The Constitution Study

The word “choice” has all but been taken over by the pro-abortion crowd, but that is not what I want to discuss here today. Recent history, both public and private, has displayed the fundamental function choice plays in a person’s independence, liberty, and freedom. Yet said history has shown that many of the American people have given up the ability to choose, placing that responsibility on others. By doing so, people have voluntarily abandoned their position as free citizens in order to become enslaved subjects to those who do the choosing for them. Please leave your questions and comments below, and don't forget to subscribe. Find out more at http://constitutionstudy.com

For decades, Congress has been turning over more and more lawmaking power to the Executive Branch. Frequently this is done by legislation giving the head of some agency or department the power to establish rules which have the force of law. What happens when the legislation doesn't explicitly say that such-and-such department has the power to make a certain rule? To deal with this, courts have come up with something called "Chevron Deference". While the caseLoper Bright Enterprises, v Gina Raimondo, Secretary Of Commercedeals with who pays the salaries of federal observers on fishing boards, a more fundamental questioning of the court's deference to government agencies interpretation of law is the cornerstone of the petitioner's arguments.

In 1837, Daniel Webster wrote: "I apprehend no danger to our country from a foreign foe... Our destruction, should it come at all, will be from another quarter. From the inattention of the people to the concerns of their government, from their carelessness and negligence, I must confess that I do apprehend some danger." I’ve been thinking about that statement lately. I came across a video that I had forgotten about. It’s part of an interview with Soviet defector Yuri Bezmanov. Mr Bezmanov was a former KGB agent who defected to Canada in 1970. Then, in 1984, he gave an interview to G Edward Griffin where he exposed a long-term Soviet plan to defeat America not by force of arms, but through psychological warfare. You may be asking, what does a late 20th century defector have to do with a 19th century lawyer and statesman, and how could it possibly be relevant to our situation in the 2020s? Come to find out, both of these men were quite prescient in their warnings to the American people. Please leave your questions and comments below, and don't forget to subscribe. Find out more at http://constitutionstudy.com

In this third installment of the three-part series on the branches of government, we look at the role of the third and weakest branch. At least that is what our Founding Fathers thought of it. What is the role of the federal judiciary? What are the extent of their powers, how do they related to the other two branches of government, and why is a proper understanding of the role of the judiciary critical if the United States is to remain a constitutional republic? Please leave your questions and comments below, and don't forget to subscribe. Find out more at http://constitutionstudy.com

Merriam-Webster's Dictionary defines racism as: racism noun a belief that race is a fundamental determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race Racism - Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary This idea has taken many forms in American history, slavery, Jim Crow laws, eugenics, and yes affirmative action. Regardless of the euphemism you use, all of these policies are based in the idea that race is a fundamental determinant of human traits and capacities.

Freedom of speech has been under attack in this country, and Colorado has been a big part of it. First Jack Phillips of Masterpiece Cakeshop has spent ten years trying to defend his right to not be compelled to create custom cakes with messages which violate his beliefs. So when Lorie Smith wanted to expand her business into developing custom wedding websites, she was concerned that Colorado would do to her what it was doing to Jack Phillips. Her request for an injunction went all the way to the Supreme Court.

Someone reached out on the website with an interesting question. They wanted my take on the Militia Acts of 1793 & 1903 and the National Defense Act of 1916. Specifically, he wanted to know about the constitutionality of the militia system within the United States, so I took a look. What I found was interesting, but maybe not what some people would have expected.

You’ve probably noticed, I frequently use this quote from John Jay; “Every member of the State ought diligently to read and to study the constitution of his country, and teach the rising generation to be free. By knowing their rights, they will sooner perceive when they are violated, and be the better prepared to defend and assert them.” – John Jay, First Chief Justice of the United States” This quote is the foundational idea behind The Constitution Study. I’ve realized that I’ve spent a fair amount of space here on the topic of reading the Constitution, and about studying it, but not nearly enough teach it. Sure, I mention how important teaching the Constitution is, and I’ve put on sessions and events across this country where I teach the Constitution, but how much time and effort have I put into teaching people to be free? Today, I rectify that oversight, as this entire article will be about teaching, not just the rising generation, but all generations to be FREE!

I talk quite a bit about the limitations of the federal government and the need for the states to reassert the power they have to control their creation. The number of federal agencies that do not legally exist, the fact the the supreme court does not issue rulings but offers opinions, and we can’t forget about the fact that the states created the federal government, not the other way around. So you can probably imagine my elation to find my legislation proposed in my adopted home state that codifies the state doing exactly what I said all of the states need to do, regain control of their creation in Washington, D.C. So let’s take a look at this legislation, see what lessons we can learn from it, and maybe push our representatives in other states to join in this march toward liberty.

There are few things more universally feared and hatred than the IRS. When I’m asked about unconstitutional government agencies, and I point out that the IRS does exercise a power delegated to the United States, most people are gravely disappointed. While the IRS may legally exist, that does not mean that everything they do is constitutional. IRS’s rule to gather data from those in the gig economy went to far. While the Sixteenth Amendment does allow Congress to collect taxes on income from any source without apportionment to the states, the IRS used the threat of unreasonable searches to “encourage” compliance. But for those of us who read and study the Constitution, we can see that this is just the latest in a long line of abuses this agency has engaged in. Let’s face it, this $600 reporting requirement is less about collecting taxes and more about gathering intelligence on the American population.

