Constitution Lectures

Article XI Section 3 explains the process.  I won’t read the whole thing, but a proposed amendment must go through the following Process.

1. Any amendment may be proposed in either the State Senate or House of Representatives.
2. The amendment must pass by a majority of all the members elected to each of the two houses
3. The amendment is then referred to the next elected General Assembly, and shall be published six months previous to the time of the vote.
4. It then must pass by a two-thirds vote of all the members elected to each house
5. It then is to be submitted for a vote from the people at the next general election in which a governor is to be chosen.
6. And if the people shall approve the amendment by a majority of all the citizens of the state voting for governor, it then becomes a part of this Constitution.

So, we are now in the last step of voting by the people.  Note that it is not a simple majority of those who vote yes or no on each amendment, but the yes votes must total a majority of those people voting for governor.   In other words, if there were 2 million votes for governor for all the candidates, then there would need to be 1 million and one yes votes for the proposed amendment for it to pass.  If less than that, even if it was a clear majority of the votes cast on that particular amendment, it still does not pass.

So, let’s look at each amendment individually.

Amendment 1: Summary: (from the State website)

This amendment would add a new section to article XI of the Tennessee Constitution to make it illegal for any person, corporation, association, or the State of Tennessee or its political subdivisions to deny or attempt to deny employment to any person because of the person’s membership in, affiliation with, resignation from, or refusal to join or affiliate with any labor union or employee organization.

Question: as seen on the ballot

Shall Article XI of the Constitution of Tennessee be amended by adding the following language as a new section?

It is unlawful for any person, corporation, association, or this state or its political subdivisions to deny or attempt to deny employment to any person by reason of the person’s membership in, affiliation with, resignation from, or refusal to join or affiliate with any labor union or employee organization.

• This amendment is commonly referred to as the “Right to Work Amendment.”
• The amendment seems good on the surface, because we are a right to work State and don’t want employers you discriminate based on union membership.

• However, the proposed amendment is vague because of the last couple of words – or employee organization. This leaves a lot of wiggle room for interpretation from the courts and I don’t trust the courts to get it right.
• One question might be, what exactly is an “employee organization?”
• While that phrase is mentioned here in this amendment, it is not defined. And anything that is not expressly defined may now be defined by interpretation in the courts. Some of the states which have right to work in their state constitution indeed addressed this issue upfront. For example, both provisions in the Oklahoma and Nebraska constitutions use the phrase “labor organization,” but left no room for interpretation and have expressly defined its meaning. With the following section: The term “labor organization” means any organization of any kind, or any agency or employee representation committee or plan, which exists for the purpose, in whole or in part, of dealing with employers concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or conditions of work. Nebraska Const. Article XV § 14
• The Tennessee Constitution would be the first ever to use the phrase employee organization. Meaning, there is currently no court precedent in determining the meaning of that phrase in a state constitution concerning the right to work. That alone should give pause in adopting this amendment.
• As written, an employee could hide behind this amendment by claiming to be a member of an “Employee Organization” like the “Employee LGBTQxxx Organization“ or similar nonsense where an employer would be otherwise justified in dismissing an employee, or employees, for cause.

Another issue is that by constitutionally forbidding one type of employment discrimination, we may be de facto communicating that other forms of discrimination are allowed. Let me explain.

Most recently, we are dealing with mandates from employers over vaccines and possible future requirements for some sort of medical treatment. Why would our constitution only prohibit one form of discrimination, but not address all possible forms of discrimination? By only addressing one form of employment discrimination in our constitution, a court may in the future determine that other forms of discrimination are constitutionally permissible, like medical discrimination.

Gary Humble from TN Stands made this argument.  For the last two years, Republican leadership balked at the idea that we should protect an employee’s right to choose whether or not they should take a vaccine. They argued that the state had no right to tell an employer that they could not mandate a vaccine for employees because of private property rights.

But here, they have abandoned that principle and are fine with restricting a business owner’s supposed right to make certain requirements of their employees. See the disparity in the following statements.

1. A business owner cannot require an employee to be part of a labor union or pay union dues as a condition of employment.
2. A business owner can require an employee to take a vaccine as a condition of employment.

Currently, our state Republican leadership holds both statements to be true. Yet, in terms of protecting employees from discrimination, these statements stand in direct contrast to each other.

The problem here is that we are not making a principled argument with this proposed constitutional amendment. We are simply making an economic one.  The potential for abuse and superfluous litigation makes this amendment problematic.

By the way, Tennessee is already a right to work state by law, so this amendment will have no practical benefit.

I recommend NO on this amendment.

Amendment 2: Summary:

This amendment would add to Article III, Section 12 of the Tennessee Constitution a process for the temporary exercise of the powers and duties of the governor by the Speaker of the Senate—or the Speaker of the House if there is no Speaker of the Senate in office—when the governor is unable to discharge the powers and duties of the office of governor. While a Speaker is temporarily discharging the powers and duties of the governor, the Speaker would not be required to resign as Speaker or to resign as a member of the legislature; but the Speaker would not be able to preside as Speaker or vote as a member of the legislature. A Speaker who is temporarily discharging the powers and duties of the governor would not get the governor’s salary but would get the Speaker’s salary.  The amendment would also exempt a Speaker who is temporarily discharging the powers and duties of the governor from provisions in the Constitution that would otherwise prohibit the Speaker from exercising the powers of the governor and from simultaneously holding more than one state office.

Basically, this amendment further expands the succession to governor under certain circumstances.

Question: which you will see on the ballot is long, so I won’t read it.

• This amendment is commonly referred to as the “Acting Governor Amendment.”
• Again, this amendment appears to be good on the surface, so let’s dig a little.
• Note that the current Article III Section 12 already reads:  In case of the removal of the governor from office, or of his death, or resignation, the powers and duties of the office shall devolve on the speaker of the Senate; and in case of the death, removal from office, or resignation of the speaker of the Senate, the powers and duties of the office shall devolve on the speaker of the House of Representatives.
• So, what does this new amendment add?
• The proposed amendment, as written, would also grant State Commissioners, who are appointed, not elected officials, the power to remove the Governor from office. Additionally, it allows an unelected Acting Governor (meaning the Speaker of Senate or House) to be in charge until such time as the Commissioners decide to return the duly elected Governor to office or until the next General Election occurs. The potential for a board of unelected commissioners to override the will of the people and remove a duly elected Governor makes this amendment problematic.
• The amendment does not define under what conditions the Governor can pass his powers and responsibilities to those individuals, nor when he can reassert them. In theory, if a difficult political issue arises, the Governor can simply submit a letter, take a leave, pass the figurative political hand grenade down the line then resume his office once someone else has dealt with the difficult issue
• Because of its potential abuse and the fact that it really doesn’t add anything useful, I recommend NO on this amendment.

Amendment 3: Summary:

This amendment would change the current language in article I, section 33 of the Tennessee Constitution, which says that slavery and involuntary servitude, except as punishment for a person who has been duly convicted of crime, are forever prohibited in this State. The amendment would delete this current language and replace it with the following language: “Slavery and involuntary servitude are forever prohibited. Nothing in this section shall prohibit an inmate from working when the inmate has been duly convicted of a crime.”

Question:

Shall Article I, Section 33 of the Constitution of Tennessee be amended by deleting the section and substituting instead the following?

Section 33. Slavery and involuntary servitude are forever prohibited. Nothing in this section shall prohibit an inmate from working when the inmate has been duly convicted of a crime.

• This amendment is commonly referred to as the “Removing Slavery Amendment.”
• What is the purpose of this amendment?  Section 33 of article 1 already states:   That slavery and involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime, whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, are forever prohibited in this state.

• So, what is this amendment really doing? Slavery is prohibited by the 13^th Amendment to the US Constitution, ant that amendment uses the same language – Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime, whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist in the US..
• It is nothing but a bunch of PC feel good language that will change nothing about the reality of what is happening today. Politicians can then say we eliminated slavery forever from our State.
• There is also a possibility that prisoners will use this new text to sue the state if they are required to work at all, calling it slavery. We don’t want to open that up to the courts.  I think it would be better to bring back the chain gangs of old and have prisoners really work hard.  That might reduce the recidivism rate a little.
• I recommend a NO vote on this amendment.

Amendment 4: Summary:

This amendment would delete article IX, section 1 of the Tennessee Constitution, which prohibits ministers of the gospel and priests of any denomination from holding a seat in either House of the legislature.

Question:

Shall Article IX, Section 1 of the Constitution of Tennessee be amended by deleting the section?

• This amendment is commonly referred to as the “Remove Religious Ministers Amendment”
• This amendment is a little more complicated in my mind.
• We must first think about why this prohibition on ministers in the legislature was put in originally.  Did our State Founders want today’s view of the concept of separation of church and State, as some in the media explain it?  Not at all.  Look at the wording of the section to be deleted.
• Article IX Section 1. Whereas ministers of the Gospel are by their profession, dedicated to God and the care of souls, and ought not to be diverted from the great duties of their functions; therefore, no minister of the Gospel, or priest of any denomination whatever, shall be eligible to a seat in either House of the Legislature.
• The reason they didn’t want ministers in the legislature was because they thought their job was so important, they didn’t want to detract from their primary purpose, to preach the gospel.
• If you look at our Founding era, you will notice that this amendment is a departure from common practices in other states.  It was very common to have ministers in the legislature in other states.  I believe we actually need men dedicated to the gospel in public office, even if they are pastors.
• There are a couple of other issues to consider in this amendment though.
• How many were here at last month’s meeting?  Did anyone notice the error that Dr. Hahn made when asked about separation between church and State.  He said that anyone could be elected to the legislature or other offices.  Is that correct?  Well, let’s see.
• Article 1 Section 4. That no political or religious test, other than an oath to support the Constitution of the United States and of this state, shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under this state.  That seems to confirm his statement.
• However, look at Article IX Section 2. No person who denies the being of God, or a future state of rewards and punishments, shall hold any office in the civil department of this state.
• Do these two clauses contradict each other?  No.  By religious test, they meant that we couldn’t make a requirement that you believe a statement of faith that lines up with Baptist or Presbyterians beliefs to could be elected.  In other words, they didn’t want any particular denomination of Christian to be excluded by a religious test.
• Needing to profess the being of God and future a state of rewards and punishments was not considered a religious test. 
• So that section eliminates atheist from public office in our State.  Dr. Hahn was wrong when he said that an atheist could be elected.
• This section lines up with other laws in our Founding era.  If you look at our early history, you will find that in many States, anyone who denied the existence of God and a future state of rewards and punishments was not allowed to give testimony in a court of law.  Why not?  Well, if you don’t believe in a God who knows everything and holds you accountable, what is to prevent you from lying in court?  To the atheist, there is no future repercussions for lying.  Therefore, most would not trust an atheist testimony.  Similarly, they wouldn’t trust an atheist in the Legislature.
• The bottom line in all this is that our Founders understood that religion, specifically Christianity, was an important issue, not an insignificant one as viewed today.
• So how to vote on this amendment?  Some will say it really doesn’t matter because this section of our Tennessee Constitution has previously been held unconstitutional by the courts.  We might as well delete it!
• I don’t like that argument for several reasons.  First, it is just acquiescing to the courts again.  I don’t see anything in the US Constitution that rightly prohibits our State from making this restriction.  If we don’t start defying the unconstitutional edicts of the courts, we will never regain our Republic.   That said, this is probably not the issue to fall on our sword over.
• Second, if we delete this section, I can see a possible push to delete the section which prohibits atheist from holding a state office.  Of course, this section is virtually ignored today.  I’m sure there are several practical atheists in our State Government.   I personally don’t want to succumb to the ever-present pressure to turn our government more secular.
• I am going to vote NO on this amendment.  However, if you think it is wrong to prohibit ministers from election to the Legislature, you should vote YES.  

What justification does he use?  Well, it’s hard to find his rational in the major media, they just jump for joy over his declaration because it’s such a great idea!  If you dig a little, you will find that Biden cites a 20-year-old law that was designed for – get this – active-duty service members fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq, other veterans, and victims of terrorism.   This largely unknown Higher Education Relief Opportunities for Students (HEROES) Act of 2003 signed by George W. Bush was designed to provide financial security for soldiers, mainly reservist, fighting oversees.  In many cases, active-duty pay was less than what they made in their full-time jobs plus their reserve pay, so some grace on their debts was intended.  So how does the President use this act which was clearly designed for something else?  Well, the Act authorizes the Secretary of Education to “waive or modify any statutory or regulatory provision in connection with a war or other military operation or national emergency.”  So that is the new Democrat gameplan- declare something an emergency and they can do whatever they want.  Of course, that provision in the law I just read is also unconstitutional because Congress has delegated their responsibility to an executive bureaucrat, which they are not allowed to do.  But really, the law is unconstitutional itself because even Congress doesn’t have the power to pay for college tuition, except for as a benefit for veterans. There is no authority given to the Federal Government in the Constitution for anything on education.

Obviously, if that is the closest Biden can come to justifying such a large program, he is way overstepping his bounds.  Why aren’t Republicans screaming about this?  Why aren’t we the people screaming about this?  Simple.  Too many people, mainly, middle and upper class, are getting a handout and it’s hard to turn it down.   The truth is that this giveaway is totally immoral, making people who paid their own way through college, or who didn’t go to college, pay for those who loafed through college on massive student loans.  Unfortunately, we will all loose because of this.  The cost of education will continue to increase way beyond the inflation rate like it has the last 50 years.  It will also mean higher inflation rates for us all with billions more of debt from the Federal Government, because they just print more money.

Next, the Inflation Reduction Act.  Don’t you love how the Democrats come up with these great sounding names for bills that do exactly the opposite of the Title?  There is so much wrong with the Act, I don’t have time to get into it all.   I just want to focus on one of the proponents, the war on so-called “Climate Change”.

As always, let’s ask the question whether or not Congress is authorized to enact legislation concerning this issue.  Where in the Constitution does Congress have the authority to control weather?  That is such an absurd question on its face because no-one can control the weather except for God.  Of course, Democrats point to the EPA as justification for whatever they do in regards to so-called climate change.  Did they have authority to create that agency?  As you have heard me say almost every month, the Constitution gives no such authority.   Again, if you look at the powers listed in Article 1 Section 8, nothing comes close to authority to act on green-house gases.  Yet, they continue to enact absurd legislation and no-one cries fowl.

The Inflation Reduction Act will increase inflation due to the increased deficit spending it will demand.  But, will it help the crisis of climate change?  Not at all.  This law is just a socialist power grab, the New Green Deal packaged under another name.

First, is there really a climate change emergency?  Is it really settled science as the major media reports?  Of course not.   It has been debunked by many scientists, but of course you don’t hear about them.  I would recommend looking up the Cornwall Alliance to get some rational scientific analysis of the situation.

Remember, in the 70’s when the scare was Global cooling?  We were all going to freeze to death.  Here is just one example of many.  In 1971, the Washington Post Times Herald wrote this: “The world could be as little as 50 or 60 years away from a disastrous new ice age, a leading atmospheric scientist predicts.  In the next 50 years, the fine dust man constantly puts into the atmosphere by fossil fuel-burning could screen out so much sunlight that the average temperature could drop by six degrees.  If sustained over several years – five to 10 – such a temperature decrease could be sufficient to trigger an ice age!”  Then, when that didn’t happen, we had Global Warming.  The polar ice caps were going to melt and flood all the coastlines of the world.  When that didn’t happen, they switched to Climate Change, so that no matter what happens, hurricanes, droughts, floods, etc., they could point to a Climate Change catastrophe.  That eminent scholar AOC said in 2019, “The world is going to end in 12 years if we don’t address climate change”.  I guess we only have nine years left, so let’s eat drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die.

The big question is whether or not all this climate change is really caused by man, or is it just the natural cycles of the earth instituted by God.  I believe there is amply data for the latter.  Remember in Genesis 7, God promises Noah, While the earth remains, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night, shall not cease.  That tells me that God is in control and will ensure the natural seasons of life.  When the earth comes to an end, it will be His doing, not ours.

The data shows that we are indeed in a global warming trend that has been happening for the last 1500 plus years.  Despite the climate alarmist picking a recent point to supposedly prove that man-made pollution has caused all of this, that is flatly untrue.

The funny thing is they call CO2 the culprit.  Do you know what carbon dioxide is?   It is what we exhale when we breath along with all other mammals.  In fact, CO2 is necessary for plant life.  The more CO2 in the air, the better plants do.  What’s wrong with that?

Also, what’s wrong with a little warming trend.   Many people in the US are moving from the cold northern States to the warmer Southern States.  We usually like warm better than cold.

So, what’s this all really about?  Power and Control.  Ultimately, the left wants to destroy our country by eliminating our advantage of natural resources like coal and gas.  Listen to their rhetoric.

“If we don’t really begin to lower emissions, this planet has no chance,” said Representative Alan Lowenthal, a California Democrat. “We have a few years left and that’s it. The planet is dying.”   Really!  What is their answer to this emergency?  More government control, more taxes and spending on failed technologies.  Their logic is so unbalanced.   They never look at the big picture.

This is their Mode of Operation; They completely dismiss the following:

• all of the benefits of fossil fuel use;
• that fossil fuel–powered technologies significantly mitigate the effects of climate emergencies;

• the fact that deaths from extreme weather events have decreased during the so-called climate emergency;
• the fact that solar and wind energy technologies, after fifty-plus years of development, are far from capable of replacing fossil fuels;

As for their so-called climate science, here are some of the tricks they use:

• the use of the coldest point in the current geological period as the starting point for measuring rising temperatures;
• they manipulate surface temperature readings to counter satellite readings, which show no significant recent warming;
• they cherry pick scientific studies by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to exaggerate the crisis, and they cherry pick their designated “experts” that line up with their agenda.  The media collaborates.;
• they hide the raw data and methodology of the IPCC, and blocks outside investigations attempting to replicate its results.  They also block skeptical scientists from publishing their findings in peer-reviewed journals (“Climategate”);
• they have altered IPCC reports—after scientists had written and approved the final texts—to remove skepticism regarding their claims that human activities are having a major impact on climate and global warming;
• they ignore the fifteen-year period (1998–2013) of no significant warming, despite a 7 percent rise in atmospheric CO2 levels;
• They ignore the fact that the rate of global warming has decelerated since 1951, despite a 26 percent increase in CO2levels;
• They ignore the fact that temperature reconstructions of the past show temperatures as high as recent temperatures in some regions (the Medieval Climate Anomaly);
• They ignore research that shows no increases in droughts or tropical cyclone activity over the past forty years;
• They ignore the fact that the Antarctic Sea ice extent has increased between 1979 and 2012, contradicting global circulation models (GCMs);
• climate modeling has failed to accurately predict climate trends;
• They discount the strong likelihood that warming is not necessarily negative at all but may, in fact, be positive;
• They ignore the well-known greening of the planet due to increased CO2 levels and the benefits derived from that, including for agriculture and cooling;
• They discount the fact that there is no known optimal or “natural” global temperature, even if global temperatures could be accurately measured, which is doubtful. (Data from the Epoch Times)

This brief outline is reason enough for concluding that climate change hysteria is over exaggerated, if not based on outright fraud.   I always joke as a pilot, they can’t get tomorrow’s forecast correct, how could they possibly get it right when trying to predict 100 years from now!

The bigger question is why we continue to allow the Democrats to get away with these blatantly unconstitutional and harmful legislations.  Let’s make sure we elect people who have the guts to stand up and say no to this type of tyranny.  It’s time for our State to push back on these laws through the principle of Nullification that I have discussed in the past.

Unless you are a lawyer, you probably have not heard the term substantive due process, so let’s start with a definition.  As defined by the Legal Information Institute, Substantive due process is the principle that the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments protect fundamental rights from government interference. Specifically, the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments prohibit the government from depriving any person of “life, liberty, or property without due process of law.” The Fifth Amendment applies to federal action, and the Fourteenth applies to state action.

That definition sounds okay, but it really doesn’t get to the heart of the matter, and that is when judges use that philosophy to create rights not found in the Constitution and prohibit legislatures from passing laws that supposedly violate those rights.

As always, let’s look at what the founders thought.  Historically, due process meant only that an individual could not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without a general and prospective standing law, the violation of which had been adjudicated according to a certain minimum of common-law judicial procedures.  In other words, you could be deprived of life, liberty, and property if dully convicted of breaking a law passed by the legislature.  Prior to the 1870’s, what the courts where primarily concerned with has been dubbed Procedural Due Process, which means they were concerned that prosecutors followed the correct procedures as described by the law to seek convictions.

It was not until after the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment that courts in the 1870s began inferring and imposing substantive due process limitations upon the state legislatures.   In other words, they would declare a State law invalid because the law supposedly violated some personal rights not necessarily listed in the Constitution.

Decisions that are based on substantive due process are usually considered to be what we call activist, meaning the courts use the Due Process Clause to impose the judges’ subjective views of government and society, despite what the people have declared by laws passed in the legislature.   Further, judges often resort to substantive due process in controversial, “hot-button” cases in which there is widespread social disagreement (slavery; abortion; homosexual and lesbian issues).  These activist courts are used by the left to push their agenda on the rest of the country because they usually can’t get their agenda passed in the legislatures.

Some of the most notorious court decision that used the idea of Substantive Due Process were:

• Dred Scott (1857) – The court declared the right to take property (meaning slaves) into territories and in essence declared that slaves were property with no rights.  Although this was prior to the era of Substantive Due Process, the court’s reasoning used the same philosophy.
• The right to privacy, specifically a right to contraceptives. Griswold v. Connecticut, (1965).  Although you may not think this was necessarily a bad decision, it led to other more egregious rulings.
• The right to marry a person of a different race. Loving v. Virginia, (1967)  Again, not a bad outcome, but as you will see later, the wrong way to get there.
• The right to abortion. Roe v. Wade, (1973)  Of course, this was the most destructive decision in our history, allowing over 60 million unborn children to be murdered.
• The right to marry an individual of the same sex. Obergefell v. Hodges, (2015)

There were other cases using the idea of Substantive Due Process that many might agree with or even applaud the outcome.  However, as Justice Thomas will point out, the substantive due process was the wrong avenue to take to get to the decision.

Instead of me giving my opinion on the matter, I want to quote extensively from Justice Thomas’ opinion in the Dobbs decision.

He starts with this statement about Due Process –

The question rather is whether the guarantee of due process of law allowed courts to strike down legislative acts inconsistent with unwritten fundamental rights.

He then presents his argument after affirming Justice Alito’s arguments against the so-called right to abortion –

I write separately to emphasize a second, more fundamental reason why there is no abortion guarantee lurking in the Due Process Clause.  Considerable historical evidence indicates that “due process of law” merely required executive and judicial actors to comply with legislative enactments and the common law when depriving a person of life, liberty, or property.

Other sources, by contrast, suggest that “due process of law” prohibited legislatures “from authorizing the deprivation of a person’s life, liberty, or property without providing him the customary procedures to which freemen were entitled by the old law of England.”  Either way, the Due Process Clause at most guarantees process.  It does not, as the Court’s substantive due process cases suppose, “forbid the government to infringe certain ‘fundamental’ liberty interests at all, no matter what process is provided.”

As I have previously explained, “substantive due process” is an oxymoron that “lacks any basis in the Constitution.”

The resolution of this case is thus straightforward. Because the Due Process Clause does not secure any substantive rights, it does not secure a right to abortion.

For that reason, in future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell; because any substantive due process decision is “demonstrably erroneous”.  After overruling these demonstrably erroneous decisions, the question would remain whether other constitutional provisions guarantee the myriad rights that our substantive due process cases have generated. For example, we could consider whether any of the rights announced in this Court’s substantive due process cases are “privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States” protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.

To answer that question, we would need to decide important antecedent questions, including whether the Privileges or Immunities Clause protects any rights that are not enumerated in the Constitution and, if so, how to identify those rights.

Moreover, apart from being a demonstrably incorrect reading of the Due Process Clause, the “legal fiction” of substantive due process is “particularly dangerous”.  At least three dangers favor jettisoning the doctrine entirely.  

First, “substantive due process exalts judges at the expense of the People from whom they derive their authority.” Because the Due Process Clause “speaks only to ‘process,’ the Court has long struggled to define what substantive rights it protects.”  In practice, the Court’s approach for identifying those “fundamental” rights “unquestionably involves policymaking rather than neutral legal analysis.”  The Court divines new rights in line with “its own, extraconstitutional value preferences” and nullifies state laws that do not align with the judicially created guarantees.  (Haven’t I been preaching this for years?)

Nowhere is this exaltation of judicial policymaking clearer than this Court’s abortion jurisprudence. In Roe v. Wade, the Court divined a right to abortion because it “felt” that “the Fourteenth Amendment’s concept of personal liberty” included a “right of privacy” that “is broad enough to encompass a woman’s decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy. 

Second, substantive due process distorts other areas of constitutional law.  For example, once this Court identifies a “fundamental” right for one class of individuals, it invokes the Equal Protection Clause to demand exacting scrutiny of statutes that deny the right to others.

Similarly, this Court deems unconstitutionally “vague” or “overbroad” those laws that impinge on its preferred rights, while letting slide those laws that implicate supposedly lesser values

Substantive due process is the core inspiration for many of the Court’s constitutionally unmoored policy judgments.

Third, substantive due process is often wielded to “disastrous ends.” For instance, in Dred Scott v. Sand­ford, (1857), the Court invoked a species of substantive due process to announce that Congress was powerless to emancipate slaves brought into the federal territories.

The harm caused by this Court’s forays into substantive due process remains immeasurable.

Substantive due process conflicts with that textual command and has harmed our country in many ways. Accordingly, we should eliminate it from our jurisprudence at the earliest opportunity.

Obviously, I could not say it better myself.   Notice also that Judge Thomas leaves the door open to reverse other faulty rulings by the court.   I truly hope it happens. 

First let’s define foreign aid and give a little history of it.  United States foreign aid, sometimes referred to as US foreign assistance, is (according to Wikipedia) “aid given by the US to other countries to support global peace, security, and development efforts, and provide humanitarian relief during times of crisis.”  According to the Congressional Research Service, for fiscal year 2016, 42% of foreign aid was spent on long term development, 33% was spent on military and security aid, 14% was spent on humanitarian aid, and 11% was spent on political aid. There are over 20 U.S. government agencies that manage foreign assistance programs.  The government channels about half of its economic assistance through a specialized agency, the United States Agency for International Development (USAID).

