Chief Adviser Erlon Jones
Erlon has been a huge part of the Pact and the smooth operation of the Pact. In March of 2016, he came aboard the CAP Executive Cabinet as the Press Secretary. He held this position until October of 2018, when he changed rolls to Chief Adviser. This title better envelops all of what Erlon does.
He is responsible for many of the articles that are written in this section. Although he is not Press Secretary anymore, he will still submit articles from time to time.
Constitutional News From Other Sites!
Though CAP writes its' own articles, we also try to find articles from other sites that deal with the Constitution.
1. Memorial Day; The Visit Fox News
2. Our Constitutionally Illiterate Faculty. Daily Wire
4. Justices Consider Expanding Gun Rights. National Constitution Center
5. Beto O'Rourke's Constitutional Folly. National Review
6. Happy Birthday (Kind of) to the 18th Amendment. National Constitution Center
8. The Youngstown Decision and a Possible Border Wall Declaration. National Constitution Center
9. Supreme Court to Rule on 40 Foot Memorial Cross at Center of Church-State Debate. The New York Times
10. D.C. Might Start Allowing 16-Year-Olds to Vote for President. Associated Press
Remembering Freedom's Sacrifice
Today is Memorial Day! It is a day that is celebrated with cookouts, family get-togethers, games, and just an overall fun time. While these fun times are good and well, we must never forget the important reason we celebrate this day.
We in America enjoy unprecedented freedom and prosperity under our Constitution. But this amazing America we live in has only been bought at a heavy price. Through America's history over a million men and women have paid the ultimate price for our freedom. They are the reason for this day.
The Scripture says, "Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends." So in-between the fun and games, let's never forget the ultimate showing of love and sacrifice that has been paid so we may be free. America is only free because of that. God bless America and may God bless the memory of those who gave all!
Isaac Hadam, Vice-President
A Good Reason to Keep the Second Amendment-And Hold the Mayo
Why is Everything Politicized?
The case of Mollie Tibbetts riveted the country’s attention to the small town of Brooklyn, Iowa for a month. Tibbetts was the 20 year old college student who disappeared last month after going out for a jog. After a search that garnered national attention; the sad news broke on August 21st that her body had been found. Shortly after that news broke, good news was announced; a suspect had been arrested and charged for her murder. Along with that announcement also came the news that the suspect is an illegal immigrant who was employed at a nearby farm.
This whole story is incredibly saddening and it truly is a tragic event. The fact that such a quality person who had her whole life before her was killed in such a terrible way should upset anyone with a heart. However, the news had hardly been on the presses when Republicans, including President Trump, Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds, and others started to talk about changing immigration policy in light of Ms. Tibbetts murder.
The problem that I see with this is that people of the right, including myself, criticize the left for politicizing shootings like Las Vegas before you can blink, but now it seems that Republicans have no qualms about doing it themselves when it comes to illegal immigrant crimes.
Look, immigration is a serious Constitutional issue that Congress should be dealing with and changing. By criticizing the GOP for quickly politicizing this tragedy, I am not saying that we shouldn’t strengthen our border, fix our immigration system, and yes, in my opinion, build the wall. What I am saying is that in a society that is so fractured right now, maybe we should wait for at least 24-48 hours before we inject politics into this tragic situation. Why can’t we just use that first day or two to just come together as a nation and lift the family up in our thoughts and prayers that they would be comforted during this trying time?
If I’m honest, I am very upset with the fact that an individual that shouldn’t have been here committed such a despicable act. However, one thing that has helped America be great is that the American people have, through our nation’s history, shown that we are capable of forgetting about politics temporarily to come together during times such as this.
Once again, Congress needs to do its Constitutional job and address the immigration issue. They do a disservice to the American people when they simply ignore their responsibility as our representatives, and as people whose Constitutional duty it is to make law. Especially when there are some current things in immigration law that need fixing. But can’t we stop politicizing every tragedy two seconds after it happens? If we can’t, then how do we expect our Constitutional Republic to survive? Please keep Ms. Tibbetts family in your thoughts and prayers!
