DOUGLAS V. GIBBS             RADIO             BOOKS             CONSTITUTION             CONTACT/FOLLOW             DONATE

Thursday, April 19, 2018

Beaumont Opts Out of Sanctuary Status . . . Kind of

Douglas V. Gibbs being interviewed by KMIR.
Local Tea Party President Glenn Stull stands in the background
holding the yellow sign.
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Author, Speaker, Instructor, Radio Host

On Tuesday Night, April 17, 2018, I arrived at the City of Beaumont's City Hall at about 4:15 pm.  The city council meeting was scheduled to begin at 6:00 pm.  I arrived with my very good friend, President of the Banning-Beaumont-Cherry Valley Tea Party, Glenn Stull.  From a media point of view, the first on the scene was NBC KMIR out of Palm Springs, who interviewed both Glenn Stull, and I.

The wind was whipping up pretty good, throwing my tie over my right shoulder, but the camera kept rolling and the questions from the female reporter were pretty reasonable.  I explained that I was the author of the Sanctuary State opt-out ordinance presented to the Beaumont City Council by the local Tea Party group, and the basic reasons behind it.

We are a nation of laws, and the rule of law is not being followed by the State of California.  S.B. 54 is in violation of the United States Constitution.  The U.S. Constitution grants to the federal government authority over immigration issues, and as per the Supremacy Clause in Article VI of the U.S. Constitution, States may not legally pass laws that are contrary to the Constitution, or constitutionally authorized federal laws.  Therefore, S.B. 54 is unconstitutional.

Prior to the event, we had been advised that the ACLU, La Raza, and other pro-amnesty groups were going to be protesting in front of City Hall beginning at 4:30, which is why we began showing up between 4:00 and 4:15.  One person opposing our stance on the issue appeared with a sign with big black letters spelling "ICE" in a red circle, and slashed out by a red diagonal line, but she grew tired of being out-numbered and eventually found her way inside.  After that, we noticed that the anticipated leftist protesters never materialized.  When we went inside city hall after a short while, we realized why the opposition was not outside protesting.
SB 54 makes it illegal for county or municipal peace officers to do any of the following:
  • ask about an arrestee's immigration status
  • honor a federal immigration hold request or detainer, unless it's specifically authorized by a judge
  • arrest a person based on a civil immigration warrant
  • notify federal authorities about the pending release of a jailed illegal immigrant, with a couple of exceptions based on criminal history
  • participate in task forces that target illegal immigrant offenders
  • utilize immigration officers as interpreters during local interactions with suspects
SB 54 also mandates that schools, health facilities, libraries and courthouses serve as "safe zones," where undocumented immigrants can come and go without risk of detention. 
SB 54 was an expansion of Assembly Bill 4, the so-called "Trust Act" of 2013, which prohibits honoring federal detainer requests, specifically for foreigners arrested or suspected of minor offenses.
The ACLU and other pro-amnesty groups never materialized to stand against us on the sidewalk.  While we were outside with signs and flags, they were packing the seating at the city council meeting inside.  Only a few of our group were able to land seats in the city council chambers.  I wound up sitting, at first, in the overflow room, watching the city council meeting on a video screen from across the hall.

After I turned in a sheet to speak during public comments, we were advised that for the S.B. 54 issue a clipboard sign up sheet was being used, instead.  When I arrived at the table with the forms, after waiting in line, I noticed there were three clipboards.  One for opposing S.B. 54, one for folks who supports it, and one for those who are neutral.  The neutral sign-up sheet never got a signature.  I added my name on the appropriate list, and waited for the meeting to begin.

We were advised during the public comments portion of the meeting that the speakers from the audience would be picked randomly, and then they proceeded to choose only one name off of the list of folks opposing S.B. 54, out of a dozen and a half speakers.  Glenn Stull pointed out the lopsided nature of the commenting, but the mayor assured him that the City Clerk had been instructed to pick names randomly.

She was picking names randomly, but off of only one of the lists.  By the time our allies began speaking, CBS had picked up their microphone, and most of the media had departed.  The fix was in, or so it seemed at the time.

The liberal left pro-amnesty argument primarily used three tactics. 

1. Amendment 4 (due process, protection against unreasonable searches and seizures) which is an invalid argument because Article IV, Section 2 of the Constitution clearly reserves the immunities and privileges afforded by the Constitution to "citizens" only.  The 14th Amendment also uses the words "citizens of the United States" in reference to immunities and privileges.

