Summary
âž¡ Mr. Constitution Douglas v. Gibbs, who recently moved from California to Oregon, is conducting an online Constitution class. He encourages participants to invite others to join the class. The class involves going through the Constitution line by line, discussing its original intent and history. He emphasizes that the class is not about party politics but about understanding the Constitution, and everyone is welcome as long as they behave respectfully.
âž¡ Doug, a city council member, is criticized for not proposing many laws, but he believes in limited government. The speaker argues that lawmakers are creating unnecessary laws because they’ve run out of necessary ones. They also discuss the misuse of power by the federal government, which they believe should only have powers granted by the constitution. The speaker also mentions the addition of new traffic signs and bike lanes as examples of unnecessary laws.
âž¡ The text discusses the concept of ‘vested’ powers in the U.S. Constitution, which are irrevocable and cannot be given away through legislation. It argues that the Federal Reserve Act, which gave Congress the power to coin money, is unconstitutional as it violates these vested powers. The text also discusses the potential dangers of an Article Five convention, where the constitution could be amended, and the changes in senator election methods due to the 17th amendment and Reynolds v. Sims. Lastly, it touches on the economic policies of past presidents, particularly Eisenhower and Kennedy.
âž¡ The text discusses the concept of taxation and its impact on economic growth, the difference between nationalism and patriotism, and the structure of the U.S. government. It explains that cutting taxes can stimulate economic activity, and that nationalism refers to a strong central government, not necessarily patriotism. The text also delves into the structure of the U.S. government, explaining the roles of the Senate and House of Representatives, and how they represent different factions within society.
âž¡ The article discusses the potential threat to the U.S. Constitution, with some advocating for its revision. It highlights the role of Warren Berger, former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, who resigned to work on the bicentennial U.S. Constitution project, which some believe has political motives. The article also mentions Project 87, a bicentennial organization dedicated to promoting understanding of the Constitution, and the Committee of the Constitutional Systems (CCS), which proposes significant changes to the Constitution. The author expresses concern over these developments and emphasizes the importance of preserving the original Constitution.
Transcript
Look, we are live. Welcome, everybody, to the untold History Channel. My name is Ron partain, and it is Tuesday, which means we get to study the Constitution. And it’s Tuesdays with Mike. So two of my favorite shows back to back. The first one, obviously, with Mister Douglas v. Gibbs, the man himself, the man, the myth, the legend in his own mind, the angel fan who is just struggling to, you know, support a team that can’t even beat a t ball team. Hey, hey, hey, hey, hey. I tell you what, though, you know what I see up here in southern Oregon? An awful lot of San Francisco Giants hats.
Oh, yeah, well, of course. And I’m thinking, and I thought to myself today when I saw, and I thought, man, Ron would just be like, holy cow. Oh, no, I know. That’s, that’s the. The Giants have, the Giants have Reno. They’ve got basically almost all of southern Oregon, northern California. And the Giants, actually, the Giants reach, like, their market share goes all the way down to basically, like, Visalia. Bakersfield is considered more Dodger territory. Right. But Visalia north is considered giant territory. So, you know, you know, and not, not that we want to get down too, too deep into the woods on this, but you know how the Giants got to, got to San Francisco, right? Well, they came from New York.
Yeah, but when 57 was it, 585-78-5858 was the first year here. And why did they come? Bigger market, I guess. I don’t know. A better market. They’d have to compete with another New York team, I guess. No, because the, the Dodgers wanted us a new stadium in Queens, and they wouldn’t give it to him. The guy that, the guy, I don’t know if he was the, the county or like the city assessor or what he was, but I think he was on this. I don’t know if he was a city council or a mayor or whatever, but his name was.
His name was Moses and his last name was Moses, and he wouldn’t give the Dodgers, the Dodgers wanted a dome stadium in Queens, and they wouldn’t give it to him. And so they said, heck with it. We’re out. We’re out of here. We’re going to already competing with New York Yankees, which pretty much could. No, there was three teams in New York. Well, the Mets didn’t come around till 69. Oh, the New York Giants. Oh, yeah, the, the New York Giants or the New York Yankees. The New York Times Yankees and Brooklyn Dodgers, Brooklyn. All three teams were in New York.
So when the Dodgers left, when the Dodgers left, they took the Giants with them? More or less, yeah. The Giants went to San Francisco and the Dodgers were. Because prior to that, the west, the furthest, the furthest most west team was. There were two. There were no. Kansas City was on a team. Oh, no. St. Louis. St. The, and there were. And how many teams were there in St. Louis? Well, yeah, they, see, because you had the, because, because you also have the St. Louis Browns, was it? Yes. Very good. St. Louis Browns, who ultimately became the Baltimore Orioles.
Right. And then, and then, of course, you have the Philadelphia A’s that went to Kansas City and then they went to Oakland. That’s correct. And then the, and then the, and then the. They got a warhammer. Be getting baseball guy, too. Oh, I know. Yeah. They got an expansion team, I want to say, in the early seventies, and they just sucked. The Kansas city. Talk about the Royals. Mm hmm. Yeah. Well, they sucked until George Brett showed up. Correct. And then they were. And then, and then the greatest. They were the angels primary. No. You know, and seed.
So some people who only know baseball now, they don’t know what, what kind of an enormous rivalry was there between the Kansas City Royals and the New York Yankees? That was just, man. Well, the Royals and Angels had a good rivalry, too. But the Royals usually beat the angels back. Yeah. And the Yankees usually beat the Royals, so. Well, see, what’s funny about the angels and the Yankees, too, there’s a rivalry. There is angels over the last, I can’t remember if it’s the two or three decades, is the only team with a winning record against the Yankees.