Prior to World War I, U.S. government-sponsored foreign aid was almost nonexistent.  What does that tell you about it’s probable Constitutionality?  The only instance I could find of foreign aid prior to the 20th Century was in 1812, when then Senator Henry Clay sponsored and manage to get passed a bill appropriating $50,000 for disaster relief to Venezuela after a massive earthquake.  Venezuela just happened to be fighting a war for its independence from Spain at the time, so there was politics involved.

A side not about Henry Clay.  There were a group of politicians at the time of the ratification of our Constitution who were for a strong national government.  They were defeated at the constitutional convention and the ratification conventions by the majority who wanted a federal system with limited power for the national government as our Constitution outlines.   Alexander Hamilton was the leading figure in this group.  Although he argued persuasively in the Federalist for our Constitution of limited government, later he proposed policies that violated those principles.  He was the one who convinced Washington to sign the legislation for the 1st National Bank of the US, which many believed was not allowed by the Constitution.   There were several in the early 19th Century who followed Hamilton’s views that the national government could do anything it wanted as long as the Constitution didn’t prohibit it.   Henry Clay was one of those leading figures.   Another was John Marshall who gave us many court rulings that expanded the power of the national government.

Even though Clay managed to get this foreign aid passed, we really don’t see it again until WWI.

When do you think foreign aid exploded?  Under Roosevelt during WWII, of course.  Government-sponsored foreign aid began in systematic fashion after World War II. There were numerous programs, of which the largest were the Marshall Plan of 1948 and the Mutual Security Act of 1951–61. Aid levels increased again after the 9/11 attacks.  In fiscal year 2020, more than 200 countries and regions received aid. That year, the top five countries were Afghanistan, Israel, Jordan, Egypt, and Ethiopia, each receiving more than $1 billion.

US foreign aid is financed from US taxpayers and other government revenue sources that Congress appropriates annually. It does not include money from private charitable organizations based in the United States. As of fiscal year 2020, foreign aid totaled $51 billion.  So, with the aid to Ukraine this year’s aid total with surely be over $100 billion.

The motivation for US foreign aid falls into two categories—humanitarian and strategic or military.

Let’s look at the Constitution to see if any of this is legal.  Of course, there is nothing specific about the authority to give foreign aid in the Constitution.   So, from where might that authority come?  If you look at Article 1 Section 8, the clauses giving Congress war powers would be about the only possible authority.   Many point to the Necessary and Proper Clause to justify this and a host of other questionable issues.   However, as is plain from the text, that clause gives power to do things that are necessary and proper in execution of the foregoing powers, meaning if it hasn’t already been listed, they can’t make up new powers from this clause.

So, the real question is, does the power to declare war and regulated the military give Congress the authority to give military aid to foreign nations?  Although we have been doing it for almost 100 years, I think it is a real stretch.  Of course, when we are in the middle of a desperate conflict like WWII, few people care about Constitutionality.   The problem is, once we set the precedent, how do we stop it when its not critical.   Why do we continue to give Billions of dollars to places like India and Ethiopia that have no real strategic significance to the US?

I have been talking about military aid.  What could be the possible authority for humanitarian aid?  If things like welfare and disaster assistance are unconstitutional for US citizens, how could it possible be constitutional to give those sorts of aid to people in other countries?  In my opinion, and I believe the Founders would agree, that it is not allowed by the Constitution.

The only other possible justification for foreign aid lies in the treaty powers of the President.  Article 2 Section 2 states the president “shall have power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur.”  Technically, you could make just about any agreement with a treaty, but I think foreign aid for other than military purposes would violate the principles of the Constitution.   The problem with today’s foreign aid is that it is rarely a treaty.  Did Biden make a treaty with Ukraine in order to give them $40 billion?  No!  Congress just appropriated the money.   What’s the problem with that, doesn’t Congress have the power to appropriate money?   True, but only for things that are legitimate functions of the national government as outlined in the Constitution.  Another problem is that sometimes the President just gives aid away out of other budgets without specific Congressional appropriation.  Of course, that’s not Constitutional.

But the key to issue is that it should be a treaty if it’s Constitutional at all.   What is needed to ratify a treaty?  A 2/3rds vote of the Senate!  That’s pretty hard in today’s environment of fairly evenly split parties.   There must be some real bi-partisan support for a treaty.   The politicians complain that it’s too hard for a treaty to be ratified, so what do they do?   They make a treaty and call it a deal and don’t even ask Congress for approval!  We have seen this in the Iran Deal and many others.   In fact, the vast majority of the alliances or pacts the United States has today are just such so-called deals and not treaties because they have never been ratified by the Senate.   That is an obvious case of circumventing the intent of the Constitution and I would say that they are all unconstitutional.

It’s time we stop letting the politicians in Washington get away with these shenanigans and stop giving our tax dollars away to foreigners who misuse the money we give them.  How much of our tax dollars line the pockets of corrupt dictators in third world countries when we extend them this aid?  Even though total foreign aid is less than 1% of the Federal budget, a billion here and a billion there certainly ads up.

There may be some circumstances where foreign aid is in our countries best interest, maybe in situations like Ukraine where we would rather them fight than for us to put boots on the ground and start a larger war.  However, if we want to do it, let’s do it right by passing a Constitutional Amendment allowing it, within certain circumstances and limitations.  Or at least make a treaty that is ratified by 2/3rds of the Senate.  That is the proper way instead of ignoring the Constitution.  

I want to hit some highlights of that leaked document, so you get a feel for what the court might actually do.   The opinion was written by Justice Alito and is supposedly the majority opinion.  If you had listened to my presentation on Abortion and the Constitution last year, you would have heard similar arguments from me that Justice Alito makes.  Let’s look at what it says.

The document is a stinging rebuke of the Roe v. Wade decision as well as Planned Parenthood of Southern PA v. Casey, which revisited Roe and modified it slightly.   It first gives background on the Roe case and includes this statement in that review.  “Even abortion supporters have found it hard to defend Roe’s reasoning.  One constitutional law scholar wrote that he ‘would vote for a statute very much like the one the Court ended up drafting’ if he were ‘a legislator’, but his assessment of Roe was memorable and brutal: Roe was ‘not Constitutional Law’ at all and gave almost no sense of an obligation to even try to be.”

After the review, the document states: “We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled.   The Constitution makes no reference to abortion and no such right is implicitly protected by any Constitutional provision including the one on which the defenders of Roe and Casey now chiefly rely – the Due Process Clause of the 14^th Amendment.  That provision has been held to guarantee some rights that are not mentioned in the Constitution, but any such right must be ‘deeply rooted in this Nations history and tradition’ and “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.”  The phrase “deeply rooted in this Nations history and tradition” is taken from another court case.

The document states – “until the later part of the 20^th Century, there was no support in American law for a Constitutional right to obtain an abortion.  Zero.  None.  No State constitutional provision had recognized such a right.”   The document then goes on a lengthy discussion of how abortion had been universally regarded as a crime by all the States throughout our history up until the 1960s when abortion rights were beginning to be asserted by a vocal minority.  Even at the time of the adoption of the 14^th Amendment, ¾ of the States had laws against abortion at all stages of pregnancy.

It concludes with this statement – “The inescapable conclusion is that the right to abortion is not deeply rooted in our nation’s history and traditions.  On the contrary, an unbroken history of prohibiting abortion on pain of criminal punishment persisted from the earliest days of the common law until 1973.”

Alito discusses the issue of Stari Decisis, the doctrine that says the courts should uphold previous court opinions.  Alito says, “Stari decisis, the doctrine on which Casey’s controlling opinion was based, does not compel unending adherence to Roe’s abuse of judicial authority.  Roe was egregiously wrong from the start.  Its reasoning was exceptionally weak and its decision has had damaging consequences.”

In other words, its was such a bad decision, we have to throw out precedent.

The document then illustrates that the decision of abortion should be left to the people through there elected representatives.  It then states about Roe – “wielding nothing but ‘raw Judicial power’, the court usurped the power to address a question of profound moral and social importance that the Constitution unequivocally leaves for the people…  The court short-circuited the democratic process by closing it to a large number of Americans who dissented in any respect from Roe…  Roe and Casey represent an error that cannot be allowed to stand.”  Later in the text – “We therefore hold that the Constitution does not confer a right to abortion.   Roe and Casey must be overruled, and the authority to regulate abortion must be returned to the people and their elected representatives.”

The document then addresses the issue of future challenges to State abortion laws.  It says – “It follows that States may regulate abortions for legitimate reasons, and when such regulations are challenged under the Constitution, courts cannot substitute their social and economic beliefs for the judgement of legislative bodies.”  In other words, it is a state legislative issue, and the courts should not overrule them.

All this sound good, if it actually happens.  It’s a win for unborn children.  However, although it is good, I have a few issues with it.

First.  In the last statement I read, it says “the States may regulate abortions for “legitimate reason”.  To me, that seems like a hole the courts can drive a truck through.   What’s to keep the lower courts from declaring that essentially nothing is a legitimate reason?  Then we are right back in the same situation we are in now.

Second.  Notice the attitude the court is taking?  It is essentially saying, the court messed up, but we the court are the only ones that can rectify the problem by overturning it.  It is perpetuating the wrong idea that the courts are the final say and Congress or the States can do nothing about it until the court changes its mind.  I’ve said it many times and continue to keep stating the fact that the Constitution gave the courts no such final, unchecked authority.  They assumed it on their own, and Congress and the States continue to allow them to get away with this lie.

Third, and most importantly.  The document did not address the elephant in the room – the question at which life begins.  Even the language from Roe v. Wade acknowledges that if it is ever shown that life begins at conception, then Roe v Wade is overturned.  Roe states – The appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a “person” within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment.  In support of this, they outline at length and in detail the well-known facts of fetal development. If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant’s case, of course, collapses, for the fetus’ right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment.

Why didn’t the document address this issue?   We know scientifically that life begins at conception.  My guess is they just didn’t have the guts, because if they had, they would be compelled to not only reverse Roe, but also to declare all abortions in the US illegal because they violate the Due Process Clause of the 14^th Amendment, which states “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”  By allowing abortions, we are depriving millions of babies their life without due process.  The supposedly conservative court doesn’t want to be shown as an activist court, even though they would be upholding the Constitution if they did.  Instead, they want to punt the issue to the States.

So, what is going to be the practical outcome of this ruling if it stays like the draft?  Will abortions in America go away or at least be reduced significantly?  I doubt it.  Of course, there will be many States that ban abortion altogether.  The Nebraska governor has already said their State will.   In Tennessee, our Fetal Heartbeat Law will become effective and hopefully we will go further and ban all abortions.  But there will also be many States like California and New York that will allow abortions at all stages of pregnancy.  California has already said they will be an abortion sanctuary and encourage women to come get abortions, even paying for transportation.   Starbucks has said that their company will give women up to $4000 for expenses to travel to a State that allows abortions.

Hopefully, many women will decide to keep their children or put them up for adoption because of this ruling.  Time will tell.  I do predict that those States that allow abortions will be judged by God with natural or economic disasters.   God will not be mocked and he will pour out his wrath on the ungodly.

Of course, the Party of Immorality has already tried to push an abortion bill through Congress that would allow abortions throughout the land.  Apparently, they didn’t read the document that affirms that it is a State issue.  As with the issue of Slavery, Congress doesn’t have the authority to approve abortion in States that didn’t want it because the Constitution does not grant any such power to the National government.  The only legitimate act from Congress would be a total ban on abortion, since life begins at conception and abortion violates the due process clause of the 14^th Amendment and Congress was given the power to enforce such legislation in section 5 of that Amendment.  Of course, that will never happen!

Like slavery, it is going to take an amendment to the Constitution to finally outlaw abortion in our land.  That is what we need to push for next! 

What is the justification for such an action?  Many talking points are mentioned from combatting money laundering and terrorism, stopping war financing, and even helping climate change!

Of course, what was not mentioned is that criminal use of money in traditional banks is up to 15 times higher than in crypto markets.  Nor was it mentioned that the purpose of creating crypto currencies in the first place was to stop the inflation and financial crashes caused by the Federal Reserve System in bed with Wall Street.

The Securities and Exchange Commission has in affect declared war on crypto currencies because not a single Bitcoin type fund has been approved by the SEC.

Should we be concerned about this hostile action for digital assets from the Biden Administration?  Of course, we should, for various reasons.

First, what authority does the Federal government have to essentially ban a commodity from use?  Crypto currencies are just commodities like any other.  The only possible authority would be found in the Commerce Clause.  I’ve discussed that clause before and if you remember it was solely designed to regulate imports and exports, not decide what could be bought and sold in the US.

Second, even if it was allowed under the Commerce Clause, does the President or any Federal agency have authority to issue such orders?  No!  As I’ve stated many other times, the President cannot make edicts through executive orders with the force of law, because that is the exclusive power of the Legislature.

During the Constitutional Convention, Madison succinctly stated the power of the President.  He said the President’s function is to have “power to carry into effect the national laws, …and to execute such other powers ‘not legislative nor judiciary in their nature’”.  Also at the convention, Roger Sherman said that the executive branch was “nothing more than an institution for carrying the will of the legislature into effect”.

I think most of us get that.  But what about crypto currencies in general.   Do they violate the Constitution?  Article I Section 10:  “No state shall … coin money; emit bills of credit; make any thing but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts”

Do Crypto currencies violate that section?  Some people use crypto currencies for payment of debts.  Does that violate the clause?  No, if you understand what the Founders were saying, you will see no conflict there.  The key is what they meant by tender.   Today we call it legal tender.  What does that mean?

Legal tender is currency, such as coin and paper money, declared by law to be valid and sufficient for the payment of debts.  It is also any form of currency that by law cannot be refused as payment to extinguish a debt equal to the amount offered.

As long as no one is forced by law to accept cryptocurrency, it is perfectly fine to be used as payments, just like someone could pay someone else in bacon or chickens if he would accept it.

I am not personally a fan of crypto currency, just as I am not a fan of any fiat money.   In fact, I believe we are violating the Constitution with our current fiat money system.

Does any state use something other than gold and silver as tender in payments of debts?  Of course, we all use fiat paper money now!   But you say we are using Federal Reserve notes.   OK, is that Constitutional?   Article I section 8: Congress has the power “to coin money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin…”

Does that give Congress the authority to make paper money?  Well, yes and no.

The whole purpose of both the clauses I just read was to prevent the use of unbacked paper money.   The history and notoriety of the Continental Dollar was still fresh in the minds of the Founders and they didn’t want anything like that to happen again, either at the Federal Level or the State level.  Their design was that all money would be backed by gold or silver.   Printing paper was allowed as long as it was redeemable with gold and/or silver.  Of course, since the creation of the Federal Reserve system in 1913, our dollar was only on a quasi-gold system then and since 1973 is not backed by anything at all except the good faith of the FED.  Our Founders would have revolted at our current system of fiat money.

I’ve discussed this before, so won’t get into it further.  If you want further explanation, look at my notes labelled God Standard on our website under Constitution Corner.

The really scary part of Biden’s executive order is the possibility of our country going to a total digital currency called a Central Bank Digital Coin. Such a tool would give government the power to surveil and control every dollar you spend.  Can you imagine the possibilities for tyranny!  It would give politicians the power to command any spending they like or forbid any spending they don’t like.  I believe this action would violate the IV Amendment which says, The right of the people to be secure in their person, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Is the government not searching our private effects by having constant access to our financial data?  All without any type of warrant.   That is tyranny!

In addition to the Federal government’s push for digital currency, California and Arizona have both introduced bills that would make cryptocurrencies legal tender in their State.  Does that violate the US Constitution?  One article I read stated that the US Constitution allows states to determine what represents their legal tender.  Is that true?  What about the clause I just read that says states can only use gold and silver as legal tender?  People remain ignorant of the Constitution and clearly that would be a violation.

Ian Calderon, a consultant and former majority leader of the California State Assembly, said “the goal here is to have a national model piece of legislation that can work anywhere in the country.”  You can see where all this is leading, total government control of a digital currency.  If legal tender, then everyone will be forced to use that currency and be under the microscope of the government even more so than we are today.

As we’ve seen with the Canadian government’s crackdown of the truckers demonstrating for liberty, one of the steps was to confiscate the money that supporters had sent them.  Imagine how easy it will be for the government to do that and much more if the only currency is digital and regulated by the government.   We’ve seen the horrors of the IRS targeting conservative groups.   What is to stop the government from banning any kind of purchases from individuals if they disagree with the powers that be.  At least today, with cash, we can keep our purchases discreet.  With digital currency, the government is going to know everything!

Does Congress have the authority to abolish paper money and go to a total digital currency?  No, for the same reasons explained earlier, our money should be backed by gold and silver.  So of course, the executive branch doesn’t have the authority either.  Unfortunately, they have already adopted fiat money, going to a digital currency is just one more step towards total tyranny.   If that happens, we will be no better off than the Chinese under their tyrannical government.

What can be done about our education system?  I think if we look at the history of education in America, it will show us a way forward.

The first public school law in America was in Massachusetts in 1647 and called “the Old Deluder Law”.   The title gives its significance.  The preamble to the legislation reads as follows:  It being one chief purpose of that old deluder, Satan, to keep men from the knowledge of the Scriptures, it was therefore ordered that every township containing fifty families or householders should set up a school in which children might be taught to read and write…

The purpose of learning to read and write was to know the Bible!  Most education was done at home in those days, but towns saw the need to provide a common school with a teacher that could help the parents in the education process.  Historically, it was the churches that provided education; the states just encouraged and occasionally supported.

That philosophy didn’t change after the Revolution.   In the early 1800’s, Noah Webster, famous for his first American dictionary and considered the father of American Scholarship and Education said: The Christian religion is the most important and one of the first things in which all children, under a free government, ought to be instructed…

Webster’s Blue-Backed Speller did more for American Education than any other single book other than the Bible.  His Speller which sold over 100 million copies in a century, was written to instill into the mind of our youth “the first rudiments of the language and some just ideas of religion, morals, and domestic economy.”

The Rev William McGuffey authored the McGuffey Readers, widely used in education throughout the US and selling 122M copies in 75 years.   Those promoted a theistic worldview and ideas of salvation, righteousness and piety.

Almost all of our universities were founded as seminaries originally and taught students as Harvard did; that “their main end in life and studies is to know God and Jesus Christ which is eternal life.”  By 1880, of all the hundreds of universities in America, 91% had a minister as the president of the university.

The Northwest Ordinance of 1787, written to govern the territories that were not yet States, said: “Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.”

I could go on for a long time with quotes like this.   The point is the emphasis and encouragement on the word of God in education.   We have lost that today; God and the Bible have in effect been banned from our public schools.  We need to get back to that same emphasis.  The bible says that the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom.

The secular assault on education started in the mid 1800’s.  John Dewey, considered by some as the founder of our public school system, wrote that his purpose for establishing a public school system was to eliminate religion from America!

Dewey and his group of secular humanist wanted to take control of education by the state so they could indoctrinate children into their way of thinking.   Their planned took a while, but its has worked.   Charles Potter, a signer of the first Humanist Manifesto, clearly stated their goal:  Education is thus a most powerful ally of Humanism, and every American public school is a school of Hu­manism.  What can the theistic Sunday-school, meet­ing for an hour once a week, and teaching only a frac­tion of the children, do to stem the tide of a five-day program of humanistic teaching?

Now instead of the parents being ultimately responsible for education through the church, the state has slowly gained total control to the point where they no longer listen to the parents.   The attitude of most teachers and bureaucrats in the education system is that they know best and they don’t care what the parents want!

How did the humanist accomplish their goal?  It started with the humanist taking control of the university education departments so that teachers became indoctrinated to their philosophy.  Gradually, these notions were incorporated into law in the states.  They were using the 10th plank of the Communist manifesto which called for free education for all children in government schools.

The courts eventually helped out with faulty rulings on the 1st Amendment freedom of religion starting in 1947 with Everson v. Board of Education.    In that case, the Court proclaimed; The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state.  That wall must be kept high and impregnable.  We could not approve the slightest breach.

That and subsequent court rulings have supposedly outlawed prayer in schools, even from students, have proclaimed that we can’t teach about creation, and other things to try to totally eliminate Christianity from our schools.  Of course, its perfectly acceptable to talk about and even indoctrinate students on Islam and other religions, just not Christianity!  Think about it – how can it be unconstitutional to teach about creation when our Founding Document, the Declaration of Independence, emphatically states that there is a Creator and it is from Him that we get our Rights?

What has been the results of taking God out of our schools?  Since the early 60’s when these anti-God rulings were imposed, unwed birthrates, STD’s, and single parent homes have all skyrocketed.  Violent crime has skyrocketed.  Educational achievement measured in standardized testing and comparisons to other countries have plummeted.   God will not be mocked!

The Federal government has also stepped in with the Department of Education, established in 1979 under President Carter.  The DOE influence along with federal funds from programs like “No Child Left Behind” has further eroded our education system.  Notice these programs target children at a younger and younger age so they can start the indoctrination earlier!  Government is now paying for preschool.   How many of you even went to kindergarten?  Most of us, like me, didn’t start public school until 1st grade.

Why is the Federal Government involved in Education?  Is it authorized to do so under the Constitution?   Of course not!   Hopefully you know by now that only those powers enumerated in Article 1 Section 8 are authorized.   There is nothing about education in the list and plenty of sources from the Founding era that showed that Education was not a power granted to the National government.

The big question is – what can we do about it?  Unfortunately, I don’t think we are ever going to get back to the attitude of our Founders.  However, there are some things we can do.  The short-term answer is to pull our children and grandchildren out of the public schools and put them in Christian schools, private schools, home school co-ops, or home schools.   More and more families have done just that during the Covid craziness.  But most parents can’t afford to do that, so what is their option?

The answer is School Choice.   I am not talking about a voucher system for just poor families, which is the way most states try to sell it.   Why should only the poorest families (or the richest) have the option to send their children to somewhere other than state schools?  The state is taking our money through taxes to pay for education, why should we have to pay twice – for public school we don’t want to use and then for private schools.  Why don’t we have a choice, especially since most public schools are abysmal failures.

What I’m talking about is a universal choice system where every parent can send their children to any public school they want or get a voucher (for say 75% of what the state spends on public education per student) that can be used at any private school, church related or otherwise, or even home school.  What would that do?   It would probably destroy the current public school system, which in my opinion, would be a good thing.   At the very least, public schools would have to improve to beat the competition.  The free market would take over!  Schools would start popping up all over town that would cater now to the parents needs and wants for their children.   If a child is skilled in the sciences, there would be schools that emphasized that, the arts for other schools, etc.  And also, guess what the cost of most of those schools would be?   Whatever was the government voucher price!  That’s how the free market works.

The parents would now be in total control of their child’s education, as it should be according to the Bible.   They will be able to send their children to the schools that teach the values they believe in and acknowledge the God they worship.  Yes, you are always going to have parents that cheat the system and abuse their children, but that is more acceptable than every parent being cheated by a poor education system run by statist trying to destroy America.

To make a voucher system like that happen, it is going to take a lot of work from the grass roots.   The Education establishment will not like it at all, although teachers really should like it because now, they will have a lot more choices as to where they can teach.  The courts will try to rule something like that unconstitutional, again on faulty grounds.  The states can get creative by calling it a tax rebate or something like that to satisfy the courts.   Ultimately, We the People must demand it!  That is the only way our education system will improve! 

What is interesting is that almost everyone agreed on a bicameral legislature, in other words, there should be two houses of Congress.   Why?  What was so important about two houses?  Remember, I have always talked about their desire for checks and balances.   They wanted to set up a Congress with two houses so that they would have two bodies that would each give checks and balances to the other.  But in order to do that, each body must have different interest or what they called sympathies.  This would be somewhat similar to the British system with the House of Lords and the House of Commons, each representing they interest of a different type of constituents.

If both houses had the same sympathies, they wouldn’t really be a check on the other.  The original idea in the Virginia Plan was to have the Upper body be the more stately, or aristocratic, body, with longer terms and fewer members.   The Lower House would have more representatives and shorter terms and be more democratic.  But both Houses would be based on population or the tax base.

The New Jersey Plan had the backing of the smaller States because it kept the more Federal system of equal representation in Congress.

The Connecticut Compromise, also called the Great Compromise, was introduced to split the difference and allow equal representation in the Senate and representation in the House by population.

By giving the states equal representation in the Senate, the Connecticut Compromise appeared to give the states a significant role in checking and balancing power in the national government.  But in order to give the States the real power to check the House, the Senate needed to have different sympathies.  In other words, the States needed to have primary control the Senate.   How would that be accomplished?  By having the State Legislatures elect or appoint the Senators.  Only in this way would the States have true representation in Congress.   How did they accomplish this?

The original Constitution reads in Article I Section 3:  The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof…

By having the Senators chosen by the State Legislators, those Senators would be beholding, i.e., have sympathy with the State, and therefore would present an adequate check on the House which would have sympathy with the people.

Listen to how Joseph Story explains this principle in his Commentaries on the Constitution.  Volume II, Chapter X: The Senate

[Division of legislative power into two houses] is of little or no intrinsic value, unless it is so organized, that each can operate, as a real check upon undue and rash legislation. If each [chamber] is substantially framed upon the same plan, the advantages of the division are shadowy and imaginative; the visions and speculations of the brain, and not the walking thoughts of statesmen, or patriots. It may be safely asserted, that for all the purposes of liberty, and security, of state laws, and of solid institutions, of personal rights, and of the protection of property, a single branch is quite as good, as two, if their composition is the same, and their spirits and impulses the same. Each will act, as the other does; and each will be led by the same common influence of ambition, or intrigue, or passion, to the same disregard of the public interests, and the same indifference to, and prostration of private rights. It will only be a duplication of the evils of oppression and rashness, with a duplication of obstructions to effective redress. In this view, the organization of the senate becomes of inestimable value. It represents the voice, not of a district, but of a state; not of one state, but of all; not of the interest of one state, but of all; not of the chosen pursuits of a predominant population in one state, but of all the pursuits in all of the states. . . .