2. Amendment 10, claiming this is a States' Rights issue, and that the States have a right to determine their own internal issues.  The 10th Amendment would be appropriate if immigration was solely a State issue.  However, immigration is granted by the U.S. Constitution to the federal government in Article I, Section 8 and Article I, Section 9.  Border security is authorized to the federal government in Article IV, Section 4.  Use of the National Guard (militia) for the purpose of repelling invasions is granted in Article I, Section 8 where the Constitution discusses the calling forth of the militia.  The presence of national security factors validates the border security argument when discussing the sanctuary status issue.

3. This is not a city issue, and we are not lawyers or judges, so we must wait until the State of California and Department of Justice ends their battle before we make a decision regarding what we do.  That, also, is an invalid argument.  In short, with S.B. 54 the State of California is requiring the cities to act illegally, and opting out simply is a message back to the State of California that the city will not participate in the illegal activities demanded by the State, nor be accomplices in Sacramento's unlawful demands.

When it was my turn to speak, in addition to my own constitutional presentation, I asked a question.  Did you lock your door when you left your home, tonight?  Why?  Do you not trust and love everyone outside of your home?  The fact is, we know that there are bad people out there, so we lock our doors.  We don't lock our doors because we hate everyone outside of our home, but because we love everyone inside our home.

  1.  Mike Lara
  2.  Julio Martinez
  3.  Nancy Carroll
  4.  Lloyd White
  5.  Rey Santos

Assembly candidate Gary Jeandron, a retired police chief from Palm Springs, provided a view of the issue from the point of view of law enforcement.  He explained how sanctuary status places at risk our local police, while also endangering public safety in our communities.

Assembly candidate Andrew Kotyuk, after finishing his own city council meeting down the hill in San Jacinto where he is a councilmember, appeared at the podium to give his presentation, which included a myriad of statistics regarding the crimes committed by illegal aliens, and the unsustainable costs to cities and the State as they are associated with the crisis.

Agnes Gibboney, an Angel Mom whose son was killed by a previously deported illegal alien, gave her tear-inducing testimony with a firm reference on other cases of deaths as a result of the presence of illegal aliens in our communities, including, but not limited to, Kate Steinle who was murdered in San Francisco, yet her murderer was set free by a liberal left court in the name of San Francisco's sanctuary status.

Each of the presentations in support of Beaumont opting out of S.B. 54 were impactful, and laced with facts, statistics, and constitutional law - as opposed to the emotional pleas by the liberal left who were crying for Beaumont to defy the rule of law.

Councilman Lloyd White was the member of the Beaumont City Council who placed the issue on the agenda, and he later proposed a resolution (written by the city attorney, but I recognized a couple small elements in it from my ordinance) to the members of the city council to consider.  While slightly watered down, the resolution essentially stated that the City of Beaumont takes a position on the matter of standing against S.B. 54.  Each of the members of the council gave statements regarding what they thought about the resolution, and then they took a vote that surprised everyone by the time it was over.

Councilman Lara was the first to speak about the resolution.  He verbalized his concern about the inability of local law enforcement being able to share information with federal agencies as a result of S.B. 54.  As a result of that matter, it makes the sanctuary status issue a public safety issue.  He also recognized the argument that had been used often by the public comments participants, which is that S.B. 54 violates the supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution, and since he is required to uphold the Constitution, he stated he supported the resolution.

Councilman Martinez said he was proud of the fact that so many people were at the meeting.  He always appreciates community involvement.  However, he stated he saw the issue as being a partisan issue, and he had no desire to be involved in partisan politics.  If the issue is a partisan issue, he said, "the city should not take a position in the battle between the State and the federal government."  He then suggested that the best action to take would be to wait for a judicial decision.  In the end, he said, he saw "no relevance in continuing the discussion."

Councilman White, when it was his turn to speak on the matter, reminded the audience that it was him who placed the item on the agenda because he wanted all citizens to be able to comment on the issue.  He stated he believed the issue of sanctuary status to not be about immigration as much as it is about protecting criminals, and defying the rule of law.  There are consequences for not following the rule of law, he explained.  "S.B. 54 protects foreign criminals."  He advised the audience that the crimes being committed by illegal aliens, and then ignored as a result of S.B. 54 and other California policies, would not be acceptable in any other arena.  If the crimes by illegal aliens had been committed by them on foreign soil, "they would not have been allowed in the United States in the first place."  White echoed Lara's concern that sanctuary status is a public safety issue, and Beaumont needs to allow local law enforcement to coordinate with federal agencies.  In the long run, he said, S.B. 54 "makes law-abiding citizens less safe."

