Posted on 12/15/2014 6:42:03 AM PST by Yashcheritsiy
The United States of America are in a bad way. All around us we are seeing the fruits of a people who have forgotten the first principles that gave our nation that it had originally. We were founded as a constitutional republic. What this means is that our entire political system, in which we participate indirectly, is supposed to be governed by the Constitution. Yet, we have strayed from this, and many, many people in this nation do not even really understand either the purpose or the workings of that document, because they have never learned them, nor even thought about them.
One of my desires is to increase awareness of what the Constitution means, and how it is to be rightly applied. As such, I have conceived of the idea of trying to present a series of articles devoted to explaining the principles which underlie our constitutionalism, that effort to regain and then maintain our nation's traditional adherence to the Constitution and the liberty worldview which flows from it.
To begin this series, I want to begin at the beginning (of course). If we as conservatives and liberty lovers, people who want to educate those around us back toward a more constitutional view of our political system, are to succeed in this goal, then we need to have a firm grasp of the fundamentals of our own philosophy.
So before anything else is said about the Constitution or how to apply it or what any of its particular parts mean, we must first firmly settle in our own hearts and minds upon the principle of the primacy of that document in the earthly laws and organization of government in these United States.
Simply put – there is nothing in any subsidiary law made by Congress, in any executive agency, in any executive order which the President may wish to make, that overrules the Constitution. From an under the sun perspective, in the United States the Constitution is THE standard against which everything aspiring to the status of law must be measured. In 1886, the Supreme Court plainly stated this principle,
"An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed." (Norton vs. Shelby County, 118 US 425)
Bluntly, if a law or other act of government contradicts the Constitution, then that act, law, statute, regulation, or whatever else is null and void.
Let's think a little bit about how that applies. Obviously, an act of Congress that contradicts the plain wording of the Constitution is a dead letter on its face. So should an executive order from the President. So should administrative rules made by federal agencies. That much is easy to understand.
But what about when we get around to dealing with actions by public officials? For instance, what about when the police perform a warrantless search in violation of the 4th amendment, or when officials in federal agencies such as the BATFE misuse their powers to harass and punish gun owners and gun sellers, contrary to the 2nd amendment?
Morally, it is right to resist those usurpations, even with deadly force. Practically, of course, that is easier said than done because of the tendency of many police and regulatory agencies to use force to protect their own usurpations against our liberties. But yet, morally, the one who resists is in the right, because he or she is actually on the side of the law. The authority that police and regulatory agencies have is statutory, and derives FROM the institutions established under the Constitution, which in turn derive their authority FROM that document. In short, the police do not have the authority to overrule our founding document. When they do so, it is the police themselves who are engaging in sedition and treason.
Now, one might argue, the police are allowed to do many of these things because the courts have ruled that they can. The courts have essentially gutted the 4th amendment protections we used to enjoy, such that police agencies can do all kinds of things at which the Founders would be aghast. So the next question to ask is – does the fact that the courts have ruled this way suddenly make it alright? Do the courts overrule the Constitution?
Absolutely not. As late as 1968, Justice Hugo Black observed,
"The public welfare demands that constitutional cases must be decided according to the terms of the Constitution itself, and not according to judges' views of fairness, reasonableness, or justice. I have no fear of constitutional amendments properly adopted, but I do fear the rewriting of the Constitution by judges under the guise of interpretation."
Certainly, there is a constitutional role for the courts to play, otherwise that document would not have provided for their institution. Nevertheless, simply because a court rules a certain way does not make the court's decision – even from the Supreme Court – constitutional. If a court rules, to use a hypothetical example, that the police can take random DNA swabs from citizens without a warrant and without even probable cause (itself a non-constitutional legal construct), then that court has ruled against the plain reading of the Constitution's language.
Which makes that court's judgment unconstitutional, and null and void from its inception.
This is the great stumblingblock in the minds of even many conservatives when it comes to addressing the out of control judges in this country – the unwarranted deference to judicial authority even when that authority has clearly and unambiguously overstepped its constitutional boundaries. The American people need to start realizing once again that simply because a court rules a certain way, the Constitution doesn't suddenly change to accommodate this new understanding when this understanding goes against the plain wording of the text. If you want to amend the Constitution, then use the amendment processes provided within the document itself. Courts can't amend the Constitution of their own initiative. When courts do so, they act unconstitutionally. We need to accept and acknowledge that court rulings themselves can be unconstitutional.
