Free Thought Struggles in a Society of Propaganda

by

       George Sontag

      Propaganda stifles free thought. Our education system has become one of the chief obstacles to intelligence and freedom of thought. The role of the educator is to teach young minds how to infer what actually happened from the any biased account of either side and to instill in them the awareness that everything in media today is one-sided and more or less untrue. That task is all the more urgent today, when the old role

of the newspapers televised news has been largely taken over by incessant opinion-streams, masquerading as facts, barraging us online and off with the false certainty of their respective version of reality posing as truth. One of the things that should be taught in schools must be the habit of weighing evidence, and the practice of not giving full assent to propositions which there is no reason to believe true. In most schools, we don’t have that.

   

       Yet the methods of increasing the degree of truth in our beliefs are well known; they consist in hearing all sides, trying to ascertain all the relevant facts, controlling our own bias by discussion with people who have the opposite bias, and cultivating a readiness to

discard any hypothesis which has proved inadequate. This distinction between truth and meaning is vital, especially today, as political propaganda and the “alternative facts” establishment manipulate a public that would rather know than think. The media elite prey on the desire for the certainty of instant meaning, among those unwilling to engage in the work of critical thinking necessary for arriving at real truth. They discard the idea that truth is measured by its correspondence with reality and not by its correspondence with one’s personal agendas, comfort zones, and preexisting beliefs.

We need to end that.

      Education should have two objects: first, to give definite knowledge — reading and writing, languages and mathematics, and so on, not nonsensical subjects that do nothing for the nation; secondly, to create those mental habits which will enable people to acquire knowledge and form sound judgments for themselves. Unfortunately our institutions are set up to impart information without imparting intelligence and designed not to give true knowledge, but to make the people pliable to the will of their masters. We need an education system that fosters critical thinking rather than conformity. Most don’t have that.

      The beginnings of political and cultural propaganda begins in elementary school, with the teaching of a history told by those in power, and results in the widespread manipulation of public opinion. Thought is not free and truth is obscured if all the arguments on one side of a controversy are perpetually presented as attractively as possible, while the arguments on the other side can only be discovered by diligent search. Sound bite propaganda appeals to emotion rather than reason. The objection to propaganda is not only its appeal to unreason, but still more the unfair advantage which it gives to the rich and powerful. Most don’t realize that.

      Education should have for one of its aims to teach people only to believe propositions when there is some reason to think that they are true. We must have, as Bertrand Russell called it, “the will to doubt” and extolled it as our greatest self-defense against propaganda. Our institutions do not teach this. They teach credulity, the readiness or willingness to believe, on slight or uncertain evidence. Credulity is a greater evil in the present day than it ever was before, because, owing to the growth of the Leftist conformity from our universities, it is much easier than it used to be to spread misinformation. The spread of misinformation is more important than ever to the holders of power. Most don’t see that.

      Thought is not “free” when penalties are incurred by

the holding or not holding of certain opinions, or by

giving expression to one’s belief or lack of belief on certain matters. The exorcising of a certain point of view which is happening on social platforms is a perfect example. Propaganda is not only untruths that are injected into the mainstream, it is also when real truth is left out. We ALL need to see that.

How We Got Here

by

       George Sontag

      The Supreme Court has ruled that the separation of powers is integral to the Constitution not to preserve the prerogatives of each branch of government but to divide governmental powers among the branches so as to keep power diffused -- and thereby limited and protective of personal freedom. There are those in government who do not accept that formula for equality. Going back to after the election of 1964 our two elected branches of government, each control by the Democrats, had worked to expand the their power in Washington by weakening the president's political control of that sprawling bureaucracy and strengthening Congress' hand in managing it.

      In 1978 the ethics in government act passed by Congress established the independent counsel statute. This legislation was justified on the grounds that, after the Watergate affair, the executive branch must be subordinate to law. That, however, was just an illusion

to mask its real political purpose, which was to insulate the permanent, unelected government from political control. The independent counsel statute was devised a stand as a bulwark against any president or senior executive branch official who dared threaten a centralized executive bureaucracy. No president did until the election of 2016 when an anti-establishment candidate arose to challenge the status quo. Although given no chance to win the establishment and by using their president of questionable legality, the powers that be decided to destroy the candidate, the reputation, the man who dared raise issues that were uncomfortable to them and to cement their certain victory. The Democratic party elite and their backers, paid for false evidence, used the mis-guided patriotism of their followers to exacerbate his past, used the media to accredit false assumptions, and used secret courts to slander and accuse their rival of treason! Then, even against these tactics the unimaginable happened to this deep state/shadow government – they lost the election.

