guessed it – Texas, in suing the Obama Administration[5] over this issue.  We can rightfully ask: What’s wrong with the other 39 states?

I believe this is the issue that parents can and should use to take back control of their local educational systems, recognizing that God holds parents and parents alone accountable for that education and all that it entails.  Parents have an equal responsibility for the safety of their children, both psychological and physical, and this movement intentionally violates both.  Moving your children from public school into Christian school is something that all Christian parents should consider, but this is only a partial answer; the children that remain in public school will continue to be harmed, and our tax dollars will facilitate it.  This must be stopped.

“Constitutional Corner” is a project of the Constitution Leadership Initiative, Inc.  To unsubscribe from future mailings by Constitution Leadership Initiative, click here.

[1] http://sabian.org/looking_glass6.php

[2] http://www.advocate.com/commentary/2016/4/29/well-win-bathroom-battle-when-binary-burns

[3] http://dailysignal.com/2016/05/18/breaking-73-house-republicans-sign-letter-demanding-answers-on-obamas-bathroom-directive/

[4] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/1/1

[5] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/05/25/texas-governor-says-state-will-sue-obama-administration-over-bathroom-directive/

 

The Constitution’s Week in Review – 7 May 2016

Article 2:  Qualifications of the President.

On Friday, April 29, The Arizona Republic newspaper posted in their online edition two opposing viewpoints on the question of Ted Cruz’ eligibility as president.  The opinion opposing Cruz’ eligibility,[1] by Scottsdale resident Alan Korwin, stakes its claim on Vattel’s Law of Nations, which, as I’ve discussed in previous posts is flimsy support, at best.  Yes the Framers esteemed Vattel’s book, but why would they turn to international law to define an entirely domestic issue, particularly when they had readily at hand a long-standing definition under British law?  Even though Korwin quotes from John Jay’s letter to Washington on avoiding “foreign influence” in the office, he fails to see the implications of Jay’s opinion.  If Jay’s opinion/letter provides the justification for using Vattel’s definition, it automatically excludes Jay’s three foreign-born children from eligibility, something it seems unlikely Jay would have intended.  “The idea that a court must speak because the Founders didn’t define the term is nonsense.”  No, Mr. Korwin, because the Founders (actually the Framers would be more precise) didn’t define the term, we, in this case the Courts, must.

The alternate view[2], by Anthony Gaughan, an associate professor of law at Drake University, takes the position that although Cruz was clearly a Canadian citizen at birth under Canadian law, he was equally an American citizen at birth under American law.  Gaughan fails to point out that Canada did not recognize dual citizenship at the time of Cruz’ birth, but this is immaterial, the U.S. did.  Gaughan notes that the First Congress defined the term (in the 1790 Naturalization Act, which he doesn’t name), but fails to point out that five years later the Fourth Congress amended the law and removed the reference to “natural-born citizen.”  If the First Congress defined “Natural Born Citizen” then the Fourth Congress undefined it.  Which must we believe?

So, understanding the need for short succinct “online-friendly” articles, in my opinion neither writer did a very good job of providing us a complete, compelling argument.   If Cruz is successful as the Republican nominee there will be a strong Democrat challenge that is certain to reach the Supreme Court, and then we’ll know what the phrase means – at least what it means today.

Article 2:  Abuse of Executive Power.

Hope you caught our discussion of the grounds for impeaching Barack Obama on Friday morning’s “We the People” show.  In case you didn’t, the podcast of the show should be posted sometime Monday.  This president is not going to be impeached, and he knows it.  The House is not going to impeach when they know in advance that the Senate is not going to convict, and they are not.  That shouldn’t dissuade us, however, from becoming as literate as possible on the subject.  Could you persuade an unbiased observer that the President has committed impeachable offenses?

While we’re on the subject of executive power abuse, Randy Barnett, author of “Our Republican Constitution,” published this short essay[3] on the separation of powers problem.

Article 5: Amending the Constitution.

Want to know how many times the states have applied to Congress for a convention under Article 5 to draft amendments to the Constitution?  A lot more than the 34 needed to require a convention.  Why hasn’t Congress called one?  Lists are kept here[4] and here[5] for your reading pleasure.

Of course we could just keep on keeping on, hoping that the next set of Congresspeople arrive in Washington D.C. with their clue bucket more full than the last bunch as to what the Supreme Court has done to the Constitution’s original limited powers.  Just saying.

Fourth or Fifth Amendment, You Decide:

Can a federal judge order someone[6] to place their finger on their iPhone and thus provide their fingerprint to unlock the device?  Does ordering this constitute an illegal search or does it violate your right not to “testify” against yourself?  Interesting question; let’s extend it to other examples.  Can the government compel you to unlock your safe in order to inspect its contents or must they be required to use their own means to gain access (lock-picker, explosives, etc)?  Can the government administer a “truth serum” to get you to reveal the location of your secret cache of survival supplies?

