Dr. Scott Bradley Discusses Constitutionality Of Missile Strike On Syria

In under 8 minutes Dr. Scott Bradley, PhD in Constitutional Law and 2016 Constitution Party VP Nominee, touches on the Constitutionality of the recent missile strike launched against Syria.

 

For those saying the President has the power to launch an attack:

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11 of the Constitution of the United States:

[The Congress shall have Power To…] Declare war

Article 2, Section 2, Clause 1 & 2 of the Constitution of the United States:

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur…

 

For those citing that Commander-In-Chief = ability to unilaterally launch attacks in which Americans are not in imminent danger:

Thomas Jefferson, in 1801 as President:

He was “unauthorized by the Constitution, without the sanction of Congress, to go beyond the line of defense.”

Federalist 69, Alexander Hamilton:

The President is to be the “commander-in-chief of the army and navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several States, when called into the actual service of the United States. He is to have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment; to recommend to the consideration of Congress such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; to convene, on extraordinary occasions, both houses of the legislature, or either of them, and, in case of disagreement between them with respect to the time of adjournment, to adjourn them to such time as he shall think proper; to take care that the laws be faithfully executed; and to commission all officers of the United States.” In most of these particulars, the power of the President will resemble equally that of the king of Great Britain and of the governor of New York. The most material points of difference are these: — First. The President will have only the occasional command of such part of the militia of the nation as by legislative provision may be called into the actual service of the Union. The king of Great Britain and the governor of New York have at all times the entire command of all the militia within their several jurisdictions. In this article, therefore, the power of the President would be inferior to that of either the monarch or the governor. Second. The President is to be commander-in-chief of the army and navy of the United States. In this respect his authority would be nominally the same with that of the king of Great Britain, but in substance much inferior to it. It would amount to nothing more than the supreme command and direction of the military and naval forces, as first General and admiral of the Confederacy; while that of the British king extends to the declaring of war and to the raising and regulating of fleets and armies — all which, by the Constitution under consideration, would appertain to the legislature.1 The governor of New York, on the other hand, is by the constitution of the State vested only with the command of its militia and navy. But the constitutions of several of the States expressly declare their governors to be commanders-in-chief, as well of the army as navy; and it may well be a question, whether those of New Hampshire and Massachusetts, in particular, do not, in this instance, confer larger powers upon their respective governors, than could be claimed by a President of the United States.

 

For those insinuating that an Act, Treaty, Resolution, or international law warrants usurpation of the Constitution and carries the same weight as a Constitutional Amendment which changes the Constitution:

St. George Tucker, View of the Constitution of the United States:

Let it be supposed, for example, that the president and senate should stipulate by treaty with any foreign nation, that in case of war between that nation and any other, the United States should immediately declare against that nation: Can it be supposed that such a treaty would be so far the law of the land, as to take from the house of representatives their constitutional right to deliberate on the expediency or inexpediency of such a declaration of war, and to determine and act thereon, according to their own judgement?”

 

Also… James Madison, Constitutional Debates

Does it follow, because this power [treaty power] is given to Congress. That it is absolute and unlimited? I do not conceive that power is given to the President and Senate to dismember the empire, or to alienate any great, essential right. I do not think the whole legislative authority have this power. The exercise of the power must be consistent with the object of the delegation.”

 

And Thomas Jefferson, Manual of Parliamentary Practice:

“By the general power to make treaties, the Constitution must have intended to comprehend only those objects which are regulated by treaty and cannot be otherwise regulated. . . . It must have meant to except out of these rights reserved to the states, for surely the President and Senate cannot do by treaty what the whole government is interdicted from doing in any way.”

 

Obvious logical flaws with support for the strikes…

Who did it, with proof, please? – People are so convinced that Assad conducted the chemical weapon attacks. Why would he? Assad has changed the tide of the war over the past couple of years and has finally even been winning the P.R. War. None of this matters because it isn’t Constitutional, but there’s no logic behind an Assad attack.