      Panic set in across Washington and into the mansions of their Leftist backers. After the election of President Trump there were many un-elected long-time establishment officials who saw a real danger to their cabal. For many years we, at The American Constitutionalist called them “The Men in the Shadows,” which President Trump calls, the “Deep State.” In their last months in control of the White House, refusing to accept the results of the election, their department of (in)justice set in motion a plan to limit and destroy the new duly elected president. As a former prosecutor stated, “The department of justice is an institution basted with a formidable resources, including its authority over the FBI. It is also often the beneficiary a thinly veiled yet presumed allegiance with most of the federal courts in which the attorneys operate. As a result given enough time, in most cases, the DOJ is empowered the via favorable ruling and otherwise to access, manipulate, and maneuver the federal laws, rules, regulations, and procedures not to mention witness testimony in whatever ways it made the necessary to ultimately bring the most of those it’s targets to heal, perhaps even a president.

       President Trump, by promising to use as executive power to bring the executive bureaucracy under control, posed a danger to the political establishment. In response to the establishment struck back. In his last months in office Mr Obama used his power antagonistically at the direction of his handlers. The unmasking of sources and putting into place bureaucratic roadblocks to thwart the incoming administration was intense and to top it off, they resorted to political scandal.

    

      "If to understand a political scandal fully, one must take into account all of the interests of those involved. The problem is that these interests and the players remain hidden which is precisely why it is so tempting for partisans, particularly if they are at the political disadvantage, to resort to scandal to attack their opponents. Scandals arise not as a means of exposing corruption, but if it as a means of attacking political foes while obscuring the political differences that are at issue. This is specially likely to occur in the aftermath of elections that threaten the authority of the established order. In such circumstances scandal provides a way for defenders of the status quo to undermine the legitimacy of those who have been elected on a platform challenging the status quo."* If successful it takes the election away from the electorate. Thus was born the Russian interference scandal.

      There was a tremendous mobilization of partisan opinion against Trump, but very little partisan mobilization in his defense as the Republican elite did not think of him as one of their own, but as an outsider who was there to rock the boat of D.C. elite which included them. The political and intellectual elites of both parties came quickly to agree that the attempt to dismantle what had been built posed a threat. His actions could also be spun as executive abuse of power, so the leaks from the Deep State begun. They knew that bits of information leaked selectively over the course of the year or more would help shape public opinion in ways the prosecution could not. Using their press merely served as a conduit by which the hidden bureaucracy could undermine the authority of the elected chief executive. This explains why the deep social and cultural division intensified after the 2016 election that had shocked all of the Washington establishment. To resort to scandal in this way is thus an admission that the scandalmongers no longer believe they are able to win politically.

      Political scandals sooner or later are transformed into legal dramas. The appointment of Robert Mueller on May 17, 2017 was the beginning of the next phase. Illegally appointed by deep state holdovers the prosecutors and judges involved violated the procedural requirements that ensure impartiality acting instead as partisans opposed to the president. These are the prosecutors, judges, and bureaucrats who make up the permanent and un-elected government, and are not the people's elected representatives. The Constitutionalists, who exist outside these organized interests, sensed that they had been disenfranchised and that the government no longer operated on behalf of the public with the common good.

      We have seen since the election, an attempt to destroy an anti establishment president using illegal rather than political process. After a two year investigation that turned up no evidence against the president, but revealed many questions about what exactly happened and who were responsible. The Guardians of the status quo in the permanent government and the media have defined the half truths and warrentless assumptions so successfully that a full and proper understanding of the situation is likely impossible. The guilty elite will once again be spared. There is a cover-up but not the one they are harping about. Smoke and mirrors, my fellow Americans, smoke and mirrors.