What it all boils down to is this: we need to get back to a firmly held grammatical-literalist approach to the Constitution. Words mean things. The Founders who wrote the Constitution put certain words in, and left other certain words out, because they wanted our foundational law to do certain things, and not do other certain things. It is incumbent upon us not to try to "work around" the plain wording of the Constitution, but to simply learn, apply, and abide by that wording. If such a need should arise to change it, then amend it the right way – through the amendment process, not through inaction or unconstitutional usurpation, which does nothing but generate disregard not only for the founding law, but for all just and right law that is created under its auspices.
As we will see in upcoming installments of this series, the principle of constitutional primacy will color everything that follows. It is vital that we come to a real and true grasp of the Constitution as non-negotiable, and start demanding this from those who are privileged to represent us in government. Every area of political life, if it is to be rightly conducted, rests on this principle.
I took the oath to “support and defend” our Constitution the first time back in 1983. I’ve taken it several times since then (each time I re-enlisted). Now that I am retired I continue to carry a copy of the Constitution in my pocket everywhere I go. I also carry additional copies and give them to others when any subject comes up about the government’s power to do something. I then ask them to find just where in the Constitution it states that the fed has that power.
I’m not sure how many actually read it. I doubt many do as too often people just believe what they are told and are too lazy to find out the facts for themselves. But I know that my children are aware and are not happy with the current states of affairs. I’m proud to say that my father raised me as a patriot and I’ve past it along to my kids.
How quaint.
"Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it; no constitution, no law, no court even can do much to help it." - Judge Learned Hand
After Thomas Jefferson, in his First Inaugural, had enumerated the principles which would guide his Administration in his First Inaugural, he added:
"These principles form the bright constellation which has gone before us and guided our steps through an age of revolution and reformation. The wisdom of our sages and the blood of our heroes have been devoted to their attainment. They should be the creed of our political faith, the text of civic instruction, the touchstone by which to try the services of those we trust; and should we wander from them in moments of error or of alarm, let us hasten to retrace our steps and to regain the road which alone leads to peace, liberty, and safety."
So-called "progressives" of the 20th and 21st Centuries, in their arrogance, have removed (censored) the Founders' ideas of liberty from America's textbooks, but technology has outstripped their efforts. Every American school child and adult now has potential access to almost every word the Founders' spoke and wrote, and their ideas are being rediscovered and circulated in a manner unheard of even 10 years ago, as if by the hand of Divine Providence. How else can one account for the events of 2010?
Enduring principles, according to the Founders were just that--enduring and "self-evident."
The sacred Rights of mankind are not to be rummaged for among old parchments or musty records. They are written as with a sunbeam in the whole volume of human nature, by the hand of the divinity itself, and can never be erased or obscured by mortal power. - Alexander Hamilton
"Kings or parliaments could not give the rights essential to happiness, as you confess those invaded by the Stamp Act to be. We claim them from a higher source - from the King of kings, and Lord of all the earth. They are not annexed to us by parchments and seals. They are created in us by the decrees of Providence, which establish the laws of our nature. They are born with us, exist with us, and cannot be taken from us by any human power, without taking our lives. In short, they are founded on the immutable maxims of reason and justice." - John Dickinson (Signer of the Constitution of the U. S., as quoted in "Our Ageless Constitution, p. 286)
Of the Constitution, and of its own provisions for Amendment in Article V involving actions of "the People" themselves prior to any changes or alterations, Hamilton stated:
"Until the people have, by some solemn and authoritative act, annulled or changed the established form, it is binding upon them collectively, as well as individually; and no presumption or even knowledge of their sentiments, can warrant their representatives [the executive, judiciary, or legislature]; in a departure from it prior to such an act." - Alexander Hamilton
Nothing will change until the party is destroyed.
I presume you mean both of the major ones.
They differ in method, not goals. In practical terms they are one.
Someone who sits back and resorts to cynicism, instead of being willing to fight for what is ours, is ultimately just as much the problem as the cultural marxists and socialists.
I once heard someone say that there is no constitutional right to free health care, free housing, and a monthly check from the government. I'm not sure I believe them.
/JUST kidding
Tell me how YOU fight. By typing? I’ll tell you some of my stories:I DO MORE THAN TYPE!
