Constitutional Corner –100 Days of Trump — and the Constitution

Open as PDF

Well, Mr. Trump has survived his first 100 days in office — many on the Left were hoping otherwise — but at least two American cities are now formally calling for his impeachment.[1] What has he accomplished? Better yet, what has he done to deserve calls for impeachment after such a short period? And how does all this relate to the Constitution?

I’m sure you, my alert readers, realize that there is nothing magic about a President’s first 100 days in office; the milestone is an artificial contrivance, totally arbitrary, and essentially worthless in determining the effectiveness of a President and/or his administration. In fact, that we are even stopping to perform an assessment of the President, no matter what the timeframe, points to a hopelessly warped perspective on the office. Did the Founders take time to assess Washington’s, or Adams’ or Jefferson’s first 100 days in office? Of course not; such would be a complete waste of time, as will this one. Part of me wants to stop right here and instead discuss something of actual importance to the future of America. But the precedent has set (first suggested by FDR) and the various media organizations have each filed their reviews, so why don’t I do so as well? Besides, it is doubtful that any of the “professional” assessments will compare Trump’s performance with his Constitutional duties: who cares what the Constitution says anyway?  Why is that even relevant?

But Trump did set himself up for this by announcing a 100-Day Plan[2] on October 23, 2016, as previous Presidents have done. I was surprised to find there’s even a Wikipedia page[3] devoted to this subject, and a similar one on Obama;[4] but apparently none on earlier Presidents. (Spoiler Alert: as might be expected, there is a decidedly negative tone to Trump’s Wiki page when compared to Obama’s).

The Economist, The Wall Street Journal, CBS, NBC, ABC and Fox all did assessments; even the White House posted one.[5]

Today, we see the President as the leader of the government, even those who should know better. On election night, November 2, 2010, Rep. John Boehner, celebrating the Republican victory in Congress, said: “while our new majority will serve as your voice in the people’s House, we must remember it is the president who sets the agenda for our government.” [emphasis added].  The Founders would disagree. To the Founders, Congress, as, to quote Boehner, the “voice of the people,” should set the agenda for the government, not the President.

But before we ask: “How’d Trump do?” Let’s first ask: “What should he have done?” To paraphrase Hamilton: “Why get all excited about someone with the “confined authorities of a President of the United States?”[6]

Presidential Activity

The President’s Constitutional powers are found in Articles 1 and 2 of the Constitution. I’m not going to take the time to list those few powers there; I encourage you to review them.  But I will mention what I feel is the President’s most important duty beyond keeping the country safe from sudden attack: he is to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.”

You’ll notice in reviewing the President’s powers and responsibilities that there is no mention of issuing Executive Orders, giving speeches, firing officials he has appointed, etc. Although some scholars insist that the mention of “executive power” in Article II Section 1 grants the President no specific power, the Courts have decided the phrase implies certain “traditional powers of executives,“ among them being the power to issue orders that direct the activities of executive agencies, i.e. Executive Orders.

So, assuming Executive Orders to be a legitimate implied power of the President, how has Mr. Trump done in this category?

First, you can find an explanation of each of the twenty-four Executive Orders issued by Mr. Trump in his first 100 days here.[7] This was the most EOs issued in the first 100 days by any President since FDR.

Trump also signed 22 presidential memoranda, 20 presidential proclamations, and signed 33 bills into law. About a dozen of those bills rolled-back regulations finalized during the last months of Barack Obama’s presidency using the authorization provided by the 1996 Congressional Review Act.[8] Here’s a report[9] which concludes the Congressional Review Act could even be used to reverse actions going back to the beginning of the Obama administration. The report concludes: “every regulation, policy statement, and the like that in Congress’s opinion has not yet been properly submitted for its review remains open for invalidation…”

Of the twenty-four EOs, four bear mention:

Trump’s very first order, signed on his first day as President and responding to a campaign pledge, ordered the Secretary of Health and Human Services (Secretary) and the heads of all other executive departments and agencies having authorities and responsibilities under Obamacare, to “exercise all authority and discretion available to them to waive, defer, grant exemptions from, or delay the implementation of any provision or requirement of the Act that would impose a fiscal burden on any State or a cost, fee, tax, penalty, or regulatory burden on individuals, families, healthcare providers, health insurers, patients, recipients of healthcare services, purchasers of health insurance, or makers of medical devices, products, or medications.” Translation: find ways to waive Obamacare’s mandates.  Did Trump have the authority to issue this order? Remember, his foremost duty is to take care that the law is faithfully executed. Fortunately for Trump (and Obama before him), the law was written to allow the Secretary of HHS enormous discretion in granting waivers; the Obama administration set precedent by granting waivers to politically favored groups and businesses.

Perhaps Trump’s most controversial orders were his two efforts to impose a temporary ban on issuing visas for immigrants from, first seven, then six predominantly Muslim countries. Both orders were halted by federal courts on patently specious reasoning that the temporary bans amounted to bans on Muslims.

Last week we were entreated to listen to oral arguments broadcast on CSPAN from the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, which had been asked by the administration to overturn a nationwide injunction placed on the EO by a federal district judge in Maryland. From the judges’ questions of first, Acting Solicitor General Jeffrey Wall (who did an amazing job, in my view) and then ACLU lawyer Omar Jadwat, it quickly became clear that several of the judges had already decided that statements made by then-candidate Trump established the irrevocable motivation for the Order, and that it amounted to a ban on Muslims — period.

That the EO does not amount to a ban on Muslims is easily shown by the fact that Christians, Jews, Animists, even Atheists from the six listed countries are as affected as are Muslims from those listed countries, while Muslims from any of the scores of the other predominately-Muslim countries around the world not listed in the ban are not affected. In the face of this argument, how anyone can still insist that the order is a ban on Muslims is beyond me. Yet the Left clings to that accusation like a child clinging to his “blankey.” Sad. And a sad commentary on the health of political debate in this country. Perhaps the most revealing testimony during the 4th Circuit hearing was the admission by Omar Jadwat that Trump’s EO would likely be constitutional – if it had been issued by President Hillary Clinton!

Another controversial order is Executive Order 13768,[10] signed on January 25, 2017. It directed the Justice Department to review federal funding given to cities and other localities which declare themselves as sanctuaries for illegal immigrants. I discussed this EO in a previous essay[11] so I won’t go further than to mention that, sure enough, the EO was challenged in court[12] and a partial injunction issued.

The last EO I’ll mention, technically issued two days after the “100 Days” ended on May 1st, is a bit more problematic.  It attempts an end-run around what is called the Johnson Amendment,[13] put in place by then-Senator Lyndon B. Johnson to make sure ministers who opposed his re-election would be prevented from doing so, at least from their pulpits.  The amendment empowered the IRS to revoke the 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status of any church which takes a position in favor of or in opposition to any candidate for office.  Rarely invoked,[14] the amendment is widely mis-understood by ministers across the country and results in a silencing of even permissible political speech from the pulpit.