*John Marini, author and professor of political science, University of Nevada

The Attorney General is the Man of the Moment

by

       Zeno Potas

      After the American people have endured 8 years of the past president’s Department of IN-Justice that thumbed it’s nose up at the Constitution and the rule of law, the appointment of William Barr seems refreshing and hopeful that the Republic has not perished quite yet. His demeanor and even-handed approach to the position seems to re-establish credibility to the position much to the chagrin of the Left and their poison pen media.

      In a recent televised interview he spoke of what he sees as, although he does not call it this, a coup attempt and an attempt at undermining the entire country and the Constitution by high officials within the government. Since this idea is one that President Trump has been railing about for years, the Left is attacking him as a lackey for the president. Decide for yourselves if this sounds like a stooge or perhaps the last honest man in Washington? Being at the end of his career and with nothing to loose, we feel that more than ever that he might be exactly the right person to navigate the country through this tumultuous period.

On his appointment:

      “I realize we live in a crazy hyper-partisan period of time and I knew that it would only be a matter of time if I was behaving responsibly and calling them as I see them, that I would be attacked because nowadays people don’t care about the merits and the substance. They only care about who it helps, who benefits, whether my side benefits or the other side benefits, everything is gauged by politics. And as I say, that’s antithetical to the way the department runs and any attorney general in this period is going to end up losing a lot of political capital and I realize that and that is one of the reasons that I ultimately was persuaded that I should take it on because I think at my stage in life it really doesn’t make any difference.”

On whether the Mueller report was biased:

      Mr. Mueller “said that he could not say that the president was clearly did not violate the law, which of course is not the standard we use at the department. We have to determine whether there is clear violation of the law and so we applied the standards we would normally apply. We analyzed the law and the facts and a group of us spent a lot of time doing that and determined that both as a matter of law, many of the instances would not amount to obstruction. As a matter of law, we didn’t agree with the legal analysis- a lot of the legal analysis in the report. It did not reflect the views of the department. It was the views of a particular lawyer or lawyers and so we applied what we thought was the right law but then we didn’t rely on that. We also looked at all the facts, tried to determine whether the government could establish all the elements and as to each of those episodes we felt that the evidence was deficient. We would have to prove corrupt intent, the report itself points out that one of the likely motivations here was the president’s frustration with Comey saying something publicly and saying a different thing privately and refusing to correct the record.”

On criticism the he is protecting the president: 

      “Well, we live in a hyper-partisan age where people no longer really pay attention to the substance of what’s said but as to who says it and what side they’re on and what it’s political ramifications are. The Department of Justice is all about the law, and the facts and the substance and I’m going to make the decisions based on the law and the facts and I realize that’s intention with the political climate we live in because people are more interested in getting their way politically. So I think it just goes with the territory of being the attorney general in a hyper-partisan period of time.”

On the spying on the Trump campaign:

        “Was enough was done? Probably not. You know, I think Bob Mueller did some impressive work in his investigation, you know, identifying some of the Russian hackers and their influence campaign and you sort of wonder if that kind of work had been done starting in 2016, things could have been a lot different. I have no idea (why). That’s one of the things I’m interested in looking at you know– I’m wondering what exactly was the response to it if they were alarmed. Surely the response should have been more than just, you know, dangling a confidential informant in front of a peripheral player in the Trump Campaign and look, I think if we, are we are worried about foreign influence in the campaign? We should be because the heart of our system is the peaceful transfer of power through elections and what gives the government legitimacy is that process. And if foreign elements can come in and affect it, that’s bad for the republic. But by the same token, it’s just as, it’s just as dangerous to the continuation of self-government and our republican system, republic that we not allow government power, law enforcement or intelligence power, to play a role in politics, to intrude into politics, and affect elections. There were counterintelligence activities undertaken against the Trump Campaign. And I’m not saying there was not a basis for it, that it was legitimate, but I want to see what that basis was and make sure it was legitimate.”

      “I think it’s important to understand what basis there was for launching counterintelligence activities against a political campaign, which is the core of our second amendment- I’m sorry, the core of our first amendment liberties in this country. And what was the predicate for it? What was the hurdle that had to be crossed? What was the process- who had to approve it? And including the electronic surveillance, whatever electronic surveillance was done. And was everyone operating in their proper lane? And I’ve selected a terrific career prosecutor from the department who’s been there over thirty years, he’s now the U.S. attorney.”