Isaac Hadam, Vice-President
Brett Kavanaugh-Supreme Court Nominee
Let Them Eat Cake!
Showdown on the Border-The Constitution and the Caravan
The news this week has been filled with stories about a band of foreign immigrants traveling
through Mexico to the United States border. This tight-knit caravan has generated a lot of media excitement, especially now that Donald Trump is the president. The Central American caravan headed north toward the United States through Mexico may have attracted the attention of President Donald Trump and others for good reason — it’s one of the largest since the group Pueblo Sin Fronteras began staging its annual pilgrimage through Mexico a decade ago. President Trump is accusing the Mexican government of doing far too little to stem the flow of people coming through the country’s southern border on their way to the U.S. as they flee violence and poverty back home. The media and liberal activists are using it as an opportunity to weep and wring their hands about border walls and locked doors. I doubt if Rachel Maddow or Anderson Cooper leaves their home doors unlocked at night for just anyoneto walk in. But not to fear, the caravan of Central American migrants that President Trump has portrayed as an emblem of flawed immigration policy in the United States began to splinter on Thursday, as hundreds of people departed this rural town aboard buses and on foot, abandoning the decrepit municipal sports complex where their journey had stalled for five nights. But the movement’s organizers insisted that the caravan would regroup in the Mexican city of Puebla in the next few days before continuing to Mexico City, where it would officially end after meetings with government officials and possibly a street protest.
Speaking to reporters earlier this week, Mr. Trump said he had pressured the Mexican government to act against the caravan, a claim that drew a firm rebuttal from the administration of President Enrique Peña Nieto, which said the caravan’s halt here in Matías Romero was a decision of the organizers, not the result of domestic or international pressure. Mr. Peña Nieto sharply criticized Mr. Trump’s plan to send National Guard troops to the border. That’s right, we now have a president that is willing to stand up for our own citizens. That means, even if the caravan of immigrants held together, they would certainly be stopped at the border.
Even though Trump is being roundly criticized for this effort, the media has failed to mention that President Bush sent the National Guard to the Mexican border in 2006, and President Obama in 2010. But this president is determined not to play ball with these activists. Instead of allowing them to bully us Americans, Trump is using this as an opportunity to point out the flaws in our immigration policies, and the lack of action from previous administrations.
Constitutionally, the President is on firm ground in this effort. Article II, Section 2 states in part “The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States…” Further, the Congress has the duty to back up the President in this effort, as Article I, Section 8 states in part “To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions…” Any caravan of non-citizens intending to ram-raid their way into our country should be treated as an invading force and should be stopped at the border by the military. And this is
even more important since the military cannot be used to enforce civilian laws. Therefore, this confrontation needs to take place constitutionally at the border so that the military can respond, not the border patrol. However, this point may be moot since the caravan appears to have fallen apart.
But just because this caravan was made up of a group of vans traveling through Mexico, it should not be treated any different than if Britain sent a caravan of warships over the Atlantic, or Cuba sent a flotilla across the Gulf of Mexico, or Canada sent Justin Bieber over the border. (Oh, too late!) As Americans, we need to be aware of what is in our Constitution, and make sure our government leaders follow suit. This means enforcing power through the Constitution or pushing government back because of limited Constitutional authority. That being said, let’s not encourage any more foreign immigrant caravans. Or Canadian pop singers.
The Mueller Probe and the Constitution
Headlines have been splashed around in the national media about President Trump and Russian collusion in the 2016 election. Allegations are everywhere that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia to alter or sway the election in Trump’s favor. As if Hillary Clinton’s getting pushed into a van didn’t do that already. But thankfully the Justice Department appointed a special prosecutor, which will investigate the case and finally bring some justice to this matter. Robert Mueller is a stellar example of uprightness and honesty in federal government. The investigation was viewed as a torch of truth and that they would make justice prevail, and finally bring the Trump administration to its knees.