I remember that. And, which is weird because angels have a bad year, but they’ll still be the, well, that’s like me. That’s, that’s like, that’s like whenever the Dodgers play the Padres. I mean, the Padres could be the worst team in baseball, but they’re freaking just, they’ll take the season series from the Dodgers almost every year, so. Well, and it’s always been that way with the Raiders and Chargers in football. Uh, one team could be having a great football and allows these, and it’s still, the game’s always a nail biter. And sometimes the team with the worst record winds up winning it.
It’s way kind of rivalries are, but, uh. Yeah, I, I basically have, well, I basically, when it comes to baseball, I have three favorite baseball teams, the Angels, whoever’s playing the Dodgers and whoever’s playing the Yankees. So when the Dodgers and Yankees play each other, I don’t know who to, this is, this is, this is how I see it, this. Nope. This is the Dodgers and this is the Angels. You’re funny. All right, well, I know when I get come across Padres fans, you know, I joke the way you joked about the angels say, oh, yeah, that you mean that high school team.
But I say the same thing about chargers usually. But anyway. All right, anyway, enough sports. I had to needle you a little bit about the angle and all that, so I get it. Hi, everybody. And Melvin was the first in the chat to say something. So we’ll make sure I say hello to Melvin, who. Good evening. It’s interesting because here on where I’m at now, in southern Oregon, it doesn’t get dark until much later than it did when I was in southern California. So while it would be early evening in most places, it’s late afternoon here.
What’s, what’s, uh, what’s sunset up there? I think right now it’s what Virginia sunsets, like nine or 930 or something. Oof. Wow. I. Well, on the 4 July, I remember one year I was here to watch the fireworks show on Independence Day, and they, and they didn’t get it started till 1030 at night because that’s when it was dark enough. But, but then during the winter, it’s the opposite, man, we got real short days. I mean, it. So, yeah, I think it gets, it gets dark at like, what, 02:00 in the afternoon? I don’t know if.
I don’t know. That’s a good question. I’ve only been out here during that time of year a couple times and I don’t. Well, I mean, in southern California. In southern California, it’s like dark by 434 30. So. Yeah, yeah, it’s by 430. And then, um, you know, in the evenings, it is dark. All right, so let me do what I was going to do a second ago. So. Good evening, Mel. Good evening, real special ed and, and Sd Gardiner and Sapphira and, and everybody else who’s watching or listening. I appreciate all of you. There’s a couple new people on my email list, so if you guys are tuning in, Julio and a couple of others.
Welcome, Crystal, Chuck, welcome to the program. If you’re watching it live and, or if you’re watching later, I have so Melvin asked about Columbus, Ohio. I have Colonel Watkins, towner Walken Watkins helping me out with that. In fact, I’ve got to send her the dates. I think I’ll be in the area still. She’s helping me organize that. So I do have someone now in the area that’s actively let me get things set up out there in Ohio. I’m gonna guess it’s gonna be the first or second week of October. That’s kind of the range. We’re just now kind of putting things together still because the people in their responses have been slow getting things organized.
Minnesota is still looks like final week of September. And then Lansing, Milwaukee, Lansing, Michigan and probably Columbus, Ohio is the first week of October. Columbus could go to the second week, weekend. Maybe that’s the, I’d rather it be the weekend then. So for those of you who don’t know what we’re talking about this October, late last week, September, this October, I am going to be embarking on a tour. I do. I visit different parts of country almost every year lately I was in Washington DC and, and I spoke at Mackinac island in Michigan last year at the Michigan Republican Party state convention.
This year we’re going to kind of do our own tour rather than just being invited. I’m just creating because I’ve got different peeps in different places that are, helped me set them up. I’m not going to charge or anything to see me, which is, you know, I’ll try to hopefully break even selling books. But the plan is to basically travel through, from Minnesota north or eastward through the northern United States and then down the coast, working our way down to North Carolina and Chattanooga, Tennessee at the very end. So that’s the plan. That’s what we’re working on.
So thank you for asking, Melvin. And for those of you who are once again new, I am Mister Constitution Douglas v. Gibbs. And we right now this is my only constitution class. I have recently, just a few weeks ago, moved from the People’s Republic of California to Oregon. The Democratic People’s Republic of California. Yeah. And I am now in the southern end of the Oregon coast. And, and my neighbors remind me I’m not in Oregon. I’m in the state of Jefferson. Get that a lot around here. These mountain men of Oregon and these beach communities in southern Oregon.
Pretty conservative area. You still have your libtards here and, and all that, but, and Portland still has kind of a hold on the whole state on certain things. But for the most part, I am in real America in the place that I’m at. It’s definitely a big change from where I was in southern California. People are friendlier. I just introduced myself to the local republican party. They got no organizations, no meetings, nothing. It’s very, not very organized in the area. Um, and so I may work on changing that. We’ll see so at the moment, all of my constitution classes down in southern California are gone.
I have not started my Thursday night one yet. And so this is my only constitution class for the most right now online. And thanks to Ron partain here on his channel, this is our weekly learn the Constitution class. So for those of you who now are new or those of you coming regularly, do me a favor. Since this is the only one right now, let’s bring more people here, tell other people about it if you really enjoy it. Now, now that we’ve chatted a little bit for the first 15 minutes today, what we’re supposed to go through is article one, section one, and maybe a little bit more.