The Order directs all executive departments and agencies to “respect and protect the freedom of persons and organizations to engage in religious and political speech.” In particular, the Secretary of the Treasury is restricted from taking “any adverse action against any individual, house of worship, or other religious organization on the basis that such individual or organization speaks or has spoken about moral or political issues from a religious perspective, where speech of similar character has … not ordinarily been treated as participation or intervention in a political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) a candidate for public office …”  The President was immediately sued by the Freedom from Religion Foundation, which argued that the order was unconstitutional because it grants preferential treatment to religious organizations while requiring secular non-profit organizations to still abide by the law. Since there is nothing in the Constitution which prohibits the federal government from favoring a religion or even religion over non-religion, I would hope the argument gets thrown out. But it is more likely that FFRF will find a favorable judge to hear their complaint and Trump will gain yet another nationwide injunction.

The problem I have with this particular EO is that it amounts to an order to “take care that the laws not be faithfully executed.”  A better approach would be to pursue something like the Free Speech Fairness Act (H.R. 781/S. 264)[15] or just urge Congress to repeal the Johnson Amendment outright. Instead, the President chose to use an EO to effectively repeal the amendment. The President is thus legislating in place of Congress. Barack Obama was rightfully criticized for not enforcing illegal immigrant deportation law; Trump can and should be similarly criticized.

Congressional Activity

Presidential candidates can and do make outlandish pledges during their campaigns, promises they have no hope of delivering, at least not by themselves; but that’s politics. A successful President, even one whose party enjoys a majority in Congress, must still propose legislation that a majority in Congress will support. Given that, Trump’s pledge to “repeal and replace” Obamacare was on shaky ground from the outset since some Republicans in Congress were bent on outright repeal, others on replacement, while the Democrats in Congress insisted on retaining the current law despite its many faults and impending failure. The first version of “repeal and replace” in the House failed while the second passed, only to arrive DOA on the Senate floor. Who knows what the final version will look like?

Nevertheless, Congress has been otherwise busy since January 20th. The 115th Congress has passed 33 bills that have been signed into law, 13 of them revoking rules passed by the Obama administration. By contrast, the 114th Congress passed only 11 bills during its first 100 days, none invoking the CRA. This difference is largely due to whether the Congress and President were members of the same party. But compare this with the 111th Congress which, in the first 100 days of Barack Obama’s first term, revoked not a single rule passed in the waning days of the Bush administration.

The other major accomplishment of the administration’s first 100 days was passage of a budget which avoided a government shutdown. But how much of the spending in this budget was constitutional and how much was not? The vast majority of Americans appear to have accepted the claim that everything Congress spends money on is constitutional, and from a Court perspective they are right. Two decisions in the 1930s[16] gave Congress the authority to spend money on anything which enhanced the “general welfare” – as Congress defined it! Perhaps we’ll examine the details of the budget in a future essay.

Judicial Activity

President Trump’s greatest success in the judicial arena had to be his successful nomination and confirmation of Judge Neil Gorsuch to fill Antonin Scalia’s empty seat on the Supreme Court. In unprecedented fashion, the appointment was opposed en masse by Senate Democrats as retribution for Senate Republicans not proceeding with a confirmation hearing for Obama appointee Judge Merrick Garland. Justice Gorsuch has already made his mark on the Court, joining Justice Alito in not participating in a traditional sharing of law clerks to pool their resources in deciding which cases to hear or deny from the thousands of petitions that are sent to the high court every year. This means Gorsuch’s law clerks will be tasked with reviewing every petition in search of cases warranting the high court’s notice. As a former clerk of Justice Kennedy,[17] Gorsuch is very familiar with the process.

Gorsuch joined the court in time to hear the last 14 cases on the Court’s docket, including one important case for religious freedom proponents: Trinity Lutheran Church vs. Comer.

Of concern now for the President, will be filling the 129 federal judgeships that remain open and by doing so provide some balance for the overwhelmingly liberal federal judiciary.

A list of the opinions rendered by the Court this term can be found here.[18]

A President’s first 100 days may in fact provide a useful measuring stick for some; I’m not impressed. There are 1360 days remaining in Trump’s (first?) term; plenty of time for great success — and great failure.

“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.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/Richmond-City-Council-Passes-Resolution-Calling-for-Trump-Impeachment–414514223.html

[2] https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/10/22/trumps-gettysburg-address-outlines-first-100-days/92596734/

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_100_days_of_Donald_Trump%27s_presidency

[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_100_days_of_Barack_Obama%27s_presidency

[5] https://www.whitehouse.gov/100-days

[6] Federalist 71

[7] https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/executive-orders

[8] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Review_Act

[9] http://www.heritage.org/government-regulation/report/the-reach-the-congressional-review-act?utm_source=THF_Email&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=TheAgenda&mkt_tok=eyJpIjoiTWpKbU1HUmpORE16WldVeiIsInQiOiJjdzFNcW8yV0dZdHA1MmRIQW1HOVFyXC9nMkFLUU96eHpcLzZIdTBuSERuS1dsd1hZYU9pa1IyVTB4ekM0b0FuTFI4UDIxVUFOMXY3NExTcVJyTVhydjJqcFlKQmZhT1B4R0d2Tys4SXBFdElMNUpjWlRGK1FWZFRoSHNRZFpFU002In0%3D

[10] https://www.federalregister.gov/executive-order/13768

[11] http://constitutionleadership.org/2017/04/09/constitutional-corner-sanctuary-cities-and-the-constitution/

[12] http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/25/politics/sanctuary-cities-injunction/

[13] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnson_Amendment

[14] Only one church is known to have lost its tax-exempt status as a result of the law, and then only temporarily.

[15] https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/781

[16] U.S v. Butler (1936), Helvering v. Davis (1937)

[17] Gorsuch clerked for Justice Anthony Kennedy

[18] https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/slipopinion/16

Constitutional Corner – Sanctuary Cities and the Constitution

Open as PDF

On January 25, 2017, Donald Trump carried through on a campaign promise and signed Executive Order 13768[1] which declared sanctuary jurisdictions across the United States to be in willful violation of Federal law. Attorney General Jeff Sessions promised to enforce it.[2] Section 2(c) of the Order sets out to ”ensure that jurisdictions that fail to comply with applicable Federal law do not receive Federal funds, except as mandated by law.” The Order also contained a list of types of illegal aliens that are to be “promptly” deported. These include aliens who:

  • Have been convicted of any criminal offense;
  • Have been charged with any criminal offense, where such charge has not been resolved;
  • Have committed acts that constitute a chargeable criminal offense;
  • Have engaged in fraud or willful misrepresentation in connection with any official matter or application before a governmental agency;
  • Have abused any program related to receipt of public benefits;
  • Are subject to a final order of removal, but who have not complied with their legal obligation to depart the United States; or
  • In the judgment of an immigration officer, otherwise pose a risk to public safety or national security.