White referred the audience to "google" Rodney Scott of the U.S. Border Patrol.  Mr. Scott is the Border Patrol San Diego Sector’s chief agent, and he is siding with the Department of Justice's lawsuit against the State of California.

White also explained that Beaumont's current police department policy is not to ask immigration status.  The local police are tasked with serving the entire community.  If the person is a criminal, however, and if during various procedures, after fingerprinting, their immigration status comes up, it must be the responsibility of local law enforcement to coordinate with federal agencies.

According to White, the U.S. Constitution is the law of the land.  "I swore to uphold it first and foremost."  He then explained he also swore an oath to the California constitution, but it is secondary.  S.B. 54 creates a conflict, and since the U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, "I must uphold the U.S. Constitution."

From left to right: White, Martinez, Carroll, Lara, and Santos
Councilman Santos stated he used to run a business in East Los Angeles, and he respectfully "did not ask for papers."  He stated he respects all citizens and all immigrants who work hard and respect the United States of America.  However, by the time his verbal gymnastics were completed, the room was no more wiser regarding where he stood on the issue, than before he began speaking.  A person in the audience even shouted out, "we still don't know where you stand on the issue."  Santos remained quiet, tight lipped, and mysterious.

I jotted in my notes he was likely a "no" on opting out of S.B. 54.

Mayor Carroll, the lone woman on the council, said she wanted to remain as non-partisan as possible.  She was not going to voice her opinion on the matter, either.  She thanked the audience for their participation, stating that "Your voice is important."  She realized that issues like the supremacy clause were an important part of the discussion, but because she's "not an attorney," it was not her place to decide the legal implications of the law.  According to Carroll, "it's a legal issue, and we are not lawyers.  We have no jail in Beaumont so we are not releasing criminals.  Therefore, it does not affect Beaumont.  There is no there, there.  It doesn't apply to us."  She stated she believed the whole issue, and the reason so many people appeared to speak on the issue, was because of fear.  She said it all was "fear driven."  She added, "I wish there was something I could do to take away that fear. . . I can't."  She then began to talk about the dangers of "States' Rights," comparing this issue to slavery, and the American Civil War.

She then went into "democracy" mode, indicating if you are "against S.B. 54, go at it.  Put it on the ballot. . . at the State level, not at the city."

"We don't have the right to decide if the federal law is over the line or if the State is over the line.  It's not a city issue. . . I am not the Supreme Court."

My first thought was, "if you have no right to decide if something is legal or constitutional, why are you sitting on the dais, and why did you swear an oath to protect and defend the Constitution?"

Lloyd White chimed in at this point, stating that "S.B. 54 was not the will of the voters. . . it should have gone to a ballot in the first place.  Same thing happened with the gas tax."

Councilman White then made a motion.  He moved that the city council takes a position in opposition of S.B. 54.

He then read a resolution written by the City Attorney. It had a few elements of my ordinance, but was watered down in ways I wouldn't have been willing to do.  Nonetheless, aside from its use of the word "democracy", which always bothers me because I know for a fact we are a republic, it sounded like a step in the right direction.

Councilman Lara, impressing upon the audience the need to ensure the safety of local law enforcement by ensuring coordination between Beaumont Police and federal authorities, seconded the motion.

Councilman Martinez stated that if he were to support the item now being discussed it would make him a "hypocrite."

The City Attorney explained that the resolution is a position, but "will not change anything with the law."

Then the voting commenced.  White voted "yes."  Martinez voted "no."  Carroll voted "no."  Lara voted "yes."

Now, it all came down to Councilman Rey Santos.

I was pretty sure, at this point, that once Santos voted "no," Councilman White had another rabbit in his bag of tricks.  Likely, he would motion that the matter be put on the ballot for the voters of Beaumont to decide it.  Surely, the less than constitution-abiding members who voted "no" would go for that.

As I was thinking about the next move, Santos slowly made his decision, and said, "yes."


Did I hear that clearly?

The resolution to adopt a position against S.B. 54 had passed by a vote of 3-2, with Councilman Santos surprising everyone in the room, including his fellow councilmembers.