On how this happened:

      “Sometimes people can convince themselves that what they’re doing is in the higher interest, the better good. They don’t realize that what they’re doing is really antithetical to the democratic system that we have. They start viewing themselves as the guardians of the people that are more informed and insensitive than everybody else. They can- in their own mind, they can have those kinds of motives. And sometimes they can look at evidence and facts through a biased prism that they themselves don’t realize. The fact that today people just seem to brush aside the idea that it is okay to you know, to engage in these activities against a political campaign is stunning to me especially when the media doesn’t seem to think that it’s worth looking into. They’re supposed to be the watchdogs of, you know, our civil liberties. ...the media reaction is strange. Normally the media would be interested in letting the sunshine in and finding out what the truth is…... but I do and I will.

On his attempt to get to the truth:

      “I had a lot of questions about what was going on. I assumed I’d get answers when I went in and I have not gotten answers that are well satisfactory, and in fact probably have more questions, and that some of the facts that- that I’ve learned don’t hang together with the official explanations of what happened. That’s all I really will say. Things are just not jiving,”

On who he thinks are responsible:

      “I think the activities were undertaken by a small group at the top which is one of the- probably one of the mistakes that has been made instead of running this as a normal bureau investigation or counterintelligence investigation. It was done by the executives at the senior level out of headquarters. I’m just not going to get into the individual names at this point. But I just view that- I don’t view it as a bureau wide issue. And I will say the same thing for other intelligence agencies.”

On the agency’s communications:

      “Well it’s hard to read some of the texts with and not feel that there was gross bias at work and they’re appalling... and on their face they were very damning and I think if the shoe was on the other foot we could be hearing a lot about it. If those kinds of discussions were held you know when Obama first ran for office, people talking about Obama in those tones and suggesting that “Oh that he might be a Manchurian candidate for Islam or something like that.” You know some wild accusations like that and you had that kind of discussion back and forth, you don’t think we would be hearing a lot more about it?”

On whether this behavior is a danger to the Republic:

      “In my mind, they are, sure. I mean, republics have fallen because of Praetorian Guard mentality where government officials get very arrogant, they identify the national interest with their own political preferences and they feel that anyone who has a different opinion, you know, is somehow an enemy of the state. And you know, there is that tendency that they know better and that, you know, they’re there to protect as guardians of the people. That can easily translate into essentially supervening the will of the majority and getting your own way as a government official.”

On the president:

      “I think one of the ironies today is that people are saying that it’s President Trump that’s shredding our institutions. I really see no evidence of that, it is hard, and I really haven’t seen bill of particulars as to how that’s being done. From my perspective the idea of resisting a democratically elected president and basically throwing everything at him and you know, really changing the norms on the grounds that we have to stop this president, that is where the shredding of our norms and our institutions is occurring.”

      Despite William Barr’s past association with the Deep State this man seems to want to get to the truth. As the underlying powers that be attempt now to discredit and destroy his reputation, time will tell where this leads and where we go as a nation.

Robert E. Lee and the History of Our National Cemetery

by

       M. Richard Maxson

      Major General Henry Lee III, Revolutionary War hero known as “Light Horse Harry” married his second wife, Anne Hill Carter on June 18, 1793 while Governor of Virginia. After Lee retired from the governorship in December 1794, she followed him to his Lee family holdings in northern Virginia. Misfortune and mismanagement plagued him and he was forced to declare bankruptcy in 1809 and move to debtor's prison where he remained for one year. Soon after his release  Harry and Anne Lee and their five children moved to a small house on Cameron Street in Alexandria, Virginia. It was short-lived as Henry Lee, Robert E. Lee’s father, died from injuries sustained during the civil unrest in Baltimore, Maryland in 1812.

      Left with six children and no husband for support, Anne Lee's family was often supported by a relative, William Henry Fitzhugh, who owned the Oronoco Street house and allowed the Lees to stay at his home in Fairfax County, Ravensworth. When Robert was 17 in 1824, Fitzhugh wrote to the Secretary of War, John C. Calhoun, urging that Robert be given an appointment to the United States Military Academy at West Point.