We’ll see. We talked about the preamble last week. Go. Oh, man, I missed it. No problem. We’re on rumble. Go back, check it out. But it’s always fun to be here live because you get to participate in the chat room. I do pay attention to the chat the best I can. So if you got any questions that don’t send me too off the beaten path, then, yeah. So gardener, Sd Gardener says, isn’t Portland an outlier for the lefties? Not the rest of Oregon. Portland, Salem, Eugene, maybe Corvallis, College town, Medford, a little bit, about half and half there.
And Coos Bay is kind of lefty and Astoria is a little lefty, which are the two coastal cities that are lefty. The rest of the state’s pretty darn conservative. And like I said, southern Oregon wants to be part of the state of Jefferson. Eastern Oregon wants to be part of greater Idaho. They all want to leave Portland. They don’t claim Portland is being a part of Oregon. But anyway. So, Nick Curley, I hope you’re being facetious. Kamala Harris will honor the constitution if elected, right? Yeah, I don’t know. I’m not familiar with that name. So I don’t know if he’s being.
Yeah, well, we’ll find out. But I don’t, is a male name, but could be female. But. So, yeah, we’ll see. Yeah. Let me, let me explain something here. This is about the Constitution. This show, this, everything I do, it’s not about party. Now I am a Republican, but only because I like some of them. There’s a handful that, you know, can be worked with. There’s not a, not a single Democrat that can be worked with. And they are, you know, authoritarian, whatever. But anyway, but this is about constitution. Everybody’s welcome. I want you to learn the basic original intent.
What we go through here is line by line through the constitution, line by line, original intent, history, all of that. Is that. That’s what we do here. Now, you can be bumped out of the chat room if you’re getting completely ridiculous and you’re acting troll alike. But you. We will have a block party. Yeah, but, but aside. But, but, but if you be reasonable, no cussing, no out of control stuff, no baiting, you know, people and stuff like that, then I go for it. Comment, ask questions, go through all of that stuff. I’m good with that.
Now, that all said preamble last week, article one, section one. Here’s what it says. If you got your pocket constitution, article one, section one. If you’ve got it online, great. And. And I know right now what Ron is doing is he is. Is working diligently to find article one, section one also for the screen. So we can get it up on the screen or. No, you got it. It’s here. I just, uh. Yeah, I have put it on the screen there. No, my computers is. My computer’s acting really slow today. You know, it’s funny because I got a new computer, partly for the show, and I used to get delays every once in a while, and I.
And I always accused my son of being on the Internet at the same time. It was the crappy computer. Right now I have like a dozen and a half, maybe two dozen tabs up, and it’s not delaying. This computer kicks butt. I’ve got 32 gigs of ram going here. Very nice. Yeah. So. And I’ve got, like, you know, what. What is it, four? Is it four gigs or two gigs up and down here? To two gigs up and down on my Internet also, so, you know, works well. But anyway, the lighting is still something to be worked on because right now I’m in the living room.
I haven’t gotten my office built, but once we do that, the lighting will get better. But anyway. So here we go. Here’s article one, section one. Everybody ready? Except for run. I’m going to give you a hard time, I tell you. There we go. Article one, section one. He even has it already highlighted. He was ready. He just, you know, took a moment. It was already open. I just had. It was already. It was. It was down to section ten. Yeah. Sd Gardner. When I tell people, I party, I tell them I’m a constitutionalist. It opens the door to explaining what that means.
So sometimes I think I can even teach people in a span of two minutes. So, you know, that’s. That’s a great comment. And often I tell people, is I’m a constitutionalist first. I’m only republican because there are more Republicans agree with me, the Democrats. But I’m a constitutionalist first. Absolutely. And when it comes to the machine, the two parties are the same. When it comes to that deep down machine, they’re all drinking from the same trough. I am a constitutionalist first. But one of the things I like to say, too, is I’m a classical centrist, and that really confuses people.
Constitution is dead center. It is not left or right. It’s in the middle. Of course, the left is so far left, they’ll call it to the right, but it’s actually dead center when it comes to the american version of the political spectrum. So, article one, section one, all legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a congress of the United States, which shall consist of a senate and house of Representatives. All legislative powers, all means all. I know it’s a shock. I know it’s because, you know, politicians, I’ll tell you, words mean all kinds of things.
All means all. Every single legislative power. What is a legislative power? Let’s spend some time on that. Now, if you’re taking notes, you’re gonna have three things to write down here on what a legislative power is your lead. First of all, legislation is making law or creating law. So your first legislative power is making law or creating law however you want to write it. The second legislative power is, is modifying law, and the third would be repeal law. So create law, modify law, repeal law. Legislative is lawmaking powers. Now, that said, we call our legislators lawmakers.
You ever see that in the news? All the time. Right? All the time. They are not lawmakers. They are representatives. Yes. A part of their job is making law and modifying law and create and. And repealing law. That’s a part of their job. Job. But they are not lawmakers. They are representatives who then, as a part of the representation, make law, modify law, or appeal law. The reason why I don’t like the term lawmakers is because if that is their job and that is their primary job, that’s all they think they are, is lawmakers, then all they’re gonna do is make law.
I love it when they don’t make law. Yeah, I’m a fan, too, when they don’t make law. And so it says, well, it’s a do nothing Congress. I love do nothing congresses. Hell, yeah. Less laws that we have to abide by. So, lawmakers, if their job is to make. I remember a friend of mine got on the local city council when I lived in Marietta, and he did something that was really shocking. He didn’t propose any ordinances, and he read everything. He didn’t take his staff’s word for what it said. He said he spent 80 hours a week reading or ordinances and propositions and the whole bit, proposals.