Beaumont had just been added to the long list of California cities (and counties) opting out of S.B. 54, California's Sanctuary State law, and I was very proud to be a part of it, and a part of the Tea Party group that made it happen.

I also have noticed that it is mostly Southern California cities and counties opposing Sacramento, of which are closer to the border, and more impacted by the troubles associated with illegal aliens, and the sanctuary status law, S.B. 54, of which the capitol in the north has imposed upon the entire State of California.

The room remained silent, but we were mentally pumping our fists in victory.  The overflow room, however, did not keep decorum, and from across the hall we could hear the cheer and roar of approval.

The whole thing is not over, yet.  The language of the resolution still has to be adjusted, and will seek final approval at the next council meeting, of which, I am of no doubt, the Banning-Beaumont-Cherry Valley Tea Party will be there.

Saturday Morning at 8:00 am, on KMET 1490 AM radio, I will be hosting the Tea Party's radio program, "Conservative Voice Radio."  We will be, I am sure, enthusiastically talking about what transpired on Tuesday Night, and what's next for the Tea Party, and the region the City of Beaumont resides in.

I can't wait for the Tea Party's Tuesday Morning Breakfast Meeting at 8:00 am at the Farm's House Restaurant in Banning.  That will be a very informative, and fun-filled meeting.

But, victories are fleeting.  There is still much work to do, and we are ready for the next issue.

Bring it on!

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Melissa Melendez: Sacramento's Latest Tax Proposals

Posted by Douglas V. Gibbs
Author, Speaker, Instructor, Radio Host

Because with California Legisltive Democrats, there are never enough taxes. Here are 4 proposed new taxes I’ll have the pleasure of voting against today.
AB2303 (Thurmond) Imposes a new 10 percent tax on all private, for-prison prisons for the privilege of contracting with the state for goods, services, or both, and allocates the funding to the Department of Education for preschool and after school programs to prevent people from being incarcerated.
AB 2351 (Eggman) Imposes an additional 1 percent tax on taxable income of over $1 million to fund student financial assistance for tuition and fees at the California Community Colleges (CCC), California State University (CSU), and the University of California, (UC).
AB 2497 (Cooper) Imposes a new tax on the sales of firearms and ammunition at an undetermined rate to fund grants for police officers on high school campuses and counselors on middle school and junior high school campuses.
AB 2560 (Thurmond) Imposes a new tax on contracts with state prisons for goods or services except for health care contracts and contracts with private prison vendors.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

What Paris Has Become Under Islamic Invasion

Douglas V. Gibbs
Author, Speaker, Instructor, Radio Host

Pictures say more than words . . .

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Wednesday, April 18, 2018

Douglas V. Gibbs Faces Off Against NeverTrump Radio Host

Douglas V. Gibbs will be a guest today on a NeverTrumper radio host's program . . .
Should be interesting
Dave Levine has invited me to be on his radio program. The live feed airs today at 10:00 am Pacific time. Tune in live at KMET 1490 AM. If you miss it, not a problem. The Podcast is at

The interesting thing is that Dave is quite the NeverTrumper . . . I know a few of these people, where they do whatever they can to find fault in our President, while rejecting any of accomplishments as accidental or a distraction of what his real agenda is.

 will also discuss on the program my newest book, "7 Worst Constitutional Liars", and the events last night at the Beaumont City Council meeting where the local Banning-Beaumont-Cherry Valley Tea Party group I am a member of achieved an unexpected victory as the result of an unforeseen motion on the floor by a city council member, and an even more surprising vote on the dais.
Next Events:

Thursday, April 19, 2018; 6:30 pm: Temecula Constitution Class, Faith Armory, 41669 Winchester Road, Temecula, CA

Friday, April 20, 2018; 6:00 pm: Doug will be attending the  Travis Allen speech at the University of Riverside College Republicans , 900 University Avenue, Riverside CA

Saturday, April 21, 2018; 5:00 pm: Doug will be attending the  Birth Choice Centers 2018 Gala at the Temeku Hills Ballroom  in Temecula, CA

Saturday, April 28, 2018; 1:00 pm: Craig Huey of the Huey Report will be joining Douglas V. Gibbs as a guest on Constitution Radio, KMET 1490-AM

Saturday, May 5, 2018; 5:00 pm: Constitution Association Monthly Meeting, Lake Village Clubhouse, 30151 Rancho Vista Road, Temecula