      Lee entered West Point in the summer of 1825 and became an officer. While home in the summer of 1829, Lee had apparently courted Mary Custis whom he had known as a child. Mary Anna Randolph Custis Lee was the only surviving child of George Washington Parke Custis, George Washington's step-grandson and adopted son and founder of Arlington House, and Mary Lee Fitzhugh Custis, daughter of William Fitzhugh and Ann Bolling Randolph Fitzhugh. She had known her third cousin, Robert E. Lee, from childhood; her mother and Robert's mother were second cousins, and Lee's father Henry had delivered the eulogy to a crowd of 4,000 at George Washington's 1799 funeral. They were married on June 30, 1831. Intermarriage was a tradition with most of Virginia’s ruling families, and Robert would eventually marry a distant cousin, Mary Anne Randolph Custis, the great-granddaughter of George Washington’s wife, Martha, an heiress of several plantation properties.

      The family lived at Arlington but being a military officer, Robert was hardly there. Mrs. Lee inherited Arlington House from her father after he died in 1857. The estate had long been the couple's home whenever they were in the area during her husband's military career. For 30 years the leaves made Arlington their home and raised a family there.

      As the winds of war began to swirl and because of his ties to Washington and his own military genius, Lee was offered command of the union army. Those times were different as the states were individually were much more independent. Lee was a Virginian first and as the army formed to invade his home state, Lee resigned his commission and left Arlington for Richmond never to return.

      The United States army occupied Arlington on May 24, 1861. At first became a military post for the defense of the capital but as the war ground on and casualties mounted, Washington's cemeteries filled up. Montgomery Meigs, the quartermaster general, and Edwin Stanton, the secretary of war, detested Lee as a traitor and saw double opportunity by turning Arlington into a union cemetery. They acquired hundreds of acres in new land for graves while also foreclosing Lee's return after the war. On May 13, 1864 Private William Christman was the first soldier interned at Arlington. Thousands more would soon join him, fixing Arlington as the new national cemetery, or so it was thought.

      Lee's son inherited the family claim to their old farm. He was himself a confederate officer but his name nonetheless reflected the nation's deeper roots at Arlington. George Washington Curtis Lee also known as Curtis petitioned the Congress to no avail for the return of his family's property and then sued in Federal Court to evict the army Army as trespassers.

      The United States vs. Lee worked its way over the years to the Supreme Court, which upheld believe family's claim. Fortunately for the government, the nation, and the soldiers laid to rest in Arlington, Curtis was noble in victory, asked only for just compensation. In 1883 he deeded the land back to the government in return for $150,000. The secretary of war who accepted the deed was Robert Todd Lincoln, the son of Abraham Lincoln. After the final act of reconciliation between the first born sons of the great president and his famed rebel antagonist, Arlington's dead could rest in peace for eternity. 

 

Can the American Citizens Return to the Constitution?

by

       George Sontag

      The great American experiment is staggering toward the brink of extinction from history. Rotting from the massive influence of the global elite who now control all media in the U.S. and most of Europe just as Joseph Goebbels did in 1930’s Germany as his was the model for the modern day propaganda machines. His everlasting quote is now the elitist mantra, “A lie told once remains a lie but a lie told a thousand times becomes the truth.” The truth is out there but will the elite allow it to come out and if so, how much of it will they allow?

      The Attorney General William Barr appears to be bringing back the rule of law and a sense sanity after eight years of the Obama administrations Department of (IN)Justice constantly violating the very Constitution itself. This may be a last gasp for America as we and our ancestors have known it. President Trump is not only fighting the Leftist wave, that fifty years ago would have been considered treasonous, but also the elitists on the right that reside in the party he was elected under.

      We, at The American Constitutionalist, try not to side with any one politician or party. We only want to speak to matters involving the Constitution. This president is a different breed. He is despised by the elite of both parties, not only because he is not a politician, but because he has disrupted their plans, and most importantly, he has interrupted and diverted the Washington money train. The fact is that five of six of the richest counties in the United States border Washington D.C. and that’s not a coincidence.