But the innocent children!1. Don’t we hate when liberals demagogue and use the heart-wrenching, doomsday, or Alinskyite tactics? Why would conservatives resort to them? 2. We killed 4 innocent children in those strikes. If this provokes a war, how many of our children will die in a war that we have no business being in? 3. Millions of innocent AMERICAN children are murdered at the hands of Planned Parenthood. Where is the outcry regarding the genocide at home? Isn’t Trump’s daughter lobbying for PP now? Would there be rage if it were Planned Parenthood being attacked due to what they do to innocent children and women daily, or is that ok?

Was the United States in imminent danger? – Were we on the brink, with verifiable intelligence, of being attacked by Syria? Even if someone states that we were, intelligence informed us about WMD’s in Iraq, none there. They told us that Benghazi was caused by a video. Instead, our Intelligence agencies were running guns from Benghazi to Syrian rebels, aka TO ISIS!

Are we now siding with ISIS, against Christians? – It is common knowledge that Assad is fighting ISIS and has been protecting the persecuted Coptic Christians for quite some time. Are we not assisting ISIS by firing missiles on the Syrian military? Are we fighting against Christianity in the Middle East?

Ohhhhh the Hypocrisy! – Donald J. Trump in 2013 after a previous, supposed chemical weapon attack by Assad on his people via Twitter: “The President must get Congressional approval before attacking Syria-big mistake if he does not!”

 

 

Previous quotes and citations extracted from Dr. Bradley’s “To Preserve The Nation Webinars at http://www.freedomsrisingsun.com
Summers Mill Belton, TX

Constitution Party of Texas EC Meeting and State Conference

From the Constitution Party of Texas website:

 

When:
10 June 2017 all-day
Where:
Summers Mill Inn
7441 FM 1123
Belton, TX 76513
Contact:
Constitution Party of Texas (Daniel New)
254-785-2617

Our State Conference will be in Belton on June 10th, same venue as last year, Summers Mill Inn.

Jun 10 all-day

We have booked Summers Mill Inn for lodging for ten rooms for the night of June 9, and for the State Conference all day Saturday, the 10th of June.   Cost of the rooms are $96.12 apiece with all taxes included.  You can find a room in town at a nearby motel, for the night at that price or higher.

It is YOUR responsibility to book your room and pay for it – in advance.  I’ve asked them to pencil in these ten rooms as a guarantee, but as of today she still has a few empty rooms besides these.  After these it will be first-come, first-serve.

Call Summers Mill at (254) 939.6194, ask for Judy, have your credit card ready.  Or mail a check if you prefer.

Their website is http://summersmill.com/

Founded on Truth

How DO We Disestablish The U.S. Department Of Education?

Join the free 2017 conference call series focusing on the U.S. Department of Education, held by Founded On Truth.

foundedontruth
Dr. Peg Luksik

On February 7, Representative Thomas Massie introduced HR 899.  The bill is one sentence long and states that the U.S. Department of Education will be terminated on December 31, 2018.  Representative Massie’s bill is a vivid reminder of the fact that there is no Constitutional role for the federal government in education.

From Founded On Truth:

In response, our first 2017 conference call series will focus specifically on the US DOE.  In part one, Chairman Peg Luksik will explore how federal education dollars fit into overall education spending, including state and local dollars.
The conference will last no more than 30 minutes and will be available on the Founded on Truth web site for future playback.  Although there is no cost for attendance, donations are greatly appreciated.
So mark your calendars for

  • Tuesday February 28 at 8:00 PM Eastern Time
  • Dial in number 641-715-3580
  • Passcode 249850

And together, let’s begin to make the American vision of locally controlled schools a reality once again.

A Brief Look at the History of Third Parties in America

by Gary Odom, political activist and former National Field Director for the Constitution Party
 
Gary Odom Publicity Shot Most Americans have been led to believe that that the United States has a two-party political system. In fact, of course, the Constitution of the United States says nothing about political parties and many of the founding fathers abhorred the very idea of political parties taking root in America.

The fact that political parties have developed over the history the United States of America is largely due to human nature–a tendency to congregate with others who have mutual ideas and interests.  From almost the beginning there were two competing parties–the Federalists of Washington, Hamilton and Adams and the Democratic-Republicans of Jefferson, Madison and others.  This was the beginning of the so-called “two party system.”