And later on, when I was talking to one of his colleagues, a gentleman who later on would then become the chief person in charge of the county Republican Party, and then ultimately, now he’s running for county supervisor, and he’s got all these lofty ambitions because he’s a part of the establishment. And he says, yeah, your friend Doug, he not a very good city council member. I said, why? Says, we didn’t propose anything. So. Well, yeah, he’s a limited government guy. If anything, I’m surprised he didn’t propose getting rid of ordinances. And this guy was like, well, he’s not very.
Then he’s, you know, the idea of being good at what you do if you’re in the lawmaking field is you make as much law as you can. That’s the attitude at all levels. Well, if you. If that’s the attitude, you’re a lawmaker, and your success is based on how many laws you make. What happens when you run out of necessary laws to make, you start making unnecessary laws, and that’s what’s going on right now. The necessary laws been made, and there’s an awful lot of unnecessary laws being made. And now they’re even running out of reasonable, unnecessary laws, and now they’re getting into really wacky doodle necessary laws, because our lawmakers, we got to make law.
We got to find something to make a law about. I mean, one of the stupidest things I’ve seen in southern California, and I don’t know if this is a state state thing or if different cities are doing this. They are now starting to put, and this has been about last year or two that I started seeing it, these yellow, like, reflector things around stoplights. Have you seen that? Yes. You know, because you might not see the light. So we’re gonna put a reflector around it. Well, they’re putting, they’re putting. And they’re putting. Flashing the eight flashing red lights on stop signs, too.
I mean, there’s a bunch of things that they’re doing that are. Well, they normally put flashy red lights around a stop sign when the stop sign was new to alert people that there’s a new stop sign there. You know, hey, look, there’s a stop sign. But now they’re starting to do it to all of them, regardless how long they’ve been there. Yeah. So because they’ve run out of necessary laws, they’re running out of, well, reason, you know. Do you know what the, uh, do you know what all the green trails are on the streets? Green trails.
Haven’t you ever, have you ever gone into a city where there’s like. Oh, yeah. For the bike lanes and stuff? For the bike paths? Yeah. Yeah. That’s all part of agenda 2030. Oh, yeah. Well, absolutely. Well, used to be. Now they’re down to a five minute city. Yeah, that’s agenda 2030. I remember, actually, I remember when I came down to hear your, your guy speak down in Temecula, the one who, like, made us put all our phones away. Oh, yeah, Eric, there was a, there was a book on the, on the counter, and I still have it to this day.
It was like, from the county, like, what the county was wanted to do. And the person that I brought with me to that meeting actually worked for the county. And I remember she was looking at some of the stuff, and she’s like, oh, my God, this is stuff that they’re doing right now. And she was like, I think she was. She was totally blown away at that. And anyway, well, that’s the purpose of what I do, is to get people educated about that stuff and go, whoa, I didn’t know this. All right, let’s do something about it.
You’re talking about for mine, Eric, I won’t give a last name because he would never be happy about that. But the guy used to be Navy SeAL and CIA, and this guy, I mean, he’s like super paranoid. Well, I guess if you used to be a part of the CIA, you would be paranoid, because you know the truth about what they’re really about. But I was just on the phone with a matter of fact, a few days ago, and so we’ve got some stuff that we’re kind of working on. But anyway, so get back to article one, section one.
So all legislative powers, all power to make law, modify law, or repeal law. That’s what those first few words mean herein here in here. In granted. Granted means given or legally transferred to. So if there is a transfer of power, if all legislative powers hear it, granted. If they’re being granted, there needs to be a grantor and a grantee, right? It sounds being granted, that means there’s a grantor and there’s grantee. Who’s the grantee? What’s mentioned later in this, in, in clause Congress, the two houses, the senate and House of representatives. So all federal legislative powers are that are granted.
Now, if it’s granted, who’s the grant? Who’s a grantor? The states. The states held all the power beforehand. Remember, this constitution is a contract, and the states are the parties that contract, and they’re creating something with the contract. So they’re granting some of their powers to this federal government through this contract. So they’re the grantors. So if they’re, they are the grantors and the federal government is the grantee. Anytime the federal government does something without permission, they are violating the constitution because it has to be granted. It needs to be given. They cannot give themselves power, except the states give them power.
That’s the reason why it takes three quarters of states to ratify an amendment, because the states have to approve of it. They’re the grantors. So all legislative powers herein granted here in granted. So also herein granted. It’s granted here in this constitution. In other words, if they’re to have the power, it’s granted in the constitution. In other words, it’s listed, it’s enumerated. That also ties into something called the enumeration doctrine. In order for the federal government to have an authority, a power, it has to be authorized by the constitution. Now, there’s an awful lot of things they do that are not authorized by constitution.
Remember, I’m not teaching way it is of teaching the way it’s supposed to be. I know they have gone nuts, and we’ll get into that later on. Doug, did you know SD gardeners asking a question here. Doug, did you know that OMB executive branch requires government agencies to do a cost benefit of proposed legislations? Well, they’re also supposed to. Also, the proposed legislations are all supposed to list what their constitutional authority is. And if they can’t find one, they put either the commerce clause or the general welfare clause, both of which have been misinterpreted and are misapplied.
So, yeah, just because they show that there has to be a cost benefit or, and, and a authority doesn’t mean that they’re honest about it. All right, so you’re using the word honest and government in the same sentence. Yeah. Wow. Sort of like you’re pretty bold individual. I know that all, let’s say powers here and granted shall be vest, man shall mandatory be vested. Vested like granted is a transfer of power. We’re giving you some powers. So they’re saying granted twice, but they used a different word. Not because they want a variation of words. But because vested has additional meaning, granted by itself, itself is a transfer of authority from one body to another.