Tuesday, April 17, 2018

Battle For Beaumont: Sanctuary Opt-Out

By Douglas V. Gibbs
Author, Speaker, Instructor, Radio Host

The State of California is in open rebellion against the United States Constitution.  Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution authorizes the federal government to secure the national border.  Article IV, Section 2 indicates American privileges and immunities are applicable only to citizens of the United States.  The 14th Amendment echoes that sentiment.  Amendments 15, 19, 24 and 26 indicate that only citizens may vote in our elections.  Article I, Section 8 establishes the federal government's authority over naturalization, and Article I, Section 9 grants to Congress the authority to make law prohibiting persons from migrating into the union of States.  Article VI of the Constitution, in the clause known as the "Supremacy Clause," disallows States from enacting law that is contrary to federal law when the U.S. law is pursuant of the Constitution.  2012 Arizona v. United States, U.S. Supreme Court ruling also establishes immigration as being a federal issue.  1905 Manigault v. Springs, U.S. Supreme Court ruling confirms the Supremacy Clause, indicating that a State canmot legally pass a law contrary to constitutionally authorized federal law.

Every city's general plan states that their city is dedicated to public safety, and fiscal responsibility. According to studies, the tax burden associated with illegal immigration is approximately $8,075 per illegal alien family member. In 2013, the estimated total cost was approximately $113 billion, with the price rising per year by nearly $3 billion.  According to U.S. Customs and Border Protection statistics a significant number of illegal aliens have committed criminal offenses in the United States since arriving. According to GAO, in FY 2009 295,959 SCAAP criminal aliens, of whom approximately 227,600 are illegal aliens, were incarcerated in state jails and prisons. This was a 40 percent and 25 percent increase, respectively, in criminal-alien incarcerations in state jails and prisons since FY 2003.  In 2018 a Department of Justice report revealed over 90 percent of foreign born criminals who are incarcerated in federal custody are here illegally.

This morning, as I do most Tuesday Mornings, I joined the Banning-Beaumont-Cherry Valley Tea Party at their weekly breakfast meeting at the Farm's House Restaurant in Banning, California.  The Tea Party group is very active in the San Gorgonio Pass area, and tonight they will be at the Beaumont City Council meeting in force presenting a Sanctuary Opt-Out ordinance I wrote back in January. The ordinance was written in such a way to not only for the purpose of enabling a city to not only opt-out of California's unconstitutional Sanctuary State law (a.k.a. SB-54), but to present a bullet-proof legal strategy for that decision.

The Beaumont City Council meeting begins tonight at 6:00 pm, and the ACLU and La Raza have vowed to also be present.  I plan to be there to defend my ordinance, and explain to the council members of the City of Beaumont...

------ I was writing the above when I ran out of time.  I am now at the Beaumont city council meeting writing the remainder of this post on my phone.  When we got here a little over an hour ago, we stood out front with signs hrld high.  I was interviewed by KMIR, NBC Palm Springs.  After the interview, and after Glenn Stull (president of the local tea party) was also interviewed, a car drove by cussing at us and then they threw a full, popped open, Modelo can of beer at us.

Pretty much sums up the liberal left response.

The room where the meeting is being held is full.  I am in the overflow room, and it's full.  Meeting begins at 6:00 pm.  I am on the list to speak.  I will tell you how it went later.  Stay tuned.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Monday, April 16, 2018

Syria Strikes were Constitutional

Chemical Warfare in Syria
was even used against children.
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Author, Speaker, Instructor, Radio Host

My friend and co-host on Constitution Radio, Dennis Jackson, has a saying.  "For God so Loved the World, he didn't send a committee."

That kind of sentiment is exactly why the Framers of the United States Constitution placed the concept of a separation of powers in the Constitution, as well as a bunch of authorities for the President that do not necessarily require congressional approval.

Don't get me wrong, I don't believe in an overly strong executive.  I recognize that, as Article I, Section 1 tells us, all legislative powers belong to Congress, so the President cannot legislate from the White House.  There are many things he can only do if legislation exists first regarding particular issues.  That's why Executive Order 11030, signed by President Kennedy in 1962, requires that an executive order must contain a ‘citation of authority,’ saying what law it's based on.  (Gregory Korte, “Obama issues ‘executive orders by another name’,” USA Today, December 16, 2014; [accessed February 9, 2018])

That said, National Security and the power to "wage war" belong to the President, and to carry out those duties, the President of the United States does not necessarily have to consult with Congress before carrying out those duties.