No system could, in this respect, be more admirably contrived to ensure due deliberation and inquiry, and just results in all matters of legislation. No law or resolution can be passed without the concurrence, first of a majority of the people, and then of a majority of the states. The interest, and passions, and prejudices of a district are thus checked by the influence of the whole state; the like interests, and passions, and prejudices of a state, or of a majority of the states, are met and controlled by the voice of the people of the nation.

Here are a few quotes from those at the Convention delegates that illustrate the same principle.

George Mason believed that the appointment of senators by state legislatures would give the citizens of the states “some means of defending themselves against encroachments of the National Government.”

Fisher Ames thought of U.S. senators as “ambassadors of the states.”

Madison, in Federalist #62, wrote that “The appointment of senators by state legislatures gives to state governments such an agency in the formation of the federal government, as must secure the authority of the former.”

How did this work out in reality?  Throughout our history, State legislatures did not hesitate to instruct U.S. Senators on how to vote. In fact, the very first instruction that was given to them was to meet in public!

The Virginia and Kentucky Resolves of 1798 were the work of state legislatures that instructed their senators to oppose the Sedition Act, which they believed was unconstitutional.

State legislatures were instrumental in Andrew Jackson’s famous battle with the Bank of the United States, which ended with the Bank being de-funded. State legislatures throughout the U.S. instructed their Senators to oppose the Bank US in the Senate. Senator Pelog Sprague of Maine was forced to resign in 1835 after ignoring his legislature’s instructions to vote against the Bank. The U.S. Senate voted to censure President Andrew Jackson for opposing the Bank US, but the states responded by forcing seven other senators to resign for taking part in that vote.

Back to the Constitutional Convention.  The Connecticut Compromise was actually introduced early on in the deliberations, but neither side was ready to embrace it.   In fact, the convention was about to fall apart due to all the contentious issues.  What saved it?   This is where the hand of God intervened to give us the amazing document we have.

When most of the delegates were about to go home, Benjamin Franklin gave a speech.   (We know the exact words because Franklin wrote it out and probably handed it to a friend to read due to his infirmity at the time).  Franklin said:

Mr. President

          The small progress we have made after 4 or five weeks close attendance & continual reasonings with each other — our different sentiments on almost every question, several of the last producing as many noes as ays, is methinks a melancholy proof of the imperfection of the Human Understanding.  We indeed seem to feel our own want of political wisdom, since we have been running about in search of it.  We have gone back to ancient history for models of Government, and examined the different forms of those Republics which having been formed with the seeds of their own dissolution now no longer exist.  And we have viewed Modern States all round Europe, but find none of their Constitutions suitable to our circumstances.

In this situation of this Assembly, groping as it were in the dark (Job 12:25) to find political truth, and scarce able to distinguish it when presented to us, how has it happened, Sir that we have not hitherto once thought of humbly applying to the Father of lights (James 1:17) to illuminate our understandings?  In the beginning of the Contest with G. Britain, when we were sensible of danger we had daily prayer in this room for the divine protection. — Our prayers, Sir, were heard, & they were graciously answered.  All of us who were engaged in the struggle must have observed frequent instances of a superintending providence in our favor.  To that kind providence we owe this happy opportunity of consulting in peace on the means of establishing our future national felicity.  And have we now forgotten that powerful friend? or do we imagine that we no longer need his assistance?  I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth — that God Governs in the affairs of men. (Dan 4:7) And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice (Matt 10:29, Luke 12:6), is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid?  We have been assured, Sir, in the sacred writings, that “except the Lord build the House they labour in vain that build it.” (Psalm 127:1) I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without his concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better, than the Builders of Babel (Gen 11:1-9): We shall be divided by our little partial local interests; our projects will be confounded, and we ourselves shall become a reproach and bye word down to future ages.(Deut 28:37; 1 Kings 9:7; 2 Chron 7:20; Psalm 44:14)  And what is worse, mankind may hereafter from this unfortunate instance, despair of establishing Governments by Human wisdom and leave it to chance, war and conquest.

I therefore beg leave to move — that henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven, and its blessings on our deliberations, be held in this Assembly every morning before we proceed to business, and that one or more of the Clergy of this City be requested to officiate in that Service—

[Note: The Biblical references shown above where not part of the speech or historical record; just shown to emphasize Franklin’s frame of reference and his Biblical literacy.  This speech is printed in the minutes the Convention]

Remember, Franklin is considered one of the least religious of our Founding Faithers, but can you see the seven references to Biblical text in this speech?  Franklin didn’t site Biblical references, nor did he need to because everyone present was totally familiar with the Bible.  His speech changed the attitude of the delegates and fostered a spirit of cooperation between them.   Most attended church together that next Sunday.  The “Great Compromise” of the convention happened shortly after that speech!  Today, we need to have the same attitude of humbly appealing to the Father of Lights for wisdom in the present situation.

In addition to equal representation in the Senate the compromise also stipulated that bills for raising revenue must originate in the House (Article 1 Section 7), which was very important to the larger states.

Unfortunately, this great principle of the Senate representing the interests of the States was destroyed by the 17th Amendment.   Why was that amendment passed?  It was a result of the Progressive Era which touts democracy as the end all in politics.   Of course, when you hear the word Progressive, just substitute Communist or Socialist to get the real philosophy behind the change.

The direct election of senators was said to be more democratic, and therefore would reduce, if not end, corruption. However, the real source of corruption today is our so-called democracy!

The 17th Amendment has helped destroy the power of the States and allow the Federal government to grow out of control.   I would prefer that amendment be rescinded, but Andy will talk about another option until we can make that happen.

The first entity is the Federal Government.  Does the Federal Government have the authority to issue vaccine mandates?  This question is broken down into two parts.   First, does the President have the authority to issue mandates as an executive order through a federal agency, as he has in this case through OSHA?  That answer is pretty simple for those of us that understand the Constitution.  As I have been saying for years, the executive branch can only enforce the laws that Congress has passed.  Neither the President nor one of his agencies has the authority to make a regulation that is outside the specific authority granted by Congress by law.   Of Course, Federal agencies have been “making law” by Federal regulations for so long that no-one questions their authority any more.  So bottom line, the President is acting outside his authority by issuing vaccine mandates?  His administration has already admitted as much by stating that their actions are a work around of the law.

What about if Congress passed a law imposing vaccine mandates?  Would that be a constitutional action?  I will continue to beat the dead horse, but in Article 1 Section 8 which lists the powers of Congress and by extension the powers of the Federal government, there is nothing close to the authority to do something like that.   Of course, they always point to the general welfare clause, which I have explained many times is not a specific grant of authority to do anything they want.

Bottom line, the federal government does not have the authority to issue vaccine mandates.

Now, what about the second entity, the States?  Could a state government issue a vaccine mandate?  The 10^th Amendment grants to the states everything that is not granted to the Federal government, so State Legislatures, not Governors, could technically issue vaccine mandates if they are not constrained by their State Constitutions.    Remember, we can’t be denied life, liberty, or property without due process of law, both in our State and Federal constitutions.  We are definitely losing our liberty if forced to take a vaccine.  Does our Tennessee constitution address the issue?  Not directly.  It does under the due process clause protecting our rights and also in the freedom of religion clause which states in part; that no human authority can, in any case whatever, control or interfere with the rights of conscience.   Many who refuse to get the vaccine, including myself, do it at least in part because of the way the pharmaceutical companies use aborted fetal tissue for the research and manufacture of those vaccines.   To be forced to get the vaccine would violate my rights of conscience because I don’t want to give support in any way to the abortion industry.   Therefore, I believe a mandate from the State government  would violate our rights of conscience.

Those in favor of vaccine mandates by States will point to a couple of Supreme Court Decisions.  First, the 1905 case of Jacobson v. Massachusetts in which the court ruled that the city of Cambridge, Massachusetts – and thus other local governments – could levy fines against individuals who refused to take the smallpox vaccine.   Second, the 1922 case of Zucht v. King which upheld the power of states to require vaccinations before children attend public school.

As I’ve said before, just because a court ruled a certain way doesn’t make it right.  It is really about what we allow the politicians to get away with.  If they can make us get a vaccine, what else can they make us do?   There is really no end to the tyranny!  We could end up like China and mandate abortions for the so-called good of the State.

The third level or entity is private businesses.  Even if there is no government mandate, could individual companies mandate that their employees or their customers get a vaccine?   This one gets a little more complicated.  I am all for private property rights and I generally side with the business owners.   I will even go so far as to say I believe much of our anti-discrimination laws are bad government, because I think the individual business owner should have the right to discriminate against anything he wants.   The free market will eventually make things work out if the owner is discriminating unjustly.   Take masking for instance.   If Costco requires all their employees and customers to wear a mask, I think they can do that.   I will go somewhere else to shop because I don’t want to put on a mask.   If enough people did as I did, then Costco would change its policies.  However, vaccine mandates go a step too far.  You have to have a balance between the rights and freedoms of individuals and the rights and freedoms of business owners, which are individuals as well.   My rights end when I infringe on your rights.  In the case of vaccine mandates, someone is forcing me as an employee to do something I don’t want to do or lose my job.  That’s coercion!  Coercion is recognized at both the Federal and State level as a bad thing and there are various laws against it, both Federal and in our State.  None of those laws address vaccine mandates specifically, but I believe the general principle applies.   Businesses should not be allowed to coerce their employees into an unwanted medical procedure.   Also, when our State Constitution says that no human authority can interfere with the rights of conscience, that includes employers!

Concerning vaccine mandates, our state politicians, including the governor, have boldly said that we in Tennessee don’t regulate businesses, that we believe in the free market.  Oh really, we regulate businesses in hundreds of ways, why not make sure they don’t coerce employees and violate our rights of conscience!

Remember too that all the covid vaccines are experimental except the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine, which just recently gained FDA approval.  That FDA approval doesn’t matter to me because I really don’t trust the FDA or any other government entity any more.  Think about it.  There is no way the vaccine manufactures, the FDA, or the CDC can really know what long term effects these vaccines will have.  Why?  Because the testing was so accelerated and limited!   Also, where does the FDA get all their data about testing?   From the pharmaceutical companies the make them.  Doesn’t that sound like the fox guarding the hen house?

But, why does FDA approval matter?  Because it violates international law to mandate an experimental vaccine!

THE NUREMBERG CODE is considered international law.   How many of you have heard of the Nuremberg Code; what is it?

The Nuremberg Code is an international document regulating the principles of conducting medical experiments and procedures on people. The Code was developed and adopted after the Nuremberg trial of Nazi doctors in 1947, as a result of which many of them were convicted and sent to the gallows, in particular for the forcible administration of different vaccines to people.

The first point in the Nuremberg Code reads:

1. The absolutely necessary condition for conducting an experiment on a person is the voluntary consent of the latter.

A mandate is not voluntary consent, so in mandating an experimental vaccine we are violating a document we wrote and then gave violators the death penalty.   What does that say about our current leaders?

Notice also that I have not mentioned the efficacy of the vaccines, which is a whole different argument.  In typical government fashion, the vaccine mandate is a one size fits all solution that will cause way more harm than good.  I believe the CDC is ignoring all the disastrous side effects, including death, of the vaccines. They are ignoring the fact that the vaccines are more harmful to those who have had covid and ignoring the fact that those who have had covid have a naturally immunity far better than a vaccine can give.   If all those things are true, why are we forcing vaccines on unwilling people?  Also, if Covid was really as bad their propaganda intimates and the vaccines really worked as their propaganda suggest, they wouldn’t have to mandate them because everyone would get them voluntarily.  But which workers seem to be the most adamant not to get the vaccines?  Healthcare workers!

No matter which government or private entity makes the mandate, I believe it is tyranny and we must resist it.   What is the best way to resist?  The typical solution most politicians use is to sue through the court system.    I think that is the wrong way to go because it is a winning strategy for the left.  The left has always gotten their way with the courts.   Any victories for conservatives are few and far between, and they usually take forever!  In addition, by using the courts to settle these issues, it just reinforces the concept that the courts are the final authority in all things, which again is totally contrary to the design of the Founders.

So, what is the best way to resist?  For States, our legislatures need to pass laws which make such mandates illegal and then defy the Federal government when it tries to bully them to impose the mandates.   Again, the Federal government has no authority to impose mandates, so ignoring their unlawful orders is not only constitutional but the right thing to do.

If you own a business, just refuse to force your employees to get vaccines.  For most of us, we just need to stop using businesses that demand a vaccine for their employees or customers.  The free market will force them into retracting their tyrannical mandates if enough of us refuse to use their business.

If enough people resist both government and private mandates, they will have to back down! 

If you remember from Romans 13. God gives us the admonition to obey those put in authority over us.  I will read a similar passage today from 1 Peter 2:13; Be subject for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good.  This passage is not as long, but says the same thing as Romans 13, that we should obey our government and that government’s purpose is to punish the guilty and protect the innocent.

Now, the question is – should we obey the government in all things no matter what?  Is that what these passages teach?  Are there cases in scripture where people resist established authority?  Yes, many.   Let’s look at just a few.

• Hebrew Midwives (Exodus 1:15-20) They were told to kill the male Hebrew babies by the Pharoah, but did not
• Shadrach (Dan 3:6) – Would not bow to idol
• Daniel (Dan:6) – Continued to pray when unlawful
• Peter and John (Acts4:18-19) – Continued to preach Jesus

In light of these and other passages, we can interpret Romans 13 in three levels.  The first level is, as a bare minimum for Christians, to abide by this principle – we are duty bound to disobey government if:

• Government commands us to do what God forbids
• Government forbids us to do what God commands

Let’s look at a “hypothetical” example in our country.  Suppose there is this virus that is similar in deadliness to the flu, but the government and the media has hyped it up so much that State and local governments start closing down churches along with many other things.   God commands that we worship Him together in an assembly.  What do you do?  We defy the government edict and go to church!  Why?  Because government can’t forbid us to do what God commands!  Remember, God’s commands trump any government edicts.  Plus, by our Constitution, Government has no authority over the Church or our conscience. 

Of course, some may make personal decisions to stay away from church in this case due to underlying health issues, but the church as a whole should not submit to those types of edicts.

Now, if we disobey the government, we must be willing to accept the consequences.   Shadrach was thrown into the fiery furnace.   Daniel was thrown into the lion’s den.   We should have an attitude like Shadrach and friends who said, “our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace, and he will deliver us out of your hand, O king. But if not, be it known to you, O king, that we will not serve your gods or worship the golden image that you have set up.”  In other words, our God can save us, but HE may not.  Either way, I’m obeying Him and not you.

If we were living in a communist country like China, Cuba, or California, we might be thrown into jail or even killed for disobeying, but that should not dissuade us from doing our duty to God.

This general principle of disobedience when government commands us to directly violate God’s commands is somewhat easy to recognize and respond.  But what if government doesn’t command us personally to do something against God’s commands, but allows some type of evil that may or may not affect us directly.   What do we do then?

This brings us to the second level of interpretation of these verses.  Let’s look to what our Founders believed in situations like that.  Many Founders thought Romans 13 is an individual mandate and doesn’t apply to lesser magistrates.  This believe was first articulated during the Protestant Reformation and was slowly developed through the years leading up to our Revolution.  It is known as The Principle of Interposition or the Doctrine of the Lesser Magistrates

This Biblical principle declares that when the superior or higher civil authority make unjust/immoral laws or decrees, the lesser or lower ranking civil authority has both a right and duty to refuse obedience to the that superior authority to protect the people.  If necessary, the lesser authorities even have the right and obligation to actively resist the superior authority.

Our Founders believed in the Principle of Interposition, meaning that they considered the lawful way to resist tyranny is to do so under duly constituted authority – which was for them the Continental Congress.

• John Witherspoon (signer of Declaration) – “Considered Continental Congress just such a magistracy” to oppose the King
• John Adams – “Any revolt must proceed along orderly lines through the lower magistrates. … In America, the elected representatives of the people, town councils, Continental Congress or the lower house of the colonial legislatures were responsible to oppose the tyrant king and Parliament as well as the loyalist lower magistrates, i.e., Massachusetts Govern Hutchinson”

What does this have to do with our Constitution?  Our Founders embedded the Principle of Interposition in our Constitution with the principles of Federalism!  There really is not higher authority in our Constitution, except the Constitution itself.  Instead, in our federal system each government entity has its own sphere of authority which makes up our system of checks and balances and separation of powers.  The State, local, and the national governments are given certain jurisdictions that should not be encroached upon by the other.   When one oversteps its authority, the other has the responsibility and right to push back and not accept that overreach.  This same principle applies between the three branches of government at the Federal, State, or local levels.  If one branch oversteps its authority, the others are supposed to intervene and not allow that overreach.

So, let’s look at the very real case of abortion.   In 1973, the Supreme Court made abortion legal throughout the US.  Was this a valid ruling?  We now say that it is the “law of the land”.  Is that true?  First, do the courts make law?  Of course not.  Secondly, is the so called “right to abortion” really in the Constitution?  Of course not.   Even if it was in the Constitution, is abortion morally acceptable?  Of course not!  So why have we allowed more than 60 million babies to be murdered since then?  Because evil men have convinced us that the courts are the final authority and we must work through the corrupt courts to change things.  Well, our Founders would not have put up with it.  They would have defied the courts, because it was their duty to stand up against tyranny.  They also knew that the courts were not the final say and that Congress or State Legislatures were not only permitted to defy an improper ruling but were duty bound to do it.

Today we have gutless politicians who use any kind of excuse to shirk their duty and acquiesce to the courts.  A year and half ago, our State Legislature passed a Fetal Heartbeat Bill which rightly called an unborn baby with a heartbeat a person deserving of protection.   This looked good on paper, but unfortunately, they put a clause in it that made the law null and void if it was overruled in the courts.  You know what happened!  Only 45 minutes after the governor signed it into law, a judge put a hold on the law.   Talk about politics!   What has our Legislature done about it?  Nothing but wring their hand and nobly say that they have done all that they can do.   What they really need to do is defy the unconstitutional and evil actions of the court and just outlaw abortions in our State.   What would happen?   Is the Federal government going to send in troops because we are not killing our babies?  I think not.  Of course, they will probably threaten to take away some Federal money, but so what.  What is worth more, lives or dollars?  When are we going to stand up against this tyranny?

There is also a third level of interpretation for Romans 13 which I think is correct. Many pastors will interpret these verses to mean we are duty bound by God to obey the authorities, even evil tyrants, because this was written during the time of Nero who was a terrible ruler of Rome.   This is not a Bible study, so I can’t get into all the details, but just summarize by saying that I believe God is not telling us to obey evil tyrants, but to resist them because the “powers” described in this passage are meant to enforce God’s will, not their own.

In fact, Jefferson and Franklin both suggested that the national motto be “Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God”.  If Jefferson got it right, then submitting to and serving tyrants would be an act of treason against the King of kings.

Remember too what Jesus said as recorded in 3 of the 4 Gospels.  He said, Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s.   Who is Caesar in our Country?  Is it the President, the Courts, Congress?  No, it’s We the People!  We are the true sovereign’s, under God, in our form of government.  We should not bow to the tyranny of the Federal government or the State government, but resist evil and unconstitutional actions by whoever is acting outside their authority.  Again, look what is happening today with all the unconstitutional mask mandates, vaccine mandates, and shutdowns that various government entities are imposing.  The original writers of our Tennessee Constitution agreed with Jefferson’s philosophy.  In Article 1, Section 2 (just the second paragraph) our State Constitution says – That government being instituted for the common benefit, the doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power and oppression is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.

Bottom line, it is our fault that we let the politicians get away with what they do.  It is way past time we start resisting these tyrants and start asserting our sovereignty!

That is certainly the attitude of the Left (and is certainly communist in nature) and unfortunately most people in America have bought into that concept.   We see it with any issue.  An obvious example is this Covid situation where so many people are looking to the government to fix things instead of using common sense and handling the issue through individual choices.  By turning to government as their supposed savior, people have really just given up their liberty.

So, what is the real purpose of government?  To get the answer, we must go to the source.   I am not talking about the Constitution this time but the source of all truth – the Word of God found in the Bible.

There are many places in the Bible that talk about government or government issues.   The most explicit is in Romans 13.   Let me read you the passage.

Romans 13:1-7.

Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established.  The authorities that exist have been established by God.  2. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.  3.  For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong.  Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority?  Then do what is right and he will commend you.  4.  For he is God’s servant to do you good.  But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing.  He is God’s servant, and agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.  5.  Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment, but also because of conscience.  6.  This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing.  7.  Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.

When most people read this passage, they focus on the submission to government parts.   That is another topic I may discuss later.   What I want to emphasize is what God reveals as the purpose of government.  First, it is evident that God establishes and ordains governments.  Next, what does God say is the purpose of government?   The purpose of the magistrate is summed up in verse 4, He is God’s servant, and agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.  In essence, the purpose of government is to protect the innocent and to punish the guilty.   When we stray away from this basic purpose, governments tend to become tyrannical as we are seeing in America today.

How does this purpose statement from God line up with what our Founders said is the purpose of government in the Declaration of Independence?  Let’s review a familiar portion of it.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness, that to secure these rights Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

What is purpose of government according to our Founders? – To secure God-given rights.

This lines up with Romans 13, because to secure our rights is to protect the innocent and punish the guilty.   The Founders continued this theme in the Constitution by creating a limited government with checks and balances so that the government could not grow too powerful and usurp our rights.  Any power given to the government is a freedom taken away from the individual, the more power and authority government has, the less liberty we have!

So, what are the practical applications of this philosophy?  What are legitimate functions of government?  Of course, things like National Defense and police force clearly apply.   Laws and punishments against things like murder and theft clearly apply.   Necessities like roads and other infrastructure, although they don’t fall into the category of protecting the innocent or punishing the guilty, are usually deemed a legitimate function of government.  But when we get much beyond those necessities, a healthy debate should occur as to whether any proposed program is a legitimate function of government.

I think our Founders put together a pretty good list in Article 1 Section 8 for the powers of the national government.   It is up to the States to limit the authority of their own government, which we have done in the Tennessee Constitution.

But, you may ask, what about all the government programs like Welfare and Housing Assistance, all the so called entitlement programs?  Don’t they help people?  Isn’t that a good thing?   I’ve heard many say that they think it is their Christian duty to support all the government handout programs because we are called to help the poor.

First an aside, are those programs Constitutional?  If you have listened to me at all, you know they are not.  But that’s not the question.  This is the relevant question – Is it biblical for government to provide for the poor?  Aren’t their numerous passages in the Bible that say we should help the poor?  Yes, of course.  But – To whom is God speaking in those passages?

There are a few options – God could be talking to the Individual; the Family; the Church; or the Government.

Can God give a command to one group that doesn’t apply to another?  Of Course.

In Exodus 21, the concept of Eye for Eye, tooth for tooth, Life for Life, is directed to government as a judicial precept, not to individuals.

The admonition to Love your enemies (Luke 6:27), and to turn the other cheek (Matt 5:39) is obviously not to Government but to individuals.  What a disaster it would be if our government took that attitude against foreign invaders!

Galatians 2:10 remember the poor; that admonition was given to individuals and the church, not the government!

In fact, never once in scripture is the government called to help the poor!  There are over 200 verses in Scripture that address helping the poor and only a couple like Leviticus 19:15 can be seen to address Government.  It says, “You shall do no injustice in court. You shall not be partial to the poor or defer to the great, but in righteousness shall you judge your neighbor.  The only rule for government is to treat the poor the same as everyone else, not give them preferential treatment which we do today.

I would assert that “Charity” is not a legitimate function of government.  It is essentially robbing me and you to give our money to someone else.

What happens when the government gets involved in helping the poor?  How is the war on poverty going?  After Billions of dollars spent, the situation is worse, not better.  Government programs have resulted in the destruction of the family in low-income households where fathers are irrelevant because daddy government is there to provide handouts.  With government “charity” there are Inefficiencies, there is no love, no accountability, and no gospel; It doesn’t work!

What would happen if government didn’t get involved?  Christians and the church would do their duty; love, help, hold accountable, and share the good news of the gospel.  That model is also more efficient; it works!!  I believe one of the reasons why the Church in America is so week today is that we have abdicated our responsibilities as Christians to help the poor and given it wrongly to the government.

The government is not our god and savior – God is.   We need to trust Him more and not call on the government to try to fix every problem we have.   The reality is that when government tries to fix things, it always gets worse.

I will close with a quote from Jefferson’s First Inaugural Address: Still one thing more, fellow-citizens — a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities. 

The only place to which she could possibly be referring is Article 1 Section 4.  It says; the Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of Chusing Senators.   That certainly doesn’t give Congress sole power to regulate elections but actually gives the State Legislatures primary responsibility and Congress a secondary responsibility.  Why is it worded like that? What did the Founders have in mind?  If you look at the principles behind that clause, it was a matter of checks and balances.

That power of Congress was second in text order and reserved in principle.  What does that mean?  When it says that Congress can alter “such Regulations”, it is referring back to the “time, place, and manner” rules that state legislatures enact.   So, Congress could only make corrections to those laws already set by the states, not take over the whole rule making procedures.  The principle behind that clause was described by Hamilton in Federalist 59.  The principle he describes is that EVERY GOVERNMENT OUGHT TO CONTAIN IN ITSELF THE MEANS OF ITS OWN PRESERVATION…  [He goes on to say that the Constitution has given] the regulation of elections for the federal government, in the first instance, to the local administrations; which, in ordinary cases, and when no improper views prevail, may be both more convenient and more satisfactory; but they have reserved to the national authority a right to interpose, whenever extraordinary circumstances might render that interposition necessary to its safety. Nothing can be more evident, than that an exclusive power of regulating elections for the national government, in the hands of the State legislatures, would leave the existence of the Union entirely at their mercy. They could at any moment annihilate it, by neglecting to provide for the choice of persons to administer its affairs. He described Congress’s role in regulating its own elections as a “last resort”, not to alone have the power to regulate as Abrams claims or the bill provides.