But vested is a transfer of authority from one body to another, and it has a little bit more that goes along with it. First of all, exclusionary. This is a part of the separation of powers. The word vested, exclusionary. Only the legislative branch has legislative powers. You’ll notice at the beginning of article two, it says that the executive power granted to the president, so exclusionary only the president as executive power and the judicial power. Article three, this is vested in a supreme court and inferior courts created by Congress. You’re. You’re. You’re. You’re. You’re breaking up. I’m breaking.
You’re breaking up? Because I’ve watched break up a bunch of times and I have in and out for me. Yeah. Find out if it’s you or me. Yes, I. Let me know if it’s just me, then I’ll shut up. Yeah, well, the audience in the chat will let us know. But anyway, so vested is our separation powers. All good here. So I’m not breaking up to them. Doug is fine on my end. It says Melvin audio is okay, says puncher six. So it’s probably just that I’m in California and everything sucks here, perhaps, yeah. Well, hey, hey.
You think it’s. You think it’s fun now? Wait until communist Kamala, you know, is anyone. Never mind. All right, so she’s not gonna win. Not legally, she’s not going to win. She won’t win at all, period. You don’t even win illegally. They can cheat the win. If they stopped the cheat in 2016 to make sure Trump won, they can do the same thing in 2024. We’ll see. Newsom is messing with you, Ron. Says Melvin. He wouldn’t doubt it. Right. Anyway, all right, Newsom is going to deal with me, but name no, he’ll send his tech dogs.
All right, so all legislative powers here and granted here in this constitution shall be vested. Exclusionary was the first part of vested. The second part is irrevocable. In other words, they can’t give it away on their own through legislation. Now, the constitution could be amended to change power, but the legislative branch irrevocably has those powers. They can’t just say, hey, you know what? We’re going to give it to this entity. This is where the Federal reserve. See is unconstitutional because, see, in article one, section eight, it says that Congress should have the power to coin money, but they gave it away with a piece of legislation, Federal Reserve act.
And that, my friends, was unconstitutional. It violated vested because Vesta says, no, you can’t just give away your authority to make money. Now, you could have passed an amendment if the states agreed to it, because, remember, the states are the ones who made this constitution here. So if they are the ones who ratify an amendment, then the change in the constitution is okay. But for the federal government, on their own, to just give it away, they can’t. Looking up the word vested, looking at the word vested. Adjective fixed. Not in a state of contingency or suspension as vested rights.
Vested legacy in law. A legacy the right to which commences in presentihe and does not depend on a contingency as a legal. As a. As a legacy to one to be paid when he attains to 21 years of age. This is a vested legacy. And if the legatee dies before the testator, his representative shall receive it. Vested remainder is where the estate is invariably fixed to remain to a determinate person. There you go. So that’s pretty much it. But I mean, that I think it’s. I think the. The crux of it is, is fixed and not in a state of contingency.
So vested is not. Vested is not going to do it. Can’t be moved. Basically, it’s like. It’s like the rock of Gibraltar right now. Once again, the constitution can be amended, and if the states, three quarters of a ratification vote, approve that amendment, then you can make those changes. But for the federal government, who is the created entity here, say, oh, we’re gonna give away those powers. Can’t do it. They’re fixed. They are irrevocable. I want to ask you a question. I’m gonna ask this of Brady as well, because this is a little bit more Brady’s wheelhouse, because we’ve talked about it.
But I want to ask you as well. I was finishing up reading the book by Perloff called the shadow, or, you know, the secrets in the shadows or something like that. Whatever the shadow, the point of the matter is that he talked in there about the John Birch society fighting the communist threat. But the reason that they are against a article five convention is that they’re. They’re convinced that the article five convention, or the people that are sent to the article five convention will be establishment people to destroy the constitution. And that’s why that was. That’s what I understand as to why they’re against an article five conference.
That’s exactly right. That’s. That’s their reasoning. Yeah. And actually, actually, I think that’s a. That’s an extremely justifiable rationale. Absolutely it is. But the key point is that when you look back on history and the rules of conventions, if we follow the rules of convention, and whether or not they follow the rules convention, we will see. But if we follow the rules of convention, office holders can’t be a delegate. And so. And historically, regions or districts will vote for their delegate. So it’s a people representation in those conventions. And because it’s a people representation, and most areas are outside establishment control, they’re rural, that kind of stuff.
The theory is then that the majority of the delegates would be not of the mindset of the population centers or the establishment. From a framers point of view, you got to remember, the framers were. Did not want the population centers to control things. And Jefferson, actually, I wrote a whole chapter, matter of fact, in my history book, which is out there, a promise of true self evident, if you want to look it up, part one, and I have a whole chapter on Jefferson’s, or maybe a whole section inside a chapter. That’s what it is. On Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson’s feelings about population centers, the reason they didn’t like democracy.
And they believed democracy was a failure, not only because, historically, democracies collapsed, but because democracies become the voice of the population centers. And so conventions were a way to. To lessen the voice of the population centers, because delegates. More delegates would be coming from the rural areas than the population centers. Or at least that was the theory. Um, no, I know. In other words, I know that we’ve covered minority. I know that we’ve covered this, but I think it bears repeating just because we’re talking about it. So I’m just going to spend a minute to just.
Okay, so the 17th amendment altered how senators were elected in the, uh. For the United States Senate. The senators were supposed to represent the state government at the federal level. The counties were to the state as the state is to the federal government. The counties were supposed. The county’s. The board of supervisors was supposed to elect a senator to go to the state senate to represent that county at the. The. At the. At the state government level, and. Which then made it one state senator, Burke county, regardless of population. Right. Right. Now, now, the. And the.