Seton Motley, who fancies himself a constitutionalist, posted on Facebook,

He then followed up the inaccurate proclamation with,

While I respect the opinions of my fellow Americans, and I am willing to listen to my fellow conservatives about their feelings regarding the unfortunate reality of war, I have real difficulty with their statements when they try to say something is constitutional, or unconstitutional, and do so without having a full understanding of the original intent of the document.

Seton Motley's statement that attacking Syria was completely unconstitutional was, to use his words, titanicallly stupid.

Please understand, my argument is not about if the United States "should" have conducted airstrikes against Syria.  My argument is if the Trump administration "could" have conducted airstrikes against Syria.

Mr. Motley's opinion about if Trump "should" have launched airstrikes against Syria largely runs in line with the Founding Fathers' assertion (George Washington's, in particular) warning against "foreign entanglements."  The common belief among many of the Framers of the Constitution was that unless necessary to repel an attack, or if it is thought that the country is in eminent danger of attack, military operations should not be engaged.

During the John Adams presidency, when Britain and France were going at it, Vice President Thomas Jefferson desired that the United States get involved, or at least pick sides.  Adams disagreed, using the foreign entanglements argument as his defense.  From May to July of 1797 President John Adams appointed a peace mission to France in hopes to resolve the issue of American rights as a neutral maritime power during the Anglo-French war.  It was the first of two such peace missions.  While in the Spring of 1798 President John Adams declared a state of "quasi-war" with France, that ended in October of 1800 at the Convention of Mortefontaine, as did the Franco-American alliance of 1778.

Many people in today's political dialogue, using the "foreign entanglements" argument, will tell you that the power to declare war, listed in Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, belongs to Congress for that reason, and the President may only act as Commander in Chief of the U.S. Military with a congressional declaration of war, or if we are directly attacked, or it is believed we will eminently be attacked.

The nice thing about studying the original debates surrounding the Constitutional Convention in 1787, the subsequent State Ratifying Conventions, and other documents from that time period, is that one may act as a sleuth and get to the bottom of the argument to discover what the Founding Fathers really believed, and authorized.

According to Seton Motley,

In response, I asked, "Show me where in the Constitution it says that?"  I then added that the Constitution does not state what he claims, and I would prefer he does not claim the Constitution says something that it does not.

Seton Motley responded,

During my debate with Mr. Motley, I was in the middle of performing a number of tasks, including getting out the door for a Holocaust Remembrance event in Murrieta, California, so I was using the verbal function on my smart phone to debate with him.  When I said "That is false," as I had earlier on a previous post, this time the auto-correct spelled it out to say "You are false."  As you can see from the above Facebook post, Motley jumped all over my, from his point of view, bad grammar.

I responded, explaining that his attack, which basically said if my grammar is not perfect then my argument must not be valid, is a common liberal leftist tactic.  The fact is, after over and over asking him where in the Constitution it says what he was claiming it says, he still could not come up with an answer.

Notice, I didn't attack his misspelling of the word "eminently" in an earlier post.

Then, he changed his argument.

He was trying to turn the tables on me.  Suddenly, since Mr. Motley realized the Constitution does not say what he claimed, he decided to argue that it doesn't say what I claim it says, either, therefore, my argument must be invalid, and he wins.


Here's my argument in a nutshell. . .

Show me in the Constitution where it says that the president can only wage military operations with approval from Congress. If you study the Articles of Confederation you will recognize that the founding fathers believed there were two Powers regarding War, the power to declare war, and the power to wage war. While Congress has the power to declare war, the president as commander-in-chief does have the ability to wage war without Congressional approval. I am not necessarily saying that I approve of a president Waging War at will without any discussions with the people around him, or congress. In Article 2 it clearly states that he may seek advice from those around him. If Congress has a problem with his operations in Syria then they can defund it, that is the whole point of Congress having the power of the purse strings. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison during the Barbary pirate Wars waged war without a Congressional declaration of war, but then later the money was appropriated. Those were Undeclared Wars. Are you willing to tell me that Thomas Jefferson and James Madison did not understand the Constitution?

LikeShow more reactions
Seton Motley The Constitution states that without Congress, the president may only act when America is attacked or threatened. 

Which is why until recently we didn’t behave is such a stupid manner as bombing ourselves into an irrelevant country’s civil war.