      For America to survive the citizens MUST take a more active role in government. It must be based on research outside the current propaganda sphere using critical analytical thinking, not five second soundbites. We purpose the following;

A Rebirth of Constitutional Government

• The American government is to operate with the consent of the governed, not the politicians and their elitist bankrollers.
• The Constitution, the greatest political document ever written. Changing the core values, as the Democrat Socialists want, WILL destroy the America we know.
• We reaffirm the Constitution’s fundamental principles: limited government, separation of powers, individual liberty, and the rule of law – as it is written. The current trend, excelerated by the previous administration, of ignoring the parts that don’t jive with the Leftist views then hiding behind their own interpretation of the Constitution is not only disgusting, it is dangerous.
• The legitimate powers of government are rooted in the consent of the American people, not what the elitist’s puppets in Washington want things to be.

       Patriots, from the Founding Fathers to today have warned repeatedly of the dangers of all the populace not being involved in the affairs of their country.

      "A general dissolution of principles and manners will more surely overthrow the liberties of America than the whole force of the common enemy. While the people are virtuous they cannot be subdued; but when once they lose their virtue then will be ready to surrender their liberties to the first external or internal invader."

                                                                                                             - Samuel Adams

      "I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations."

                                                                                                            - James Madison

      "American creedal nationalism—the notion that we are bound not by blood, ethnicity, race, or religion, but by respect for a common set of beliefs as articulated in the founding documents. The American system of government functions properly only when embedded in a culture deeply committed to democracy; that culture sustains the Constitution, not the other way around."

                                                                                                            - Yoni Appelbaum

      "....there is a secret government that likes to control things and most people know what we talk about when we talk about the 'deep state.' And they do have a lot of clout, they are very much involved in the media and the leadership of both parties, so both parties and the media are very, very, annoyed with Trump [being so] independent."

                                                                                                                 - Ron Paul

      "Twitter, Facebook, and other platforms have accelerated public discourse to warp speed, creating virtual versions of the mob. Inflammatory posts based on passion travel farther and faster than arguments based on reason We are living, in short, in a Madisonian nightmare."

                                                                                                                   - Jeffrey Rosen

        It is time for Americans to get their heads up from their smartphones and televisions where fantasy and half truths, as Joseph Goebbels put it, are considered fact. The reality is the citizens need to find the real truth, not some news or entertainment personality’s opinion. The truth is hard. The truth is hidden. The truth must be pursued. The truth is hard to hear. The truth is rarely simple. The truth is rarely obvious. The truth doesn't take sides. The truth is not red or blue. The truth is necessary. The truth can't be glossed over. The truth has no agenda. The truth is hard to accept. The truth pulls no punches. The truth is worth defending. The truth requires taking a stand. The truth is more important now than ever.

Constitutional Crisis - Political Theater from the Democratic Party

by

       M. Richard Maxson

      Last week Attorney General Barr testified before Congress. He answered the questions with legal expertise as members of this partisan committee spewed their hatred for the administration and he suffered through hours their manipulative demagoguery which is not based on reason, issues, and doing the right thing, no, they still have only one purpose and that is to stir up fear and hatred to control people’s opinions to bring down this President. They want the full Mueller report - damn the law! They are issuing partisan subpoenas and they will get to the bottom of whatever fantasy they can to interfere with this administration’s agenda. It is what they have been doing since election day, but now the executive branch has now said - enough.

      Enough! The Attorney General has had enough of this political theater and so has the President. Now that the phony Russian hoax has been defused THIS Attorney General can now begin to investigate the REAL criminals behind what is really going on and the Leftist elite are starting to panic. The Democratic party is now screaming from the mountain tops – Constitutional Crisis!

 

      Oh my, we are going to have to look at the facts. Something most of these politicians would rather not do. The Constitution and the Rule of Law are a good place to start. First of all, there is no express provision in the Constitution giving Congress the power to investigate, issue subpoenas or question cabinet officials but it began to do so not long after the birth of the Republic. The Supreme Court upheld the practice in 1821, reasoning that without it, Congress “would be exposed to every indignity and interruption that rudeness, caprice or even conspiracy may mediate against it.” The ruling gave Congress the right to imprison uncooperative witnesses for contempt, but for no longer than the duration of the Congress that passed the citation. Any charges or court case that dragged on past the expiration of the term of that Congress would be void.