In response, the list of U.S. cities declaring that they are sanctuaries, which began growing even during the Obama administration, increased dramatically. There are now estimated to be nearly 300 such cities, counties and even states[3] that have made such declarations. Several states are offering illegal aliens state driver’s licenses. Going one step further, Chicago offered “undocumented” immigrants money for legal fees to fight federal deportation. To see if your locality is a sanctuary, the most well maintained list I’ve found is here.[4]

So what are we to make of sanctuary cities and, if California carries through on its recent threat: sanctuary states?

There is nothing unlawful[5] in a city declaring itself a sanctuary city; the declaration is not the problem, the actions which may follow are. Usually, all a sanctuary city is asserting is that their city’s resources will not be utilized in helping the federal government enforce federal law, something the Supreme Court has said the federal government cannot force a state or city to do (refusing to cooperate is called “anti-commandeering”).[6]

However, it is a federal felony, punishable by five years in prison for each violation, for any person to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection any illegal alien. The word “harbor” is defined as any conduct that tends to substantially facilitate an alien’s remaining in the U.S. illegally.

The Supreme Court rejected arguments (in Reno v. Condon) that a state or local government’s refusal to supply information requested by the federal government should be protected. Providing requested information was not seen by the court as “enforcing” a federal statute.

Furthermore, the 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act prohibited any Federal, State or local government entity or official from restricting any other government entity or official from sending to, or receiving from, the [Department of Homeland Security] information regarding the citizenship or immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual.”[7] To get around this, sanctuary localities make it a point not to determine an apprehended person’s immigrant status; they can’t provide information they don’t have, right? Sort of “Don’t ask, don’t … ask?”

So it appears the sanctuary cities do not have much legal “wiggle room.” They can’t be forced to detain individuals at INS request; they can’t be forced to apprehend illegal immigrants who have committed no other crime, but that’s about it. They can be prosecuted for refusing to provide information on aliens in their custody, and they can be prosecuted for shielding aliens they do apprehend, provided they know the alien’s status.  But can the federal government withhold funds solely on the basis of a sanctuary declaration?

As a Reuters study points[8] out, there is a lot of money at stake; tens of billions of dollars.  Here’s a chart[9] that will put the funding in perspective for you.

The problem for Mr. Trump is that in some cases Congress expressly authorizes specific amounts to specific locations, in others the Executive branch is given great discretion in terms of where and how the funds are to be allocated. Some examples of programs where funds could conceivably be cut: the Community Oriented Policing Services program (COPS) provides grants to pay for school resource officers; the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program (JAG) funds a variety of state and local law enforcement expenses, including court, crime prevention and education programs; the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP) funds a program that helps local police departments with incarcerated undocumented immigrants fund their corrections facilities and the salaries of their officers.

Faced with the potential loss of critical law enforcement funds, some localities have had second thoughts or have even reversed an earlier declaration.  Other localities have protested vigorously when their name has shown up on a sanctuary list.

If it weren’t for America’s history regarding slavery, the sanctuary issue would be much simpler.

The Constitution states[10] that: “No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.” A 1793 law made it a crime for slaves to escape from a slave state to one where slavery had been banned. Finally, the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850 expanded the authority of federal law enforcement officials in apprehending fugitive slaves. As a result, the Underground Railroad[11] was born.  As many as 100,000 escaped slaves may have been “transported” to freedom.

Are today’s sanctuary cities and the Underground Railroad morally equivalent? Is a fugitive slave the same as a fugitive illegal immigrant? Some think so; I think not. The slave did not choose his slavery (although he did choose to escape), the immigrant chose to enter the country illegally or overstay his visa.

While harboring a fugitive from justice is often claimed to be an act of conscience, as we have seen, it is also illegal and the offender is subject to prosecution. Because of this, Catholic churches have been urged[12] to use caution before leaping into the sanctuary pool. As lawyer and Jesuit Father Bryan Pham points out in On Becoming a Sanctuary: Five Points For Catholic Institutions To Consider: “The housing of undocumented people is not necessarily covered under the First Amendment.”

Some in the sanctuary movement, members of other Christian denominations, point to the “cities of refuge” discussed in the Bible:[13] There it says: “Speak to the people of Israel and say to them, ‘When you cross the Jordan into the land of Canaan, then you shall select cities to be cities of refuge for you, that the manslayer who kills any person without intent may flee there.’ The cities shall be for you a refuge from the avenger, that the manslayer may not die until he stands before the congregation for judgment.” (Emphasis added)

Notice that refuge cities were established for one circumstance: inadvertent manslaughter.  Any “run-of-the-mill” criminal could not claim refuge. Even an inadvertent manslayer could claim refuge only until a trial was conducted (or the High Priest died before a trial could be conducted).

Some Christian churches in America have a long history[14] of receiving and housing true refugees from oppression, at times even smuggling them into this country. The problem here is determining who are the true refugees from violence or oppression and who are simple economic immigrants; how do you determine who is which? Illegal immigrants know exactly what to say if/when they are apprehended?  Even then, the smuggling of true refugees remains a problem.

Pointing to their “venerable role in human history,” Associate Professor of English at UC Irvine, Elizabeth Allen, pleads in an LA Times OpEd[15] that sanctuary cities must continue to exist since they have “long been an escape valve for society.” “The sanctuary cities of the 2000s are part of this American tradition.” Tellingly, Professor Allen wastes no ink recounting the economic effect of illegal immigration.[16]

I think the religious or moral case for providing sanctuary to illegal immigrants is very weak, and thus far I haven’t noticed anyone trying to make a Constitutional case for sanctuary cities, perhaps there’s a lesson there.

“Sanctuary Cities” sounds all lofty and moral, and may even give some citizens a warm-fuzzy that they are “doing their part for the oppressed.” But if you are an official in such a city, don’t be surprised if you are prosecuted for harboring aliens, and don’t complain if you’re incarcerated for doing so. Just saying.

[1] https://www.federalregister.gov/executive-order/13768.

[2] www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/mar/27/jeff-sessions-says-hell-punish-sanctuaries-cities.

[3] http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/map-over-200-sanctuary-cities-in-32-states-and-d.c./article/2567880.

[4] http://www.ojjpac.org/sanctuary.asp.

[5] https://townhall.com/columnists/judgeandrewnapolitano/2016/12/08/are-sanctuary-cities-legal-n2256429.

[6] In Prigg v. Pennsylvania (1842), the Court ruled that the federal government could not force states to implement or carry out the Fugitive Slave Act of 1793. In Printz v. United States (1997) the Court ruled that localities could not be forced to administer part of a firearm background check program.

[7] 8 U.S.C. § 1371(a).

[8] https://www.alipac.us/f12/reuters-largest-10-%91sanctuary-cities%92-may-lose-%242-27-billion-federal-funding-342683/.

[9] http://tinyurl.com/kpj3ra7.

[10] Article 4, Section 2.

[11] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underground_Railroad.

[12] https://www.ncronline.org/news/justice/becoming-sanctuary-five-points-catholic-institutions-consider.

[13] Numbers 35 (and other scriptures).

[14] http://99percentinvisible.org/episode/church-sanctuary-part-1/.

[15] http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-allen-sanctuary-cities-20150917-story.html.

[16] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_impact_of_illegal_immigrants_in_the_United_States.

Constitutional Corner – Healthcare and the Constitution

Open as PDF

There is not a single word in the Constitution which gives the federal government the authority to design and deliver a healthcare system, whether we are talking about Medicare, Medicaid or the Un-Affordable Care Act – there are two words; they are: “general welfare.”

Now that I have your attention, let me clarify: I don’t believe for one moment that the Framers envisioned a national government that would be in the business of providing healthcare to all its citizens or any part of them. To the Framers, providing medical care was not the purpose of government; the purpose of government was, and remains today, securing our rights.

Aw, but what if healthcare is indeed a right, as some people insist. Doesn’t that give the government the authority, even the responsibility to be involved?

In 1765, Sir William Blackstone indeed wrote that a person has a right to the preservation of their health, and protection “from such practices as may prejudice or annoy it.”[1] Does being unable to afford health insurance “prejudice” your health?  Certainly.  Is being unable to afford health insurance a “practice” which prejudices your health? Certainly not.  Besides, Blackstone appears to stand alone among early British political philosophers in declaring the preservation of health to be a right.

“The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health” was part of Franklin Roosevelt’s Second Bill of Rights, which he proposed during his 1944 State of the Union message to Congress, along with a right to “a useful and remunerative job, the right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation (even if you have no skills apparently). If you were a farmer, FDR thought you had a right to raise and sell your products at a return which gave you and your family a decent living; if you were a businessman, you had a ”right” to conduct your business without “unfair” competition; you had a right to a “decent home,” a good education, and protection from the economic fear of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment.

Roosevelt felt confident proposing these new “rights” because he had seven years earlier effectively neutered the Supreme Court in the infamous “Court Packing” affair. He wouldn’t have any problem getting the high court to see these as new rights hidden in the 9th Amendment. Unfortunately, a little more than a year later FDR was dead and the idea of a second Bill of Rights died with him.

Had this Second Bill of Rights somehow become part of the Constitution, can’t you imagine the avalanche of cases that would ensue as the courts were called upon to decide what a “decent” home was, what “unfair” competition consisted of, what a “useful” job meant and what “adequate” food and clothing comprised as the government struggled to provide these benefits to those lacking them?

But we all know there are people walking around today, and a growing number of them, who believe providing our essential needs is precisely why we have government. Organizing For America, Obama’s post-presidency cheerleading organization, believes healthcare to be a right and they are aggressively fundraising based on the threat of Obamacare’s repeal.[2] Once healthcare insurance is determined by a majority of Americans to be a right, and last week’s vote on the Republican replacement, the American Healthcare Act, suggests that it may have already become such, there will be no putting that genie back in the bottle. Think of all the poor people who will die if you take away their health insurance, you heartless Republican you.

All this is thanks to two Supreme Court cases in 1936 and 1937: U.S. v Butler and Helvering v. Davis. In the former the Supreme Court decided that the General Welfare Clause was a separate grant of spending authority given to Congress.

Madison and others had repeatedly said, No! The phrase general welfare was not a separate grant of power, it was instead a constraint, a limitation on the enumerated powers. Spending on the enumerated powers would only be legitimate if it contributed to the welfare of all Americans, not the welfare of specific individuals, groups or classes of citizens. But in U.S. v. Butler the Court thumbed its collective nose at Madison, and said Congress could spend willy-nilly on “general welfare.” But what was considered general welfare and what was not? The year after Butler, the court delivered its Helvering decision over the constitutionality of Social Security.[3] In a 5-4 decision, the Court said the line between general and specific welfare would not be determined by the courts; it was up to Congress to decide. So now, anything Congress spends money on is clearly general welfare and not specific welfare, because if it was specific welfare, Congress would not have spent the money on it! See the logic?  There is no effective limit to what Congress can spend money on.  And neither do they have to have cash on hand to do so, as our $20 Trillion in debt demonstrates.

The Congressional Research Service, in a 2010 report called “Health Care: Constitutional Rights and Legislative Powers[4] agreed that there is no explicit right to health care set forth in the original Constitution. However, they note the growing sense by many Americans that today there should be.[5] In 2009, Congressman Jesse Jackson introduced a bill that would amend the Constitution to explicitly guarantee that, quote: “[a]ll persons shall enjoy the right to health care of equal high quality” and that” [t]he Congress shall have power to enforce and implement this article by appropriate legislation.”

Jackson’s proposed amendment didn’t go anywhere, Congress hasn’t been in the mood to amend the Constitution for 40 years. But why do they need to, in this case the “right” is already there in essence.

On July 30, 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson signed H.R. 6675, creating Medicare. Former President Harry Truman, who had first proposed the idea of a national health insurance program to Congress, was issued the very first Medicare card during the ceremony.

In 1972, President Richard M. Nixon signed into the law the first major change to Medicare, expanding coverage to individuals under the age of 65 with long-term disabilities and individuals suffering from end-stage renal disease (ERSD).

Medicare and Medicaid coverage have been expanding ever since, with Parts C & D added to the original Parts A & B and disability coverage now including those with amyotrophic laterals sclerosis, aka, Lou Gehrig’s Disease.

In 2015, the Kaiser Family Foundation reported the number of Americans on Medicare as just over 55 million or 15% of the population. Another 65 Million, or 20%, are receiving Medicaid benefits. Add to this the people participating in CHIP and veterans’ health care programs and you find there is nearly 50% of the American public on some form of socialized health insurance plan or subsidy.

Why shouldn’t the government get involved in supplying healthcare?  Let me count the ways.

In 2015, a Government Accountability Office report[6] found that $60 billion —10% of Medicare’s budget — was lost to waste, fraud, abuse or improper payments. Among the worse problems, the GAO found 23,400 fake or bad addresses on Medicare’s list of providers — providers, not recipients. In other words, Medicare paid out $60 Billion for benefits claimed to have been delivered by providers who either didn’t exist or couldn’t be reached. And we want more socialized medicine?