LikeShow more reactions
Douglas V. Gibbs You are false, the Constitution does not state that without Congress the president may only act when America was attacked or threatened. Show me article and section in the Constitution that says that? You are referring to the War Powers Act of 1973 which changed the authorities of the president without amending the Constitution, that is an unlawful Act. Again, I'm not necessarily saying I want a president to be going around Waging War right and left, I do believe that George Washington was right when he warned against foreign entanglements. I am just stating that that from a constitutional point of view the move on Syria without a declaration from Congress is not unlawful. If you are going to State the Constitution says something please show me where it says that, otherwise don't claim the Constitution says something that it does not.

LikeShow more reactions
Seton Motley Yes it does. 

And you aren’t “false.” You’re incorrect. 

Perhaps your inability to write and read properly explains your profound wrongness.

LikeShow more reactions
Douglas V. Gibbs Seton Motley Constitution does not say that. Give me article and section to prove otherwise. I teach classes on the United States Constitution. I'm here to tell you it does not say that. you are wrong in what you are saying. Please do not spread false constitutional information. Once again, if you truly believe it is in there, give me the article and section in which that phrase is in the Constitution. Since it is not in the Constitution you will be unable to do so. As for my choice of words, if you're trying to state that I don't know what I'm talking about because I miss verbalized a particular word then that makes you no different than liberals because that's what they do. Once again, the burden of proof is in your court, tell me what section and article in the United States Constitution that it says that the president cannot wage war without Congressional approval unless we are attacked or it is a direct response to an eminent attack. Your move.

LikeShow more reactions
Seton Motley Your students should ask for their money back.

LikeShow more reactions
Seton Motley You miss the fundamental tenet of the Constitution. 

The federal government must be expressly empowered to do something. Or it can’t do it. 

Where in the Constitution is the president without Congressional approval expressly empowered to insert itself in the middle of irrelevant nations’ civil wars?

LikeShow more reactions
Douglas V. Gibbs Seton Motley I don't miss the fundamental tenet, I understand what it is. But you also have to understand the history behind the language. If you read Madison's notes on the US Constitution you will understand that as commander-in-chief the president has the ability to wage war as necessary. In Article 2 Section 2 it indicates that the president is commander-in-chief over the US military which is always in service of the United States, and of the militias when they are called into service of the United States of America by Congress, which is detailed also in Article 1 Section 8. Once again you have to go back to the definitions of the time. Not your current thinking of what you think it means. Go back to Madison's notes, the Articles of Confederation, and the ratification conventions of the time, and you will determine based on what you read that there are two powers granted when it comes to war, the power to declare war and the power to wage war. They are separate Powers. So while Congress may declare war, which makes it an action that has been formally announced, the president is allowed to wage war without a declaration. Once again, the Barbary wars were Undeclared Wars, so are you telling me that Thomas Jefferson and James Madison did not understand the Constitution? As for the Articles and sections, which you seem not to be willing to look up, in Article 1 Section 8 it grants Congress the authority to declare war, and in Article 2 Section 2 it grants the power as commander-in-chief to the president of the United States. I offer the classes for free, by the way. And as for any criticisms of spelling or word usage or capitalization, I am using the verbal function on my phone to communicate with you because I am also acting as an advocate for the Constitution outside. Thank you for keyboard Warriors like yourself, every once in a while it might be a good idea to get some sun.

LikeShow more reactions
Douglas V. Gibbs Seton Motley a textbook I have written regarding government and the US Constitution that is being picked up by a bunch of home school programs and a couple of private schools will be available for sale in a couple months, I would be glad to send you a copy so that you can learn the Constitution better.

LikeShow more reactions
Seton Motley You’re wrong. 

And I don’t have a birdcage to line - so you can keep the book.

LikeShow more reactions
Seton Motley If you asked any Founding Father “should we militarily intervene in an irrelevant country on the other side of the planet’s civil war?” - they’d laugh you out of the room.