     Until the middle of the 19^th century, Congress would enforce contempt citations itself, with the sergeants-at-arms taking guilty parties into custody. But the limitations of the 1821 court ruling led lawmakers to turn over the responsibility for prosecuting these citations to the executive branch. From 1857 on, a U.S. attorney was asked to certify contempt citations and bring them before a federal judge.

      A number of obstacles face this partisan committee in any attempt to enforce a subpoena issued against an executive branch official. Although the courts have reaffirmed Congress’s constitutional authority to issue and enforce subpoenas, efforts to punish an executive branch official for non-compliance with a subpoena through criminal contempt will likely prove unavailing in many, if not most, circumstances. Where the official refuses to disclose information pursuant to the President’s decision that such information is protected under executive privilege, past practice suggests that the Department of Justice will not pursue a prosecution for criminal contempt. (See; Eric Holder/Obama)

     The committee has three options. The committee could refer it to the U.S. attorney for criminal prosecution of contempt. Congress would normally need the Justice Department's help to pursue any of those options, how would that work out in this particular case when the guy that they're trying to hold in contempt runs the Justice Department? If the committee voted a contempt resolution and the U.S. Attorney concluded prosecution was not appropriate, the prosecutor could present the case to the grand jury — but urge them not to indict. If the grand jury voted to indict anyway, the prosecutor could refuse to sign the indictment, rendering it invalid. And even if the case were indicted, the prosecutor could move to dismiss it. The idea that Congress could remove discretion from the hands of the prosecutor and essentially mandate an indictment and prosecution makes little sense, either practically or constitutionally. Congress is free to send its contempt citations to the Executive, but has no real recourse if the U.S. Attorney decides that prosecution is not appropriate. At least when it comes to disputes with senior Executive branch officials, for Congress to hold a witness in contempt under Section 192 is usually more an act of politics than a serious attempt to result in criminal charges.

      They could use another process called inherent contempt where they use the sergeant of arms to literally go out and arrest the attorney general and put him in the House jail, (there is not really a jail) which is a very unlikely option. Congress has successfully used the courts to imprison people for contempt. But its power to compel government officials is limited. . As one committee member stated, “They have a lot of guns over at Justice.”

      The more likely option is that the House would direct counsel to go to court and try to enforce the subpoena civilly. However, relying on this mechanism to enforce a subpoena directed at an executive official may prove an inadequate means of protecting congressional prerogatives due to the time required to achieve a final, enforceable ruling in the case. In a 2017 study of the contempt power, legislative attorney Todd Garvey of the Congressional Research Service wrote, "Efforts to punish an executive branch official for non-compliance with a subpoena will likely prove unavailing in many, if not most, circumstances." Suing government officials in civil court may also prove inadequate "due to the time required to achieve a final, enforceable ruling in the case," he said. Although subject to practical limitations, Congress retains the ability to exercise its own constitutionally based authorities to enforce a subpoena through inherent contempt.

      The framers provided no remedy for a struggle between Congress and the president over congressional subpoenas — because they didn’t specify either the right of investigation or executive privilege in the document. In this conflict between constitutional powers, there’s no express constitutional answer. The upshot is that you can expect stalemate. Congress can keep harassing and embarrassing the president. The president can keep resisting. Ultimately the check on both branches is public opinion — in the form of the voters who will go to the polls in 2020 and perhaps resolve the conflict by picking a winner. The truth is, when it comes to the contempt statute there’s little Congress can do to enforce it if the Executive branch declines to prosecute. Votes to hold Executive branch officials in contempt have become largely about political theater rather than actual criminal prosecutions.

      The Constitution’s system of checks and balances sets the various branches against each other for the laudable purpose of constraining tyranny. However, due to partisan polarization, individual corruption, or any number of other reasons, sometimes the political institutions in these arrangements fail, sending the governmental system into a crisis. This “crisis” is completely manufactured by the Democratic party and their elite bankrollers as a continuing effort to obstruct this president and keep the real truth from the American people.