Although you’ll find a few reports here[7] and there[8] that insist Medicare is not going bankrupt, you’ll find more which claim it is.[9],[10],[11] Despite this, many are demanding the government provide “Medicare for all.”[12]

With Obamacare imploding[13] and enough Republicans in Congress not willing to rescue it with the AHCA, it is only a matter of time before the American people demand that their “right” to affordable health insurance be supplied by a new single-payer system, like Medicare.

The lesson here, and Barack Obama knew this better than anyone: is once you give someone a government benefit it is probably there to stay; you are not likely to be successful in ending it. Americans love their benefits, even if it is bankrupting them.

Obamacare is indeed on life support. Thoughtco.com recently published a list of the top ten reasons Obama’s signature initiative is imploding.[14] Skyrocketing cost increases have caused some insurers to pull out of state exchanges, in some cases leaving a single insurer still operating. Insurers are responding to these increased costs by raising rates alarmingly. People not qualifying for subsidies will soon be unable to afford their premiums. We all knew this would happen, even those who designed the ACA knew it; Obamacare was designed to fail in order to lead to the demand for single-payer.

Single-payer, as we’ve seen with Medicare and Medicaid, will most certainly bankrupt us. It is almost as though these people want America to collapse in order to create their dream utopia on its ashes.

If you’re concerned about where this issue is going, if you’d like to see the ACA not be replaced with the AHCA, don’t you think it is time you had a talk with your Congressional representatives?

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

[1] Commentaries on the Laws of England, Book 1. P. 130.

[2] https://www.ofa.us/its-no-accident/?email=gport%40aol.com&zip=23693&utm_medium=email&utm_source=obama&utm_content=2+-+httpsmyofausHealthCareIsARight&utm_campaign=em_x_aca_20170330_x_x_jl_remainder&source=em_x_aca_20170330_x_x_jl_remainder&refcode=em_x_aca_20170330_x_x_jl_remainder

[3] http://archive.lewrockwell.com/orig3/attarian7.html

[4] http://www.ncsl.org/documents/health/LegPowers.pdf

[5] The referenced report contains a good summary of key healthcare-related opinions of the Court.

[6] http://www.investors.com/politics/commentary/medicare-and-medicaid-are-both-in-a-sickly-state-at-50/

[7] http://www.cbpp.org/research/health/medicare-is-not-bankrupt

[8] https://www.medicareadvocacy.org/fact-vs-fiction-medicare-is-not-going-bankrupt/

[9] https://www.rpc.senate.gov/policy-papers/medicare-remains-on-fast-track-to-bankruptcy-

[10] https://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2012/04/23/trustees-medicare-will-go-broke-in-2016-if-you-exclude-obamacares-double-counting/#237f21d83d00

[11] http://www.cnbc.com/id/100780248

[12] http://www.medicareforall.org/pages/Home

[13] http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/oct/30/obamacares-implosion/

[14] https://www.thoughtco.com/reasons-obamacare-is-and-will-continue-to-be-a-failure-3303662

Constitution Corner – Has Trump Violated the Constitution?

Open as PDF

Is Donald Trump receiving an “emolument” by allowing his hotels and other properties to rent rooms or office space to foreign governments, or their employees?  Is he “increasing his compensation” through his organization receiving tax breaks from the State of New York?  Some on the Left think the answer to both questions is “Yes,” and that such actions are a violation of the Constitution.  Some even call for impeachment.[1]  Are they right?

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington,[2] or CREW has brought suit against the President.  Their suit, which does not seek any monetary damages, asks a federal court in New York to order the President to stop taking payments at his properties from foreign governments. This includes payments at Trump hotels and golf courses; loans for his office buildings from certain banks controlled by foreign governments; and leases with tenants like the Abu Dhabi tourism office, a government enterprise.

They claim doing so violates the “Emoluments Clause” of the Constitution, sometimes also referred to as the “Titles of Nobility Clause,” for reasons which are obvious upon reading Article I, Section 9:

“No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state.”

What constitutes a “present, emolument, office, or title” and why is the receipt of such things from “any king, prince, or foreign state” such a problem?

As Alexander Hamilton explained in Federalist No. 22: “One of the weak sides of republics, among their numerous advantages, is that they afford too easy an inlet to foreign corruption.”  Foreign influence was an area of great concern to the Framers of the Constitution and continued to be so in the eyes of the nation at large for many, many years.

We think the nation is divided today; in the first 20 years after the Constitution was ratified the nation was equally divided between Anglophiles and Francophiles.  Anglophiles, naturally, retained affection for the “mother country,” while Francophiles retained gratification for France’s timely aid in the American Revolution.  Neither side totally trusted the other, both charging that “foreign influence” was behind their words and actions.

You might wish that Mr. Trump’s opponents operated from the highest motives and were truly worried that such hotel rents might influence American foreign or even domestic policy.  You are free to wish that; this is a free country, what remains of it; but you are naïve to think so.  There is no doubt that such suits will be an everyday occurrence over the next 4-8 years; expect them.  The Left intends to confront this President at every turn.

If you consult the standard expositories on the Constitution you find almost nothing written about the Emoluments Clause.  The Annotated Constitution, which includes all pertinent court cases affecting the interpretation of each clause of the Constitution, mentions absolutely nothing concerning the emoluments portion of the clause, only the Titles of Nobility portion.

Warning: you will find constitutional scholars coming down on both sides of this question.  The leftist Brooking Institute,[3] concluded that the situation is indeed a violation, and every progressive website jumped on the bandwagon.  Then there’s a paper published in the University of Iowa College of Law Review[4] which argues that those bringing the suit have interpreted the clause too broadly, relying on a secondary dictionary definition.

Webster’s 1828 Dictionary says this:

EMOL’UMENT, noun [Latin emolumentum, from emolo, molo, to grind. Originally, a toll taken for grinding.]

And then it provides both a primary and a secondary meaning:

  1. The profit arising from office or employment; that which is received as a compensation for services, or which is annexed to the possession of office, as salary, feels and perquisites.
  2. Profit; advantage; gains in general.

Which definition should be used?  The narrower one (1) or the broader one (2)?

When determining the meaning of a Constitutional word it is usually safe to look for other uses of that word in the document.  We find “emolument” used two other times.  First, in Article 1 Section 6:

“No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been encreased during such time; and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office.” (emphasis added)

Clearly the meaning of the word in this clause comes from the primary definition, the “salary, feels and perquisites” of a particular office.

During Hillary Clinton’s time as a Senator, the pay of the Secretary of State was increased.  She was thus ineligible to take the appointment.  In order for her to be confirmed and take that office after appointment by President Obama, she had to accept the original pay level of Secretary of State that was in effect when she became a Senator.  This was, I expect, gladly agreed to, given the alternative.