The California judge in the present case has precedent: two years ago, a federal judge in Virginia issued a similar order.[7]

I would be interested in hearing your thoughts on this.

Meanwhile, in the states:

You may recall my reporting not too long ago that the Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court, Judge Roy Moore, had ordered Alabama judges to ignore the Supreme Court’s Obergefell v. Hodges ruling, which purported to make homosexual marriage “legal” in the United States.  Well, the homosexual lobby has had their revenge: Judge Moore has been suspended[8] pending an investigation of ethics complaints over his action.  The linked article contains an interesting photo: a protester holding up a sign saying that the judge’s job is to “uphold the law, not make it.”  The protester is seems to ignore the possibility that the Supreme Court did just that.

Upcoming Events:

Lessons in Liberty.  If you read Mr. VandHei’s criteria for a presidential candidate in the first article I linked to, you may have finished feeling “Isn’t there more we want in a president than that he or she ‘be authentic and capable of having a rolling, candid, transparent conversation with voters on social and conventional media?’”  On May 16th join us to hear Dr. Jim Davids speak on “Choosing Godly Representatives,” from 7-9pm at the Foundation for American Christian Education.  Attend in person or online.  $10 either way.  Register at http://www.face.net/.

Constitution Seminar in Norfolk, VA.   Hampton Roads residents can learn what their Constitution says and means by coming to a CLI Saturday Seminar on 21 May sponsored by Concerned Veterans for America.  The seminar will be held from 8:30am-5:30pm (note new times) at the VFW Post 4809, 5728 Bartee St, Norfolk, VA 23502 (next to Military Circle Mall).  There is no charge for this event, but pre-registration is required through this Eventbrite link. Participants will receive a 150-page Student workbook, Pocket Constitution, and lunch.  There is no better deal around.  In an 1820 letter to William C. Jarvis, Thomas Jefferson wrote: “The people themselves,… their discretion [informed] by education, [are] the true corrective of abuses of constitutional power.”  This class will equip you to identify and correct those abuses.

Constitution Seminar in Williamsburg, VA.  Hampton Roads residents will have a second opportunity to learn what their Constitution says and means by coming to a CLI Saturday Seminar on 11 June in Williamsburg, VA.  The seminar will be held from 9:00am-6:00pm at a location to be announced shortly.  Participants receive a 150-page Student workbook, Pocket Constitution, lunch and a chance to win valuable door prizes.  The seminar will cost $40 per person, but registrations prior to 7 June receive a $10 discount.  Due to room size, this seminar is limited to 10 participants.  Pre-registration is required via email to: gary@constitutionleadership.org.

Constituting America continues to post new essays in their 90-Day Challenge.  Hope you are enjoying this peak into American history. Friday’s essay looked at “Eugene Debs’ Socialism and the U. S. Constitution.”  Given the amazing popularity of Socialist Bernie Sanders, perhaps Americans need a lesson on this subject.

The “Constitution’s Week in Review” is a project of the Constitution Leadership Initiative, Inc.  To unsubscribe from future mailings by Constitution Leadership Initiative, click here.

[1] http://www.azcentral.com/story/opinion/op-ed/2016/04/27/ted-cruz-eligible-president-korwin/81413724/

[2] http://www.azcentral.com/story/opinion/op-ed/2016/04/27/ted-cruz-eligible-president-gaughan/83540368/

[3] http://dailysignal.com/2016/04/28/the-rise-of-the-executive-administrative-state/?utm_source=TDS_Email&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=MorningBell&mkt_tok=eyJpIjoiT1RrNFlURTJOV0ptTkRjMCIsInQiOiJVXC9ORjVJMlJcL2JKSkdQWktoZHZrNkFORUVJYXFFdTBBNW5JQ1lDVk44YmZJYXFVMjdSZkVJTGF6ZHhRcHV1SHdPMTNRTTVMRkpoZWR6V2c0REZGN21mYTJnU2d2dVRmaDM1RDZTU1grWTNJPSJ9

[4] http://www.article-5.org/file.php/1/Articles/Table_Summarizing_State_Applications.htm

[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_state_applications_for_an_Article_V_Convention

[6] http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/federal-judge-orders-woman-unlock-iphone-fingerprint/story?id=38813344

[7] http://mashable.com/2014/10/30/cops-can-force-you-to-unlock-phone-with-fingerprint-ruling/#wGt1nMNIluqF

[8] https://www.yahoo.com/news/alabamas-top-judge-faces-ethics-charges-over-gay-053358096.html?ref=gs

The Constitution’s Week in Review – 30 Apr 2016

Article 2:  Qualifications of the President.