Well, well, well. It looks like the Squeaky Clean Investigation has some dirt under his fingernails. This came in the form of two FBI agents that were assigned to the team that Mueller led to investigate Russian collusion. Peter Strzok and Lisa Page were two FBI agents that were discovered to be in the tank for Hillary Clinton and were dismissed from their positions in the Mueller probe. And not only were they biased in favor of the Clinton campaign, the two of them had a romantic relationship going on. But these two were doing more than the typical two teenagers sitting at the drive-in movie kissing until their braces sparked. Thousands of text messages were released that showed both agents were not pleased with the rise of Trump during the 2016 election. Both bash Trump and express concerns about being too tough on Hillary Clinton during an investigation into the use of her private email server. The pair exchanged some 50,000 text messages throughout the presidential election and first year of the Trump administration, many of them with anti-Trump sentiments. Peter Strzok is a veteran counterintelligence agent who was assigned to both the investigation into Clinton’s personal email server and Muller's probe into possible collusion between Trump officials and Russians during the election. Strzok was removed from the Russia investigation after it was revealed that he exchanged anti-Trump text messages with Page, a senior FBI lawyer. It was then reported that Strzok left the probe and was reassigned to the human resources division in August 2017. That’s like the the local sheriff getting demoted to town dog-catcher. Or Hillary Clinton losing a presidential election. Oh, wait, she did. Twice.
The irregularities in the Clinton-emails investigation are breathtaking: the failure to use the grand jury to compel the production of key physical evidence; the Justice Department’s collaboration with defense lawyers to restrict the FBI’s ability to pursue obvious lines of inquiry and examine digital evidence; immunity grants to suspects who should have been charged with crimes and pressured to cooperate; allowing subjects of the investigation to be present for each other’s FBI interviews and even to act as lawyers for Clinton, in violation of legal and ethical rules; Comey’s preparation of a statement exonerating Clinton months before the investigation was complete and key witnesses, including Clinton herself, were interviewed; and the “coincidental” tarmac meeting between Obama attorney general Loretta Lynch and Mrs. Clinton’s husband just days before Hillary Clinton sat for a perfunctory FBI interview complete with tea and crumpets. But when it comes to President Trump, four arrests have been made of his operatives, none of which the charges even related to the campaign. But it shows how the Justice Department was tipped in favor of Hillary Clinton, especially when you see two FBI agents texting each other when they should have been home with their spouses. (Yes, that’s right, Agent Strzok is married. And not to Lisa Page) It’s interesting what comes crawling out then the swamp begins to drain.
Certainly, civil servants are allowed to have their own personal political views. That is their right that belongs to every American citizen. But when personal views start affecting how they do their job, then that kind of bias cannot be tolerated. Especially with our criminal justice system, which promises “liberty and justice for all.” The United States Constitution demands and ensures protection and liberties to every citizen. And when these liberties are being threatened by two FBI agents that are tilting their hand in favor of one side, then that cannot be tolerated. Now that Peter Strzok is in the personnel office, he can find a job for Hillary Clinton. I’m sure the Justice Department has a lot of servers that need wiping with a cloth.
Erlon Jones, Press Secretary
Even Robots Need the First Amendment
As we enter the new year, Americans look ahead to a year filled with hope, optimism, and
renewed confidence. A fresh beginning, and a chance to make all things new. What a great day! Even an ardent progressive activist couldn’t spoil this good time with an attack on the First Amendment. Wait a minute, he did. Meet Jay Malsky, a comedian and part-time drag queen from New York City, (where else?), who was vacationing at Disneyland in Florida along with thousands of other families. Apparently, Malsky took issue with Disney’s Hall of President’s attraction which featured a President Trump robot. The Hall of Presidents attraction features several mechanical, talking presidential robots featuring the current as well as past presidents. Each robot speaks for about a minute, then shuts off and another begins speaking. This attraction is enjoyed by millions of visitors each year.
That is, until Malsky came upon the scene. When the President Trump robot lit up and began speaking, Malsky displayed a meltdown not seen since Fukushima Reactor Number 2. He began screaming “Lock him up!” along with other derisions aimed at the 45 th president. Upset visitors told Malsky to stop yelling, as children became frightened and was putting a damper on the event. Eventually security showed up and removed Malsky from the exhibit, followed by clapping applause from the audience. It’s too bad the Presidential Robots couldn’t clap as well.