This “out” is known in Congress as the “Saxbe Fix,” after Senator William Saxbe who was confirmed as Attorney General in 1973 after Congress reduced the position’s salary to the level it had been before Saxbe’s term as Senator began.

So the question becomes: does the actions by the Trump Corporation somehow affect the pay of the President (Trump has declined his $400,000 salary and has instead accepted a $.01/year salary), or the perquisites or other benefits of the office.  Clearly no.

What about gifts as emoluments?

Congress, by statute, allows government employees to accept gifts from foreign governments worth less than $390 received as a souvenir or mark of courtesy.  Congress also allows more valuable gifts to be accepted, such as scholarships, medical treatment, food, lodging, travel arrangements when it appears that to refuse the gift would likely cause offense or embarrassment.  This is all spelled out in the Foreign Gifts and Decorations Act, Title 5 U.S.C. §7342.[5]

There is also a Congressional Research Service Report on this subject, Report R43660,[6] entitled: “The Receipt of Gifts by Federal Employees in the Executive Branch.”  You’re probably seeing a trend here: the focus is on gifts. But, like everything, “gifts” must be defined. “Gift” expressly includes, says the report, “any gratuity, favor, discount, entertainment, hospitality, load, forbearance, of other item having monetary value.”  Is renting a hotel room at fair-market value a “gift?”  Clearly no.

The late Saudi King Abdullah[7] gave President Obama and his family gifts valued at more than $1.3 million. They included an $18,000 watch for the president and a “diamond and emerald jewelry set including earrings, necklace, ring, brooch, and wristwatch” for Obama’s daughters, Sasha and Malia, estimated to cost $80,000.

Various Chinese officials have also been generous: President Xi Jinping gave Obama two computer tablets during a time his government is believed to have been carrying out large-scale hacking of American computer systems, including the database of federal employees.

Other government officials get gifts too. Gifts given to CIA Director John O. Brennan had the donors’ names removed because they might “affect United States intelligence sources or methods.” Brennan appears to have kept many of the gifts, including a “small decorative sword,” “for official use.”

Republican Senators Lindsey Graham and John McCain both received 4′ x 6′ rugs worth $4,000 from the attorney general of Qatar, and promptly deposited them with the secretary of the Senate.

Some nameless soul in the government has the interesting job of registering all these gifts; the justification noted for each of them: “non-acceptance would cause embarrassment to the donor and the U.S. Government.”

The CRS Report states: “Because of the considerations relating to the conduct of their offices, including those of protocol or etiquette, the President and the Vice President may accept any gift on his own behalf or on behalf of a family member, provided that such acceptance does not violate  §2635.202(c)(a) or (2), 18 USC §201(b) or 201(c)(3), or the Constitution of the United States.”

Supporters of the President point out that Mr. Trump is not renting these rooms, his corporation is.

Eric Trump, an Executive vice president of the Trump Organization, said Trump Enterprises has already taken more steps than required by law to avoid legal entanglements.  They have set up procedures to donate any profits collected at Trump-owned hotels that come from foreign government or guests, to the United States Treasury.  Is there even a “profit” from a single hotel room if the hotel, as a whole, lost money that night, if the corporation itself is losing money?

The president’s legal team argued that the Emoluments Clause does not apply to fair-market payments, such as a standard hotel room bill.  Echoing what I just concluded, they say the clause is only intended to prevent federal officials from accepting a special consideration or gift from a foreign power.

Of course Congress could defuse this issue immediately by passing a non-binding “Sense of the Congress” resolution stating that it views renting of hotel rooms or office space to foreign governments or entities to be in compliance with the Emoluments Clause.  But I doubt this Congress will do that.  There seem to be as many Republicans in Congress willing to “slow-roll” this President as support him.

There is another occurrence of “Emolument” in the Constitution.  It is found in Article 2, Section 1, Clause 7, and reads:

“The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be encreased nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them.”

Notice the term: “United States” is used to mean both the national government as well as the States.

Critics of Trump point out that his corporation has in the past received close to $1 billion in tax breaks from New York State alone. These critics argue that if New York continues to offer such breaks, they will qualify as emoluments. If other states follow suit with their own tax benefits for Trump Enterprise projects, those will also be a problem.

One problem with all these suits against the President is standing, the plaintiffs have to demonstrate that they have been harmed by Trump’s action.  Have they?

The Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington argues that the President’s action has forced them to, quote: “divert essential and limited sources” from its regular government watchdog role and that they “will essentially be forced into the role of litigating and educating the public regarding (Trump’s) Foreign Emoluments Clause violations,” or so goes the complaint.

There is an expression in the Air Force pilot world that goes by the euphemism, YGBSM, which I will not explain here, but which expresses exactly how I view the group’s charge that they have been “forced” to bring this suit.  A watchdog group being forced to act as a watchdog? Pllleeeassseee!

Comedian Flip Wilson’s favorite excuse of long, long ago comes to mind: “The devil made me do it.”  Which translates in this case to: “We hate Donald Trump so thoroughly and completely that we intend to find any excuse whatsoever to obstruct his agenda and tie him up in court.”

I predict that if CREW or another group is somehow granted standing, and it is doubtful they will be, they will lose their case simply because of the steps the Trump organization has taken to isolate the President himself from any financial gain.  But what do I know?  Federal judges can be found to do anyone’s bidding these days.

But we should also note that Mark Cuban is being touted as a possible opponent for Trump in 2020.  Businessman versus businessman, mano a mano.  Yet, no one on the Left seems concerned about Cuban’s extensive business holdings, and I suspect that if he does emerge as the leading Democrat contender, some convenient excuse will be offered for why the Emoluments Clause is suddenly no longer a problem.

If there is a silver lining here it is that the American people are getting a good dose of Constitutional education, and it is likely to continue through the next four years.  Keep your seat belts fastened.

To hear the views of my other commentators on “We the People – the Constitution Matters” as we discussed this issue on 17 February 2017, download or listen to the podcast[8] of the show.

“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.acslaw.org/acsblog/%E2%80%9Cif-discovered-he-may-be-impeached%E2%80%9D-president-trump-and-the-foreign-emoluments-clause

[2] http://www.citizensforethics.org/

[3] https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/gs_121616_emoluments-clause1.pdf

[4] https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2902391

[5] https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/granule/USCODE-2011-title5/USCODE-2011-title5-partIII-subpartF-chap73-subchapIV-sec7342/content-detail.html

[6] https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43660.pdf

[7] http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/data-mine/2015/12/02/the-king-of-saudi-arabia-gave-over-13m-in-gifts-to-the-obamas-last-year

[8] http://www.1180wfyl.com/we-the-people-2017.html

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/#!

Constitutional Corner – The Character of a Prince

Open as PDF

“A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.”