The Constitution is not a terribly complex document: seven articles and twenty-seven amendments.  At most, it takes perhaps a half hour to read.  Jim VandeHei, owner of the website Politico, says in a Wall Street Journal article[1] this week: “I have spent the past two decades in the Washington, D.C., bubble—the heart of Establishment America—covering politics and building a company, Politico, focused solely on politics.”  Apparently none of that political immersion required Mr. VandeHei read the U.S. Constitution.

One of the most basic pieces of constitutional information concerns the qualifications for elected office: Representatives must be 25 years old, Senators 30 and the President 35.  Representatives must have been a citizen of the U.S. for 7 years, Senators for 9 and the President a “resident” for 14.  See the progression meant to ensure increased experience and maturity in each office of higher responsibility?  These criteria are not that hard to remember once you’ve been exposed to them.  Mr. VandHei has not.  Yet despite his ignorance he plunged into the fray to promote Mark Zuckerberg, age 31, Gazillionaire owner of Facebook, as a potential third-party candidate for president.  The “good news” is that Zuckerberg will be eligible by 2020.

I’ll be sending Mr. VandeHei an invitation to attend my next seminar, absolutely free of charge, in Norfolk on May 21st (sponsored by Concerned Veterans for America; and its absolutely free to everyone, not just Mr. VandeHei, sign up here[2]).

Article 2:  Abuse of Executive Power.

We had a great time discussing this topic Friday on We the People, The Constitution Matters.  The podcast has already been posted[3] for your listening and/or download pleasure.

Article 5: Amending the Constitution.

March 23, 1971, was the last time Congress proposed an amendment to the U.S. Constitution and sent it to the States for ratification (the 26th).  That was 45 years ago (warning: math in public).  That 45 year period is not the longest we have gone without amending the document (from the 12th Amendment in 1804 to the 13th in 1865 was 61 years) but the current period recently moved into second place (the 15th Amendment was ratified in 1870 and the lovely 16th Amendment in 1913: 43 years).  Many say the Constitution is long overdue for an “upgrade.”

Washington has grown into a bloated, tyrannical, bankrupt mess, thanks to the “Supreme” Court’s successful demolition of the Constitution’s original limits.  Today we “enjoy” a federal government that “can do most anything in this country” (thank you Representative Peter Stark for those honest words).  Electing better representatives will not fix this mess; the vast majority of potential representatives have no idea what the root problem is or what needs fixing.  Nullification will not fix this; nullification is at best a temporary, limited measure.

The problem is the plenary power of the federal government and the only way to fix that is to restore what Jefferson called “the chains of the Constitution.”  Those “chains” no longer exist, but could be restored with targeted amendments.

Will Congress ever take on the task of reining in their own power, imposing fiscal restraints on themselves, imposing limits to the number of terms they may serve or the terms of federal judges?  Clearly, No!  We will wait in vain for such changes, each time hoping that maybe the next election will provide us a glimmer of hope.  Such “romantics” delude themselves.

This week, Oklahoma became the seventh State to realize that waiting for Congress to act is a pipe dream.  The Oklahoma legislature passed a resolution[4] calling for a convention under Article 5 of the Constitution, joining Florida, Alaska, Georgia, Alabama, Tennessee and Indiana.  Only 27 more states to go.

If you have a better plan to fix Washington, I’d like to hear it.  And by “plan” I mean an actual plan; you know, something that has been committed to paper, with funding, personnel, a timetable and an actual chance of success.  That’s what I call a plan.

While you contemplate what you can do to support the Convention of States effort, please enjoy this short video[5] explaining the federal government’s view of the debt limit.

First Amendment:  Establishment Clause.

Can a church be given state grant money to upgrade its playground equipment as are secular organizations?  At issue is the safety of children at play, at least that was the purpose of the grant program, certainly not the establishment or advancement of religion.  But objections were raised about violating the “Supreme” Court’s contrived “Wall of Separation” doctrine.  Apparently this doctrine trumps the safety of a church’s children. The Court has agreed to hear Lutheran Church v. Pauley[6] and is accepting amicus curiae briefs, such as one recently filed by the Family Research Council[7], to prepare them for oral arguments, not yet scheduled.  If you’ve never read amicus briefs, you should.  Read at least one from each side of the argument.

Meanwhile, in the states:

Civil Asset Forfeiture.  Carrying large amounts of cash is becoming evidence of a crime in this country, so be careful when you do so.  Some Sheriffs have called civil asset forfeiture “pennies from heaven.”[8]  I call it highway robbery.  You should not need an excuse to carry cash, even large amounts if you want to.  But time after time, citizens and foreign visitors get caught up in this thievery.  Sometimes there is a happy ending, as in this article[9] about a Christian musician who had $53,000 seized because it was “evidence of drug dealing,” Right.  Couldn’t be anything else?  Civil Asset Forfeiture Laws[10] should be removed from the law books of each state.  Do you know what the situation is in your state? Update: Nebraska and New Mexico recently passed laws that prohibit civil asset forfeiture until a conviction has been obtained.