What was Malsky’s response? Was it shame and sorrow for disrupting everyone’s vacation. No, instead it was complete and total arrogance and rebellion. “Anyone that’s upset I disrupted a family vacation can check their privilege and consider getting mad about the thousands of
children being taken away from their parents because of Trump’s racist immigration policies, or the families of the hundreds of trans Americans murdered each year by transphobic and homophobic people, or the negative impacts of the tax bill on poor and middle-income Americans,” Malsky said. That’s nice, now where is the Space Mountain ride? It appears that even robots cannot enjoy free speech rights in this country without being heckled and derided. For many progressives, Americans are not individuals – each unique and special in his or her own way. Your skin color, gender, sexual orientation and socioeconomic status are what’s most important. So long to the days when individuals are judged by their character. In victimhood politics, all that matters is the situation you were born into. Now, more than ever, it’s important that real American patriots continue to teach the true spirit of our country: that all people are worthy of respect until they prove otherwise, including robots. That is the foundation of our United States Constitution, and we should hold these values high as we enter the new year.
Erlon Jones, Press Secretary
Happy Holidays and Pass the Ammunition
Were the Founders Against Tax Cuts?
The major debate over the GOP tax bill is over as President Trump officially signed it into law. During the debate over the tax bill there were many numbers thrown around and claims made about what the bill would or wouldn’t do. One of the most interesting claims came from House Minority Leader, Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), who said “It (the tax bill) does violence to the vision of our Founders.” Why don’t we take a look at whether her claim was accurate or not.
First things first, this tax bill will give a vast majority of Americans a tax break. There will be a small percentage that will pay more, predominantly in states with high state tax rates. But as a general rule, this bill will lower taxes for the average American. So do tax cuts really do violence to the Founders’ vision?
Well, if one goes back to their 2nd grade history class they will remember one of the main reasons that the colonists were disgruntled with Great Britain was because of what they deemed to be unreasonable and unfair taxes. Now there were many other reasons, twenty-seven are listed in the Declaration of Independence, but there can be no doubt that the issue of taxes was high on the totem pole. Now that the history lesson is over, let’s
look at what the Founders had to say about taxes.
The Founders did understand that the taxes were necessary for a nation with James Madison saying that the ability to tax people “is essential to the very existence of government.” However, our Founders also realized that the government should be very careful about how much they tax their citizens. Benjamin Franklin said, “It would be a hard government that should tax its people one-tenth part of their income.” John Marshall said, “The power to tax is the power to destroy.” So while the Founders understood that taxes are needed to run a government, they also understood that the government should be very careful on how much they should tax their people.
One final fact worth pointing out is that the Founders’ didn’t even allow for a Federal income tax in the Constitution. The Federal income tax was instituted by the 16th Amendment which was ratified in 1913. So it would be accurate to say that the Founders were not exactly fans of Federal income tax, since they didn’t even add a provision for it in the Constitution.
I would say that based on the three things we have looked at, the Founders would have no problem with taxes being lowered. Now, if Ms. Pelosi wants to argue over whether the GOP tax bill is good or not is totally fine, but to say that a bill that cuts taxes for most Americans is somehow in violation of the Founders’ vision is clearly uneducated at best.
Isaac Hadam, President
Scandals and Skeletons-Nothing New Under the Sun
A Date Which will Live in Infamy
Today we remember the surprise attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941 that sent the U.S. into WW2. I just wanted to take this time to salute the men who died that day defending our country, and to thank those who served then and those who serve now. I am truly grateful for their sacrifice. But people have been dying for our freedoms long before Pearl Harbor. It has been estimated that including the Revolutionary War 666,440+ Americans have died in COMBAT alone. This staggering number reminds me of the price that FREEDOM and LIBERTY carry, and it is most certainly not cheap. Another staggering statistic is that there are approximately only 558,000 U.S. World War 2 veterans left out of the 16 million who served our country during that war. Also WW2 veterans are dying at the rate of approximately 492 per DAY. One of my two grandfathers who served in WW2 has passed away. These BRAVE and AMAZING men are quietly slipping into the annals of history and it is our duty as the benefactors of their sacrifice to honor and thank them. Also to listen to their stories that we may never forget their sacrifice for this nation and the freedoms it stands for. So I just want to personally thank those who served (and died) in WW2 for their service to this great nation. May God bless those men and may God bless the United States of America.