As I pointed out in my last essay, the English government of the late 1700s would hardly be called tyrannical or despotic by an impartial, dispassionate judge.  The twenty-seven “abuses and usurpations” that Jefferson levies against the King and parliament struck at the heart of colonial expectations of self-government, but those actions could hardly be called tyrannical by modern standards (see North Korea, Soviet Russia, etc.).  Nevertheless, King George III was a useful and necessary target for the opening salvo of the Declaration’s “long train of abuses,” with repeated references to: “He has refused…, He has forbidden…, He has dissolved…, He has obstructed….,” and so on.  Jefferson had an admittedly tough assignment: convince colonial Americans, many of them firmly devoted to their King, to instead seek independence.  A tyrant was needed and so a tyrant the King became, at least from the Declaration’s perspective.

Yet a different picture of George emerges from other voices.  The blogger “Mad Monarchist” writes:

“King George III was as far from being a cruel, despotic tyrant as any man could be. He was, in fact, an upright, generous man of simple tastes, extremely devoted to his family and could, with relatively little opposition I think, be considered the most able and admirable monarch of the Hanoverian dynasty of Britain. This monarch who came to be so hated in America was very popular in Britain, even beloved.”[1]

Once the American Revolution was over, the King re-established diplomatic relations with his rebellious former subjects (you may recall the depiction of George receiving newly appointed Ambassador John Adams in the HBO movie, “John Adams”).  He also worked to ensure the United States remained a major trading partner of the British Empire.

The fact that two distinctly different portraits of George III exist is illustrative of the dilemma we face in judging the character of candidates for elective office today: good character does not equate to effective leadership and success in government.

Jimmy Carter is widely regarded as a sincere man of faith; generous and compassionate.  His Christian witness was readily apparent before, during and after his single term of office.  Yet his four years as Chief Executive are generally regarded as a policy disaster;[2] inflation ran into double digits yet economic growth stagnated, leading to the coining of the term “stagflation;” long lines were the norm at gas stations across the country; the Shah of Iran was removed from power, transforming the most progressive Muslim country in the Middle-East into the leading sponsor of Islamic terrorism; the Panama Canal, built with American dollars and technology was given away.

How could a good man be such a failure as a President that he was denied a second term?

How could George III, devoted father and husband, make such horrible decisions as King that he lost from his empire what eventually became the world’s leading economic power?

To one writer,[3] “being the American President is all about character.”  If that is the case, then Jimmy Carter had a fabulous presidency.

No, it is clear that good character is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for success as President, or as King; capability – capability that produces results – is equally important.

So, as Americans prepare to select a new President this fall (as well as 33 Senators and 435 Representatives), perhaps a review of Presidential character would be in order.

Christians are familiar with the guidance Jethro gives Moses in the Book of Exodus concerning the men to be chosen for Israel’s first republic: “able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness”[4]

In Deuteronomy, the guidance is complimentary: “wise and discerning and experienced men.”[5]

This is admittedly not a lot to guide us.   But there is still more we can glean from the Biblical record.  Once the people of Israel demanded that Samuel appoint a king over them, “like all the nations,” the people soon found out (though they were warned[6]) that their experience with kings would generally not be favorable.  It appears from this listing of the kings of Israel and Judah[7], the people of Israel got the bulk of the “bad” kings while the people of Judah had a few good experiences.

Fortunately, our Constitution creates a President, not a king.  While Alexander Hamilton’s “British Plan” included a Chief Executive serving essentially for life (“during good behavior”), the Framers knew enough about man’s fallen nature to guard against a “President for Life.”[8]

There was little talk in the Constitutional Convention concerning the character sought in a Chief Executive — qualifications, yes, but discussion of character was handled with kid-gloves; the heir-apparent, George Washington, “the first character in the world,” was sitting before them on the dais.  While George III may not have been the perfect picture of a tyrant, America’s first president is generally regarded as the perfect picture of a gentleman.  Which other President, as a child, drafted Rules of Civility — and tried to follow them the rest of his life?

By the time of the Constitutional Convention, Washington’s character had reached near-mythic proportions and was well beyond reproach.  Nevertheless, Dr. Franklin observed that even if the President were not to receive a salary, the country “shall never be without a sufficient number of wise and good men to undertake and execute well and faithfully the office [of President].”

George Mason cautioned, however, that a way of removing an “unfit magistrate” was made necessary by “the fallibility of those who [elect the Executive],” as well as by “the corruptibility of the man chosen.”  Washington’s reaction on hearing these words is undocumented.

On the question of whether to give the Executive the power of a complete legislative veto, Roger Sherman was against it because “no one man could be found so far above all the rest in wisdom.”

The U.S. President enjoys nothing approaching the powers of King George III; the Framers were intent on that.  A relatively weak chief executive becomes a problem, however, when Americans start viewing their President as a King.  In such circumstances, he is doomed to fail; he finds he is powerless to produce the reforms the people demand or those he foolishly promised.  Then, out he goes, hat in hand after a single term.

Over the years, Americans have elected some enormously flawed Presidents, but should we celebrate those flaws as this article from the Washington Post[9] suggests?

The upcoming election is shaping up to be as much about character as policy, perhaps even more so.

Hillary Clinton’s behavior during her eight years as First Lady, eight years as Senator and four years as Secretary of State has provided ample opportunity for her character to be questioned.

The list of books and videos discussing flaws in Clinton’s character is long.  Therein she is variously described as “ruthless,” “vindictive,” “mendacious,” “venal,” “sneaky,” “ideological,” “intolerant,” “deceitful,” and an “inveterate liar.”  Some writers take pride in pointing out that Hillary was the first First Lady to come under criminal investigation during her stay in the White House. You can find an analysis of Hillary Clinton’s character/personality here.

Donald J. Trump, on the other hand, has been variously described as “ambitious,” “racist,” “sexist,” “narcissistic” (also said of Hillary), “arrogant,” “haughty,” “patronizing,” “obnoxious braggart,” “contemptuous,” “borderline psychotic,” and many others unfit to print.  One analysis of Donald Trump’s personality can be found here.

What character traits would I prefer to see in someone charged with leading the world’s most powerful military force?  They include the following:

Honesty.  First and foremost, we must be able to trust, explicitly, everything the President says, or every word and deed becomes suspect, including words about….

Faith.  Despite the words of Article VI, Clause 3 (“no religious test”), the President of a predominantly Christian nation should be one himself.  And so far, all but a few[10] of our forty-three presidents (Grover Cleveland served twice) have been church-going Christians.  Faith in a universe-creating omnipotent God produces humility and compassion (or it should), two essential traits for such a high office.