But that clause is only talking about Congressional elections; what about Presidential elections?  We look to Article II, section 1 for the answer.  It says; 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 intitled in the Congress… The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.

The Legislature thereof means the State Legislatures, not Congress.  So, the only authority that Congress has over presidential elections is choosing the time/day of elections and the day electors give their votes.  Nothing else.

The funny thing is that if you look on the Congressional website that gives information on HR1 and click on the “Constitutional Authority Statement” button, it says Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant
to the following: Article I, Section 8, Clause 1.  What?  That is the General Welfare Clause, not even one of the clauses listed above!  When Congress knows they have absolutely no power to do something, they list the General Welfare Clause!

Bottom line, Congress has no authority to wholesale take over the rules of national elections!

This is not just my interpretation.  In McPherson v. Blacker (1892), The Supreme Court emphasized that the Constitution “leaves it to the state legislature exclusively” how to conduct presidential elections, and that the state legislature’s power “can neither be taken away nor abdicated.”  This principle was reaffirmed by Bush v. Gore (2000) when the Court held that “the state legislature’s power to select the manner for appointing electors is plenary”.

Of course, Congress has no enumerated power at all to regulate elections for state office which the bill includes as Congressional authority.  Hamilton explained the common-sense reason why Congress was to have no authority over State elections.  He said giving Congress power “to regulate the elections for the particular States [would be] a premeditated engine for the destruction of the State governments.”

The general purpose of the bill is clearly unconstitutional, but there are many other Constitutional violations embedded in the bill.  I don’t have time to go into details, but here is a list of a few:

• The universal mail-in ballot provision violates the equal protection principles of the Constitution, giving those people who mail in the votes and advantage over those who wait in line and meet a firm election day deadline. The bill also amplifies the vast potential for fraud with mail-in ballots with a lack of ID requirements.  HR1 dictates that state “may not require and individual to provide any form of identification as a condition of obtaining an absentee ballot” besides a signature.  What a recipe for fraud!
• It violates the First Amendment freedom of speech when it asserts federal control over “political speech”; specifically targeted are nonprofit organizations.
• The 17^th Amendment provides that “The electors in each state shall have the qualifications requisite for the electors of the most numerous branch of the state legislature.” Some provisions of HR 1 would require states to admit as voters in Congressional races persons who would not qualify to vote in elections for their more numerous branch of the state legislature.
• A provision requiring presidential candidates to release their tax returns would add further qualifications to those specified in the Constitution.
• A provision requiring online platforms to keep public logs of ads on political topics violates the First Amendment again by regulating and restricting freedom of the press, by compelling news sites to carry certain messages on their websites.

There are many more questionable parts of the bill.  The bottom line is this is a very bad bill.   The more appropriate title would be “For the Democrats Act” because it is a power grab by the Federal government over all election rules and would ensure we never had a fair election again.  It would destroy our federal system for elections, further degrade the power of the states, and guarantee unfair elections that would keep the Democrats in perpetual control.

HR1 has passed the House, of course.  Hopefully, it won’t pass the Senate, but it probably will.  If it does, Biden will sign it.  Then our only hope is that the courts will strike it down.   I don’t trust the courts, so things are looking grim.  We must make as many people aware of the drastic nature of this bill so we can hopefully prevent passage in the Senate.   

I will ad just one more argument for the compact theory and against the aggregate of the people theory.   The most persuasive argument for the aggregate of the people theory is the Preamble to the Constitution which starts “We the People…”  The style of writing at the time denotes the sovereign in big letters, just like We the People on the written document.  So therefore, the people are sovereign, but in what capacity – the aggregate of the whole people or the people of the States?   If the people of the States are the sovereign actors, why didn’t the Constitution start as “We the States”?  Well, as it turns out, the original draft of the Constitution did begin “We the States”.  The change to “We the People” was made by the Committee on Style because they didn’t know which states would ratify and didn’t want to insult the states by taking for granted that they would.   That change was accepted without debate by the delegates.  What is the likelihood that the committee on style would dramatically alter the nature of the Union without a debate – giving mor credence to the compact theory?

So, if the Constitution is a compact between the States and the Federal Government, how does that impact the idea of Nullification?  It is very significant, as I will explain shortly.

First, let me define Nullification.  Nullification is defined by Michael Maharrey in his book Nullification Objections, as “any act, or set of actions, that results in a particular law being rendered null, void or even just unenforceable with a particular area.”  He gives examples.  When a state passes a resolution denouncing a particular Federal Law, it is not nullifying that law on its own.  Or when a state or local government passes a law refusing to comply with a federal act, they haven’t nullified that law… yet!   It is less about the legislation and more about the results.  When several states pass resolutions denouncing a federal act, swaying public opinion so strongly that the federal government simple stops enforcing the law – it has been nullified.   Or when local governments around the country pass ordinances refusing to assist the feds in enforcing a federal act and the feds don’t have the resources to enforce it, the law has been rendered null and void in practice.

Now that we know what it is, what is the principle behind Nullification?   The main principle that the Founders expressed almost universally was that any law or act that violated the Constitution was null and void, by definition unlawful.   Hamilton contended in Federalist #78 that there is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void.  No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the constitution, can be valid.  To deny this, would be to affirm that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above is master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men, acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.

The real question then becomes – who decides what is a violation of the Constitution?  Today, most people think that is the job of the Federal Courts, specifically the Supreme Court.  However, the Principle of Nullification denies that the Courts are the final arbiter of all things Constitutional.  Why and on what grounds?

This is where we go back to the compact theory discussed earlier.  When there is a dispute between two parties, one of those parties is never given the exclusive right to settle disputes between the parties, otherwise, the parties would not be on an equal footing.    Since the Federal Courts are themselves a branch of the Federal government, how can the people be expected to consider them impartial arbiters?

Here are a couple of quotes to get the flavor of this argument.  The first from Spencer Roane, a Virginia judged in the early 1800s.   I do humbly conceive that the States never could have committed an act of such egregious folly as to agree that their umpire should be altogether appointed and paid by the other party.  The Supreme Court may be a perfectly impartial tribunal to decide between two States, but cannot be considered in that point of view when the contest lies between the United States and one of its members… The Supreme Court is but a department of the general government.  A department is not competent to do that to which the whole government is inadequate… They cannot do it unless we tread underfoot the principle which forbids a party to decide its own cause.

Joseph Desha, governor of Kentucky, expressed the same sentiments in 1825.  In fact, most of the encroachments made by the general government flow through the Supreme Court itself, the very tribunal which claims to be the final arbiter of all such disputes.  What chance for justice have the States when the usurpers of their rights are made their judges?

These same principles were the basis of the Virginia and Kentucky resolutions.  In the Virginia Resolution of 1798, Madison wrote;  That this Assembly doth explicitly and peremptorily declare, that it views the powers of the federal government as resulting from the compact to which the states are parties, as limited by the plain sense and intention of the instrument constituting that compact, as no further valid than they are authorized by the grants enumerated in that compact; and that, in case of a deliberated, palpable, and dangerous exercise of their power, not granted by the said compact, the states, who are parties thereto, have the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose, for arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining, within their respective limits, the authorities, rights, and liberties, appertaining to them.

Similarly, the Kentucky Resolution of 1799 echoed Jefferson’s sentiments from his draft of the Kentucky Resolution of 1798.  That the principle and construction, contended for by sundry of the state legislatures, that the general government is the exclusive judge of the extent of the powers delegated to it, stop nothing short of despotism – since the discretion of those who administer the government, and not the Constitution, would be the measure of their powers; That the several states who formed that instrument, being sovereign and independent, have the unquestionable right to judge of its infraction; and , That a nullification, by those sovereignties, of all unauthorized acts done under color of that instrument, is the rightful remedy.

Both those Resolutions are not given much credence today, supposedly because none of the other States joined with them.  However, a closer look at history shows that most of the other States agreed with the principle of nullification, but they just didn’t agree with the specifics that the Constitution was violated by the Alien and Sedition Acts which prompted them.

A couple of examples.  In 1809, Connecticut Governor Jonathan Trumbull said this in a speech to the State Legislature concerning the Federal embargo of the day.  Whenever our national legislature is led to overleap the prescribed bounds of their constitutional powers, on the State Legislatures, in great emergencies, devolves the arduous task – it is their right – it becomes their duty, to interpose their protecting shield between the right and liberty of the people, and the assumed power of the General Government.

The Connecticut General Assembly then followed up with a Resolution of their own which restrained State officers from enforcing the Federal law.

Similarly, in 1858, the Wisconsin State Supreme Court declared the Fugitive Slave Act of the Federal government to be unconstitutional and therefore void and released a man charged with aiding escaped slaves.  The Wisconsin Legislature followed up in 1859 by declaring the act was “without authority, void, and of no force”.

There are modern day examples as well.  The left has no problem using nullification when its suits their agenda.   Look at the Federal laws against marijuana.  Several States have legalized marijuana, therefore nullifying the Federal laws.  Though I don’t necessarily agree with legalizing marijuana, I agree that those States have the right to do it, because nothing in the Constitution gives the Federal government the authority to make using marijuana a crime.

Of course, the left uses nullification against lawful edicts of the Federal government as well.   Look at all the so-called sanctuary cities for illegal aliens that nullify Federal immigration laws which is the responsibility of the Federal government because it has been given the power to make uniform rules of naturalization.

I think Nullification is a legitimate way for States and even cities to stand in the gap, what the Founders called interposition.  I have been asking our State legislators to disregard the horrific rulings of the courts concerning abortion, to just tell the courts that we are not going to comply with their unconstitutional rulings, which is our responsibility to protect unborn babies.  That is in essence nullification.  Unfortunately, our legislators and governor have bought into the lie that the courts are the final say and won’t do anything that is necessary to stop the holocaust when one Federal judge overturns our Fetal Heartbeat Law just 45 minutes after the governor signs it.

It is time to stop that kind of tyranny!  Nullification is a legitimate tool and the first step before more drastic measures like secession and civil war.

For more detailed information on Nullification, I recommend a book called Nullification: How to Resist Federal Tyranny in the 21^st Century by Thomas Woods, Jr. 

There were plenty of debates before the civil War about this question.  Not so much since then; until recently when many of the States are getting fed up with Federal overreach.

I will cover both sides of the argument.  Those who say that secession is not legal lean heavily on Lincoln’s speeches and actions, the writings of Justice Joseph Story and Daniel Webster (a great orator who was a Senator and Secretary of State).

Their arguments can be condensed into the following:

• We have a “Perpetual Union”. These words are taken from the Title of the Articles of Confederation.   Because it is “perpetual”, it is indissoluble, in other words, it can’t be broken.  The “Perpetual Union” continued under the Constitution because we formed a “more perfect union”.
• The union was formed by “We the People” as stated in the preamble; meaning the people of the United States as a whole formed the union. The US was made up of “One People” and therefore a State had no right to change the government that was created by the whole people.   This argument was first espoused by Joseph Story who said “the united colonies must be considered a nation de facto”.  The Continental Congress, to Story represented a general, national government that was organized with the consent of the sovereign people taken in aggregate.
• The “constitutional” basis of secession had been “resolved by the Civil War.” This argument was stated by Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.
• There is no right to secede, as the Pledge of Allegiance clearly illustrates through the line “one nation, indivisible.” Also stated by Scalia.
• In the case of Texas v. White in 1869, Supreme Court Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase wrote that, “The union between Texas and the other states was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original states. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States.”
• Another argument against secession centers on the language of Article I, Section 10, which declares that “No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation….” To proponents of this position, Article I, Section 10 unequivocally shows that the states which formed the Confederate States of America were in clear violation of the Constitution, thus invalidating their government and the individual acts of secession which led to it. Abraham Lincoln indirectly defended this position by declaring the seceding states were in “rebellion” and therefore still members of the Union.
• There are other minor arguments, but these are the main ones.

The main antebellum figures who advocated that secession was Constitutional were John C Calhoun and St. George Tucker (a lawyer, law professor, and judge in VA).  The main arguments are as follows:

• The constitution was a compact between the sovereign States, therefore a State had the authority to separate from the Union. This idea is illustrated in many of the documents of the day.  Here are a few illustrations.
  • The Articles of Confederation proclaimed that “each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.”
  • The Declaration of Independence says “that as Free and Independent States, they have full power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do.
  • During the Philadelphia Convention of 1787, Gouverneur Morris of Pennsylvania outlined “the distinction between a federal and a national supreme government; the former being a mere compact resting on the good faith of the parties, the latter having a complete and compulsive operation.” If the Constitution established a federal government, and it did, then the Constitution did not have a “compulsive operation.”
  • George Tucker, in his influential 1803 addition of Blackstone’s Commentaries explained that the states retained the legal and constitutional right to resume the sovereign powers that they merely “suspended” during such times as they continued to “delegate” them to the US under the Constitution.
  • Neither the Framers nor the ratifiers believed that the Constitution created a “consolidated nation” as Story suggested. It was argued in all state ratifying conventions that the opposite was true. The Union was made “more perfect” but never consolidated. The States still had all powers not delegated to the general government, as the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution clearly illustrates,
  • Jefferson said in 1826, “the Constitution of the US is a compact of independent nations subject to the rules acknowledged in similar cases.
• The term “Perpetual Union” didn’t mean forever (as is commonly used today) but just that it had no built-in sunset provision. Many compacts of the day called themselves perpetual even though they eventually were dissolved, therefore it didn’t mean indissoluble.
• The “Pledge of Allegiance” analogy is the most absurd argument of the bunch. The modern pledge was written by Francis Bellamy, a socialist minister who wanted to indoctrinate American schoolchildren with a nationalist message, one based on the “great speeches” of Daniel Webster and Abraham Lincoln in relation to the “One Nation which the Civil War was fought to prove.” The founding generation would not have said such a pledge, if for no other reason that most did not view the United States as a “nation” in the strict sense of the word, a single people. Before the civil war, people such as Robert E Lee considered their State to be their country.  The United States was a plural noun before the Civil War, after it became a singular noun.

Although I have great respect for Joseph Story and Daniel Webster, I don’t believe they have a strong argument.  The debate ultimately boils down to whether the Constitution is a compact of the states or the result of the will of one united people.   I believe the compact of states is the stronger argument.

But what does the Constitution say on the matter?  Absolutely nothing!  That is why the debate has never really been settled.

Unfortunately, the arguments for secession are usually associated with the Confederate States and slavery, even though one of its major advocates, St. George Tucker, wrote a plan for the gradual abolition of slavery.  As a result, proponents of secession are usually discounted today as racist.   The argument that the Civil war settled the matter is also unconvincing.  That would mean that might makes right.

One of the best modern arguments I have seen for secession being illegal is by Daniel Farber, a professor at UC Berkley.  He says the 14th Amendment settle the argument.  The text of the Amendment is explicit that anyone born in the us is first a US CITIZEN AND THEN A CITIZEN OF THE STATE.  Therefore, a State cannot deny a person of his US citizenship by secession.  Unfortunately, the 14th Amendment has been used to justify many constitutional ideas that it was not intended to address.

Bottom line, the issue is still not settled, however, I think the arguments for secession have a stronger case.

Either way, one thing both sides agree upon is the right of the people to alter or abolish their government as expressed the Declaration of Independence.  That is our true fallback position.

Next month I will address a related issue – Nullification. 

Let me first start with Joseph Story’s solutions to Federal overreach.  In his Commentaries on the Constitution, he states:

Joseph Story – Commentaries on the Constitution.   Now, it is certainly possible, that all the departments of a government may conspire to subvert the constitution of that government, by which they are created. But if they should so conspire, there would still remain an adequate remedy to redress the evil. In the first place, the people, by the exercise of the elective franchise, can easily check and remedy any dangerous, palpable, and deliberate infraction of the constitution in two of the great departments of government (We have lost the election franchise, as Story calls it, because we now have rigged elections!); and, in the third department, they can remove the judges, by impeachment, for any corrupt conspiracies. (Who ever talks about impeaching judges today? Do you think that is even a possibility in today’s environment?  Well, of course it is, if it is a conservative judge).  And if the judicial department alone should attempt any usurpation, congress, in its legislative capacity, has full power to abrogate the injurious effects of such a decision… A declaratory or prohibitory law would, in many cases, be a complete remedy… (meaning Congress has the Constitutional authority to overrule a Supreme Court decision by law.  Today no one would ever think of such a remedy!)

In the next place, if the usurpation should be by the president, an adequate check may be generally found, not only in the elective franchise, but also in the controlling power of congress, in its legislative or impeaching capacity, and in an appeal to the judicial department.

But in the next place, (and it is that, which would furnish a case of most difficulty and danger, though it may fairly be presumed to be of rare occurrence,) if the legislature, executive, and judicial departments should all concur in a gross usurpation, there is still a peaceable remedy provided by the constitution. It is by the power of amendment, which may always be applied at the will of three fourths of the states… (that is where we are today, all three branches are conspiring against the Constitution, so we the people must act through amendments.)

And the general right of a society in other cases to change the government at the will of a majority of the whole people, in any manner, that may suit its pleasure, is undisputed, and seems indisputable.  (I will talk about this aspect next month)

Nor should it ever be lost sight of, that the government of the United States is one of limited and enumerated powers; and that a departure from the true import and sense of its powers is, pro tanto, the establishment of a new constitution. 

The left has been and continues to establish a new constitution every time they violate our Constitution!

So, what is our remedy?  It is in Article V of the Constitution and it allows for a Convention of States to propose amendments to bypass Congress and the Federal government.

First let me ask the question:  Is the Constitution the Problem?

• No – The Constitution as interpreted and perverted, or ignored by the Supreme Court, Congress, and Executive is the problem.
• The Current prevailing interpretation is a violation of original intent – which allows virtually all the problems we face today

What is the Better Approach?

• Continue to try to elect good people who will obey the original intent of the Constitution. How has that been working?
• Or hope the judiciary is faithful to the original intent of the Constitution. That hasn’t worked either, the left dominates the courts and even the so called conservative Supreme Court hasn’t given us much help.
• OR – Amend the Constitution to prevent abuse.

I believe the latter is the only viable option.

You may ask (and this is one valid objection to a COS) – IF THEY ARE NOT FOLLOWING THE CONSTITUTION NOW, WHY WOULD THEY FOLLOW IT IF WE AMEND IT?

• Let me answer by posing a question – Why didn’t Obama run for a third term as President? You might say that the Constitution doesn’t allow it, which is correct.   But Obama violated the Constitution in many ways, why didn’t he just do it again?  The answer is simple, because the Constitution is so clear on the issue in the XXII Amendment that he couldn’t get around it.  Even a fifth grader knows the answer, because the question was on the popular show, “Who’s smarter than a fifth grader”.
• The Federal Government right now is operating per the Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court and precedent from previous Congresses using clauses that seem vague in today’s vernacular. Since these clauses seem vague and very few understand their original meaning, the left is able to twist the words to suit their purposes.  Of course, they have also dumbed down our schools so that almost nobody knows the original meaning.
• Properly written amendments can leave no doubt about the proper limited role of the Federal Government!

 The Founders Solution is in Article V, it provides:

            The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress….

You can see that the Constitution allows Two Methods for Amendments – one by Congress and the other by a States Convention.  How has it been done for all the current amendments?  Through Congress.

But, why two methods?  Towards the end of the Constitutional Convention, George Mason objected that the only method of amending the Constitution (up to that point in the process) relied on Congress.

George Mason – “Amendments therefore will be necessary, and it will be better to provide for them, in an easy, regular and Constitutional way than to trust to chance and violence.  It would be improper to require the consent of the Natl. Legislature, because they may abuse their power, and refuse their consent on that very account”.      – Jun 11, 1787

He also said that without a way for the States to bypass Congress “…no amendments of the proper kind would ever be obtained by the people, if the Government should become oppressive”.     – Sep 15, 1787

The convention delegates agreed with Mason and added the clause for States to call a Convention.

Later Madison explained the concept – James Madison – “Should the provisions of the Constitution as here reviewed be found not to secure the Government and rights of the States against usurpations and abuses on the part of the United States the final resort within the purview of the Constitution lies in an amendment of the Constitution according to a process applicable by the States.”

Today, a Convention of States is the only Realistic way to curb the abuses of the Federal Government!

There are several groups advocating for a Convention of States with various proposals.  Some exclusively for a specific amendment, like the balanced budget amendment, and also one for a term limits amendment.  Those single amendments sound good on the surface but could lead to bigger problems.  For example, a balanced budget amendment could lead to higher taxes if some sort of other check on spending isn’t put in place.   We need a set of comprehensive amendments to address all the abuses of power!

I think the best proposal out there is from The Convention of States Project organization which proposed application to call a convention reads as follows:

“impose fiscal restraints on the federal government, limit the Power, Scope and Jurisdiction of the Federal Government, and limit the terms of office for its officials and for members of Congress”

How would a COS Work?  One of the complaints against a convention from some conservatives is that the Constitution doesn’t say anything about how a COS would work, therefore they say that it will be hijacked.   Since the Founders didn’t give explicit instruction in the Constitution, we have to go to the historical record to see what they meant.   I don’t have time to get into the details, but there is ample evidence from the many Conventions held before and after the Constitution was ratified that give us the details.  Her is how it would work.

1. 34 states (2/3) submit applications for the same issue (per Article V); a court decision has ruled that all needed applications must be for the same thing.
2. Congress is required to call the convention (Federalist 85)
3. Congress’ only discretion is time and place
4. Commissioners /Delegates appointed and controlled by the State Legislatures debate, propose, and vote upon possible amendments
5. Each state gets one vote during the final process of proposing amendments – One State, One Vote
6. Proposed amendments are sent back to the states for ratification in either the legislatures or state conventions (Chosen by Congress per Article V)
7. If 38 states ratify (3/4), the proposed amendment(s) become part of the Constitution (per Article V). Individual amendments are ratified separately, some may pass and others may fail to pass.

I want to address some of the arguments against a Convention.

• The left has done a good job at throwing out a red herring convincing some conservatives that a Convention of States is a Constitutional Convention or Con-Con and that there is potential for a run-away Convention that would destroy or re-write the Constitution. Nothing could be farther from the truth.  As per Article V, the sole purpose of a Convention is to amend the Constitution.  It could not propose a new Constitution any more than Congress could, since they are mentioned in the same sentence.
• Some say that because Article V says that Congress calls the Convention, that therefore Congress has complete control. This is ignorant of the historical context of the word “Call”.  What it meant to the Founders is that Congress would set the time and place and that is all.   Why would the Founders present a way to bypass Congress and then give Congress control off it?
• Mainly, the arguments against a Convention of States center on the fact that the left will again violate the rule of law and do whatever they want. Well, they are doing that now, so does that mean because they violate the rule of law that we shouldn’t use the rule of law to protect ourselves?  We should just wait and hope they eventually don’t violate the rule of law!

What types of Amendments could be proposed by the Convention?

Per the application, anything that limits the power of the Federal government could be proposed.   Amendments to strictly define the General Welfare and Commerce Clauses would be high on my list.   An Amendment to outlaw abortion; Amendments to ensure the courts don’t rule the land; Amendments to spell out that all the Entitlement Programs are not allowed and must be phased out; Repeal of 16^th and 17^th Amendments, to name a few.   The list could be long!

Remember though, even if an amendment is proposed that we conservatives don’t like, it will still take 38 States to ratify it for it to become part of the Constitution, which given the current makeup of the State Legislatures would be next to impossible.

Currently, 30 State Legislatures are controlled by Republicans, 18 are Controlled by Democrats and two are split.  62 of the 99 state houses are controlled by Republicans (30 Houses and 32 Senates) (Nebraska has only one House).  Remember also, that the governors don’t count because they have no say according to the Constitution.

Where is the Process now?

The Application by the COS Project has passed in 15 States, Tennessee being the 5^th State to pass it.  It is currently before the legislature of 20 more states with the application already passing in one of the houses of 8 of those 20.

It is a high bar.   34 States must call for a Convention and 38 States must ratify any proposed Amendments.  The odds aren’t great, but it is possible and we must work diligently for it.   Our only other options are either to bow to tyranny or armed revolt.  I don’t want either of those.

For More information, go to https://conventionofstates.com/  By the way, it is the largest grass roots organization in America with 1.9M signatures. 

What did the Founders mean when they talked of the rule of law?   They meant that we are to be ruled by fixed laws and not by the arbitrary whims of men.   Our legislatures, our executives, and our judicial systems are to be constrained by the laws, the highest of which are our Federal and State Constitutions.  They can’t just do anything they want, but only what the law allows!

Samuel Rutherford wrote Lex Rex which means Law is King.  Our founders believed firmly in that concept.

John Locke, a favorite political scientist of our Founders, said, Freedom of men under government is to have a standing rule to live by, common to everyone of that society, and made by the legislative power erected in it. 

John Adams said; No man will contend that a nation can be free that is not governed by fixed laws.  All other government than that of permanent known laws is the government of mere will and pleasure.

Notice they both said the freedom depends on the rule of law.  We have seen that first hand these past 9 months with the draconian edicts from governors and others that violate the rule of law.   We’ve talked in several meetings of the fact that our State Constitution doesn’t allow any of the executive edicts on the Covid situation, yet we continue to get more of them.  Notice also they said that the laws are to be made by the legislatures, not any other branch of government.   Unfortunately, most of the people in America are not only continuing to bow to these unconstitutional edicts, but are demanding more of them.  We are losing our freedom because we are not abiding by the rule of law.

There are many other examples of violations of the rule of law, but let’s talk about the most recent.  Elections are being stolen because we are not abiding by the rule of law.   There are too many instances to cover in the recent election, with most of them revolving around the whole issue of mail-in ballots.  Let me focus on a few.

Look at the fiasco in Pennsylvania!   There has been a lot of attention on allegations of ballot fraud, but the greatest election fraud is the blatant disregard of the state constitution of Pennsylvania.

The bottom line is that the number of mail-in ballots in Pennsylvania grew from 266,208 just four years ago to 2.6 million in 2020 – all built upon an illegal state supreme court decision and a state election bill that violated the state’s constitution. To summarize a somewhat complicated situation, the Pennsylvania constitution states clearly that there may be no alternatives to in-person Election Day voting aside from those approved for absentee ballots, which require voters to demonstrate their absence.  The legislature of Pennsylvania passed a law a couple of years ago that allows mail-in ballots, violating their Constitution.   That law added another classification of “qualified mail-in elector” with no requirements to demonstrate absence per their constitution.  Their liberal Supreme court then ruled to allow it.  Their Secretary of State, with the judge’s approval, then unilaterally expanded the cutoff date to count mail in ballots received up to 3 days after the election, which violated that law!  So, both their constitution and the law which violated their constitution were disregarded and supplanted by the whims of a few.

So, the political system now has the view – If it is too difficult to change the constitution or if we don’t like the law, we will just ignore it and do what we think is right!  Of course, the “we” is the left and what they deem to be right.

So, in the case of Pennsylvania, we have both their legislature and their courts ignoring the rule of law by violating their State Constitution to gain a desired outcome in the election.

Was that the only state to have those issues?   No, it was rampant all across America.   I am sure you have heard of the Texas lawsuit against Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin for “casting unlawful and constitutionally tainted votes” in the electoral college.   Texas asserted that those states made changes in the rules for their elections that were not done by and approved by the state legislatures in each state.  Instead, those changes were made either by state officials inside the executive branch or the state governments, like the secretaries of state in Georgia and Pennsylvania, or by judges.

Under the U.S. Constitution, the Electors Clause in Article II Section 1, says; Each State shall appoint, in such Manners as the Legislature thereof may direct a number of Electors, …  Thus, the U.S. Constitution gives state legislatures the authority to set the rules for presidential elections, not state governments or judges. All those States violated the Constitution by allowing other entities to change their rules for electors.

The Texas lawsuit claimed that all of those changes in the rules and all of the ballots that were cast according to those changes were all invalid votes.  Texas also described certain changes that were made by election officials in those States that treated absentee ballots cast in some parts of the state differently from absentee ballots cast in other parts of those states, which violated the equal protection clause.

Therefore according to the lawsuit, the Electoral College votes of those four states should not be counted.

That lawsuit was actually a brilliant move by Texas, giving us the best hope of overturning the all the fraudulent votes.   According to the Constitution, the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction when States sue other Sates.   Article III, Section 2 says; In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, an those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction.  So, the Supreme Court had to consider it.

Unfortunately, as you know, the Supreme Court declined to take the case, stating that Texas did not have “standing under Article III of the Constitution.”  Well, if they don’t have standing, who does?  The issue of standing describes a party who is injured by a certain action.   Well, every state and every person in America is injured by a voting system that does not abide by the rule of law, because we get a President who was not legally elected!

We can speculate on why the Court didn’t take the case, one guess being that a conservative court didn’t want to appear activist and throw a big monkey wrench into this election.   I agree somewhat with that because I am not a fan of judicial interference, however, how else can these violations of the rule of law be addressed?  Remember too that court activism/overreach is a result of them violating the Constitution, not upholding it!  Our supposedly conservative Supreme Court has failed us.

So, our last best hope to negate the cheating has been dashed.  I fear that we have lost our Republic and that voter fraud will now become the norm.   It’s not going to get better folks; we have lost the rule of law and are being ruled by the whims of the left.  If we don’t fight against this type of tyranny, where will it end?  I fear that It will end in the total loss of our freedom.   Our only hope is to pray for another Great Awakening in our land, where individual hearts are changed by the Spirit of God through faith in our Lord and Savior – Jesus.  Once hearts are changed, then the natural result will be better political views. 

So, what made America great?  Is it our Constitution?  Of course, that is a part of it, but not the essential part!   Other countries have copied our Constitution and have not become great.  Why not?

Are we better people somehow than people in the rest of the world?  It would be terribly arrogant to claim that we are better, especially since our country is made up of so many immigrants.  If you know Scripture, you know that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, we are all alike in our sin nature!  So, we aren’t better people!

Is it our free market system that makes us great?   Again, other countries have a free market and don’t come close to America.

So, what is the real reason for America’s greatness?

I will let our Founding Fathers explain with quotes from them.

I will start with a summation by Alexis De Tocqueville; though not a Founding Father, he traveled extensively in the US in the 1830’s to determine its greatness.   Even in the early 1800’s, America was gaining a reputation in the world for its greatness.  De Tocqueville, a Frenchman, wrote what we now call Democracy in America in 1831, originally called The Republic of the United States of America, and its Political Institutions, Reviewed and Examined.  He explained – I sought for the greatness and genius of America in her commodious harbors and her ample rivers, and it was not there; in her fertile fields and boundless prairies, and it was not there; in her rich mines and her vast world commerce, and it was not there.  Not until I went to the churches of America and heard her pulpits aflame with righteousness did I understand the secret of her genius and power.  America is great because she is good, and if America ever ceases to be good, America will cease to be great.

So, how did America become good? Our Founders knew and acknowledged the source of our goodness.

Daniel Webster (Defender of the Constitution) – The Christian religion – its general principles – must ever be regarded among us as the foundation of civil society.

John Adams – It is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand.  The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue.

Benjamin Rush (Signer of Declaration, Surgeon General of the Continental Army) – The only foundation for a useful education in a republic is to be laid in religion.  Without this there can be no virtue, and without virtue there can be no liberty, and liberty is the object and life of all republican governments.

By the way, when our Founders say the word religion, they are referring to Christianity, not any other religion!

Baron de Montesquieu, again not a Founder, but the most quoted individual about political ideas during the Founding Era, said – “Society, notwithstanding all its revolutions, must repose on principles that do not change…  The Christian religion, which ordains that men should love each other, would without doubt have every nation blest with the best civil, the best political laws; because these, next to this religion, are the greatest good that men can give and receive.”

The Founders answer is that we as a nation held to the general principles of Christianity.   Because of that God has blessed this nation!  We, as a nation have turned to God (for the most part) for blessings and guidance and protection, just as the song America says – America, America, God shed his grace on thee!  That is what has made us great!  It is repeated in other patriotic songs like God Bless America, and more recently God Bless the USA.   Look at our National Anthem.  The fourth verse says – Blest with victory and peace, may the heav’n rescued land praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation.  Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just, and this be our motto: “in God is our trust.”

Our Founders believed that nations were blessed whose God is the Lord, as scripture says.   Let’s hear from them again.

Samuel Adams (Father of the American Revolution) – Revelation [the Bible] assures us that “Righteousness exalteth a nation [Proverbs 14:34].  Communities are dealt with in this word by the wise and just Ruler of the Universe.  He rewards or punishes them according to their general character.

George Mason (Father of the Bill of Rights) said during the Constitutional Convention – As nations cannot be rewarded or punished in the next world, so they must be in this.  By an inevitable chain of caused and effects, Providence punishes national sins by national calamities.

Luther Martin (delegate to the Constitutional Convention) said at the Convention – It out to be considered that national crimes can only be and frequently are punished in this world by national punishments, and that the continuance of the slave trade, and thus giving it a national sanction and encouragement, out to be considered as justly exposing us to the displeasure and vengeance of Him Who is equally Lord of all and Who views with equal eye the poor African slave and his American master.  His words rang true as we had to suffer through the civil war to pay for our national sin of slavery!

George Bancroft, “Father of American History” – That God rules in the affairs of men is as certain as any truth of physical science… nothing is by chance, though men in their ignorance of causes may think so.  The fortunes of a nation are not under the control of blind destiny but follow the steps by which a favoring Providence, calling our institutions into being, has conducted the country to its present happiness and glory.

In 1789, the same day the wording of the First Amendment had been finalized, Congress called on President Washington to declare a National Day of Prayer and thanksgiving. Washington’s proclamation stated that “it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor.”

John Adams, in his 1798 Proclamation, stated something similar – [T]he safety and prosperity of nations ultimately and essentially depend on the protection and blessing of Almighty God; and the national acknowledgment of this truth is . . . an indispensable duty which the people owe to Him.  Notice both Washington and Adams called it a duty to acknowledge and obey God!

Our Founders gave us a Declaration and set up a Constitution based on Biblical principles.  They thought that any laws that did not coincide with the laws of God were not only bad, but should be considered null and void.

John Locke, another quoted regularly by our Founders whose Two Treatises on Government set the blueprint for the Declaration, said in it – The law of nature stands as an eternal rule to all men, legislators as well as others.   The rules that they make for other men’s actions must…be conformable to the law of nature, i.e., to the will of God.  Human laws must be made according to the general laws of nature and without contradiction to any positive law of Scripture, otherwise they are ill made.

 Sir William Blackstone, another favorite of the Founders, his Commentaries on the Laws of England, 1765 was used as our basic law book.  In it he wrote – Man, considered as a creature, must necessarily be subject to the laws of his Creator, for he is entirely a dependent being… it is necessary that he should in all points conform to his Maker’s will.  This will of his Maker is called the law of nature.  This law of nature…dictated by God himself, is of course superior in obligation to any other.  It is binding over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times: no human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this; and such of them as are valid derive all their force, and all their authority, mediately or immediately, from this original… the doctrines thus delivered we call the revealed or divine law and they are to be found only in the holy Scriptures.  These precepts, when revealed, are found upon caparison to be really a part of the original law of nature…  Upon these two foundations, the law of nature and the law of revelation, depend all human laws; that is to say, no human laws should be suffered to contradict these.

 James Wilson, Signer of the Constitution, original Supreme Court Justice.  Human law must rest its authority ultimately upon the authority of that law which is divine… Far from being rivals or enemies, religion and law are twin sister, friends, and mutual assistants.  Indeed, these two sciences run into each other.

Today, our nation is trying to divorce civil law from God’s law and to exclude God entirely from our political discourse.  Our nation is reaping the consequences of that today!  God will not be mocked.

Our Founders saw that the ability for true self-government was gained only by the power of converted lives to Christianity.

John Adams: “We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion.  Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net.  Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people.  It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

Robert Winthrop (Speaker of the House).  Men, in a word must necessarily be controlled either by a power within them or by a power without them; either by the Word of God or by the strong arm of man; either by the Bible or by the bayonet.

James McHenry (Secretary of War under George Washington) – The Holy Scriptures… can alone secure to society, order and peace, and to our courts of justice and constitutions of government, purity, stability, and usefulness.  In vain, without the Bible, we increase penal laws and draw entrenchments around our institutions.  Bibles are strong entrenchments.  Where they abound, men cannot pursue wicked courses.

Our Founders also knew the disastrous consequences for a nation if God’s rules were not followed.

Washington (First Inaugural Address).  We ought to be no less persuaded that the propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right which Heaven itself has ordained.

Charles Carroll (Signer of Declaration, Framer of the Bill of Rights) – Without morals a republic cannot subsist any length of time; they therefore who are decrying the Christian religion… are undermining the solid foundation of morals – the best security for the duration of free governments.

Jedidiah Morse (Founder of American Geography) – To the kindly influence of Christianity we owe that degree of civil freedom and political and social happiness which mankind now enjoy.  In proportion as the genuine effects of Christianity are diminished in any nation… in the same proportion will the people of that nation recede from the blessings of genuine freedom…. All efforts made to destroy the foundations of our Holy Religion ultimately tend to the subversion also of our political freedom and happiness.  Whenever the pillars of Christianity shall be overthrown, our present republican forms of government – and all the blessings which flow from them – must fall with them.

Why are we declining as a nation?  You just heard it from Our Founders.  When we as a nation turn away from God and His laws, we reap the just consequences.  We as a nation have embraced all kinds of ungodly behavior.  It is scary to think how far we may fall as a result.

What can we do about it?

Noah Webster.  When you become entitled to exercise the right of voting for public office, let it be impressed on your mind that God commands you to choose for rulers just men who will rule in the fear of God.  The preservation of a republican government depends on the faithful discharge of this duty; if the citizens neglect their duty and place unprincipled men in office, the government will soon be corrupted; laws will be made not for the public good so much as for selfish or local purposes; corrupt or incompetent men will be appointed to execute the laws; the public revenues will be squandered on unworthy men; and the rights of the citizens will be violated or disregarded.  If a republican government fails to secure public prosperity and happiness, it must be because the citizens neglect the Divine commands and elect bad men to make and administer the laws. 

John Jay (First Chief Justice, co-author of the Federalist Papers) – Providence has given to our people the choice of the rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest for Christian nations, to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.

I know all of us in this room did their duty and voted for the most godly (or the least ungodly) of the candidates in all the races.   My prayer is that it is not too late to make America Great Again! 

What happens when one or more States claim they have inaccurate results and can’t decide which person won the vote? Is the Supreme Court or any lower court supposed to decide those issues?  What happens if there’s no certified winner in a State by December 14^th when the electors are supposed to cast their ballots?  What happens if because of that, neither candidate gets the required 270 electoral college votes to win?

Again, we have to go to the source to see what should happen in a contested election.   Remember, the Constitution gives Congress the authority to make specific rules for the times of the elections; which they have done by law.   Article II Section 1 says this; The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.

States have more than a month in which to count ballots and conduct recounts if necessary. While deadlines vary, mail-in ballots can come in until Nov. 23. States then have until Dec. 12 to certify the election results. The Electoral College will not hold a vote for electors to cast their state’s ballots until Dec. 14.

As a refresher, how many electors does each State get?  Article II Section 1 says; 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.  So, Tennessee gets 11, nine for our Representatives in Congress and two for our Senators.

How are each States electors awarded?  Per the Constitution, each state legislature gets to decide.   I just read it – Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors.  So, how do most states do it?  It has varied over the years, with some States originally having their legislatures vote for the electors.  Today, all but two States have a winner take all setup.   Whoever wins the popular vote in the State wins all their electoral votes.   Maine and Nebraska are the exceptions; they use a district system – two electors vote for the statewide winner and the rest vote for who won in their district.

How did we come up with 270 electoral votes to win the election? The House has 435 members and the Senate has 100.  That makes 535 and half of that plus one (to have the simple majority) is 268.  Why 270?  Well back in 1961, The XXIII Amendment was passed which gave residents in Washington DC ability to vote for electors, since they are not citizens of any other State.   The amendment says; The District constituting the seat of Government of the United States shall appoint in such manner as the Congress may direct: A number of electors for the President and Vice President equal to the whole numbers of Senators and Representatives in Congress to which the District would be entitled if it were a State, but in no event more than the least populous State; they shall be in addition to those appointed by the States…

This added 3 more electors to the mix In the Electoral College, so that the candidate who receives at least 270 of the 538 electoral votes will win the White House.

So, what happens If there’s no winner, in other words, if no candidate receives the required 270 electoral votes? Does it go to the courts to decide?

No! According to the 12th Amendment, the House of Representatives elects the president and the Senate elects the vice president.

Here is what the 12^th Amendment says about it; …and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President.  But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of member or members from two-thirds of the states and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice.

So, the House gets to decide the President from the top three vote getters, but it’s not a straight vote by all 435 lawmakers.  Instead, each state casts a unified ballot — one state, one vote.

What about the Vice President?   The 12^th Amendment goes on to say; …and if no person have a majority [for the Vice President], then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice…

So, the Senate chooses the VP from the top two candidates, but each Senator gets a vote.  How interesting!  We could actually get a President and a VP from different parties in that case.

Remember, the whole purpose of the 12^th Amendment was to prevent that very thing as resulted from the 1796 election where John Adams was elected President and Thomas Jefferson his VP.  Both had run for President, in what was the first bitterly contentious election in our history.  Then in 1800, Jefferson and Aaron Burr tied in electoral votes because Burr was in essence running for VP with Jefferson.  By the rules of the original Constitution before being amended, the House again elected the President, but it took several ballots to elect Jefferson.  Hence, the XII Amendment was ratified in 1804

Has the 12^th Amendment ever kicked in and the House elected the President?  That has happened twice; once in 1825 when John Quincy Adams was elected by the House.  During the 1824 election, there were 4 people that received electoral college votes, and no one received the required majority.   Andrew Jackson actually received the most votes in the electoral college with Adams receiving the second most.   But the House elected Adams.

The last election to require congressional intervention was the contested 1876 presidential election between Republican Rutherford B. Hayes of Ohio and Democrat Samuel J. Tilden of New York. Tilden won the popular vote and the electoral count. But Republicans challenged the results in three Southern states, which submitted certificates of election for both candidates.  While the Constitution requires the House and Senate to formally count the certificates of election in joint session, it is silent on what Congress should do to resolve disputes. In January 1877, Congress established the Federal Electoral Commission to investigate the disputed Electoral College ballots. The bipartisan commission, which included Representatives, Senators, and Supreme Court Justices, voted along party lines to award all the contested ballots to Hayes—securing the presidency for him by a single electoral vote. As it turned out, the election of Hayes was really a political deal, because Republicans had promised to end Reconstruction of the Democrat South if Hayes was elected.

What would probably happen in this election if it went to the House?  Twenty-seven states currently have a majority of Republican representatives, 22 have a majority of Democrats, and one state tied. If a president isn’t selected before Congress reconvenes on Jan. 6, 2021, Republicans in the House would likely pick their candidate: Donald Trump. But all that could change depending on the outcome of House and Senate elections because the new Congress will be sitting when the electoral votes are counted in Congress.

No one knows what will happen in the election, but some prognosticators say it could take a while before the winner is known because of all the mail in ballots.

Why are people talking about the courts getting involved?   We need to go back to the 2000 election to see what happened then.  In that election, both George W. Bush and Al Gore came up short of the 270 electoral votes needed because Florida, with 25 electoral votes, remained up in the air due to its troubles counting the ballots.  Bush won the original count by only 500+ votes and Gore demanded a recount.   Both sides appealed to the courts, Gore for the recount, Bush to stop the recount.   Eventually, the Supreme Court overturned the Florida Supreme Court, ruling 5-4 that there would be no more recounting of Florida’s disputed presidential votes, giving Bush the victory.   This happened before the December 18 meeting of the electoral college – so there was no need for a vote in the House.

What is the problem with the courts weighing in on the election?  Well, in my opinion, the left always appeals to the courts when they want their way, because they can usually find liberal judges to side with them, regardless of the legality of the issue.   Is it a courts decision to determine the election count?  No!  It is the duty of whatever election commission has been set up by each State.  In the case of Florida, it was the Florida Secretary of State who had the ultimate authority to certify the election results.   We need to let those who are responsible by law to make the decisions they are authorized to make and not fall back on the courts for such decisions.

I hope we don’t regress into that arena this election season.

A couple of months ago I talked on the violations of our Federal Constitution during the Covid panic.   The main thrust of my argument is that our God given rights can’t be violated due to an “emergency”.  Specifically, these basic freedoms guaranteed by The Fifth Amendment which says; No person shall be… deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

It is readily apparent that our liberty and property have been taken without due process or just compensation.

Today, I want to focus on the violations of our State Constitution during this panic.  Our Tennessee Constitution is an amazing document that actually give us more protection of our God-Given rights than the US Constitution.   If you haven’t read it recently, you need to read it again.

Before I get into the Tennessee Constitution, let’s look at the US Constitution and see what is says about the powers of the States.  What does the 10^th Amendment say about the powers of the States?  The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.  This amendment codifies into the Constitution the intent of the Founders for a limited National government as described in Madison’s statement in Federalist paper #45, that – The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the Federal Government, are few and defined.  Those which are to remain in the State Governments are numerous and indefinite.   So, the State governments powers are numerous and indefinite, subject only to the limitations imposed in the Constitution.  What are those limitations?  There are several, most in Article 1 Section 10.

• No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.
• No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it’s inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.
• No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

As you can see, those powers prohibited to the states are those that have specifically been given to the Federal Government.  But it does give the states leeway to do almost anything else.

Are there any others limitations?  Yes, all the restrictions on government as a result of our God-given rights, mostly listed in the Bill of Rights, apply to the States as well.   I’ve already mentioned the 5^th Amendment.  Interestingly, there has been a debate over the years that the Bill of Rights in the US Constitution didn’t necessarily apply to the States.  The reasoning is clear when you look at how the First Amendment starts.   It says Congress shall make no law … The courts have since declared that all these rights were expanded by the 14^th Amendment to apply to the States as well.

I don’t have time to get into that particular discussion, but originally, each State Constitution listed their own Bill of Rights to make sure our freedoms were not violated, and our Tennessee Constitution is no exception.  Our Tennessee Constitution actually list our rights first and has 36 sections in Article I that repeat and expand upon the Bill of Rights in the US Constitution.  On an historical note, our Tennessee Constitution was first drafted in 1796 and was seen by Thomas Jefferson to be the “least imperfect” and the “most republican” of all state constitutions.  It has gone through remarkable few changes by amendment since then.

Now to the constitutional issue at hand.  Governor Lee has evoked emergency powers per TCA §58-2-107, titled Emergency Management Powers of the Governor.  This statute is somewhat vague and gives almost dictatorial powers to the Governor during an “emergency”, which is not defined; however, a natural disaster such as a tornado or earthquake is implied.   The governor has used this statute to make various mandates such as business closures, stay at home orders, curfews, mask mandates and arbitrary essential worker proclamations which restrict our Liberty.  This all begs the question – does that law violate the Tennessee Constitution?   I will answer – yes!   Of course, if it violates our State Constitution, does the legislature have the authority to pass such a law and does the Governor have the authority to act on such a law?  The obvious answer is – NO!!

Let’s look at where I and others think this law specifically violates the Tennessee Constitution.

The Tennessee Constitution starts with a list of our rights and restrictions on our state government in Article I.   If you read the list, you will notice that it mirrors in some ways our Federal Bill of Rights and also adds more rights and restrictions to government.

Significant is Section 2. which says – That government being instituted for the common benefit, the doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power and oppression is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.

This is very important because it sets the stage for the whole philosophy of government for our State.  In other words, we as citizens of Tennessee have a duty to resist tyranny.

Article I, Section 8 of the Tennessee Constitution states, That no man shall be taken or imprisoned, or disseized of his freehold, liberties or privileges, or outlawed, or exiled, or in any manner destroyed or deprived of his life, liberty or property, but by the judgment of his peers, or the law of the land.  The law of the land means a law and therefore can only be instituted by an action of the General Assembly per this constitution.   All business closures, mask mandates and stay-at-home orders are therefore a direct violation of the Declaration of Rights in Article I because they have not been enacted by law.

Other applicable restrictions in the Covid panic are Section 20 which says – That no retrospective law, or law impairing the obligations of contracts, shall be made.  This means that the government can’t interfere after the fact with citizens and business entities to enter into contractual obligations such as leases, mortgages, supplier agreements, employment contracts, etc.   The governor has certainly done that by closing and restricting businesses so that they can’t meet their obligations.

Also, Section 21 which says – That no man’s particular services shall be demanded, or property taken, or applied to public use, without the consent of his representatives, or without just compensation being made therefore.  Neither the provision of consent of his representatives or just compensation has been made for business closures or curfews which have effectively taken those properties for the public health.

Although not entirely applicable, Section 25 talks about Martial Law.  It says – That martial law, in the sense of the unrestricted power of military officers, or others, to dispose of the persons, liberties or property of the citizen, is inconsistent with the principles of free government, and is not confided to any department of the government of this state.  Although not perpetrated by the military, what our governor and mayors are doing is in effect the same as Martial Law and is inconsistent with the spirit of this section.

The summation of our rights is in Article XI, Section 16 which states – The declaration of rights hereto prefixed is declared to be a part of the Constitution of the state, and shall never be violated on any pretense whatever. And to guard against transgression of the high powers we have delegated, we declare that everything in the bill of rights contained, is excepted out of the general powers of the government, and shall forever remain inviolate.  That means that even a so-called state of emergency does not give anyone in the government – legislature, executive, or judicial – the authority to violate these rights!

So, looking at all these rights, the TN Constitution does allow the Legislature to make such laws that would mandate business closures, etc., but not without just compensation to the affected businesses that they have in effect “taken” for the public health.

Now the question is, can the legislature delegate their law-making powers to the governor?

In TCA §58-2-107(a)(2), the Emergency Management Powers of the Governor, it states – The governor may issue executive orders, proclamations, and rules and may amend or rescind them. Such executive orders, proclamations, and rules have the force and effect of law.  This is an obvious violation of the Tennessee Constitution as Article II gives only the Legislative Department the power to make laws in the state of Tennessee.  Additionally, Article III gives no law-making power to the Executive Department as it states in Section 10, the governor only has power to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed”.  To further emphasize that point, Article II, Section 2 states that “No person or persons belonging to one of these departments (referring to legislature, executive, and judicial) shall exercise any of the powers properly belonging to either of the others.”

Since the governor doesn’t have the authority to make law, can he delegate authority to make law to lower executives or agencies?  Of course not!   But in TCA §58-2-107(a)(1), “…The governor is authorized to delegate such powers as the governor may deem prudent”  This again is a violation of the Tennessee Constitution as Article VII, Section 1 states – The qualified voters of each county shall elect for terms of four years a legislative body, a county executive, a sheriff, a trustee, a register, a county clerk and an assessor of property. Their qualifications and duties shall be prescribed by the General Assembly.  Therefore, the Governor has no constitutional authority to delegate powers to county mayors and especially unelected Health departments that have not been given them by the General Assembly.

Of course, there are many in our own government who applaud the unconstitutional actions of the Governor.  In July, Tennessee Attorney General Herbert Slatery issued an opinion on the constitutionality of orders to wear masks in the state of Tennessee. He found such orders justifiable based on the Jacobson test of Jacobson v Massachusetts, a 1905 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld the police powers of the State to mandate a smallpox vaccine.  This mandate was passed by an act of the Massachusetts legislature.  Now whether you agree with this Supreme Court ruling or not, the case was about a law made by a legitimate act of a legislature versus an order given by executive fiat without any legislative action whatsoever.  So, the Jacobson test does not serve as a precedent for the executive actions being taken by Governor Bill Lee.

It is time we made our voices heard and demand a stop to these unconstitutional edicts of the executive departments in our State.   There is a group called Tennessee Stands, from whom I got much of this information, who is attempting to sue the governor on this issue.   Their website is at tennesseestands.org.  I urge you to go to their website, read the material and sign their petition.  If we conservatives stand together on this, we can prevail and get these edicts reversed and get people to understand how are Liberties have been violated.   There is currently an ad hoc committee of the General Assembly reviewing the Emergency Powers of the Governor.   Hopefully, they will repeal or at least change the law in their next session.  We need to encourage our Representatives to do that.

Since we have time, I want to get into the whole hoax of this panic.   Notice I have been referring to the Covid panic instead of a pandemic.   Here are some of the inconsistencies and outright falsehoods which make me believe this panic is fabricated with a specific intent to hurt our country and promote a leftist agenda.

• This was first called a pandemic by one member of the WHO (World Health Organization is notoriously leftist in philosophy) who may or may not be qualified and who may have had an ulterior motive. At the very least, he was just trying to cover his rear!   Everyone immediately jumped on the bandwagon without much consideration.
• Most responses by State governors have been more of a “we need to do something” knee jerk reaction than well thought out analysis on the issue.
• Masks mandates do not work! Dr Fauci said early on that masks do not work.  He has changed his mind now.  Let’s look at the facts.
• On April 3, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration issued guidance for respiratory protection for workers exposed to people with the virus. It stated clearly — “Surgical masks and eye protection (e.g., face shields, goggles) were provided as an interim measure to protect against splashes and large droplets (note: surgical masks are not respirators and do not provide protection against aerosol-generating procedures).”  In other words, a mask might help if someone is coughing and hacking, but not for regular transmission of the disease.  The coronavirus is roughly 100 nanometers, 1/1000 the width of a hair and 1/30 the size of surgical mask filtrations, surgical masks (not to mention cloth ones) do not help. I have heard the analogy that it is like trying to catch a mosquito with a chain link fence.  The virus is too small to be stopped by a mask, even the best kind.  This would explain why experience has shown that everywhere universal mask orders have been in place for months, those mask orders have failed to slow or stop the spread of the infection.  The CDC, as late as May, produced data that showed “no significant reduction in influenza transmission with the use of face masks.”  Other reports showed the same results.  On March 8, Dr. Fauci asserted on “60 Minutes”, “There’s no reason to be walking around with a ask,” . He went on to explain that masks can only block large droplets, they give a false sense of security, and they cause people to get more germs on their hands by fiddling with it.  Several weeks later, Surgeon General Jerome Adams said that based on a study that shows medical students who wear masks touch their faces 23 times more often than without, one has to assume that “wearing a mask improperly can actually increase your risk of getting disease.”   There have been other studies that show wearing masks actually contribute to other health issues because of the trapped bacteria in the masks during prolonged use.  Those facts don’t change with time, but the politics do.
• So why does Fauci recommend masked now? He said it is phycological – people feel better protected if they are wearing one therefore, we all should!  The real answer is that he is bowing to the wants of the left who want absolute power over us!
• It has been shown statistically that the deaths attributed to Covid are those who are in the most vulnerable positions of health, age and/or other significant medical issues. This data shows that the death rates are no worse than those same groups of people being exposed to the flu.  But do we hear about flu deaths in the media?  No!
• The number of Covid cases have been greatly exaggerated. There have been numerous examples of false positive.  A recent article in the New York Times (which is by no means a conservative newspaper) stated that the testing for Covid is too sensitive and suggested that 40% to 90% of all positive test could be false or non-contagious.   Have you heard that repeated in the major media?  No, of course not.
• The number of cases and deaths by Covid have been greatly exaggerated. Senator and Doctor Scott Jenson explained that Medicare has determined that if you have a COVID-19 admission to the hospital you get $13,000.  If that COVID-19 patient goes on a ventilator you get $39,000.  California hospitals have been getting $50,000 from the government for each Covid “related” death.
• As a result, any death these days is likely to be listed as Covid related because of the financial incentive to hospitals.  My wife had a friend whose husband died of a heart attack, yet his death was listed as Covid “related”.  I’m sure you have heard similar anecdotal stories.  They don’t prove widespread abuses, but as is commonly said – “Follow the Money” to get the real story.
• Just the other day, Biden claimed that almost 119,000 military members have contracted Covid and there have been 6,114 deaths to military members due to Covid. The DOD stats show only 58,000 testing positive and only 7 deaths!  This is typical of the outright lies and misinformation from the left and their media accomplices.
• We hear every day how the number of positive cases has shot up, especially on the UT campus. First, if you do a lot more testing (which we are doing at least 5 times more testing than at the start), the number of positives will naturally go up.  Second, how many of those who test positive are actually sick?   We are never told.   I think the reality is that very few actually have symptoms and if they do it is like a mild cold for a couple of days as I have heard from UT students.  What is the big deal with that?
• The science behind the call for 6 ft Social Distancing is very weak, the WHO says 3ft works. By the way, the term Social Distancing was actually made up by a high schooler several years back and the left has jumped on that bandwagon.
• Although Covid can be as serious as the flu, it is not like the flu in one way. If you have the flu, you will have symptoms – you will feel terrible.   If you have the flu and kiss your wife, she will get the flu and have symptoms.   The same is not true with Covid.  You can test positive and not have symptoms and kiss your wife and not necessarily pass Covid to her.

I was going to tell a Covid joke – but 98% of you wouldn’t get it!

The big question is – Have all the lockdowns and other draconian measures worked?   There is no real evidence that it has.  Why are we ruining our economy for questionable results?

The left’s mantra is that if it only saves one life, it is worth it.  Really!  If that is the case, we should outlaw cars, look at all the lives we will save.   We should outlaw swimming, someone could drown.  You get the picture.  There are plenty of things we do that could kill us, we don’t quit life because of a small probability of danger.

There are many unintended but predictable consequences to the government mandates to stay at home or close businesses.   Many people are not getting regular hospital treatments, like cancer screenings, chemotherapy, or colonoscopy’s because they are afraid to go to the hospital or clinic.  Even people with something as serious as a stroke are not going to the emergency room out of fear.  How many people have died because of lack of proper care?  Child abuse cases at emergency rooms have gone up 35% during the lockdowns.  These are not just bruises; these are serious cases where the parents think they have almost killed their child.  The stress of lockdowns, unemployment and the children at home instead of school have led to these horrors.

Also, how many more suicides have we had as a result of all the fear tactics and these draconian measures?  How many more drug overdoses, how much more alcoholism?  The left never looks at the big picture, mainly because they don’t really care about people, they care only about their own power.  You Tube has actually taken down many posts from qualified doctors who have been explaining everything I’ve just said.  But of course, there is no conspiracy!!

The left has also used this panic to interfere with State election laws in the hopes of defeating President Trump in the upcoming election.   The courts have used the panic as an excuse to demand that states accept write in ballots just because people are “afraid”.   These rulings violate State election laws, specifically our Tennessee laws about absentee ballots.   What Constitutional justification do the courts use?  None!  There reasoning is simply they don’t like it and its not “fair” to make people vote in person if they are afraid.  Although the left denies it, it is common sense that write in ballots make voter fraud a lot easier.

I am not saying that Covid isn’t real or isn’t a serious health concern.   Of course, it is.  Those who are at high risk need to take precautions.  However, since the death rates are similar to the flu, why are we reacting as if it is the Black Plague?  We don’t shut the economy down every flu season!

Yet we have turned our society into a horror show were everyone is wearing a mask everywhere, even alone in their own car.  We have the Covid Nazis who tell me to put my mask on because I am “endangering their life”.   I personally refuse to bow to tyranny and therefore refuse to wear a mask unless a store owner demands it.   The only place I’ve ever been asked to put a mask on is Cosco because it is the store policy, not because of a government mandate.  They implemented the policy before the mandate.   No other store has bothered me when I don’t were a mask.  In fact, the look I get most often is “I wish I could take my mask off”.

We have local health departments, who have no authority whatsoever, imposing curfews and business closures. We have government taking away the livelihood of many small businesses who will close and probably never re-open.

We are being set up!   What will be the next crisis?  If we don’t stand against this tyranny now, we will never be able to resist when another “crisis” arises with more draconian methods.  Where are the patriots that can say today – give me liberty or give me death! 

Let’s see what the Constitution says on the eligibility factor.  First, the 12th Amendment provides that “no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.” Okay, that’s pretty clear.  FYI, the 12^th amendment was added because the original Constitution did not anticipate the 2-Party system and gave the Vice Presidency to the runner up in the Electoral College. After the contentious election of 1796 where John Adams won, but his rival Jefferson became Vice President, our Founders decided that wasn’t such a good idea and adopted the 12^th Amendment.

Now what is the citizenship requirement to be President?  Article II of the Constitution specifies that “[n]o person except a natural born citizen…shall be eligible to the office of President.”

First, why would the Founders put the requirement to be a natural born citizen in the Constitution?  Well, they wanted to make sure that the chief executive was not in any way beholding to a foreign power.  Where did they get the wisdom for that idea?  From the Bible – Deuteronomy 17:15 says: you may indeed set a king over you whom the Lord your God will choose. One from among your brothers you shall set as king over you. You may not put a foreigner over you, who is not your brother.  This great advice from the Lord was incorporated in the Constitution.

Now back to Kamala Harris.  Her father was (and is) a Jamaican national, her mother was from India, and neither was a naturalized U.S. citizen at the time of Harris’ birth in 1964. Does that make her a “natural born citizen” or not?   Contrary to the media, that is an important question that will determine her eligibility for the office of the president and, hence, eligibility for the office of the vice president.

The original Constitution did not define citizenship, but the 14th Amendment does and it is what everyone points to for resolution of this issue.  The 14^th Amendment says this in Section 1 – “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, … are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside.”

Is that what it says?  Well no, I skipped a section.  What it actually says is “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside.”

Those who claim that birth alone is sufficient overlook the second phrase. I have read articles and heard news reports that conveniently leave that phrase out.   That is a very important phrase because it makes a qualification on citizenship for those born in the US.

What does “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof”.  mean?  Again, to understand we must go back to the intent of those who proposed and ratified the Amendment.

The view of those who authored the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause was that it meant subject to the complete jurisdiction, not merely a partial jurisdiction such as that which applies to anyone temporarily sojourning in the United States (whether lawfully or unlawfully).

Of course, everyone knows the real intent of the Amendment was to ensure that freed slaves were granted citizenship in both their State and the United States.  It also overturned the Dred Scott decision that denied citizenship to slaves and freed slaves.  The Left has a way of reading the clear intent of a law, the Constitution, or an amendment and expanding it to meet their purposes.   The 14th Amendment has been used more than any other for that purpose.   But what of Birthright Citizenship?  Did the authors and ratifiers of the 14^th Amendment intend to include that in this Amendment?

The Left claims that anyone born in the United States is automatically a U.S. citizen, even if their parents are here illegally. But that ignores the text and legislative history of the 14th Amendment, which was ratified in 1868.

The Left erroneously states that anyone present in the United States has “subjected” himself “to the jurisdiction” of the United States, which would extend citizenship to the children of tourists, diplomats, and illegal aliens alike.  But that is not what that qualifying phrase means. Its original meaning refers to the political allegiance of an individual and the jurisdiction that a foreign government has over that individual.

Before the 14th Amendment, citizenship was granted by states, and subsequently recognized by the federal government.  When the 14th Amendment was enacted, there were few limits on immigration and very few persons in the United States would have been residing here illegally. There is simply no direct evidence that Congress wished to confer citizenship on the children of temporary or illegal visitors, but there is a lot evidence that they did not.

The fact that a tourist or illegal alien is subject to our laws and our courts if they violate our laws does not place them within the political “jurisdiction” of the United States as that phrase was defined by the framers of the 14th Amendment.

This amendment’s language was derived from the 1866 Civil Rights Act, which provided that “[a]ll persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power” would be considered citizens.

Sen. Lyman Trumbull, a key figure in the adoption of the 14th Amendment, said that “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S. included not owing allegiance to any other country.

In the Slaughter-House cases of 1872, the Supreme Court stated that this qualifying phrase was intended to exclude “children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.” This was confirmed in 1884 in another case, Elk vs. Wilkins, when citizenship was denied to an American Indian because he “owed immediate allegiance to” his tribe and not the United States.

American Indians and their children did not become citizens until Congress passed the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924. There would have been no need to pass such legislation if the 14th Amendment extended citizenship to every person born in America, no matter what the circumstances of their birth, and no matter who their parents are.

The Left also claims that the issue was settled in 1898 in the case of US v. Wong Kim Ark.   First, I will say again that the Supreme Court is not supposed to make law and is not the final authority for all things Constitutional.  Secondly, even in that case, the court only held that a child born of lawful, permanent residents was a U.S. citizen. That is a far cry from saying that a child born of individuals who are here illegally or temporarily must be considered a U.S. citizen.  I believe the court’s interpretation of the 14th Amendment as extending to the children of legal, noncitizens was incorrect, according to the text and legislative history of the amendment. But even under that holding, citizenship was not extended to the children of illegal aliens or temporary residents—only permanent, legal residents.

Indeed, the Supreme Court has never held that anyone born on U.S. soil, no matter the circumstances of the parents, is automatically a U.S. citizen.

What is the practical history of this issue since these cases?  The children born on U.S. soil to guest workers from Mexico during the Roaring 1920s were not viewed as citizens, for example, when, in the wake of the Great Depression, their families were repatriated to Mexico.  Nor were the children born on U.S. soil to guest workers in the bracero program of the 1950s and early 1960s deemed citizens when that program ended, and their families emigrated back to their home countries.

It is just plain wrong to claim that the children born of parents temporarily in the country as students or tourists or illegals are automatically U.S. citizens: They do not meet the 14th Amendment’s jurisdictional allegiance obligations. They are, in fact, subject to the political jurisdiction (and allegiance) of the country of their parents.

You may be thinking, since there is no clear reason to give birthright citizenship in the 14^th Amendment or anywhere else in the Constitution, why are we doing it?  Good question!

Federal law offers no answer.   U.S. immigration law (8 U.S.C. § 1401) simply repeats the language of the 14th Amendment, including the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”

Granted, our government’s view of the Constitution’s citizenship mandate has morphed over the decades to what is now an absolute “you are a US citizen if you are born on the soil – no matter the circumstances”.  This view has encouraged abuses from illegal aliens to expectant mothers who fly to the States on “vacation” to have their babies so they can be US citizens.

When and how did this happen?  Sometime in the late 1960’s, the State Department began interpreting that statute erroneously and thus began to provide passports to anyone born in the United States, regardless of whether their parents are here illegally and regardless of whether the applicant meets the requirement of being “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S.   Accordingly, birthright citizenship has been implemented by fiat from an unelected bureaucracy, not because it is required by federal law or the Constitution.

This notion has gone unchallenged for the last 50 years, it is time to start challenging it, especially with an important question of whether Harris is eligible.

So, before we accept Senator Harris’ eligibility for the office of vice president, we should ask her a few questions about the status of her parents at the time of her birth.

Were Harris’ parents’ lawful permanent residents at the time of her birth? If so, then under the Wong Kim Ark case, she could be deemed a citizen at birth—that is, a natural-born citizen—and hence eligible. Or were they instead, as seems to be the case, merely temporary visitors, perhaps on student visas issued pursuant to Section 101(15)(F) of Title I of the 1952 Immigration Act? If the latter were indeed the case, then Harris was not subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States at birth, but instead owed her allegiance to a foreign power or powers and would not be a natural born citizen.

Interestingly, this recitation of the original meaning of the 14th Amendment Citizenship Clause might also call into question Harris’ eligibility for her current position as a United States Senator. Article I, Section 3 of the Constitution specifies that to be eligible for the office of senator, one must have been “nine Years a Citizen of the United States.” If Harris was not a citizen at birth, we would need to know when (if ever) she became a citizen.  There is some dispute over whether her parents were in fact ever naturalized, and if so, when.   If neither was ever naturalized, or at least not naturalized before Harris’ 16th birthday (which would have allowed her to obtain citizenship derived from their naturalization under the immigration law, at the time), then she would have had to become naturalized herself in order to be a citizen. That does not appear to have ever happened, yet without it, she could not have been “nine Years a Citizen of the United States” before her election to the U.S. Senate.

I have no doubt that the Left will dismiss out of hand this significant challenge to Harris’ constitutional eligibility for Vice-President or President, because they have such loathing for our Constitution and the rule of law.  They will actually fight tooth and nail to maintain that she is eligible and it goes way beyond just her running for VP.   The whole issue of birthright citizenship is at stake.   They want/ need all the illegals to become citizens so they can add to the number of Democrat voters.

But, the concerns about divided allegiance that led our nation’s Founders to include the “natural-born citizen” requirement for the office of president and commander-in-chief remain important.  It is obvious from Harris’ rhetoric that she does not hold a tight allegiance to our Founders view of America.  I don’t think she is capable of the oath to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States?”

I encourage all of you to read the full text of the law.   It was brilliantly written – the first 2/3rds or more of the law explains why Roe v Wade was a bad decision that needs to be overturned.   We don’t have time to read the whole thing but let me pull out some of the wording to give you a flavor for the Constitutional arguments in the law.

WHEREAS, the General Assembly also wants to begin by making clear its allegiance to the separation of powers between the legislative and judicial branches, the principles arising from the existence of dual sovereigns and the limited powers and objects of the federal or national government under the United States Constitution, and its understanding of the limited nature of the judicial power as one of judgment and not will or force; and WHEREAS, the General Assembly agrees with the statement made by Abraham Lincoln in his first inaugural address, “If the policy of the Government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions, the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal”

WHEREAS, Article VI, clause 2 of the United States Constitution, known as the Supremacy Clause, makes the Constitution itself supreme as to the law governing the whole of the people and makes no reference to opinions of the United States Supreme Court which only “say what the law is,”

WHEREAS, on the basis of the foregoing, the General Assembly agrees with the rebuke by Justice Antonin Scalia of a dissenting opinion authored by Justice Stephen Breyer in Apprendi v. New Jersey, because it proceeded “on the erroneous and all-too common assumption that the Constitution means what [Supreme Court Justices] think it ought to mean. It does not; it means what it says”

WHEREAS, both the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments provide, as enumerated rights, that neither the federal or state governments shall deprive “any person” of “life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”; and WHEREAS, according to the Ninth Amendment, this enumerated right shall not be “construed” to deny and disparage the rights the people held at common law;

WHEREAS, the General Assembly heard un-rebutted testimony that “the first duty of every state is to secure the rights that people already have”; and WHEREAS, Blackstone’s Commentaries is in accord with such testimony, wherein it is written, “the principal aim of society is to protect individuals in the enjoyment of those absolute rights, which were vested in them by the immutable laws of nature,” and, “hence, it follows, that the first and primary end of human law is to maintain and regulate these absolute rights of individuals,”

WHEREAS, based on the common law as explicated in Blackstone’s Commentaries, the framers of the U.S. Constitution understood the word “life” as being “the immediate gift of God, a right inherent by nature in every individual; and it begins in contemplation of law as soon as an infant is able to stir in the mother’s womb”

WHEREAS, this analysis [referring to the Roe Court decision] blatantly ignores the United States Supreme Court’s own use of the common law and Blackstone’s Commentaries to define and understand other terms in the United States Constitution, as previously described;

WHEREAS, Article I, Section 2 of the Tennessee Constitution rightly says “[t]hat government being instituted for the common benefit, the doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power … is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind”  (remember that when we discuss arbitrary powers in the Covid situation.)

WHEREAS, this provision of the Tennessee Constitution imposes a duty on the members of the General Assembly, as representatives of the people and in the promotion of their common good, to resist constitutional jurisprudence that rests upon arbitrary foundations and, as a consequence, produces arbitrary conclusions

WHEREAS, if unborn natural persons can be classified by the judiciary as persons having only such rights “as those who held the power and the Government might choose to grant them” as done in the Scott opinion and effectively done in the Roe opinion, then nothing logically prohibits those in power and on the United States Supreme Court from concluding in the future that the rights of other natural persons can be based on differing levels of development and function, their location, or how humane or brutally they are treated

WHEREAS, the General Assembly believes that knowingly permitting and constitutionally protecting any procedure that at any stage of pregnancy “rips apart” or “dismembers” a natural person is inhumane, callous, and conducive to the callousness toward life being demonstrated daily in our country and the growing lack of civility toward one another

WHEREAS, even though the Court in Roe confused scientific and medical questions about when a new human organism’s life begins… the General Assembly believes that science and medicine now unequivocally establish the answer to this question; “by common understanding and scientific terminology, a fetus is a living organism while within the womb, whether or not it is viable outside the womb”

WHEREAS, the people of Tennessee have determined that it is for its elected representatives, not the judicial branch, to declare and protect the pre-political absolute rights at common law of unborn persons

WHEREAS, based on all of the above, this General Assembly desires to exercise the powers belonging to it by virtue of the Tenth Amendment and the rights belonging to the “people” of Tennessee under the Ninth Amendment, … and fulfill its fundamental duty to declare and make more secure the absolute right of all natural persons within its sovereign jurisdiction to life; now, therefore …  The restriction on abortion follow.

Those are some of the Constitutional arguments in the law, they also have plenty of scientific arguments showing that life begins at conception.   Again, I encourage you to read the whole law.

By the wording I would assume the whole reason for all this background is to lay the groundworks for a challenge to the Roe v Wade decision that supposedly legalized abortion on demand.  We have all heard it said that Roe is the “law of the land” of other court decisions are the “law of the land”.   Again, I will ask the question, who makes the law?  Is it supposed to be the courts?   Or the Legislature?  This law rightly states the it is the duty of the Legislature, not the Courts to rule whether killing our babies is sanctioned by law or not!

Unfortunately, our Representatives inserted some items which in my opinion negates their whole argument.   The bad parts:

[Old/Revised Sections of statutes] are revived and shall be enforced if: (i) This section or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid or unconstitutional by judicial order; (ii) This section is temporarily or permanently restrained or enjoined by judicial order; (iii) This section is not otherwise enforceable for any reason during the pendency of litigation challenging this section’s validity or constitutionality; or (iv) The attorney general does not defend the validity or constitutionality of this section

In other words, this section in effect acquiesces to the courts without a fight by reverting back to the previous law.   Of course, it only took 45 minutes for a court to negate this law.   So why is our General Assembly bowing to the courts after they just wrote a brilliant explanation of why the courts are wrong?   Is this just to save the State court costs in hopes that it will eventually go to the Supreme Court?  Well, it could make its way to the Supreme Court, but it may not.  In the meantime, we still have the horrific reality of killing babies every day in our State.   Don’t you think baby’s lives are more important than some court costs!  Do our Representative not have the courage to stand up to one unelected judge?   The left-leaning States have no qualms about ignoring a perfectly legal and Constitutional laws.  Why are we on the right afraid to ignore a blatantly unconstitutional overreach of the courts, when we have not only the Constitution, but Righteousness on our side?  Also, if you think about it, this law would certainly get to the Supreme Court faster if our State defied the courts and kept the law in place.

Remember, nowhere in the Constitution does it give the courts the unchecked power to make the ultimate decisions on Constitutionality.   The three branches, by design, are supposed to check the other’s overreach of power.   The States, by design, are supposed to check the overreach of the Federal government.   The courts are by design supposed to be the weakest of the branches, not the strongest.   Why should our State Legislature and Governor bow to the courts?   The only reason the courts have become so powerful is that the other branches have believed the lies of the courts, started 150 years ago, when the courts themselves proclaim to be the final authority on the Constitution.   At times like these, with something as important as babies lives on the line, it is imperative that the Legislatures and Executives overrule the courts faulty rulings!  At 2 against 1 it should be easy.   If the executive refuses to comply with a court decision, and the legislature agrees, what can the courts do?  The courts can rant and rave all day but as Hamilton said in Federalist #78; The judiciary, on the contrary, has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments.

It is time to stop the tyranny of the courts.  Let’s We the People call on both our Governor and our State Legislature to pass a resolution to ignore the unconstitutional edicts of one judge and ultimately of the Supreme Courts, if necessary, to rid our State of the immorality of abortion.  Otherwise, God will judge us! 

First, let me start with an acknowledgement that the issue of when our elected officials cross the line is very complicated and some may disagree with my rational.   However, let’s start with the basic question – When is it OK for the government to disregard our Constitutional rights?   Is it OK in an emergency?  If so, who defines the emergency?   Is it ever OK for the government to violate our rights?    My answer is that it is never justified to nullify our God-Given rights.   Remember also that our Rights come from God and are inalienable.   Our Constitution just expresses certain rights that We the People wanted to ensure the government would not violate.   Do we give up our rights just because someone in government declares an emergency?    Our Constitution embodies the Bill of Rights to protect against that kind of tyranny!   It is exactly in this type of situation when we need the Bill of Rights the most.  We don’t need it when government is playing nice.   The first priority of government, in fact the justification for the existence of government (according to the Declaration of Independence and the Bible in Romans 13), is to protect the God-given rights of the people.

We also need to understand the idea of lawful authority in our Republic.  We don’t have an all-powerful King, we have elected officials who have certain limited roles and responsibilities, who have no authority to step outside those limited powers.   Let me give an example from the military.   How many here served in our military?   You all know the concept of lawful orders.   Suppose you are in charge of some prisoners of war and your commander orders you to execute those prisoners?  Would you do it?   Why not?  Of course, you would be wrong to obey that order and obligated to disobey it because that is an unlawful order.  That is a very obvious example, but the principle applies to our obedience to Presidents, governors, and mayors who overstep their authority and give unlawful edicts.   If our governor or mayor gives an order that they don’t have the authority to give, is it a lawful order?  No!   That is my point.   I do not believe that governors and mayors have the authority to implement many of the orders they have issued.   Of course, if we disobey those orders, we may find ourselves in jail, but that still doesn’t make their actions right.

Consider also the sign I’ve seen at some businesses that says – “Wearing masks recommended by Law”.  First, “recommended by law” is an oxymoron.   The law doesn’t recommend, it directs.  Second, who makes law?  Not the governor, not mayors, not Health departments, but the Legislature.   Has the Legislature passed a law that requires wearing masks?  No!  So that is not a law, although people take it that way and petty tyrants assume it is.

Let’s go to the Constitution to see what it says about emergencies such as this.  Does anyone know where in the Constitution it addresses national emergencies?  Sorry, it doesn’t.  The Constitution is totally quiet on the subject.  All we have to go by is what the Constitution says the government can do, and by extension everything else they can’t do!  That tells us all we need to know.   Of course, the powers delegated to the Federal Government are few and limited, but the powers delegated to the States are numerous and undefined (Tenth Amendment).   So clearly, the States have much more potential authority to deal with emergencies than the Federal government.

Let’s look first at what authority the Federal government could have concerning this pandemic.  Under the original meaning of the Commerce Clause which states – Congress shall have Power … To regulate Commerce with Foreign Nations, Congress does have the power to regulate what comes into the United States, which would include both materials and people.  This means that the Federal government is well within its authority to prevent certain foreign goods and non-US citizens from coming into the country.  Congress, as usual, has delegated this authority to the President (illegally in my opinion) through various National Emergency Acts that are so vague that the President can do almost anything.  Fortunately, President Trump has exhibited remarkable restraint in his executive orders concerning the Covid.  We haven’t seen much overreach from the President.   He has restricted some entry into the US, which conforms to the powers of the Federal Government.

Unfortunately, we can’t say as much for Congress.  What has Congress done?   They have ONLY spent over $3 Trillion on unconstitutional legislation.   As I have said many times, Congress can only spend money on things on which they are given explicit enumerated powers as shown in Article 1 Section 8.  If they want to call the giveaway of $1200 to every person in the US a tax rebate, that is fine.   But much of the money is going to people who really don’t pay taxes and not to the people that have, so it can’t really be a tax rebate.   So, let’s call it a handout for which there is no Constitutional authority.   Much worse is all the other pet projects on which this mass of wasted tax dollars is being spent, most unconstitutional, that has nothing to do with fighting this virus.   I can’t list them all, but here are a few examples:

• $10 billion loan to the U.S. Postal Service
• $48 million in sex-ed funding
• $25 million in “salaries and expenses” for the House of Representatives
• $60 million for NASA
• $500,000 for a water project in Central Utah
• $3 million for “forest and rangeland research” by the U.S. Forest Service
• $99 million for the Department of Energy
• $25 million to the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts
• $75 million in grants to the National Endowment for the Arts
• $75 million in grants to the National Endowment for the Humanities
• $75 million to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting
• $7.5 million to the Smithsonian Institution
• $50 million to the Institute of Museum and Library Services

Congress will tell you that all this spending is essential.   What do you think?  The left will never let a good crisis go to waste, but will use anything to further their agenda of socialism.   The sad part is that there was absolutely no opposition from the Republican side when passing all this unconstitutional pork in the first Corona Virus Bill.  Even the items that seem somewhat reasonable given the devastation to our economy are mismanaged, with too much money going to those who have not suffered from the shutdowns.

Now, let’s look at the real tyrants of this Covid situation.   Since according to our Constitution, the States are supposed to hold the most authority over everyday lives, it is natural the States exhibit the most power.   However, Governors and Mayors have way overstepped their authority in the edicts they have made.

First, where do Governors get their authority to make executive orders?  Can they just proclaim anything they want?  Are they dictators?  No, of course not.   Their job is to execute or administer the laws.  Who makes the laws?  The Legislatures!  Unfortunately, every State has some sort of “State of Emergency” laws on the books which gives their Governors a lot of freedom during times of crisis.   In Tennessee, our governor used the Title 58-2-107. Emergency management powers of the governor.  This law gives the governors powers to implement some emergency actions during a time of crisis.   If you read the applicable portions of this statute, you will see that this law is really directed at emergencies like hurricanes, tornados, earthquakes, and other natural disasters.  The law gives certain abilities to the governor in the actual disaster area, to even call out the National Guard if necessary.   However, does it give the Governor cart blanche to make all the edicts that he has?   I would argue, no.   Does a law give the Governor authority to violate the Constitution?   No!   We don’t give up our Constitutional rights just because it is an emergency.   Too many people want to say that we do because of the emergency, however, if you think like that, we really have no rights.   If that is the case, governors just need to fabricate any type of emergency and then trample the people.  The governor just doesn’t have the authority to make all the restrictions he has made.  The mayors of all the cities have been equally tyrannical, if not more so.  By what authority do they make all these edicts?   They have used a gross expansion of the city or county health codes to make their unconstitutional edicts.

One thing to note during all this government overreach is that the Federal Government and many of the governors and mayors are using non-elected so-called experts to drive the agenda.   We have allowed our Republic to be ruled by unknown bureaucrats in the CDC or local Health Departments instead of the elected Representatives at the Federal, State and local levels.   Can you see now how dangerous this is to allow these bureaucrats to basically “make the law”?    How can We the People hold them accountable?  It reveals the lust for power inherent in many public officials. They believe it’s within their power to, like a light switch, turn civil rights on or off as they see fit.

Let’s look at all the ways individual rights have been trampled.   First, let’s start with the three most important rights as expressed in the Declaration of Independence – Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.  Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness have both been severely restricted.  Does an order for you to stay at home restrict your Liberty?   That is about as restrictive as it gets.  Remember that the Pursuit of Happiness is described by our Founders as the freedom to pursue Property through the means of your work or intellect.  (that is physical as well as intellectual property, to include money) How do orders to shut down businesses affect your pursuit of happiness?  That is drastic and tyrannical!   But you may say, wait a minute, those aren’t in the Constitution!  Well, actually they are.  First remember, our rights come from God and these are the most basic and important of our rights.   Government has no authority to violate them without due process of Law.   Has there been due process?   In other words, have you been convicted of something to warrant taking away your Liberty or property?  Have you broken a law to be arrested of fined?  You have all heard of the person in California who was in the Pacific Ocean on a paddle board, hundreds of yards away from anyone, who was arrested for violating the closed beach order.   You have heard of the women in another state who was given a ticket for going for a drive just to get out of her house.  Were they close to anyone that they could possibly put others at risk?  Where is the common sense from our leaders not to mention constitutional knowledge?   There are so many other stories of similar tyrannies.   Did those people break a law?  No!  They just didn’t comply with unconstitutional edicts

And as I said, these rights of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness have been codified in the Constitution.

Where are these basic freedoms guaranteed in the Constitution?   The Fifth Amendment.   Let’s see what it says.   Among other things, the Fifth Amendment says; No person shall be… deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.  How has this Amendment been violated?  We have been deprived of Liberty by stay at home orders and many have been deprived of property by having their businesses shut down.   That not only has affected the business owners, but all the employees working for that business.   They have been deprived of their property without due process and without just compensation.   Their businesses have been taken for public use – i.e. for the “health of the public” without just compensation.   Of course, the Federal Government has made a small effort to mitigate that taking with their aid packages, but as said earlier, very little of it is getting into the hands of the people who have really been affected.

So, what other rights have been violated?  Oh, let us count the ways! We will start with the First Amendment.   What are the five freedoms listed in it?   Religion, Speech, Press, Assembly, and Petition.   At least three of the five have been significantly abridged.   The First Amendment states that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.  “Free exercise” are the operative words.   If we are not free to gather at our churches, we aren’t free to exercise our Religion.   In other words, those with a divine mandate to meet together in worship should not require the permission of the state to do so, nor may those rights be treated as lesser rights to visiting retail stores, restaurants, or hardware stores.   Again, there is no pandemic exception to the Constitution.  Mayors and Governors have no authority to close down churches.   Even if you grant them some authority to restrict the number of people at gatherings (which violates our freedom of assembly), the way many governors and local tyrants have targeted churches specifically to keep them shut down definitely violates our First Amendment rights.   It is one thing to say that no gatherings of over 50 people are allowed, it is quite another to single out churches to say they must close, regardless of how they may attempt to have services.  The anti-religious bias was most noteworthy in states like Kentucky where the governor sent police to take down license plate numbers of cars holding a drive-in service at their church.

We have seen the freedom of the press abused when New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio, Illinois Governor Pritzker and others, have placed journalists under arrest for writing about their tyranny.

Another violation was demonstrated against our Second Amendment (the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed).   In several States with liberal governors and mayors, gun stores were shut down and/or restrictions were imposed on gun and ammunition sales.   How does restricting gun and ammo sales stop the Covid?   It is at times like this where the possibility of panic and riots makes our freedom to bear arms even more important, not less.  Again, the left will never let a crisis go to waste to push their unconstitutional agenda.

Probably the worst tyranny of this whole crisis is the arbitrary and non-sensical restrictions placed on some businesses and not on others.   Why are some businesses considered essential and allowed to stay open when others are not considered essential and not allowed to stay open?   Why does some mayor or some bureaucrat on a health board get to decide what business is essential? If it is my business, it is certainly essential to me and my employees!  When those entrusted with power to protect the God given rights of the people do so selectively, arbitrarily picking and choosing which freedoms are worthy of protection and which are not, then we are no longer a nation governed by the rule of law but by the whims of men.

This arbitrary picking and choosing of freedoms has become very clear with the different reactions to certain protests.   When business owners peacefully assembled to protest against the government-imposed lockdown, they were called everything from “selfish” to “domestic terrorists” and accused of valuing money over the lives of others.  When protests over the death of George Floyd broke out in cities across the country, no such concern over public health could be heard. It was exactly the opposite response. Over 1000 public health professionals signed a letter specifically calling for governments not to be concerned over the spread of COVID 19, and therefore recommended not to stop the Black Lives Matters protest marches and other demonstrations.  Their letter read in part:

“However, as public health advocates, we do not condemn these gatherings as risky for COVID-19 transmission. We support them as vital to the national public health and to the threatened health specifically of Black people in the United States. We can show that support by facilitating safest protesting practices without detracting from demonstrators’ ability to gather and demand change. This should not be confused with a permissive stance on all gatherings, particularly protests against stay-home orders.” (emphasis added)

In other words, it depends on what you are protesting, as to whether or not it is a health risk!

What is our response to these tyrannical actions?  It is important to resist even petty tyrannies or we are setting ourselves up for bigger and bigger violations of our rights.

You have heard of the hairdresser in Texas who refused to close her salon because she needed to feed her family.   She was arrested, in Texas of all places!  However, there was such a great outcry from the people that the Texas governor demanded she be released.   If everyone did the same thing, what could the authorities do, arrest everyone?

When I had my first haircut after the shutdowns, I asked my barber why he didn’t just give haircuts anyway.   He didn’t because he knew the local heath board would take away his license and shut him down.   Think about it, why do we need some government bureaucrats to decide if a barber is a good one or not?  Why can’t I make my own decision on that and vote with my feet if I don’t like his haircuts or the cleanliness of his shop?  Maybe this whole process will make us realize that we have given too much power to these local entities, for no good reason!

Another positive approach is to teach our elected officials the Constitution!   Consider the example of New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy when asked by Fox News host Tucker Carlson how he could justify the arrest of 15 men attending the funeral of a Rabbi.  Murphy replied, “That’s above my paygrade Tucker, I wasn’t thinking of the Bill of Rights when we did this…”

To know the Constitution is his job.   How else can he support and defend it as he swore to do?

Probably the most important protection we have is our law enforcement officials, if they know the Constitution.  You may have heard of the policeman in Seattle who did a video that went viral.   In the video, the policeman appealed to his fellow officers to do the right thing.   He explained that the orders that were coming down from the mayor were unconstitutional and they should not enforce them.  He was at first commended by his boss, but later the boss, under pressure from the mayor, told him to take the post down.   When he refused, he was fired!  This officer was upholding what he believed our Constitution says, which he had sworn to support and defend.   He understood that an unlawful order should not be followed and it was his duty to protect the people from those unlawful orders!  I wish we had more police officers like him!!

Standing up to tyranny will get you in trouble, but if we all stand together, we will not allow those tyrannies to continue.  My hope is that there will be many lawsuits against all these petty tyrants.    The liberal courts may not give us good decisions, but they may.   In either case, the public will be aware of all the injustices.

The free market system is the best way and has always been the best way to combat the pandemic and other similar issues.   Individuals and businesses should have the freedom to figure out what to do and how they want to take precautions.  For those at high risk, they need to take special precautions, but don’t let government impose restrictions on everyone for the sake of the few.

The bottom line is that too many Americans have bought into the socialist idea that government is our God and our Savior, that any time there is a problem, the government must fix it.   Many people have been scared by all the false press and are more than willing to give up their liberty for what they consider safety.   They are being duped.

Consider Benjamin Franklin’s quote; Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither liberty nor Safety and are bound to lose both!

What is going to be the next emergency where the government decides to make draconian edicts for our safety?   Global Warming/Climate Change?  Can’t you see that they could literally make up anything and with the help of a few biased “experts”, do anything they want to take away our liberties.

Personally, I trust in our Creator God as my source for safety and protection.   I trust in the ingenuity of the American people under our free market system to come up with the best ways to prevent the spread of this disease, not government bureaucrats!  We need to stand together to resist this overreach of authority! 

The federal government is the largest landowner in the United States, controlling almost 1/3 of the entire land mass of the United States. The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service estimates the federal estate includes approximately 635 million acres. Over 90 percent of federal land is located in western states.  (see map below)

The vast majority of our federal lands were set aside with the promise from the government that they would be managed for multiple-use which would include grazing, recreation, conservation, and sensible natural resource development. However, numerous laws and regulations have been imposed that in many cases are unreasonable, burdensome and prevent multiple-use. Public lands that were once put to productive use have been locked up.  Further, managing federal lands costs the American taxpayer tens of billions of dollars each year.  Inexplicably, the federal government continues to spend hundreds of millions of dollars each year to acquire additional land. An area larger than the size of Florida has been added to the federal estate since the Kennedy Administration

How well does the Federal Government manage this land?   Not well at all.   Most of the fires that rage out west are a direct result of mismanagement of these vast tracts of land by the Federal agencies in control.

Now back to the original question; where is the authority for the federal government to own all this land?   Let’s look at the Constitution again.   In Article I section 8, as part of

the list of all the powers given to Congress (and be extension to the federal government) we see this in the second to last paragraph:

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress become the Seat of the Government of the United States,  [that is of course referring to Washington DC] and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenal, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings

Now, for what can the federal government buy land (other than for DC) according to the clear meaning of the text?  The obvious answer is for NEEDFUL Buildings, such as those listed which are all for military purposes.   Only for erection of forts and the like.   I am sure we could stretch that clause to things like Oak Ridge National Labs and the ranges used for military exercises, etc.    But where is the authority to buy millions of acres for a national forest or even a national park.   I am sorry, I like our national parks as well as everyone else, but the federal government never had the authority to buy those lands.   If the people want it, we should pass an amendment to allow it.

It is interesting to note that there was some opposition to the Louisiana Purchase by Jefferson.   He and others questioned the Constitutionality of it, given that there is no specific authority listed to do so.   Jefferson actually had proposed a Constitutional Amendment to justify the purchase.  He was finally convinced it was proper by Madison because of the treaty power of the President and acquiesced to his cabinet that it wasn’t needed as long as the Senate ratified the treaty.

Note too, that the purchase of new land is different than purchasing or keeping land within a State.   Notice that to purchase lands, it must be with the consent of the state, so this provision is specifically talking about land within the confines of a State.

The reality is that most western states were forced to give up land in order to inter the Union as States.   The federal government has actually reneged on terms of the Enabling Acts that brought the Western States into the Union.  By those acts, most of the Federal land was supposed to be returned to the states.   The Federal government retained around 50% of the land in most Western States, a whopping 79% in Nevada and 96% in Alaska.  

Needless to say, our Founders would have viewed federal ownership of large quantities of land as subversive to the principles of the constitution.  It is one thing to purchase new territories to be made into states, and quite another to retain or purchase land in States for no proper reason.   Currently, there is a coalition of Western States lobbying the Feds to get their land back.

At the least, we should stop this unconstitutional acquisition of land by the federal government to save millions of dollars a year.   Better yet, if the Federal government were to gradually sell all this land to private citizens, we could easily pay off the national debt, even giving a portion of the proceeds to the State the land is in.   The result would be increased tax bases for all the states and more freedom for private industry to use the natural resources in those lands. 

What are red flag laws?

The specifics of red flag laws vary by jurisdiction, and no two red flag laws are identical. As a general rule, these laws allow non-state actors (family members, teachers, etc.) to request that a hearing be held on whether someone close to them should have his or her right to possess firearms temporarily revoked because he or she is an extreme risk of danger to self or others.  Some states only allow those private individuals to ask law enforcement officers to investigate and file petitions with courts, while other states allow them to petition the courts directly.

The goal of these laws is to better identify individuals who are becoming increasing dangerous and take steps to temporarily disarm (and, if appropriate, treat) them before they can harm themselves or anyone else.

These laws have become increasingly popular since the February 2018 mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, even though the first such law was enacted by Connecticut in 1999. Today, 17 states plus the District of Columbia have passed some form of red flag legislation.

Are Red Flag Laws Constitutional?

 What about the Second Amendment?

The Second Amendment protects the right of citizens to keep and bear arms. This right is antithetical to broad prohibitions on civilian firearm access or the imposition of significant burdens on the exercise of the right.

Like all other enumerated rights, however, the right to keep and bear arms is not unlimited. No one would seriously suggest that violent convicted criminals maintain a Second Amendment right while serving their sentence of imprisonment, or that individuals involuntarily committed to psychiatric facilities must be permitted to keep firearms in their hospital rooms.  The question then becomes, at what point can our rights be abridged?  If it OK to deny convicted felons of their rights (which I think is appropriate), is it OK to deny a potential felon their rights?

To me that is the biggest issue with Red Flag laws, it is about potential vs actual crimes.  When is it ever right to convict or punish someone for a potential crime?

The second amendment is not the only amendment to discuss.   Some point to the Fourth Amendment to justify Red Flag laws.   It allows search and seizure with a warrant for probable cause from a judge with an Oath or Affirmation.   However, that amendment was targeting evidence, not property, and is normally used for evidence after a crime is committed.

The Fifth Amendment is more appropriate to Red Flag laws.   Among other rights, it states that No person shall be … deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. 

Due process normally means a conviction of unlawful behavior.   In the case of Red Flag laws, citizens can be deprived of their property for a potential felony, not an actually one.   To me, this is a very dangerous breach of Constitutional rights and could easily degrade into Nazi and Soviet style gun confiscation.

Under Red Flag laws, where the facts and circumstances give specific reason to believe that a person is likely to cause imminent unlawful harm to himself or others, the person may be disarmed until he can reassure the community that he does not pose a violent threat.  In other words, he is guilty until proven innocent.  Again, violating our Constitutional rights.

Proponents of Red Flag laws insist that such individuals would receive meaningful due process protections prior to the restriction of their rights, and great pains would be taken to ensure that individuals cannot be punished for merely holding offensive views or engaging in objectionable, but nonviolent, behaviors.

But you can easily see the danger of abuse in red flag laws. Even though all laws could be abused, and many are, the potential abuse in this type law exceeds the potential benefits, in my opinion.  No matter how narrowly the laws are crafted, it still lets the camel’s nose into the tent.   More abusive laws are sure to follow.

Could red flag laws have stopped previous shootings?

Unlike other commonly proposed gun control measures, red flag laws might have been successful in preventing a few high-profile mass public shootings.

For example, the parents of the man who killed six people and wounded 13 in Tucson, Arizona, in 2011 were so worried about his mental health, they disabled his car and tried to hide his firearms. They tried unsuccessfully to get him mental health treatment.

A red flag law would have given these parents a means to petition a court for help without relying on county attorneys, and their son could have been disarmed and steered toward treatment before he reached a breaking point.

Similarly, red flag laws could have prevented the Parkland, Florida, shooting by allowing the family with whom the shooter was staying to petition a court for disarmament after local law enforcement and school officials refused to take action, despite repeated indications that the shooter was dangerous.

Of course, this is all 20/20 hindsight.   Would a Red Flag law really have worked in those cases?   We don’t know!  But, even if they did work, are the few cases where shooting might have been prevented really worth the potential abuse to thousands?   Also, would a potential confiscation prompt those individuals to act now before its too late?

Some writers at the Heritage Foundation support Red Flag laws.   Here is what they say makes a good red flag law?

Quoting from one of their articles:  Laws that restrict an individual’s right to keep and bear arms, even temporarily, must follow some important guidelines. To be unobjectionable, red flag laws should, among other considerations:

• Use narrow definitions of “dangerousness” that are based on objective criteria and that don’t treat factors such as lawful firearm ownership or political affiliation as presumptively suspicious.
• Be temporary in nature, limited only to the period of time the person remains a danger to himself or others, and provide for the prompt restoration of firearms and corresponding rights when the danger no longer exists.
• Afford strong due process protections, including high burdens of proof (i.e., “clear and convincing evidence”), cross-examination rights, and the right to counsel.
• Provide meaningful remedies for those who are maliciously and falsely accused, and expunge any records of petitions that are not granted.
• Be integrated with existing mental health and addiction systems to ensure that people who are deemed to be dangerous because of underlying factors receive the treatment they need.

Research is limited, but what they do have shows that red flag laws are not used as sweeping gun confiscation measures. Rather, they effectively target a small class of individuals who are dangerous but can’t otherwise be reached under existing mental health or criminal laws.

Importantly, the available evidence suggests that judges do not merely rubber-stamp petitions, especially when adequate due process protections are implemented.

Studies of red flag laws in Connecticut and Maryland show that in a significant percentage of cases, petitions are either not granted in the first place, or petitions that were initially granted are rescinded upon further review, and the person’s firearms are returned.

That is a lot of trust in our system of bureaucracy, which I don’t have.

I usually quote the Founders on these Constitutional issues.   I can’t today because I haven’t found anything from the Founders that they even thought about such a law.   I believe that is because Red Flag laws are antithetical to their views of personal Liberty.

What are the practical realities of Red Flag Laws?

Do you want your guns confiscated because you have a neighbor who thinks you’re crazy or you have a dispute with a sibling?   Who decides that someone is a danger?  Usually the leftist elites want those roles.

When the left learns that they can tie you up in an expensive court battle by a mere accusation, they will do it willingly to deter people from owning guns.

Consider also what happened after 9-11.   In response to the aircraft hijackings, someone proposed that the pilots should be armed in the cockpit if they wanted to be.    Sounds like a good idea, but what do you think happened?   Pilots were allowed to carry firearms on the airplanes as long as they passed a mental health evaluation.   Guess what?   Very few pilots opted for this program.  Why?   They didn’t want to put their whole career in the hands of some psychoanalyst.     Why not?  Well, if they failed due to the whatever reason the analyst gave, they would not only not be able to carry, but they would lose their job.   They didn’t want to put their fate in the hands of some analyst who could almost arbitrarily ruin their career.   The same would be true of Red Flag laws.  Ultimately, it would be some liberal “expert” who would make a decision on your right to bear arms.

Consider also how the Veterans Affairs Administration using red-flags to secretively identify “disruptive” veterans which led to denial of benefits without due process, transparency, or accountability in the name of “safety.”  These Government bureaucrats routinely deprive our nation’s heroes of medical treatment based on arbitrary definitions of who and what constitutes a mental health menace.  Most of the time the Vets “disruptive behavior” was perfectly justified given the incompetence of the treatment.  Consider the VA’s actions.  If you Complain too much or Criticize the powers that be or Ask too many questions. Boom! You’re a threat.

If such tyranny is allowed among those who volunteered to protect and serve our country in the name of safety, imagine how it will be implemented among the law-abiding, gun-owning general populace.

The bottom line in my opinion is that Red Flag laws, like many other gun control measures, violate our God-given right to bear arms and to due process.    Even though they may sound reasonable, beware!

First, as always, I will ask the question – is it Constitutional?   In other words, does Congress have the authority to incur so much national debt?  The usual answer when I ask this question about something the Federal Government is doing is NO.  Unfortunately, Congress does have the authority to accumulate debt.  Again, let’s go to Article 1 Section 8 and you will see the first power of Congress listed is “To borrow money on the credit of the United States.”   There is no limit set by the Constitution, so Congress could borrow, potentially, an unlimited amount.

The next question – is that wise?   If you read the notes from the convention, the Founders put that power in as a necessary evil, to be used only sparingly, usually in times of war.  Let’s listen to the Founders own words on the subject.

Four quotes from Thomas Jefferson: 1. “We must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt.”  2. Talking about problems in government he said: “The forehorse of this frightful team is public debt.   Taxation follows that, and in its train wretchedness and oppression.”  3. “I … place economy among the first and most important of republican virtues, and public debt as the greatest of the dangers to be feared.”  4. “I am for … applying all the possible savings of the public revenue to the discharge of the national debt.  But if the debt should once more be swelled to a formidable size, its entire discharge will be despaired of and we shall be committed to the English career of debt, corruption, and rottenness, closing with revolution.   The discharge of the debt, therefore is vital to the destinies of our government.”

Alexander Hamilton: “Nothing can more affect national prosperity than a constant and systematic attention to extinguish the present debt and to avoid as much as possibl(e) the incurring of any new debt.  Establish that a government may decline a provision for its debts, though able to make it, and you overthrow all public morality, you unhinge all the principles that must preserve the limits of free constitutions, you have anarchy, despotism, or what you please, but you have not just or regular government.”

George Washington: “Avoid occasions of expense . . . and avoid likewise the accumulation of debt not only by shunning occasions of expense but by vigorous exertions to discharge the debts, not throwing upon posterity the burden which we ourselves ought to bear.”  “The progressive accumulation of debt … ultimately endangers all governments.”  Notice that he equates debt as a burden on our children and children’s children.

James Madison: “I go on the principle that a public debt is a public curse, and in a Republican Government a greater curse than any other.”

John Adams: “The consequences arising from the continual accumulation of public debts in other countries ought to admonish us to be careful to prevent their growth in our own.”

Perhaps the most profound of all comes from Benjamin Franklin: “When you run in debt; you give to another power over your liberty.” Franklin is establishing a direct connection between debt and liberty–the more debt, the less liberty.

Notice they equate large debt to immorality with the results of anarchy and revolution.   Is anyone in the present Congress and administration listening?

Where did the Founders get these ideas about debt?  From the Bible, of course.  Proverbs 22:7 says “the borrower becomes the lender’s slave.”

So, our National debt is a bad thing.   As of June, it was over $22 Trillion!  What is the cause and what can be done about?

Contrary to leftist propaganda, it is not because of tax cuts.  In the two years since Trump’s tax cuts, Federal revenues have increased slightly, not decreased.   In the decade of the 1980’s during the Reagan tax cuts, Federal revenues per year climbed from $600 billion to over $1 Trillion.   Clearly tax cuts are effective and are not the problem.   Just as with a family budget, it is not how much you make, but how much you spend that matters.   Congress consistently spends more money than it takes in.   That is not sustainable, so why do they do it?

Several reasons for the problem.   First, We the People don’t make them balance the budget because we are happy to pass the debt to our children when we get more stuff from the government.  That’s immoral.

Second, Congress uses the excuse that their hands are tied into the “mandatory” spending for the so-called entitlement programs.  Let’s look at entitlements.  These include all the socialistic programs of the government, to include Medicare/Medicaid, Social Security, Welfare, Food Stamps, Subsidized Housing, etc.   Are any of these programs Constitutional?  No!  I’ve discussed this before, there is no authority in the Constitution for any of these programs.  Yet we are content to bankrupt our country over these programs.   Currently, 60% of the National Budget goes to these “mandatory spending” programs.   10% of the Budget goes to paying the debt, which leaves only 30% for so-called “discretionary spending”, to include the entire Defense Budget.  We will soon get to the point where 100% of the budget is required for these unconstitutional programs or else go into even further debt.   That is unsustainable and immoral.

Clearly, we need to change our attitude towards these “entitlement programs” or as our Founders predicted, our Nation will devolve into anarchy and civil war.  Most of us in this room are receiving Social Security and on Medicare.   We need to not be content in that and continue to want these programs to continue.   We need to advocate a gradual elimination of these programs, both to keep the promise to those who are using it now and to change the mindset of the young not to depend on it.   It is not the governments responsibility to take care of all of us in our old age.   Essentially, Social Security is the government telling you that you are too stupid to plan for your own retirement, so they will do it for you, but very poorly, ineffectively and with lots of waste.   Our government needs to quit being the “nanny state” and get back to the original intent of the Constitution.  

Let’s again look at the Constitution.   In Article 1 Section 8, we read in Clause 8 that one of the powers of Congress is: To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts.  I’ll stop there.   So, its sounds perfectly legitimate for the Federal government to fund shows like Sesame Street and programs like NPR.   That promotes the progress of useful arts, right?   How many of you worked at Oak Ridge National labs?   That promotes the Progress of Science to a T doesn’t it?  So, these things are all within the authority for funding by Congress, right – or wrong?

Well, I forgot to read the whole clause.   What it fully says is: To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries

That changes things!  To promote Science and Arts is the purpose, what is the means?   What were the founders talking about?   Copyrights and patents!  Not funding for all sorts of frivolous programs that could be easily done in the private sector.   Do we need NPR to have a radio station?  Absolutely not.   What we have in NPR is taxpayer funding of the left’s ideology.   And that is not the worst of it.   How many have heard of the Federal Funding of so-called art that shows the cross of Christ in a glass of urine and many other ridiculous things the left calls art?  If those things were real art, then there would be plenty of consumers willing to pay for it, we don’t need the government giving grants for such trash.

What about Oak Ridge labs?  Well, the initial purpose for Oak Ridge was for the war effort and the atomic bomb.   I can’t argue with the Constitutionality of that.   However, since it has morphed into the Department of Energy, where is that allowed?  A lot of taxpayer dollars are being funneled into alternate energy sources like solar and wind that don’t have an economically viable return on investment without Federal funding?   Should we be doing that?   Today, our government give grants away for almost any type of research – like the mating habits of the fruit fly!  Why is that important to the nation?  Now, I am not necessarily opposed to all those types of investment, but what I am saying is that they are not Constitutional.   If we want to do it, let’s change the Constitution and do it legally.

Our history has plenty of examples where government subsidies and or preferences produced poor results, while private free enterprise always producing better results.   A couple of examples.   You know that Robert Fulton built the first steam ship.  What most people don’t know is that he then lobbied the State of NY for a monopoly running passengers from NJ to NYC.   He was awarded that monopoly and was charging high rates per person for the run.    Cornelius Vanderbilt built his own steam ship and with no help from the government (and in defiance of the monopoly imposed by the State of NY) was able to undercut Fulton until the monopoly was ruled a violation of the Commerce Clause.   Fulton eventually went bankrupt.   Vanderbilt continued his routes at lower rates than other competitors, gradually lowering his fee to free, but making his money selling food and drinks on the ship.    Several times his competitors paid Vanderbilt off to stop his runs.  He would then go to other markets and undercut other steam ship lines.   Vanderbilt also did the same thing for a transatlantic route for steam ships, undercutting a government subsidized firm (justified as mail ships) whose ships were substandard due to their reliance on the subsidies.   He then competed against two companies that had the government contract to run mail to California through the Panama Canal.   Those companies were getting $900,000 per year from the government and were charging $600 per person for the trip from the East Coast to California.   Vanderbilt eventually undercut them by charging only $100 per person for the trip and carrying the mail for free – again making good profits with no subsidies.   Largely due to Vanderbilt, Congress ended all mail subsidies in 1859.   Bottom line, Vanderbilt’s competitive free market approach helped the entire industry.

Consider also the Union Pacific and Central Pacific railroads.    A big deal is made of their connecting the transcontinental railroad at Promontory Point, Utah.  What we don’t hear about is what happened to the companies shortly after that.   The Federal government had been giving railroads land grants and paying them to lay track (under the authority in the Constitution’s Commerce Clause; which was questionable).   The railroads were paid by the mile of track laid.    Can you guess what happened?  Yes, they cut corners to lay as much track as possible.   Both those railroads and all others that had taken government subsidies went into bankruptcy at least once and many several time because they had not built correctly or in the right locations.   Contrast that with the owner of the Great Northern Railroad, James J. Hill, who took no government aid.   He laid his track well and studied the route for the best locations.  It took him longer, but his railroad was highly successful connecting the Pacific Northwest with Chicago and the rest of the country without the “help” of government subsidies. It was one of the few railroads not to go bankrupt.  (I recommend a book called The Myth of the Robber Barons by Burt Folsom to learn more details of the above stories.)   The bottom line is that the free market always does better than when the government gets involved!

Now, compared to the many other government programs that violate the Constitution, the violation of this Science and Arts Clause seem fairly insignificant.   Dollar wise they are, but it is the violation of the principle of limited enumerated powers in the Constitution that have been eroded by these blatant violations of Congressional authority.   We need to be diligent to oppose government overreach wherever it occurs. 

Yes, you can call it charity, BUT!  Suppose someone robs you at gunpoint and steals $100 from your wallet.   He later gives $20 of your $100 to a bum on the street. – Is that $20 charity on your part?   Of course not!  You were robbed.   It is not much different with our Federal Government handout programs.   It is not really charity on our part, we are being robbed.   The only difference is that we elect the thieves.

I prefer to call those government programs forced distribution instead of charity.   Then we get a clearer picture that they are really socialist programs that violate the principles of our Constitution.

I know many of you might like or appreciate some of these programs because you or someone you know has benefited from them.  Well, let’s look at the Constitutionality and the morality of these programs to get a clear picture of what is happening.

First, are these programs Constitutional?   Hopefully, I have raised this point enough that everyone here knows they are not.   Just a review, look at Article 1, Section 8 for the specific enumerated powers of the Federal government.   I won’t read them again, but none of them allows any type of so-called charity.   The only way the politicians can justify any of it is by the clear abuse of the General Welfare Clause in the first paragraph of that section.    I have shown before that is a general statement of design followed by the particulars of the powers as discussed by Madison in Federalist #45 and many others throughout our history.

To quote Madison again – …  For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power?  Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars.  But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity.

Again, quoting Joseph Story – the constitution declares, that the powers of congress shall extend to certain enumerated cases. This specification of particulars evidently excludes all pretensions to a general legislative authority. Why? Because an affirmative grant of special powers would be absurd, as well as useless, if a general authority were intended.

Not until the Progressive movement in the 20^th century was the clear intent of the Founders ignored and Congress starting passing this “charity” type legislation.   The only way they get away with it is the ignorance or complicity of the American people.

Now, even though it is Unconstitutional at the Federal level, is it allowed at the State level?  Yes, the Federal Constitution gives all other powers to the States or to the People (10^th Amendment).  So, State governments could have charity programs if allowed by their Constitution, (Tennessee Constitution does not prohibit it); but is that a good idea?

Even if it’s not Constitutional, many think these programs are morally right.   I hear people say that it is their Christian duty to help the poor through these types of programs.   Well, is that true?  Is charity a legitimate purpose of government as directed by Scripture?  In other words, does God command us to help others through government programs?  God does command us to help the poor, but when He gives us that command, to whom is he speaking?   If you do a careful study, God is always addressing either the individual or the church when He tells us to help the poor.  Never once in scripture is the government called to help the poor!  There are over 200 verses in Scripture that address helping the poor and only a couple of verses address the government and they say the same thing.  One is Leviticus 19:15 which says.  “You shall do no injustice in court. You shall not be partial to the poor or defer to the great, but in righteousness shall you judge your neighbor.  The only rule for government is to treat the poor the same as everyone else, not give them preferential treatment which we do today.

Okay, these programs are not Constitutional and not Biblical, but do they work?

 What happens when the government gets involved in helping the poor?

Are government programs Inefficient?  Only 30% of money goes to intended purpose!  In general, most people won’t give to a charity that has more than 40% administrative cost.   The governments admin cost is 70%!

What other problems arise from government handouts?  They foster dependency; this is obvious in welfare and aid to unwed mothers.  What about disaster relief I mentioned earlier?  It really supplements the insurance companies and individuals that should be paying for disaster insurance, but don’t because the government is going to take care of them.

There is no accountability, (scripture also says If a man will not work, he should not eat) no love, no gospel;

It Doesn’t Work!

What would happen if government didn’t get involved?

Where would those go who are truly in need?   To the churches and other aid groups!   Americans are very generous by nature.   Christians would do their duty; love, help, hold accountable, share gospel, also more efficient; it works!!

What did our Founders think about government “charity”?  They thought it was a really bad idea and did not give authority to the Federal Government for such programs!

Franklin Quote – Before the Revolution while he was living in England (as a British citizen) – I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means.  I think the best way of doing good to the poor is not making them easy in poverty but leading or driving them out of it.  In my youth I traveled much, and I observed in different countries that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves and of course became poorer.  And on the contrary, the less was done for them the more they did for themselves and became richer.   There is not a country in the world where so many provisions are established for them – so many hospitals to receive them when they are sick or lame, founded and maintained by voluntary charities – so many almshouses for the aged of both sexes, together with a solemn general law made by the rich to subject their estates to a heavy tax for the support to the poor.   Under these obligations, are our poor modest, humble, and thankful?  And do they use their best endeavors to maintain themselves and lighten our shoulders of this burden?  On the contrary, I affirm that there is no country in the world in which the poor are more idle, dissolute, drunken, and insolent.   The day you passed that act, you took away from before their eyes the greatest of all inducements to industry, frugality, and sobriety…  In short, you offered a premium for the encouragement of idleness, and you should not now wonder that it has had its effect in the increase of poverty.   Repeal that law and you will soon see a change in their manners.  St. Monday and St. Tuesday will cease to be holidays.  “Six days shalt thou labour” [Exodus 20:9], though one of the old commandments long treated as out of date, will again be looked upon as a respectable precept; industry will increase (and with it plenty among the lower people); their circumstances will mend; and more will be done for their happiness by inuring them to provide for themselves than could be done by dividing all your estates among them.

Jefferson’s First Inaugural Address: Still one thing more, fellow-citizens — a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities.

So, we all need to think twice before we advocate for government “charity”! 

By 1774 the segments of the snake had grown together, and the motto had been changed to read: “United Now Alive and Free Firm on this Basis Liberty Shall Stand and Thus Supported Ever Bless Our Land Till Time Becomes Eternity”

Other authors felt the rattlesnake was a good example of America’s virtues. They argued that it is unique to America; individually its rattles produce no sound, but united they can be heard by all; and while it does not attack unless provoked, it is deadly to step upon one.

The Gadsden Flag: The American Revolutionary period was a time of intense but controlled individualism – when self-directing responsible individuals again and again decided for themselves what they should do, and did it- without needing anyone else to give them an assignment or supervise them in carrying it out.

Such a person was the patriot Colonel Christopher Gadsden of South Carolina. He had seen and liked a bright yellow banner with a hissing, coiled rattlesnake rising up in the center, and beneath the serpent the same words that appeared on the Striped Rattlesnake Flag – Don’t Tread On Me. Colonel Gadsden made a copy of this flag and submitted the design to the Provincial Congress in South Carolina. Commodore Esek Hopkins, commander of the new Continental fleet, carried a similar flag in February, 1776, when his ships put to sea for the first time.

Hopkins captured large stores of British cannon and military supplies in the Bahamas. His cruise marked the salt-water baptism of the American Navy, and it saw the first landing of the Corps of Marines, on whose drums the Gadsden symbol was painted.

The 1st Navy Jack: One of the first flags flown by our Navy may have been an adaptation of the “Rebellious Stripes” created at the time of the Stamp Act Congress. It featured thirteen red and white stripes. Stretched across them was the rippling form of a rattlesnake, and the words, “DON’T TREAD ON ME”- a striking indication of the colonists’ courage and fierce desire for independence.

The flag we know today as the first Navy Jack (sometimes known as the “Culpepper Flag”) is believed to have flown aboard the Alfred, flagship of the newly commissioned Continental fleet, in January, 1776. American ships used this flag, or one of its variations, throughout the Revolutionary War. This powerful American symbol was used by the Continental Navy in 1776 and is being used again by the U.S. Navy in the War on Terrorism.

An Appeal to Heaven – flag

One slogan that was popular early in the Revolutionary era was “An Appeal to Heaven.” Even though the famous “pine tree” flag that features this slogan is still widely recognized as a symbol of the Revolution, the meaning of the words “An Appeal to Heaven” isn’t obvious to most modern-day Americans.  To understand these words, we must go back in time to the 17th century and to other, earlier political events that shaped the way British subjects thought about government and individual rights.

During the 17th century there was a series of conflicts in Britain between Parliament and the Crown, and this caused British scholars to think and write a great deal about the nature of government and the limits of royal power.  John Locke (1632-1704) was the most important of these political philosophers. In 1689-90 he published his “Two Treatise on Government,” which argued against the Divine Right of Kings.   In them, he quoted the Bible about 1500 times to argue his point.

In the second Treatise, Locke says:

…where the body of the people, or any single man, is deprived of their right, or is under the exercise of a power without right, and have no appeal on earth, then they have a liberty to appeal to heaven, whenever they judge the cause of sufficient moment.

This phrase is used throughout the Treatise and is part of Locke’s justification for the overthrow of Britain’s King James II, who was removed from power in 1688, an event known as the “Glorious Revolution.”  Locke’s “appeal to heaven” recognizes that God is the final Authority and Arbitrator.  Locke argues that people have rights that cannot be infringed upon by the government and that rebellion is justified if it is to defend those rights.  Notice the similarity to our Declaration of Independence?

As American colonists increasingly came into conflict with the British government during the 1760s and 1770s, Locke’s words became an inspiration to many patriots.  After all, if the Glorious Revolution was justified as a defense against tyranny, didn’t the American Revolution have the same justification?

The slogan “An Appeal to Heaven” is less dramatic than “Give me Liberty or give me Death,” but in its own way it is equally forceful and evocative.

The tree in the flag is the Liberty Tree, so named because it was at such a pine tree near Boston harbor that the group, the Sons of Liberty, used as a meeting or rallying point.   This tree was chopped down by an angry group of Tories, causing it to become a an even greater symbol of Liberty.

The “An Appeal to Heaven” flag was used originally by a squadron of six cruisers commissioned under George Washington‘s authority as commander in chief of the Continental Army in October 1775. It was also used by Massachusetts state navy vessels in addition to privateers sailing from Massachusetts.

The Great Seal of the United States of America

How many think the Seal on the left is a Masonic emblem?   Well, if you watched the Disney Film National Treasure, you probably do.  But is that correct?  No!

Charles Thomson, a theologian, was assigned by Congress to design a Seal for the new nation.   His design was approved in 1782 and is still used today.   Look at the back of a one-dollar bill.   The records of Congress contain this explanation of the seal. 

Reverse. A pyramid unfinished.  In the zenith, an eye in a triangle, surrounded with a glory proper.  Over the eye these words, “Annuit Coeptis” [Latin for He, God, has blessed our undertakings].  …  And underneath the following motto, “Novus Ordo Seclorum” [Latin for “A New Way for the Ages”, referring to America as a new model for liberty]

Remarks and explanation:  Reverse: The pyramid signifies strength and duration [the pyramid was the oldest surviving structure know to man at that time].  The eye over it and the motto allude to the many signal interpositions of Providence in favor of the American cause.  The date underneath is that of the Declaration of independence, and the words under it signify the beginning of the new American Era which commences from that date.

That was not the original proposed seal though.   Right after the Declaration was signed, Congress appointed John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, and Thomas Jefferson to come up with a seal.   They eventually proposed the following:

Crest.  The Eye of Providence in a radiant triangle, whose glory extends over the shield and beyond the figures… On the other side of the said Great Seal should be the following device.   Pharaoh sitting in an open chariot, a crown on his head and a sword in his hand passing through the divided waters of the Red Sea in pursuit of the Israelites: rays from a pillar of fire in the cloud, expressive of the Divine presence and command, beaming on Moses who stands on the shore, and extending his hand over the seas causes it to overwhelm Pharaoh.  Motto: “Rebellion to Tyrants is Obedience to God.”

The message was appealing to Congress but thought too complicated to put on a seal, so was not adopted.

I like the motto though and we should contemplate it today: “Rebellion to Tyrants is Obedience to God.” 

This has become a hot topic lately, as the divide has grown bigger between pro-life and pro-abortion advocates.   On one hand we have the State of New York passing a law that allows abortion up to the second before a live birth, at any stage of pregnancy, regardless of the viability of the baby!   On the other hand, we have States like Tennessee introducing fetal heartbeat bills that would prevent an abortion once there is a heartbeat detected in the baby.   Both sides can’t be right, so which is it.   Is there a Constitutional “right” to have an abortion?

Of course, I always look at the Constitution itself, not what some judges on the Supreme Court say.  Where in the Constitution is this supposed right?   Well, of course you can’t find it anywhere.  However, I will admit that according to the 9^th Amendment, not all our God-given rights are listed in the Bill of Rights or in other parts of the Constitution.   The 9th Amendment states- “The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”  So, there are some rights we retain as We the People that are not specifically listed, and rightly so.   But, is abortion on demand one of them?

Let’s look at the Roe v Wade case explore to this idea.  The Supreme Court of 1973 was ideologically disposed to find a way to legalize abortion when they agreed to hear the cases. They knew where they wanted to end up (legalizing abortion), but they had to find a way to justify this action. They needed to make a convincing argument that the Constitution allowed the destruction of human life that would occur with legal abortion.  The Declaration of Independence states, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” Notice our Forefathers wrote “created,” not “born.” In addition, the 14th Amendment states “…nor shall any state deprive a person of life, liberty or property, without due process of the law; nor deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”  Based on these two statements, it is hard to see how ending an unborn human’s life can be considered “constitutional.” Thus, the Justices were obligated to do two things. They had to make an argument for why unborn life did not deserve to be treated as a life covered by these statements, and they had to find other constitutional statements that gave a woman the power to end this life.  Prior Supreme Court decisions had established a right to contraceptive use by married couples in Griswold v. Connecticut, and later by single people in Eisenstadt v. Bard, based on the “right of privacy,” a phrase that when previously documented in the Constitution was related to the right to own private property.  It was then extrapolated that abortion, being a method of birth control (although it is not a method of contraception because it occurs after conception), should be covered by a woman’s right to privacy, or ownership of the fetus (even though, of course, the baby is not really part of her body). The Court professed ignorance about when life begins and advanced an argument based on “personhood” instead.  Justice Blackmun stated, “We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at a consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man’s knowledge, is not in a position to speculate.”  This was feigned ignorance.  Even then, an unborn human was known to be clearly alive by the time the pregnancy was recognized (5-7 days after fertilization), but some scientists debated whether life begins at fertilization or implantation.  By claiming that this small window of time between fertilization and implantation constituted a non-consensus, they then allowed the procedure of abortion without restriction until birth.  By doing so, the Court actually took a side on the question of when life begins, and gave it the most extreme definition possible -not until live birth!   Inexplicably, the Court also twisted the statement about liberty by applying it to the woman, while denying it to the unborn human. They stated that “liberty” means a “right to privacy,” which is broad enough to encompass the decision to terminate an unborn child’s life.

What did the Founders say about abortion?   Would they have claimed that it is one of the Constitutional rights not listed specifically?  Many today claim that it was a non-issue, not discussed so we can’t know.   That is wrong!  First, abortion was a crime under the Common Law, which is recognized as the basis of laws in civilized nations and which was incorporated into the Constitution through the Seventh Amendment which says – In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.   Of Course, Common Law was based on Natural Revelation and Special or Biblical Revelation from God; the laws of Nature and Nature’s God as articulated in the Declaration.  Sir William Blackstone, a favorite authority of the Founders wrote concerning British common law – Life is the immediate gift of God- a right inherent by nature in every individual; and it begins in contemplation of law as soon as an infant is able to stir in the mother’s womb.  For if a woman is quick with child, and by a potion or otherwise kills it in her womb; or if any one beat her whereby the child dies in her body and she is delivered of a dead child, this was by the ancient law homicide or manslaughter.  After America separated from Great Britain, they continued the previous position on abortion.  James Wilson, a signer of both the Declaration and Constitution and an original justice on the Supreme Court told his law students – With consistency, beautiful and undeviating, human life, from its commencement to its close, is protected by the Common Law.  In the contemplations of law, life begins when the infant is first able to stir in the womb.  By the law, that life is protected.  Notice the same terminology of “Stirring in the womb”.  In those days due to the lack of today’s medical science, the first stirring in the womb was when a mother was first certain she was pregnant.  Had Wilson and the Founders had access to the discoveries of modern biology, they certainly would have agreed that life begins at conception.   Similarly, and early law in Virginia stated – But if a woman be with child, and any givers her a potion to destroy the child within her… this is murder; for it was not given her to cure her of a disease, but unlawfully to destroy the child within her.  Clearly, our Founders knew of and disapproved of abortion and certainly did not incorporate any such “right” in the Constitution.

What about the moral argument for or against abortion?   Pro-abortion activist insists their stance is moral because the woman has a “right to control her own body”.  That argument falls flat when we realize that the baby is not part of the woman in any way.   Also, there are some religious groups that claim a moral right for abortion, but they have no Biblical justification for their claims.   The Bible clearly talks of the baby in the womb as being a human being.   Scripture states that Man is “made in the image of God” (Genesis 1:27), and this view is supported by various verses expressing tenderness from God toward the unborn human. “Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you, before you were born, I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations” (Jeremiah 1:5). “For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb. I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well. My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place, when I was woven together in the depths of the earth. Your eyes saw my unformed body; all the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be.” (Psalm 139:13-16).  The Bible in other places sets punishments for killing a baby in the womb, so clearly it is an immoral act.

What about the scientific/medical data?  When does life begin according to science?  Is the fetus a human life? From a scientific perspective, this is not a controversial question. The term “fetus” (from a Latin word meaning “offspring” or “baby”) is a medical term that refers to a human being in the prenatal stage of development in the womb.  Life is commonly defined as organisms that “maintain homeostasis, are composed of cells, have a life cycle, undergo metabolism, can grow, adapt to their environment, respond to stimuli, reproduce and evolve.” These are incontrovertible properties of a fetus.  When does the fetus become alive? Again, scientifically, there is not much controversy here. Any basic physiology textbook will confirm that with fertilization, a complete chromosomal complement of 46 human chromosomes results, uniquely different from that of either parent, and the one-celled embryo begins dividing rapidly.  [Even before implantation, local secretions provide nutrition for the zygote. Basic obstetrics textbooks tell us that “a biomolecular communication system is established between the zygote/blastocyst/embryo/ fetus and mother that is operative from before the time of nidation (implantation) and persists through the time of parturition (birth)].  There is no other point in the gestation period that you could possible say that the fetus has transitioned from non-life to life!  So, Life begins at conception!

So Constitutionally, historically, and scientifically, abortion is wrong!  So why are we allowing it?   Just because five unelected people in black robes say its OK?   Is that how a Republic is supposed to work?   I’ve said it before and will continue to say it, our Constitution gave no such power to the Courts.   We have acquiesced to the lie that the Supreme Court makes the final decisions on everything.  It is time to overturn the horror of abortion through our elected representatives.  It is their job, not the courts, to make law, and protect the unborn.  Even the language from Roe v. Wade acknowledges that if it is ever shown that life begins at conception, then Roe v Wade is overturned.  The ruling states – The appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a “person” within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment.  In support of this, they outline at length and in detail the well-known facts of fetal development. If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant’s case, of course, collapses, for the fetus’ right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment.

In my opinion, a Life at Conception bill it the best way to overturn Roe v Wade.  There has been one introduced in Congress by Senator Rand Paul, but with the current makeup of the House, it has little chance of passing.   It is up to our State Legislature to act.   Currently, there is a bill in our General Assembly called the Fetal Heartbeat Bill (HB0077) which would prevent abortions once a heartbeat is detected, (which is usually at about 21 days).   Of course, if there is a heartbeat, there is life!  This is a good first step, but falls short of totally eliminating abortions.   It would still allow those early abortions and the so-called “morning after” abortion pills.   What is going to prevent abortionist from putting wax in their ears and claiming they didn’t detect a heartbeat?   If life begins at conception, why are we allowing even those early abortions?   However, given the Republican reluctance to make a stand, the Heartbeat bill will have to do this year.   I encourage each one of you to write as many representatives as possible to encourage the bill.   We need to make sure it is passed this year.  Of course, the left will challenge it in the courts and hopefully that will lead to an overthrow of Roe v Wade.   But even if it doesn’t, our State Government should reject any opinion of the courts that tries to continue the holocaust of abortion.

Some source material from: https://www.frc.org/myths