Despite this, new parties are not a unique experience in American politics.  It wasn’t long before there was a change in the original line-up.  In 1816,  the Federalists were to run their last Presidential candidate and for much of the remainder of the first part of the 19th Century the Whig Party provided the primary competition for the party that came to be known as the Democrat Party.  Well known Whigs included Daniel Webster, William Henry Harrison and Henry Clay.

In the 19th Century new parties continued to develop.  In 1832, the Anti-Masonic Party won 8% of the vote.  In 1848 the Free Soil Party, led by former President Martin Van Buren, won 10% of the vote.  In 1856, the year the Republican Party was born–as a new or “3rd Party–another 3rd Party, the American Party (or Know Nothings as they came to be better known) won 22% of the popular vote with former President Millard Fillmore heading the ticket.  Of course, in 1860, Abraham Lincoln of the new Republican Party was elected President.  The Republican Party had been born as a “third party” in 1856, as aforementioned, largely in response to the issue of slavery.

Thereafter, the Whig Party, which had failed to take a strong stand on the matter of slavery, faded from the political scene and was replaced by the Republican Party as the second major party in the eyes of most people.  Nevertheless, throughout the remainder of the 19th Century new parties continued to burst onto the scene and some met with success.  The People’s Party (also known as Populist Party) flourished in the latter years of the 19th Century and continued on into the early years of the 20th Century.  Its Presidential ticket carried four states in 1892 and it elected candidates to office in local and statewide races in some jurisdictions.  Its fortunes were short lived, however, as the Democrat Party co-opted many of its main issues in 1896.  It re-organized and hung on to some degree until 1908 when its flame finally flickered out.

In the early 1900’s the interest in alternative political solutions had not, however, abated.  As the late William K. Shearer noted, in his history of the American Independent Party: 

“By the early 1900s, the Republican Party had become thoroughly dominated by a few powerful political bosses, the giant political bosses, and the financial empires which the bosses serve.  Farmers, workers and independent businessmen suffered while the power of government was directed only to serve the interests of railroad, banking and other monopolies.”

“Particularly in the Midwest and West rebellion stirred.  Dynamic political personalities such as Robert La Follette in Wisconsin, George Norris in Nebraska, Hiram Johnson in California, the Nonpartisan League in North Dakota, and the Farmer-Labor Party in Minnesota overturned the monopoly-dominated Republican machines and elected public officials pledged to progressive goals…” 

This, generally speaking, was the foundation of what became known as the Progressive Party.  In 1912, the Progressive Party, with Theodore Roosevelt as its standard bearer, received over 4,000,000 popular votes (27.4% of the total) and over 88 electoral votes.  In 1916, however, Roosevelt deliberately scuttled the Progressive Party, and went back to the Republican Party.  That year, the Progressive Party failed to nominate a candidate for President at its national convention.  The Progressive Party did survive in some states until the 1940’s and again ran a Presidential ticket in 1924 with Senator Robert La Follette as its Presidential nominee and Senator Burton K. Wheeler as its Vice-Presidential candidate.  That ticket secured 4,800,000 popular votes (16.6%) and 13 electoral votes, but 1924 proved to be the end for the Progressive Party as a national entity.

In the 20th Century there were more new party efforts, not all of which does space allow mention of here.  The 1948 Presidential Campaign featured two “third parties,” the States Rights Dem­ocrats, “Dixiecrats” lead by South Carolina Governor Strom Thurmond and a new Progressive Party incarnation led by former Vice-President, Henry Wallace, though neither effort took on a life beyond the 1948 election year.  Two other major third party efforts in the 20th Century must also be noted:  The American Independent Party candidacy of former Alabama Governor George Wallace in 1968 and the Reform Party candidacies of Ross Perot in 1992 and 1996.

In 1968, a year of great turbulence in American history, George Wallace secured nearly 10,000,000 popular votes and about 14% of the votes along with the electoral votes of the states of Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Georgia.  This effort did grow into an ongoing political party, the American Independent Party, though Wallace was never again to be its nominee.

