This will be the end result if the this year’s presidential election results in chaos

The internet is full of conflicting information about what would happen if there is no clear winner by inauguration day in this upcoming presidential election.  This scenario is highly likely because of the absolute chaos that will be caused by so many states adopting mail in ballots because of the Coronavirus pandemic.  To find the truth about what would happen I decided to check the most original source material I could find on the subject, the United States Constitution.  

The Twelfth Amendment governs exactly what would happen if there is no clear winner of the presidential election.   I knew it would end up in the House of Representatives and I dreaded that because, as we all know, the Democrats control the House.  After reading the amendment and doing some research I was greatly relieved.  Here is the appropriate clause of the amendment.

The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; 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 a member or members from two-thirds of the States, and a majority of all the States shall be necessary to a choice.

I tried to use Google to find out the breakdown of the House of Representatives by party and state.  Google as usual failed to provide search results for a clear and concise search request.  Thankfully I found the information in this Breitbart article Pollak: How Pelosi’s House of Representatives Could Re-elect Trump.  As you can see it was great news for us lovers of liberty.

While there are 435 representatives, there will only be 50 votes. And a current tally of representatives in each state shows that there are more Republican-majority delegations than Democrat-majority delegations. Republicans control 26 delegations; Democrats dominate 22; Pennsylvania is tied and Democrats have a 7-6 Michigan plurality.

I was concerned about the Democrats derailing the entire election, which should result in a Trump victory, by not Showing up when the election is handed off to the House.  To prevent that from happening there would need to be more than thirty four States that have at least one Republican Representatives who would show up.  There are only seven or eight states that have no Republicans so we are safe. 

The Breitbart article gives the exact timing of when the election would be handed off to the House of Representatives if there is no victor.

It seems almost certain that neither party will accept a close result in the presidential election on November 3. And given the likely delays due to vote-by-mail, recounts, and legal challenges, it is possible neither President Donald Trump nor former Vice President Joe Biden will have an Electoral College majority by December 14, when the Electors cast their votes.

The Twenieth Amendment governs exactly what would happen if the House of Representatives could not come up with a winner by Inauguration Day.

 If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice-President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice-President shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice-President shall have qualified.

As you can see, whichever party wins the House in the November election would appoint a temporary president until the election mess is finally sorted out.  It is a tremendous incentive to do our best to make sure the Republicans take back the House.

Coronavirus lockdowns violate the US Constitution and the Rule of Law

Thanks to our abysmal educational system most of us do not have a proper understanding of the US Constitution, mostly in regards to the relationship between the federal government and states. Under the original understanding of the Constitution the States are mostly independent nations held together by a weak federal government.  That has not changed, only our elected officials have ignored the original meaning. 

The US Constitution as originally ratified only restrained the states in a few key areas, all of which are listed in Article 1 Section 10.  It was very difficult for state laws to violate the US Constitution.   We have been conditioned to mistakenly believe the Supreme Court has the authority overturn state laws and state laws do regularly violate the US Constitution. 

If it was not for the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment the state Coronavirus lockdowns and other actions would not violate the US Constitution.  Here are the clauses of that amendment which are violated by the state lockdowns.

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The shelter in place orders and similar lockdown orders deprive a large percentage of the inhabitants of the states of their liberty.  Liberty is the freedom to do as you please as long as you don’t hurt anyone.  A state or local government can only deprive an individual of their liberty if that individual has been found guilty in a court of law. There are no exceptions for emergencies.  Forcing stores to close also violates the liberty of the owners and workers of the stores.

Labeling certain individuals as essential and others not essential workers and allowing them to travel based on that classification violates the equal protection clause.  Closing only certain stores also violates the equal protection clause.

According the Section Five of the Fourteenth Amendment the US congress through the formal legislative process not the Supreme Court has the authority to overturn state laws that violate that amendment.  That was done in response to the Dred Scott Case.

Lockdowns violate the Rule of Law.  This concept is defined by the Oxford Dictionary as:

The restriction of the arbitrary exercise of power by subordinating it to well-defined and established laws

These lockdowns are arbitrary rules made up by governors.  They apply only to certain individuals.  They are not well thought out and do tremendous harm.  They are unjust rules.

Be careful which dictionary you use, some are deeply erroneous.  Here is how the Merriam Webster dictionary defines the Rule of Law “a situation in which the laws of a country are obeyed by everyone.” For the Rule of Law to apply the law must be just and it must be a valid law passed by those with the proper authority.  Ignoring or protesting unjust laws are valid methods of maintaining the Rule of Law.

The Coronavirus lockdowns and everything else violate state constitutions and state laws. That is the proper level for fighting these unjust rules and practices.

If we could stop looking to the federal government to solve our problems that would be great

It is abundantly clear from the transcripts of the Constitutional Convention and the transcripts of the Ratification Debates, the framers of the Constitution would never have dreamed that the federal government would become the primary solver of all the problems facing the people of the United States.  In fact most would be horrified, saddened, and confused to learn how it is now.