And the reason that that is such a big deal, because of what we talk about when we talk about Reynolds v. Sims, because what Reynolds v. Sims did, and I think was 1964, where what it did was, it completely transformed the way senators are elected at the state level and made it much more akin to how the. Basically based on population. Like, if you had a certain amount of population. Yeah. Which is very closer to democracy. And if. And if you want to look at California as an example, California has 58 counties, the vast majority of which are exceedingly conservative.
Right. But. And if. And if we had one senator per 58 counties, I guarantee you they would be gridlock in Sacramento. Right, but. And that was the idea. That was the point. That’s right. But with Reynolds v. Sims, what it did was it gave California the ability to redraw the district lines for the senators. And now in Los Angeles county alone, of the. Of the 58 senators that California has 13. We have 40 senators. 40. Because what happened was we only had 40 counties at the time. Okay. The number of counties have increased over time. And then as.
And then even before Reynolds v. Sims, we got past 40. So they began to do. Because they didn’t want to go bigger. The 40 is they began to have one represent two counties, one senator. But it would. Could not exceed two or three or something like that in the state constitution. What. That’s how they were working with it as we grew. Now, that said, the idea here. Or let me. Let me back up. So with California. You’re right. It would be a rural minded, conservative minded state senate. That was the point. And what happened. That’s what you’re talking about with what? That’s what you’re speaking of when you’re talking about how the government was formulated.
The republican form of government that was mandated within the Constitution for the states was also mandated for the states themselves and the states. Article one, section four. It says that every state will be guaranteed a republican form of government. That’s a part of a republican form of government. When the Warren court ruled on Reynolds v. Sims, in Warren’s judicial opinion, he said, well, the problem is the old way wasn’t very democratic. They want democracy because they know democracy moves. Not a fan of that guy. Chains towards oligarchy. Yeah. I’m not a fan of Earl Warren, who.
Yeah. When I say, I hear collective. Yeah. Yeah. And sadly, he was from California. Yeah. And. And sadly, he was appointed Bison Howard. And he was supposed to be a quote unquote Republican. Well, Eisenhower was. He’s probably. We’ve ever had. Eisenhower was probably to the left of. Of FDR, and he just ran under the label of a Republican. So everybody. Everybody was lulled to, you know, lulled to sleep. Yeah. Presidency. Getting the chance rate. Go ahead. He did more damage to the republican party as president than. Than any president. Than any republican president. Ever. But during his presidency, tax rate went to, like, 80 or 90%.
And then Kennedy comes in. John F. Kennedy. Now John F. Kennedy, people say, well, if he was a life day, he’d be a Republican. Well, yes and no. He believed in lefty ideals, but he understood economics. And in economics, when you reduce taxation percentages, you wind up with more revenue because you encourage production, and the increase in production creates more revenue. So higher percent rates actually kills production. So he understood the Laffer curve. Yeah. So he underk. Understood that. So he wanted more money to push the new deal. Ideas, other ideas, lefty ideas. But he knew the way to do it was to cut taxes, to increase the revenue, to do that.
So people think he was conservative because he cut taxes. No, he cut taxes because he understood economics. Well, if you listen to him. But if you go back and you listen. Well, he was anti communist. I will say this, too. Oh, he was. He was ardently anti communist. And Democrats typically, weren’t he, Washington? Vehemently pro nationalist. He was absolutely pro America. Well, when you say nationalist, play careful with that word, too, because people think that nationalist means make America great again. That’s. Because that’s what the left says it means. And that’s. And that is. And the word nationalist is used because.
Well, like, for example, you know, and I’m telling you what they say, I’m not getting into all the minutiae right now. Well, you know, Hitler, it was all about the german people. That’s nationalism. So that means it’s white supremacy. No, the word nationalist actually does not mean that. Originally, the founding fathers hated nationalism. They were not nationalists. The word nationalist actually means national system or national government or all powerful government that controls everything. So when I. So I don’t use the word natural. Why? A lot of. When I mean patriotic or nation, and I’m not a family.
A lot of you guys don’t know this. Doug never uses the term nation when he talks about the country. We are. We are. We’re the United States, or we are a country. We are not a nation. And that’s. That’s very true. The only time you’ll hear me use the word national is when it is for terms that have become so much a part of the. So much a part of the vernacular that you kind of have to. Like national debt. What’s the country’s debt? But they call it the national debt. So I’ll use the word so people understand what I mean.
But it really isn’t a national debt. It is a countrywide debt, or it’s a cut our country’s debt. The word national means strong central government. And then we actually do have a national government today. It’s not supposed to be. If we were following the constitution. It’s not a national government. It is a federal government. That’s why we’ve always called it that. We have a federal republic, a federation of states that created a central government with limited authorities. National government has unlimited authorities. The hierarchy. Well, all federal law then would supersede all state law. That’s a national government.
And that’s not true. All federal law doesn’t supersede all state law. Depends on the authority. Getting back to what I was talking about earlier, with all legislative powers herein granted. Herein given. Herein authorized. Yep, keep going. So all legislative powers here and granted shall be vested in a congress. Vested, irrevocable, exclusionary, transferred to from the states in a congress of the United States. And here’s what’s interesting. We shall consist of a senate and House of representatives. They’re in that order on purpose. The Senate is considered the upper house. The con. The House representative is considered the lower house.