None of us want to be judged by our race, sex, or how we live our lives. But what right do we have to impose our views on others, even to the point of controlling their private property. That is the question in a complaint against Yeshiva University. Does the City of New York have the legal authority to make a private university recognize a student group? Can the state order a religious school to violate its core beliefs to accommodate the wishes of a student? If we wish to live at liberty, doesn't that mean we have to allow others to enjoy their own liberty, even if we disagree with it?

Can a state arbitrarily decide whether or not you get to exercise a right protected by the Constitution of the United States? That is the question in the case New York State Rifle and Pistol Association (NYSRPA) v. Bruen, Superintendent of the New York State Police. New York State is a "may issue" state, meaning that you did not get your carry license even if you met all of the legal requirements, you had to show you had a "good cause" to carry a firearm in public. But self-defense was not considered "good cause" by the New York courts. You had to show you had a special need for self-defense, greater than the general public. Does that sound like infringement on your right to keep and bear arms to you?

After almost 50 years, a landmark decision of the Supreme Court has been overturned. Will it be remembered with other decisions like Dred Scott or Plessy v. Ferguson? Only time will tell. After all of the furor when a draft of the opinion was leaked, we finally get a chance to review that actual opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health in its final form.

You've probably heard about the "ruling" from a U.S. District Court Judge in Florida that "struck down" the CDC's mask mandate on public transportation. There has been plenty of discussion about what this means, how people have reacted, and the fact that the Biden administration has appealed this decision. What has been lost in most of the conversation is that the judge did not find the rule unconstitutional. What does this mean for the American people?

Misdirection is the stock and trade of both magicians and politicians. Over the years, the American people have been conditioned to focus on Washington, D.C. as both the source of our problems and their solution. In doing so, we are allowing those in our state and local government to steal our rights and our liberties right out from under our noses.

Imagine your rights are under attack. You seek assistance from those who have sworn to protect you, only to be attacked again. You reach out to what you think is your last hope, only to be rebuffed. Now consider how that must feel, to be abandoned by those who have sworn to protect you. Enter Seattle's Union Gospel Mission. Their freedom of religion is under attack, not by the laws of the State of Washington, but by a disgruntled job applicant. The Supreme Court of Washington placed their political preferences above their oath to support Constitution of the State of Washington. Then when the Missions seeks redress from the Supreme Court of the United States, they are rebuffed. Their only cold consolation, the statement by two justices that the court may have to deal with this infringement in the future. I've asked this before and I'll ask it again. Do you truly have Freedom of Religion when those who have sworn or affirmed to protect it fail to do so?

With all of the unconstitutional laws, executive orders, and regulations coming out of Washington, D.C. lately, people often wonder, what can be done. Out of control governments are nothing new in America. At the end of the 18th century, two of our Founding Fathers wrote about keeping what we now call the federal government in check. Let's look at how these two men expected the states to rein in the federal government.

Many of you may be wondering what medical ethics has to do with the Constitution. Many who've been following what's been going on with the COVID-19 "vaccine" and related mandates have asked me about the Nuremberg Codes. While this set of medical ethics is not law in the United States, it does support the rights protected by the Constitution. Understanding this code, and how the Constitution protects your rights is paramount if liberty and freedom are to survive the attack they are under by enemies both governmental and societal.

In a previous post I reviewed the oral arguments before the Supreme Court in two sets of cases involving federal vaccine mandates. It did not take long for the court to decide those cases. However, as is often the case, the reporting on these cases has been fairly atrocious. I've heard several respected people claim that the court "struck down" the OHSA mandate while others lamented the court decided not to protect healthcare workers. While the opinions the court offered are spilt, we need to remember that the court was only dealing with whether or not to enjoin these mandates until these cases have worked their way through the court system. The actual opinions regarding these injunctions is a bit of a mixed bag, but certainly not the definitive outcome you may have read or heard. So let us look at the opinions without the hype or hyperbole, and see if we can find a clue as to the state of the justice system in America today.

By the time this article posts, the Supreme Court has probable offered their opinion on the injunctions against OSHA's mandates against private businesses and healthcare providers. Before the court could render its opinion, there were oral arguments. While many court watchers seemed to believe the court would offer restriction if not find the mandates illegal, reading the transcripts of the oral arguments showed a much more serious failure in our legal system, the judicial branch, and the potential failure of our constitutional republic.

You bring the questions, I'll bring the answers.

The Supreme Court opinions in Roe v Wade (Roe) and Planned Parenthood vs Casey (Casey) have been political footballs since the day they were decided. A recent Mississippi law placed restrictions on abortions within the state that contradict the standards set by Roe and Casey. Not surprisingly, a lawsuit was filed challenging the Mississippi law. Recently, oral arguments in this case were heard at the Supreme Court. I found a number of arguments that I believe anyone interested in what the Constituiton actually says would find worth their time.

You bring the questions, I'll bring the answers.

You bring the questions, I'll bring the answers

You bring the questions, I'll bring the answers.