Isaac Hadam, President
Dred Scott and President James Buchanan Meet the Constitution
California FACT Act- The First Amendment Weighs In
So Help Me God. Unconstitutional?
A Photo Is Worth a Thousand Words
Charlie Gard: A Dangerous Warning to Our Freedom
By now many people have heard the name Charlie Gard. He was an 11 month old boy in Great Britain who suffered from a rare degenerative disease that ends in death. His parents, Chris Gard and Connie Yates, raised 1.6 million dollars to take Charlie to America, on their tab, for experimental treatment that didn’t exist in Britain due to the UK’s single payer health care system. However, the hospital refused to release Charlie to his parents because they claimed that moving Charlie would cause him more pain, and that it would be better for him to die with “dignity.” The parents challenged the hospital and a dragged out court process began that took the attention of many people in both Britain and the U.S. A petition was even passed around to convince politicians in Washington to make Charlie a U.S. citizen so that he would then be extradited to America for the treatment. The drama even drew the attention of President Trump who tweeted (Imagine that) his support for Charlie Gard and his parents. Despite many efforts by Gard’s supporters, a European Union court ruled in favor of the hospital and decided that Charlie should die with “dignity” instead of seeking the experimental treatment. Although the struggle over Charlie’s future continued for a little while after that ruling, the parents had to end their attempts to save their son since so much time transpired that Charlie was beyond hope of saving. The drama ended on July 28, 2017, when the plug was pulled and Charlie was officially dead.
Why do I take the time to tell you about this sad incident? The reason is that we must take this as a warning sign about what happens when government grows too big and decides that it can play God in other people’s lives. One of the Declaration of Independence’s best known lines is; “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” Our Founders understood, and lived by the belief, that man is made in God’s image and that therefore all human life is precious. Now obviously this incident with Charlie didn’t happen in America, but we must never forget that once government oversteps its bounds they begin to make decisions that are not in their power to make.
Fortunately, we in America have a Constitution that restricts what our government can and can’t do. However, we as citizens need to know what the Constitution says in order to ensure that our government doesn’t overstep its bounds. If we don’t know what the limitations of government are, then we run the risk of having someone like Charlie being born in the United States and being deprived of the most valuable gift, life.
Isaac Hadam, Vice-President
Keeping the Constitution at the Forefront of the Health Care Debate
As the national health care saga goes on endlessly in Washington, it is easy to drift off into
another world. Rather than listen to a political issue be debated ad nauseum, it is much more
fun to go to the beach, eat lobster, or go to the symphony. At this point, watching paint dry
would be more entertaining.
But before we tune out completely, I noticed one constitutional issue that came up this week during the ruckus in Washington. This week’s proposed health care bill failed to pass the
Senate. Angry about this latest setback, President Trump took to Twitter, demanding that the
United States Senate change its rules so that bills could be passed by a simple majority. That is,
a bill would need at least 51 votes to pass. Currently Senate rules allow for a 60-vote majority.
With 52 Republicans and 48 Democrats, this can be challenging. Add to that a handful of weak-
kneed Republicans like Senator Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Senator Rob Portman (R-Ohio), and it can be nearly impossible to get anything done. I completely agree with President Trump in his frustration, and the Senate may need to consider changing its rules based on the current
political climate. The peoples’ business needs to get done in Washington, no matter what party is in power.
However, President Trump needs to realize that the United States Constitution provides for separation of powers. It is not up to him to tell the Senate what they should be doing. Even if the Senate is in the wrong, the separation of powers exists for a very good reason. We don’t want one person running the country. Otherwise, we might as well appoint a king to rule over us. Things would certainly get done easier and more efficiently, but we would lose most of our basic freedoms and liberties. That is what the Constitution is designed for, and why our leaders need to refer to it every time they are in Washington. A federal republic may be inefficient at times, but I’ll keep it over another King George.
Erlon Jones, Press Secretary