Historically, bicameral congresses or legislative bodies. Bicameral meaning two chambers. Bicameral legislative bodies like the roman legislature or say, the british legislature. The parliament has two houses and there’s an upper house and there’s a lower house. In Rome, the upper house. Can I pause you for a quick second? Let me pause you for a quick second. And I just want to put this, I’m going to pose this question to the, to the audience to see if anybody can get it. What state in the United States does not have is what’s the only state in the United States that has a unicameral legislature? And I’ll just leave it at that and then let you finish.
I know. I know. Yeah. I know you do. Shut up. Yeah. And it was in the thirties that they, I can’t remember which year, but it was in the thirties that they did this. And why, I don’t know. But anyway, so that might be some people maybe. Yeah, maybe because there’s not enough people there. I don’t know. Well, there may be a number of reasons, but anyway. Gives it. That gives a little bit of a. That gives a little bit of a clue. Yeah, a little bit of. Only a little. Anyway, so in Rome, the Senate, this is where the wealthy and the powerful and the connected, those are where they served.
Also in the Senate was where you had your consuls, which was basically your executive branch and your judicial branch. I can’t remember the names of preterian. I can’t remember the exact word now, but something like that. Yeah. But anyway, judicial branch, it was not a separation of powers. Your judicial executive was inside the senate. Then the other house was your assembly. And the assembly belonged to the people. They were voted in by the people. That was the lower house. So historically, with Rome, the upper house was the aristocracy and the lower house was the voice of the people.
Okay, now we go to british parliament. The upper house is the House of Lords. It’s the nobility, the powerful, the wealthy, the connected, just like in Rome. And, and, uh, then in the lower house, that’s the House, the House of Commons. Now, interestingly enough, House of Commons is where the executive powers as the, the prime minister. So they changed it from the upper to the lower when it came to british parliament. And then the judicial. The judges are actually a separate branch. So, so we, our, we have an upper house and a lower house as well.
But we don’t have, technically, from constitutional point of view, I know we do kind of sort of in the way things have been going. But I. We’re talking from the founding father’s point of view. Okay? So with our two houses, we don’t have a nobility, we don’t have a wealthy, powerful class. Anybody ultimately can become a member of the congress, the Senate even. But we’re going to create in the Senate a pseudo aristocracy. In other words, the upper house is going to be those who are supposed to be a little bit more in the system and understand it because they’re being appointed by the state legislatures.
In order to be appointed by state legislatures. Any Joe schmoe is not going to get that. They’ve been around for a while. These people are known. They understand the system. They’re respected and trusted by the state legislatures. And each senator represents each house. So one senator is going to be appointed by the state house, which is democratically elected in the voice of the states. And then getting back to Reynolds v. Sims, the senator in the US Congress, US Senate, from the state senate, they’re going to be the rural voice, typically, because one for county, you’re going to get a rural kind of guy.
And what that did is that made sure the US Senate would glean rural house of Representatives. Our lower house voted in by the people, democratically, voice of the cities, because the cities have the populations. So what it did is it created two disparate houses that were different from each other on purpose, without republican form of government. You have a rural voice in the Senate, you have a city voice in the House. They’ve got a debate. They got to go at it. In federalist paper number ten, James Madison explains that there are factions. Now, understand? He wrote this before there were political parties, factions, city faction, non city faction, rural faction, pro slavery, anti slavery, pro big state, pro small state, and so on and so forth.
There’s going to be these different factions. And they. And according to James Madison, his writings, and especially in federalist ten, he explains that they battle, they war for position. Every faction wants control of a state or control of a system. That’s what they do. And one of the complaints at the time of the writing of constitution was certain states were controlled by certain factions. And Madison explained, the way to quell that keep from one. Keep one faction from controlling everything, is to set the factions against each other. When order to do that, you have to make the minority faction as strong as the majority faction.
They have to be as loud. So you make sure by the way you design the government, that the rural areas, the minority, the less populated, has a big voice in the Senate, and then the cities have their big voice in the House. But because you don’t trust the cities, you then give the rural House additional responsibilities, because they also serve as oversight by the states. Because, after all, they are the state’s people, right? So you’re gonna give them authorities, like ratifying treaties, confirming nominations for officers or judges. May I. May I read this to you real quick? I’m gonna read this to you real quick.
Is this. It’s. It’s. It’s. It’s not lengthy, but it’s not, like, super short either. But this. This was the. I finished up the. The book that. The book by Perloff yesterday, the shadows of power. And he has a section in the final chapter called the threat to the Constitution. And it says, during the constitutional bicentennial, some may have celebrated the constitution, others have urged a new one. As the Christian Science Monitor noted in 1984, amid the planning for festivals and finery, pomp and ceremony, there’s a deeper meaning we must be careful not to miss. The bicentennial gives an opportunity for a rededication to the principles of the Constitution and the bill of rights, and for some careful thought about the wisdom of constitutional revision.
Warren Berger resigned as chief justice of the Supreme Court to work on the official commission of the bicentennial United States Constitution. This implies the project has more than trifling significance. The burger court was long accused of misconstruing the Constitution to advanced a political agenda. But what better way to accomplish this than to change the constitution itself. Justice Berger has insisted that the commission’s meetings be held in secret, an odd stipulation if its only purpose is celebration. Berger is also honorary chairman of Project 87, a bicentennial organization that, according to its literature, is dedicated to the commemorating to commemorating the bicentennial of the United States Constitution by promoting public understanding and appraisal of this unique document.