Fidelity.  No, not marital, although that is necessary as well; rather I feel a President should have fidelity to the Founders’ Constitution.  He should understand and be willing to uphold the principles of the Declaration of Independence as well as the Constitutional limitations of his office.  These principles, by the way, are incompatible with democratic socialism.

Bravery.  Not necessarily bravery in battle — although that should be seen as a “force multiplier”– but bravery when confronting difficult decisions, decisions that will affect the lives of millions of Americans, born and unborn.

Well spoken.  The President must be a communicator, and a superior one, and not just when reading teleprompters.  He must have sufficient command of the English language and the pertinent facts to speak clearly and forcefully — extemporaneously.

The character of our “Prince” is exceptionally important to our success as a nation.  I encourage all citizens to spend time over the next three months identifying and then pondering the character traits they feel should be exemplified by the next President of the United States of America, the greatest nation the world has yet seen.

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

[1] http://madmonarchist.blogspot.com/2009/07/monarch-profile-king-george-iii.html.

[2] http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2007/08/jimmy_carters_human_rights_dis.html.

[3] http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2015/07/24/donald-trump-and-the-decline-of-american-character-a-cautionary-tale/#6d97af521557.

[4] Exodus 18:21, KJV.

[5] Deuteronomy 1:13 KJV.

[6] 1 Samuel 8:10-18.

[7] http://www.ldolphin.org/kings.html.

[8] For a great example of “President for Life” look up Idi Amin.

[9] https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/magazine/presidents-are-every-bit-as-flawed-as-all-of-us-lets-celebrate-that/2015/02/05/56d7e834-86d9-11e4-a702-fa31ff4ae98e_story.html.

[10] http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/02/12/almost-all-u-s-presidents-have-been-christians/.

The Constitution’s Week in Review – 25 June 16

Article 1, Section 5, Clause 2: Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings

Our Infantile Congressmen (some of them at least)

House Rule XXIII: “A Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner, officer, or employee of the House shall behave at all times in a manner that shall reflect creditably on the House.”[1]

Democrats, upset at not being allowed to vote on gun control legislation they have proposed, threw a childish temper tantrum[2] on Wednesday by “occupying” the floor of the House.  Taking their cue from the Occupy Wall Street and Black Lives Matter movements, the Congressmen and women attempted to shut down House business and were ruled out of order.  I suspect they will not be censured for their violation of rules of decorum.

Article 3 – The Judiciary

On Thursday, the Supreme Court announced opinions in five cases.

In what was described as a “crushing blow” to the Obama administration, the court’s 4-4 opinion in United States v. Texas left intact a lower court ruling that the Obama administration had exceeded its authority in deferring the deportation of millions of illegal immigrants.[3]  Scalia’s vote would have made this 5-4, with the same immediate result, although the tie vote allows the court to revisit the decision after they fill the empty seat.

The Court affirmed the lower court in Fisher v. University of Texas at AustinThis allows the University of Texas to continue discriminating against qualified applicants in the name of diversity without having to demonstrate whether that diversity is needed or has improved the educational experience.  Interestingly, when I heard the decision announced on the radio driving around town Thursday there was great confusion over whether Justice Kagan had recused herself; some thought she had, some that she had not.  The 4-3 decision reveals she did, in fact, recuse herself and SCOTUSBlog confirms.  Kagan’s vote would almost certainly have made it 5-3 with the same result.  Scalia would have brought it up to 5-4 but that would not have changed things.

In three related cases,[4] the Justices ruled that imposing criminal penalties for refusing to take a breath test when suspected of drunk driving is OK but that criminal penalties for failing to take a blood test violate the Constitution.  I’ve not yet had time to read the decisions to see what logic produced the different results, but I suspect the intrusive nature of the blood test over the largely non-intrusive breath test was the discriminator.

1st Amendment – Right of Conscience

We experienced an amazing four-day mini-course at the Foundation for American Education this week as Dr. Gai Ferdon of Liberty University spoke on “The Welfare State – $20 Trillion Later.”  I anticipate FACE will make recordings of the four sessions available in the near future, and you should consider purchasing after-the-fact access.  Dr. Ferdon, covered all the history and the principles of good government that have been violated over the years as the U.S. has moved inexorably to The Welfare State.  A related topic, covered on the last night, is the wholesale violation of Right of Conscience. Right of Conscience is supposedly secured by the First Amendment and Dr. Ferdon took us through some of the arguments that helped shape the exposition of the right during the Founding Period.

Right of Conscience is dying a slow death in this country, as I discussed on my radio show this morning (the podcast should be up on Monday or you can listen to a re-broadcast on Saturday (11:00 am) or Sunday (2:00pm).  Now comes news that California (who’d have guessed?) is requiring churches to pay for abortions[5] for staff members.

2nd Amendment – Never Let a Shooting Go To Waste

The Supreme Court rejected an opportunity[6] to address a state “assault gun” ban, leaving New York’s and Connecticut’s onerous bans in place.  This was most likely done because Chief Justice Roberts foresaw an expected 4-4 tie that would have left the lower court ruling in place.

The quest for a “compromise” bill to prohibit the purchase of guns by those on the No fly List continued this week with Senator Susan Collins (R-ME) introducing a supposedly “bi-partisan” bill[7].  Question: was Omar Mateen on the nation’s No-fly List?  I’ve not seen anything that suggests he was, so this is just one more attempt at gun control unrelated to recent incidents.  The linked article contains a point-by-point rebuttal of the features of Collins’ bill.

Recommendations:

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/.

STAND Awakening Conference.  Those of you who live in the Tidewater area should try not to miss the STAND Awakening Conference, 1-3 Jul,y here in Chesapeake, VA.  I’ll see you there.

We the People – The Constitution Matters.  On July 1st, I’ll be interviewing Denver, Colorado lawyer and author Jenna Ellis about her recent book: The Legal Basis for a Moral Constitution.  In the book, Jenna lays out a rock-solid case that the Constitution is a moral document and must be interpreted as such.   You can listen to the pre-recorded interview at www.1180wfyl.com on Friday from 7-8am EDT.  On 8 July, we’ll resume our discussion of the principles of the Declaration of Independence.

 

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] Rules of the House of Representatives, One Hundred Fourteenth Congress, January 6, 2015.

[2] http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/dems-shut-down-house-floor-to-protest-for-gun-control/article/2594589

[3] http://kfor.com/2016/06/23/supreme-court-announces-split-decision-on-controversial-immigration-programs/

[4] Birchfield v. North Dakota, Bernard v. Minnesota, and Beylund v. Levi

[5] http://www.lifenews.com/2016/06/21/obama-administration-forces-california-churches-to-pay-for-abortions

[6] http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-guns-idUSKCN0Z61JE

[7] http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2016/06/22/the-susan-collins-gun-control-bill-is-a-nightmare-for-innocent-americans-n2182134