After the Wallace candidacy of 1968, the Republicans and Democrats and the power brokers who support them, were sufficiently alarmed so as to cause them to begin the process of making ballot access laws for new parties–particularly in some southern states–much more difficult around the country.  As a result, new grassroots parties such as the Constitution, Libertarian and Green Parties now face difficulties not generally encountered by 3rd Parties in the 19th Century and the early part of the 20th Century in just putting its candidates on the ballot.  Many state laws make simply qualifying for the ballot an exceedingly difficult chore.  It is, of course, very difficult to compete in an election when one isn’t even allowed to be on the ballot!

Another obstacle arising more prevalently in the latter part of the 20th Century has resulted in the dwindling number of competitive news media sources that are willing to provide information about new parties and their candidates.  With the vast reduction in the number of newspapers and consolidation of all news media sources into the hands of just a few major corporations, which are closely interlocked with the major financial institutions who have a strong interest in perpetuating the status quo, there is very little opportunity for a new political “brand” to break through the media barrier.  In fact, since 1972, after the shock to the establishment caused by the Wallace candidacy in ’68, there has been in effect what has been described as a “blackout” concerning new or “third” political parties on the part of the national media.

The majority of Americans who depend on the national media for their information are now completely unaware of the existence and efforts the so-called “minor parties” such as the Constitution Party, the Libertarian Party or the Green Party.  Only in unique circumstances, when its hand is forced, does the national news media even acknowledge other parties or independent candidates, in any kind of a serious way.  Such a circumstance did arise in 1992, when well- known billionaire Ross Perot ran as a candidate on his newly established Reform Party.  It was clear to the news media that if it ignored his candidacy he could bypass any blackout by simply buying all of the paid advertising that he needed.  In addition, his money would allow him to overcome ballot access barriers which provide difficult obstacles to grassroots party movements.  Therefore, the national news media didn’t even try to ignore him.  Because of his folksy manner and the fact that he was hitting on important issues,  ignored by the other parties, such as the national debt and trade policies which were causing the loss millions of  American jobs, Perot actually led all candidates in the polls for quite a while in 1992 and finally ended up setting a record for an independent or third party popular vote total, though he received no electoral votes.

It should be noted that in 1992 there were several other well organized third party efforts including the US Taxpayers (Constitution) Party, Libertarian Party, and Natural Law Party.  These parties did not have millions at their disposal to spend and were ignored by the national news media, despite the serious messages propounded by their candidates.

That only two parties have dominated the American political scene for most of the 20th Century and early portion of the 21st Century can be attributed to the fact that this “two-party paradigm” has served the established economic powers very well.  While this was to some extent true throughout history, the consolidation of media sources and the mergers of major corporations and financial interests have made the effect more pronounced since the latter part of the 20th Century.

Dr. Carroll Quigley, a professor at Harvard, Princeton and Georgetown Universities wrote a book entitled “Tragedy and Hope” which amounted to an “expose,” albeit an affectionate one, of the international “roundtable” network which, working with “the ‘powers of financial capitalism, has the aim of establishing world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole.”  Certainly in the 20th and 21st centuries, there is little room for doubt that we have seen the consolidation of financial power into fewer hands and that these power brokers exert greater control over the media and the political system than ever before.

In examining the “two party system” prevalent in the United States, Professor Quigley noted:

“The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps, of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to the doctrinaire and academic thinkers.  Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can “throw the rascals out” at any election without leading to any profound or extreme shifts in policy.”

One doesn’t have to subscribe to a “conspiracy theory of history” to understand that this “pendulum-style political system” serves the big-monied special interests and the entrenched parties, whom they control, quite well.  The powerful special interests, sitting, figuratively, at the fulcrum of the pendulum, contribute to and exert tremendous influence and control over both, the Republican and Democrat parties.  While the voters feverishly push the political pendulum back and forth from one side to the other, election after election, under the impression that they are making significant changes, there is actually almost never any significant change made at all when it comes to real policy.  In fact, those who exert the real power and influence behind the scenes (or at the fulcrum for the purpose of this example) rarely, if ever, care which candidate or party is elected.  While the names sometimes change, and the rhetoric may be passionate and seem significantly different between the parties, policy almost never changes because the big money power brokers who effectively control most of what happens in both major parties remain the same and so do their interests.