Tim Dunkin, and a lot of other people are wasting their time.
One either already believes that, or not. Yes, it is that simple.
But the assault on The Constitution has gotten out of hand the last few years, and my deepest fears are now a reality. Seven years ago, I began asking the question: How do we deal with a president gone rogue? Specially if the Congress is either unable or unwilling to impeach him?
We now have the answer to that.
When the Great racial and societal Uniter said "fundamental transformation of the United States of America," I knew he meant ignoring the Constitution (as opposed to amending it.)
If nothing has been done to date to arrest the progress of the totalitarians, it's quite unlikely to happen in the near future.
We are living in interesting times.
Sure you do. Just another FReeper keyboard tough guy, eh?
As many of us also do.
But here's the problem. No one can understand the Constitution any more; not even the Supreme Court Justices. Give them a conflict to resolve and they all point in different directions.
There have been so many laws passed in the last 110 years that effectively nullify the Bill of Rights, often multiple times and contradicting each other, and the number keeps growing.
In order for your friends and family to actually get anything useful from the original Constitution they need this...
( PDF files. )
https://www.congress.gov/constitution-annotated
I had problems with that link, because I wanted to download the entire document (~18Mb) and it wouldn't allow me to do so ( Windows 7Pro, Old Pentium 4 ). It could download the many different chapters, parts, but see note below.
If that does not work, you can also download the document from the Government Printing Office site.
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-CONAN-REV-2014/content-detail.html
This links downloads the entire document, as a single file with internal cross-links which is a big file (on a cable modem it took less than 10 seconds) and the advantage is that notations, citations and precedents are cross-linked within the document itself.
Full disclosure.
I have not tested the files yet because I have not had sufficient time, so some testing is advised. This annotated document presumably has all laws, decisions and reversals that have modified any part of the constitution, so it must be extremely useful, even to non-lawyers with a modicum of education and interest.
One last word of caution : This single file can be viewed in Adobe Reader, but naturally it takes a long time. A copy of full Adobe Acrobat is recommended for the use of this file.
In addition, I'm still not sure if the single file can be forwarded to anyone else, which I have intended to do.
Goodluck!
No one can understand the Constitution any more; not even the Supreme Court Justices.
I don’t see how as it is written in plain English. Not much left for interpretation as it is pretty straight forward.
Plain English is before lawyers expand it. Sometimes it is pretty hard to get it to say what you want it to rather than what it actually says, but if you have enough money or power you can pretty much get a majority of 9 Justices to say that yes means no.
It doesn't matter what you and I and millions of others think.
Reality is what it is, not what we think (or wish) it should be. We have to deal with what we have, and everyone is busy trying to sort things out.
There have been many books written about this subject. Two of my favorites is A Matter of Interpretation, by Justice Scalia, and Witnesses at the Creation, by Richard B. Morris.
I have always respected and used official U.S. archives and records of the White House and the National Archives, for historical reality. No more. Anything "official" coming out of the white house since Clinton is virtually useless.
(remember Sandy Burglar? He was authorized access by Clinton himself, to steal and destroy original White House Documents; but I digress.)
I have also respected the Office of the president, still do. But I can never respect the present holder of the office. His criminal actions speak louder than his BS rhetoric. There's no changing that.
But there is a lot of education and history still available to us all, written long before the present megalomaniac entered the scene, and it is quite useful and educational. If the current regime has had the arrogance to change White House history from the past, there is no question that he must be impeached. I challenge any current elected criminal to argue against that.
Having said all that, here is a brief education along the topic of this thread :
Jefferson's First Inaugural Address
I would be amazed if most Freepers will not find a treasure trove of useful quotes in those two documents. I will cite just one...
"...the preservation of the General Government in its whole constitutional vigor, as the sheet anchor of our peace at home and safety abroad; a jealous care of the right of election by the people -- a mild and safe corrective of abuses which are lopped by the sword of revolution where peaceable remedies are unprovided; absolute acquiescence in the decisions of the majority, the vital principle of republics, from which is no appeal but to force, the vital principle and immediate parent of despotism; a well-disciplined militia, our best reliance in peace and for the first moments of war till regulars may relieve them; the supremacy of the civil over the military authority; economy in the public expense, that labor may be lightly burthened; the honest payment of our debts and sacred preservation of the public faith; "
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.