The framers of the Constitution would be horrified to learn that most problems are now solved on the federal government level because they knew the end result of this would be an extremely large and powerful federal government.  They knew that such a large and powerful federal government would be an extreme threat to the rights and liberty of the American people.  They took great care to write a Constitution that would prevent the federal government from growing so large and powerful.

The framers of the Constitution would be saddened to hear that the American people chose to abandon the constitution that they so expertly crafted for us.  Only by abandoning the Constitution could we allow the federal government to become the solver of all of our problems.

The framers of the Constitution would be confused that the federal government is now the primary solver of most of our problems because of all the provisions they worked into the Constitution to make sure the federal government would not have power and authority to carry out this role.  The federal government created by the Constitution was only meant to carry specific roles namely, to defend the United States as a whole, to represent the United States as one nation diplomatically to other nations, and to prevent the individual states from squabbling with each other.  The Constitution created a federal government with a very limited number of powers, all of them clearly spelled out.  None of those powers grant the federal government the power and authority to solve problems such as healthcare, poverty, education, and so much more.

The framers of the Constitution knew that the individual States, local governments, and individuals were the proper places to solve the problems of this nation,  That is exactly the blueprint they used when they wrote the Constitution.

Here is my solution to the healthcare crisis that would fit into the Constitution, and has a remarkable probability of working: let each state come up with their own unique solution to the problem for the residents of that state.  The government of each state could communicate with each other to find out which solutions worked the best and perhaps copy it.

The federal government has tried to fix education and has only made the problem far greater.  The same holds true for poverty.

To increase the prosperity of individuals the federal government needs to get out of the way.  For far too many decades the federal government has smothered private businesses with too many regulations.  President Trump has begun to dial this back, however, there is so much more that needs to be done.  Greatly slashing tax rates would be a tremendous help also, the first Trump tax were only a small step in that direction.

The war on poverty has only resulted in more poverty and way too much dependence on government handouts.  Private charity would do far more good along with the greatly increased standard of living that would be generated for everyone with slashed regulations and taxes.

So many other problems we are looking to the federal government to solve would actually be solved at the state and local level if we let that happen.

An essential reading list for all Patriots

if a nation expects to be ignorant & free, in a state of civilisation, it expects what never was & never will be. the functionaries of every government have propensities to command at will the liberty & property of their constituents. there is no safe deposit for these but with the people themselves; nor can they be safe with them without information. where the press is free and every man able to read, all is safe.

Thomas Jefferson quote from a letter to Charles Yancey

Unfortunately our abysmal educational system, at all levels, has worked very hard at keeping everyone ignorant to the true meaning of our Constitution.  Because of this very few of us have a proper understanding of that most magnificent document which is the foundation of our nation and legal system.  Because of our ignorance the federal government has distorted the true meaning of the Constitution so much that they now use it as a weapon to take away our freedoms, rights, and property.  The only way to reverse this is for all of us patriots to educate ourselves and others about the true meaning of the Constitution. 

I’ve assembled a reading list of seven books that I consider to be essential reading for all patriots who wish to educate themselves about the Constitution,

1. The 5000 Year Leap by W. Cleon Skousen

This is the book that got me started on my journey to becoming a Constitutional scholar.  I consider it to be the best primer for learning about the concepts that the founding fathers used to write the Constitution and build the United into the freest and most prosperous nation that ever existed.

2. The Making of America: The Substance and Meaning of the Constitution by W. Cleon Skousen

Every single clause of the Constitution is broken down and explained in great detail using quotes from those that wrote and ratified the Constitution.  This is a lengthy book however it is extremely informative and very interesting.

3, Notes of Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787 by James Madison

There is no better way to achieve a proper understanding of the Constitution than to study the transcript of the convention where the Constitution was written.  James Madison’s transcripts chronicle the many twists and turns during the entire process of the drafting so you achieve a perfect understanding of the final product.

4. The Federalist Papers by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay

The ratification of the Constitution was very touch and go.  It looked like it would not be passed in several states.  To improve the odds three individuals wrote essays explaining the different components of the Constitution in great detail, often answering concerns of critics of the Constitution.  This is a perfect resource for understanding the Constitution. 

5. The Anti-Federalist Papers by Robert Yates and Et Al

The Anti-Federalist Papers are a collection essays from critics of the Constitution.  In most of the essays they raised valid criticism, pointing out actual flaws.  In many cases it took decades for their criticisms to be proven correct.

6. The Bill of Rights: Original Meaning and Current Understanding by Eugene W. Hickok Jr.

The current meaning of the Bill of Rights is 180 degrees opposite from the meaning understood by those that wrote and ratified it.  The author of this book compares the original meaning and the current understating of every clause of the Bill of Rights,  There is no better resource on the Bill of Rights that I’ve found so far.