Co chairman of Project 87 is James McGregor Burns, an advocate of constitutional revision. Burns wrote in his 1984 book, the power to lead and this is where it really gets good. Let us face reality. The framers of the constitution have simply been too shrewd for us. They have outwitted us. They designed separated institutions that cannot be unified by mechanical linkages, frail bridges, tinkering or tinkering. If we are to turn to the founder, if we are to turn the founders upside down, to put together what they put asunder, we must directly confront the constitutional structure they erected.
Burns serves on the board of yet another bicentennial group, the committee of the Constitutional Systems, or CCS. And as of January 1987, keep in mind the book was written in like 88, the CCS has had 48 board directors, more than a third of them members of the Council on Foreign Relations. Co chairing the CCS is Douglas Dillon, who with David Rockefeller, also co chaired the aforementioned campaign for the council that raised $15 million so that the CFR could contemplate a new national role the CCS is proposing. I’m almost done. The proposing drastic changes to the constitution.
These were outlined in the 1985 book Reforming american government. The bicentennial papers of the Committee of the constitutional system ensuring ensuing are some of them. One proposal would have us emulate the european parliamentary system. American voters would be unable to cast ballots for individual candidates, restricted instead to choosing a party slate across the board. This would eliminate independent candidates, which would suit the establishment very well. There’s four bullet points here. The Congress. This is number two. The Congress would be expanded. The party whose nominee became president would designate one 6th of all representatives in the House and one third of all senators.
This would diminish the elective power of the voters and the balance between the executive and legislative spheres. Three, the requirement for Senate ratification of treaties would be lowered for the CSS or the CCS also has also advocated extending representatives terms from two to four years and senators from six to eight, and allowing congressmen to serve in the executive branch while still holding their seats in Congress. Not surprisingly, these proposals have perceptible ancestry and a foreign affairs article, as it was written in 1980 by Lloyd Cutler, counsel on foreign relations, counsel to President Carter after the Senate refused to ratify the db assault two treaty.
He finished his article by noting that while a constitutional convention could achieve the changes he contemplated, a more practicable first step would be the appointment of a bipartisan presidential commitment. Cutler went on to become co chairman of the CCS. So when I read that, when I read that yesterday, I was like, I now understand why John Birch does. The John Birch Society does not want a constitutional convention. Well, and I don’t want a constitutional convention. I want an article five convention there. Well, article five. And. But he’s talking about art. He. When they say constitutional convention, they purposely use that language to make you believe it’s no different than the convention in 1782, that they’re there to rewrite a new constitution.
And if, if we follow the rules of an article five convention, that’s not what it is. It is for the purpose of proposing amendments. And as in Hamilton, one of the few things he got right. And federalist paper number 85 explains not in these exact words, but this, basically what he said was that the fail safe is no matter what comes out of that convention, it still requires three quarters of the states to ratify it. What a constitutional convention would do is redesign what the ratification would be, because it’d be the writing of a whole new constitution, be a rewriting constitution.
And so what they’ve done to create fear of the article five convention is to then sell it as a constitutional convention, and it’s not now that way. Those are, those are, those are a few things that I stumbled across yesterday, and I thought that the timing was very apropos because it was before today. I actually reached out to Brady, and he couldn’t talk. So let me answer Melvin’s question real quick, and then we’ll. And then we’ll go. Douglas, people have asked me if we are past the point of being able to return our country back to what was originally founded.
Should we be told, should we go back totally the way of government? Curious. The basic foundation. Absolutely. Are there some changes along the way that we need to hang on to? Sure. Like the 12th amendment. But, uh. But here’s the thing. Even in the beginning, they weren’t totally following the constitution. Before the inquisitor, they were already off kilter. But I’m gonna fight, get as close to it as I can. And with that, we’re out of time, and I can’t hear you. Well, the. Yeah, so I was. I, I was talking to Mike. He’s he’s in the back, back room and the other one getting ready for the next show.
So, so anyway, but yeah, I just thought that was really interesting about, yeah. And, and, you know, Perloff is a guy who’s, who is exceedingly smart. And, you know, I’ll just tell you this. I, he sent me his new book called exploding the official myths of the Lincoln assassination, and I’m having him on my channel on the 21 August as. Yeah, very nice. All right. So here’s what I got to say here at the end. United we stand, combined we kick butt. God bless America, my friends. God bless you. Thank you for participating in this program today and keep coming in every Tuesday.
Tell your friends about it. And also visit douglas vgibs.com and become a patron. $9 a month. That helps fund what I do. I picked up a couple lately. I need more help here because I don’t have the constitution classes funding what I do anymore. So now it’s up to you to help keep me on the air for all the things I do. Douglas v. Gibbs.com hit the join link in the link bar and become a $9 a month patron and definitely go pick up some of his books. They’re, they’re kind of boring. They’re kind of boring and Blandin, but they’ll help him tell me that they’re not as good as Mike King books, but, you know, they’re okay.
Yeah. All of my readers tell me they love the way I write because I put it, I’m obviously giving you shit. So anyway, guys, thank you, everybody, for tuning in tonight. Appreciate it. If you guys want to jump over to the, to the link with, for, for the show with Mike, we’re going to be talking about who is in, who kind of isn’t. Was running the show behind the Kennedy curse. So that’s the topic of conversation tonight. So, Mister Gibbs, thank you for your time, sir. Always a pleasure. I will. If you want me to let you close it out, that’s fine.
Otherwise, I’ll go ahead and close it out now and we’ll see everybody next Tuesday. I said what I had to say. Douglasvgibbs.com awesome. Thank you, guys. Look forward to seeing you next week. And I’ll look forward to seeing you here shortly here with Mike. So have a good night, everybody, and see you here in just a second. Have a good night, Doug. Bye.
[tr:tra].
Author