The Electoral College is Vital to the Nation

by

       M.Richard Maxson

     At the Constitutional Convention in 1787 the framers established a federal government with sufficient power to ensure ordered liberty, but with a host of limitations on its power. Since history had proven that democracies all eventually failed they decided on a republican form for this new nation. Power was divided between the federal government and the states, and federal power was divided among three branches that would each check encroachments by the others. They set up a bicameral legislature, one for the populace and one for the states as individual entities. To further diffuse federal power and eventually drafted a Bill of Rights to expressly guarantee civil liberties against government intrusion.

  

      Later in the convention, a committee formed to work out various details including the mode of election of the president, including final recommendations for the electors, a group of people apportioned among the states in the same numbers as their representatives in Congress, but chosen by each state "in such manner as its Legislature may direct." Alexander Hamilton in Federalist No. 68 laid out what he believed were the key advantages to the Electoral College. The electors come directly from the people and them alone for that purpose only, and for that time only. This avoided a party-run legislature, or a permanent body that could be influenced by foreign interests before each election. Hamilton explained the election was to take place among all the states, so no corruption in any state could taint "the great body of the people" in their selection. The choice was to be made by a majority of the Electoral College, as majority rule is critical to the principles of republican government. Hamilton also argued that since no federal officeholder could be an elector, none of the electors would be beholden to any presidential candidate. This would alleviate the fears if the president were chosen by a small group of men or factions, as well as concerns for the independence of the president if he were elected by the Congress.

      This was monumental because once the Electoral College had been decided on, several delegates, including James Madison, openly recognized its ability to protect the election process from cabal, corruption, and faction. In The Federalist Papers, James Madison explained his views on the selection of the president and the Constitution. In Federalist No. 39, Madison argued the Constitution was designed to be a mixture of state-based and population-based government. Congress would have two houses: the state-based Senate and the population-based House of Representatives. Meanwhile, the president would be elected by a mixture of the two modes.

      The framers understood that direct democracies cannot effectively protect personal rights and have always been characterized by conflict. One of the strongest arguments in favor of the Constitution is the fact that it establishes a government capable of controlling the violence and damage caused by factions. Madison defined a faction as "a number of citizens whether amounting to a majority or minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community." Factions are groups of people who gather together to protect and promote their special economic interests and political opinions. Given the nature of man, factions are inevitable. As long as men hold different opinions, have different amounts of wealth, and own different amount of property, they will continue to fraternize with people who are most similar to them. The causes of factions are thus part of the nature of man and we must deal with their effects and accept their existence. The government created by the Constitution controls the damage caused by such factions.

       The framers established a representative form of government, a government in which the many elect the few who govern. Democracies cannot possibly control factious conflicts. This is because the strongest and largest faction dominates, and there is no way to protect weak factions against the actions of an obnoxious individual or a strong majority. Democratic forms of government are also vulnerable to mass prejudice, the so-called tyranny of the majority and the deadly power of their opinion.

      “The Electoral College is a very carefully considered structure the Framers of the Constitution set up to balance the competing interests of large and small states,” writes Hans von Spakovsky, a former member of the Federal Election Commission. “It prevents candidates from wining an election by focusing only on high-population urban centers, the large coastal cities, while ignoring smaller states and the more rural areas of the country — the places that progressives and media elites consider flyover country.” Were it not for the Electoral College, presidential candidates could act as if many Americans don’t even exist. They could simply campaign in a small handful of states with big populations and ignore everyone else. Who would care what the people in Iowa think? Or Wyoming? Or any number of other states with smaller populations? The people in “flyover country” don’t get enough attention as it is, but without the Electoral College, they’d be completely at the mercy of the majority.

 

      The Founders of this nation understood that democracy was important, but if you didn't filter it through a republican system you would eventually end up with a tyranny of the majority. The Founders recognized that the nation needed some procedural safeguards to protect its longer term interests from its short-term heated arguments of the day. Calls for removal of the Electoral College by those who the college was set up to protect us from should be demonized as it would be the beginning of the end of this great republic.  Perhaps such self-discipline accounts for the fact that ours is still the oldest active constitution in the world.It is the work of combined genius.