History demonstrates that new parties, despite the “conventional wisdom” that America has a two-party system, have existed almost from the beginning of our nation’s history.  Rather than being a strange anomaly, they have been a natural and frequent political occurrence.  On two occasions previously dominant national parties were replaced by newer parties.  First, the Whigs replaced the Federalists and later the Republicans replaced the Whigs.  In both 1968 and 1992, similar re-alignments nearly occurred.  As dissatisfaction with major party politicians has reached an all-time high, it would certainly appear that some new re-alignment of political parties is highly possible, and would be extraordinarily appropriate.  It will be necessary however, if this is to occur, for American voters to begin to think for themselves and to cease being slaves to “pendulum politics.”  The American voter must break from the habit of voting for the lesser of two evils out of fear, and begin voting for what, in their heart, they know is right and for those candidates who they know will do right, according to the Constitution of the United States of America.

If the American people are ready to take this courageous step, the Constitution Party is prepared to be that new broom that will sweep clean and give the American people a real chance to reclaim their nation.


(“A Brief Look at the History of Third Parties in America”, page 5;  America Needs a Third Party Now!


Click here to return to main Platform and Resolutions page.

Save

Howard Phillips: The Conservative’s Conservative

Howard Phillips was born in Boston, Massachusetts in 1941.  The son of Jewish parents, he later converted to Christianity, and remained a devout Christian to the end of his life.  He married Margaret “Peggy” Blanchard and together they raised six children.

A 1962 graduate of Harvard College in Cambridge Massachusetts, he was twice elected as chairman of the Student Council.

During the 1970s and ’80s, Phillips also coordinated efforts to build private sector support for anti-Communist freedom fighters in Central America and southern Africa. He played an instrumental role in the leadership of the New Right and Religious Right political movements. Phillips led geostrategic fact-finding missions to Eastern Europe, Africa, the Baltic States, South America, Central America, Western Europe, and the Far East.

During the Nixon Administration, Phillips headed two Federal agencies, ending his Executive Branch career as Director of the U.S. Office of Economic Opportunity in the Executive Office of the President, a position from which he resigned when President Nixon reneged on his commitment to veto further funding for “Great Society” programs.

Howard Phillips founded the U.S. Taxpayers Party (USTP) in 1992 to offer America leadership committed to restoring the Federal Republic to its delegated, enumerated Constitutional functions and returning American jurisprudence to its original “common law” Biblical foundations. Phillips was nominated in 1992 and 1996 to be the USTP candidate for President of the United States. In 1999, the name of the US Taxpayer’s Party was changed to “Constitution Party” to better reflect the party’s primary focus of returning government to the U.S. Constitution’s provisions and limitations, and Howard Phillips was chosen to be its 2000 Presidential candidate.

Phillips also served as President of The Conservative Caucus Research, Analysis & Education Foundation.

Author of four books: The New Right at Harvard (1983), Moscow’s Challenge to U.S. Vital Interests in Sub-Saharan Africa (1987), The Next Four Years (1992), and Victory 2000 (1999).

Awards:

  • The June 1982 Eagle Forum Award for leadership in the pro-family cause, and “steadfast opposition to the mischief of the federally-financed feminists.”
  • The National Association of Pro-America 1983 Award for “promoting Constitutional government”.
  • The National Council on Bible Curriculum in Public Schools Award, 1995.
  • The Strategic Resource Group’s William Wilberforce Award for “Ministry to the Nation/Public Policy” in September, 1996.
  • The Patrick Henry Center for Individual Liberty conferred upon him the title of “Patriot” in May 2002.

America truly lost one of her most valiant patriots with the passing of Howard Phillips in April of 2013.  Thank you, Howie, for carving the path for us to follow in re-establishing the American Constitutional Republic.  May we live up to your vision and the vision of the Founders of these United States of America.


Darrell L. Castle’s Tribute to Howard W. Phillips, the Founder of the Constitution Party
A Great Man Has Fallen by Chuck Baldwin
Howard Phillips Legacy Society

CASE FOR IMPEACHMENT