As a side note: be sure you know your rights concerning warrantless searches of your car on a public road.  In this case I’m certain the police preyed upon the good nature of a Christian musician unfamiliar with the law.  Unless a drug dog alerts at the side of your car or the police can see clear evidence of illegal goods or activities through the car windows, they must first obtain a warrant to conduct a search.  Don’t know your rights?  See the seminars discussed below.

Speaking of Constitutions, I’ll bet some of you didn’t know we have a Constitution Party[11] in this country.  It’s been around since 1992 and it secured a whopping 122,388 votes for its presidential ticket in 2012, partly because only about 50% of the country’s voters even saw the party nominees appear on their state’s ballot.  Their 2016 candidates, Darrell Castle for President and Scott Bradley for Vice-President, will appear on only 23 state ballots this November.  Check out the party’s platform[12] and see if you could subscribe to it.

Upcoming Events:

Lessons in Liberty.  If you read Mr. VandHei’s criteria for a presidential candidate in the first article I linked to, you may have finished feeling “Isn’t there more we want in a president than that he or she ‘be authentic and capable of having a rolling, candid, transparent conversation with voters on social and conventional media?’”  On May 16th join us to hear Dr. Jim Davids speak on “Choosing Godly Representatives,” from 7-9pm at the Foundation for American Christian Education.  Attend in person or online.  $10 either way.  Register at http://www.face.net/.

Constitution Seminar in Norfolk, VA.   Hampton Roads residents can learn what their Constitution says and means by coming to a CLI Saturday Seminar on 21 May sponsored by Concerned Veterans for America.  The seminar will be held from 8:30am-5:30pm (note new times) at the VFW Post 4809, 5728 Bartee St, Norfolk, VA 23502 (next to Military Circle Mall).  There is no charge for this event, but pre-registration is required through this Eventbrite link. Participants will receive a 150-page Student workbook, Pocket Constitution, and lunch.  There is no better deal around.  In an 1820 letter to William C. Jarvis, Thomas Jefferson wrote: “The people themselves,… their discretion [informed] by education, [are] the true corrective of abuses of constitutional power.”  This class will equip you to identify and correct those abuses.

Constitution Seminar in Williamsburg, VA.  Hampton Roads residents will have a second opportunity to learn what their Constitution says and means by coming to a CLI Saturday Seminar on 11 June in Williamsburg, VA.  The seminar will be held from 9:00am-6:00pm at a location to be announced shortly.  Participants receive a 150-page Student workbook, Pocket Constitution, lunch and a chance to win valuable door prizes.  The seminar will cost $40 per person, but registrations prior to 7 June receive a $10 discount.  Due to venue size, this seminar is limited to 10 participants.  Pre-registration is required via email to gary@constitutionleadership.org.

Constituting America continues to post new essays in their 90-Day Challenge.  Hope you are enjoying this peak into American history.

The “Constitution’s Week in Review” is a project of the Constitution Leadership Initiative, Inc.  To unsubscribe from future mailings by Constitution Leadership Initiative, click here.

[1] http://www.wsj.com/articles/bring-on-a-third-party-candidate-1461624062

[2] http://cli-cva-constitution.eventbrite.com/

[3] http://www.1180wfyl.com/podcasts.html

[4] http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/capitol_report/oklahoma-joins-call-for-convention-of-the-states-on-balanced/article_d11daf38-96e8-51b2-bf29-0f991a27a0ce.html

[5] http://www.conventionofstates.com/video_managed_debt_like_the_federal_government

[6] http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/trinity-lutheran-church-of-columbia-inc-v-pauley/

[7] http://www.christiannewswire.com/news/5329877775.html

[8] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipHUN-xLLms

[9] http://dailysignal.com/2016/04/25/police-seized-53k-from-christian-band-fundraised-for-orphanage-school/?utm_source=TDS_Email&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Top5&mkt_tok=eyJpIjoiTVRVek9UYzVZMkl4WkRNNSIsInQiOiIzNktPeGE4ZW5JSDl0UURwalY0a1wvVEhsT2ttVEJwQUJlS2ZNdTU4UnhJWnpmVHZmVmxNQUZUemR6WllqTmhkSUJBSHlKcjA1NmRScSt5Rk9wYVZESUVxRnczbGI0RXJNd2cyMGxjZUhPM001U2tMcVRMYlJnd1wvQm1Hb1F4UUxwIn0%3D

[10] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United_States

[11] http://www.constitutionparty.com/

[12] http://www.constitutionparty.com/our-principles/platform-and-resolutions/