7. The Dirty Dozen: How Twelve Supreme Court Cases Radically Expanded Government and Eroded Freedom by Walter Levy and William Mellor

The Judicial Branch is the one branch of the federal government that was restrained the least by the Constitution.  The Supreme Court has issued far too many rulings that contradict the meaning of the Constitution.  This has allowed the federal government to grow so huge that it is now a direct thread to our freedom, liberties, and rights.  This book examines twelve cases that were the most egregious examples of the Supreme Court not following the Constitution.  

How well do you understand the Bill of Rights?

Sunday, December 15th, marked the 228th anniversary of the ratification of the Bill of Rights.  That anniversary got me thinking about how so few on all sides of the political spectrum properly understand this most important protector of our rights.  This is because our elected officials on all levels have distorted the original meaning so much that the current understanding is 180 degrees opposite from the meaning as understood by those that framed and ratified it.  Our abysmal education system, which teaches political correct revisionist history rather than civics, the news media, and our entertainment industry are also to blame.

Here are the most common and most dangerous misconceptions about the Bill of Rights that I’ve encountered.

1. The Bill of Rights grants us our rights, 

People on the right and the left regularly spread this mistruth; most commonly by stating the we have First Amendment rights, or something similar.  This is a dangerous notion because our rights could then be taken away by amending the Bill of Rights or disregarding the actual meaning, which has been done too often.

This quote from the Declaration of Independence tells us exactly where the framers of the Bill of Rights believed our rights come from:

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; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

2. The Bill of Rights applies to the States

It is abundantly clear from the debates that occurred during the ratification of the Constitution, where the states conventions demanded a Bill of Rights, that the purpose of those amendments was to restrain the federal government only.  This is also abundantly clear from the debates where the Bill of Right s was framed, and the debates where the amendments were ratified by the states.  Thomas Jefferson explained this very eloquently when he wrote the first draft of the Kentucky Resolutions in 1798

3. _Resolved_, That it is true as a general principle, and is also expressly declared by one of the amendments to the Constitution, that “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;” and that no power over the freedom of religion, freedom of speech, or freedom of the press being delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, all lawful powers respecting the same did of right remain, and were reserved to the States or the people: that thus was manifested their determination to retain to themselves the right of judging how far the licentiousness of speech and of the press may be abridged without lessening their useful freedom, and how far those abuses which cannot be separated from their use should be tolerated, rather than the use be destroyed. And thus also they guarded against all abridgment by the United States of the freedom of religious opinions and exercises, and retained to themselves the right of protecting the same, as this State, by a law passed on the general demand of its citizens, had already protected them from all human restraint or interference. And that in addition to this general principle and express declaration, another and more special provision has been made by one of the amendments to the Constitution, which expressly declares, that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press:” thereby guarding in the same sentence, and under the same words, the freedom of religion, of speech, and of the press: insomuch, that whatever violated either, throws down the sanctuary which covers the others, and that libels, falsehood, and defamation, equally with heresy and false religion, are withheld from the cognizance of federal tribunals.

Some of the readers of this article might strenuously disagree with the fact that the Bill of Rights does not pertain to the states.  This was done by the framers of the Bill of Rights on purpose because they believed granting the federal government all of that power would result in a gigantic and oppressive federal government.  We have this now because the federal government granted itself unconstitutionally the power to extend the Bill of Rights down to the states. 

The Bill Rights is a hands off list for the federal government.  Our rights are too precious for the federal government to interfere with in any way.  The framers believed that state and local governments were the proper levels to make decisions regarding these rights because the people could better oversee the state and local levels.

All state constitutions have a Bill of Rights which protects the rights of the citizens of that state.  Here is what Clause 13 of the Virginia Rill of Rights has to say about the right to bear arms.  The current governor of Virginia should take note.

That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

3. The Fourteenth Amendment incorporated the Bill of Rights down to the State and local level

As you can see from the actual text of  Clause 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment, that amendment was never meant to extend the entire Bill of Rights down to the states.  The only clause that was extended was the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment,

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The Supreme Court created the unconstitutional doctrine of incorporation by disregarding the text of the amendment and the transcripts of the debates where it was written and ratified.  Incorporation has resulted in tremendous harm such as the banning of most things religious from the public square,  setting criminals free because of a technicality, and so much more.

4.  The Fourteenth Amendment granted the Supreme Court the authority to overturn state laws involving the Bill of Rights.

Using the unconstitutional doctrine of Incorporation, the Supreme Court single handedly granted itself the power to overturn state laws.  As you can see from the actual text of Clause 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment  “The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.”  that power was specifically not granted to the Supreme Court by the amendment, but instead granted to the US Congress through the formal legislative process.  That was because the Dred Scott ruling stood firmly in the minds of those that wrote the amendment. 

The only way to restore the original meaning of the Bill of Rights is by using the internet to educate others.  Please help me do that by sharing this article on social media.  Also, please consider contributing to this website by using the Tip Jar.