LikeShow more reactions
Douglas V. Gibbs Seton Motley One last thing. There is nothing I hate more than conservatives activating a circular firing squad. I am not trying to go to war with you. It's just that the Constitution is very specific, if we understand the language, and when people begin spreading information that is not true, it really chaps my a$$. That's why my first book addressed the myths about the Constitution . . . and the difference between waging war and declaring war is one of those myths I address. Ought the President of the United States consult Congress before taking military action? Sometimes. As a friend says, "For God so loved the world he didn't send a committee." The ability to wage war was given to the President so that if necessary, the Commander in Chief may wage war as he sees fit. However, there are no limiting factors listed with that authority. He may wage war as necessary. That said, there are checks against abuse of that power, which includes defunding such operations, and impeachment. That all said, technically, the move against Syria was not unconstitutional. The President of the United States is Commander in Chief over the United States Military, which means, based on original intent, he may utilize those forces as he sees fit. Declaration of War simply puts out there a formal declaration that a state of war exists, which carries with it certain legal protections that are not in place if the President wages war without a declaration. That all said, on August 17, 1787 in the Constitutional Convention the word "make" was removed and replaced with "declare" because the delegates were uneasy giving Congress that authority, and felt it was best to leave "making" war with the President. Mr. Sharman argued that there should be language only allowing the President to "repel attacks," so that he could not "commence" war. George Mason also voiced his own uneasiness of giving the power of making war to the President. In the end, it was decided to leave any language out of the Constitution limiting the President's ability to make war so that he may make decisions quickly in any situation where war may be warranted. Thomas Jefferson wrote in November of 1793 (Works 1:325-30) a great deal on the subject, recognizing the importance of Congress having the power to declare war, but that there would be times the President would need to use his ability to make war . . . and that sometimes to defend, one must be on the offense. In a letter from James Madison to Thomas Jefferson, April 2, 1798, recognized that the executive branch held all of the powers to make war, but desired that such a power must be closely monitored. "The constitution supposes, what the History of all Govts demonstrates, that the Ex[ecutive] is the branch of power most interested in war, and most prone to it." He then explains how the Congress is a check in place, in case those powers are abused. Alexander Hamilton, the leftist of the bunch, spewed your position. In fact, on December 17, 1801 he wrote, "it belongs to Congress only, to go to war. But when a foreign nations declares, or openly and avowedly makes war upon the United States, they are then by the very face, already at war, and any declaration on the part of Congress is nugatory: it is at least unnecessary." In a letter by "A Georgian" on November 15, 1787 it is recognized in his letter that "it is his right" to wage war as Commander in Chief, and then the writer asks what the consequences and protections are in case the President abuses that power. In the North Carolina ratifying convention, when, on July 28, 1788 the question of Commander in Chief was brought up, it was explained, "In almost every country, the executive has the command of the military forces. From the nature of the thing, the command of armies ought to be delegated to one person only. The secrecy, despatch, and decision, which are necessary in military operations, can only be expected from one person. The President, therefore, is to command the military forces of the United States, and this power I think a proper one; at the same time it will be found to be sufficiently guarded." What he meant by "guarded" was the provision that if military conflict expands into a major war, Congress alone may declare that war. The House of

LikeShow more reactions
Douglas V. Gibbs Representatives June 22, 1797 also explains that when it comes to the Navy, the President has the authority to use the Navy as necessary. "Why should this power be limited" it was asked by a Mr. Sewall.

LikeShow more reactions
Douglas V. Gibbs Sorry about the break. I am momentarily in my office, and wanted to give you a properly sourced response, and I accidentally hit the "return" key after "The House of. . ."

LikeShow more reactions
Douglas V. Gibbs Again, I recognize the concern for executive abuse of that power, and I agree it is a very real possibility. But, if it is abused, Congress has tools to check against such abuses. However, technically, the President has constitutional authority to wage (or shall we say "make") war without having to go through the lengthy process of herding cats in Congress to get the authority. Therefore, the strikes against Syria were not unconstitutional. By some opinions they may have not been wise, but they were not unconstitutional.

LikeShow more reactions
Douglas V. Gibbs Seton Motley As for your comment about asking the founding fathers about if we "should" intervene in an irrelevant country on the other side of the planet, that's not the issue, here. I suppose there would be a variety of responses, but most likely most of them, if they knew the full context, would be wary to take such action. But, the question on the table is not "should" the president have done what he did. The question is "could" the president constitutionally do what he did. Regardless of the "should," the answer to "could" is "Yes." If he shouldn't have, then Congress may act to check his actions, or he may wind up only serving one term as a consequence of his actions. Again, I am not arguing about "foreign entanglements," I am addressing the black letter of the rule of law as it is presented in the United States Constitution.

Seton Motley never responded, after that.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary