• Text smaller
  • Text bigger

“Despite so many deceitful efforts to distract from the real issue involved, it remains quite simple – is the Constitution of the United States the Supreme Law of the Land, or not? Can it be amended, in violation of its terms, by a simple majority vote or by the dereliction of public officials? Do its words still bind the officers and actions of all levels of government in the United States, or not? …

“What is true in general is more obviously and decisively true of the government of the United States. It was from the beginning intended ‘to decide the important question, whether societies of men are really capable or not of establishing good government from reflection and choice, or whether they are forever destined to depend for their political constitutions on accident and force.’ (Federalist, No. 1)

“With its words, the U.S. Constitution conveys the results of such reflection and choice. It has authority as law, however, only insofar as respect for those words obliges people to conform their actions to the terms and requirements they set forth. Once the words are no longer upheld by that sense of obligation, they no longer govern. Once they no longer govern, the Constitution will have been overthrown. Just as the commitment to be bound by words can establish a form of government, so the destruction of that commitment can and will bring it down. It dies first in the will, not in the streets.”

“Obama’s eligibility: The true issue”

“In the essential point that concerns political justice, Barack Obama and the present American political elite have entrenched themselves against the self-evident truths without which American liberty would never have existed and cannot survive. I recently read an article that described Barack Obama as ‘the first anti-Israeli President.’ Truth to tell, he is also ‘the first anti-American’ to claim the presidency. The cloud of doubt as to the legitimacy of that claim could easily be dispelled. But Obama and the elites that openly or covertly sustain him will not entertain the arguments that can do so because they reject the authority of God.

“They reject the natural law. They reject the constitutional sovereignty of the people, and the U.S. Constitution that embodies it. They prefer the judgment of history to the concept of right that appeals to the judgment of the Creator. They prefer encouraging people to believe that justice is power or material goods for the greater number, so that power and material goods become the only standard for the legitimacy of any exercise of governmental authority. Meanwhile, they are amassing the power, and securing control of the material benefits that they believe will make the irresistible case for their suppression of the people’s sovereignty and decent freedom.”

“The eligibility case Obama wants no one to hear”

This week I read columns by Phyllis Schlafly and Terry Jeffrey rightly decrying Obama’s blatantly unconstitutional abuse of the president’s power to “fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate.” To circumvent the Senate confirmation process, Obama made four so-called “recess appointments” even though the U.S. Senate was still in session.

Also this week Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky was detained by the TSA on his way back to Washington, even though the Constitution provides that “The Senators and Representatives … shall in all cases, except treason, felony and breach of the peace, be privileged from arrest during their attendance at the session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; …”

These episodes add to a growing body of evidence that Obama means to be the first openly “post-constitutional” president. I’m sure we’ll hear more about them from GOP presidential candidates and media partisans seeking to prove their attachment to the Constitution by loudly protesting Obama’s intention to kill it dead.

Their outrage is, of course, just part of the stagecraft of the twin-party election sham. Everyone knows that Obama’s active defiance of the Constitution began before he took office, as he refused to satisfy the Constitution’s plainly stated eligibility requirement for the office of president. The GOP elite and their media footmen were not content to greet this defiance with cowardly silence. They joined the Obama faction jackals in an effort to ridicule and belittle people who were simply asking that the Constitution’s authority be taken seriously.

If the Constitution’s words can be taken to have no authority when it comes to who occupies the office of president, what fool is surprised to see them treated without authority when it comes to using the powers of the office? It was Republicans like then-Sen. Mel Martinez who sent letters about the eligibility issue to their constituents implying that the people had decided the matter with their votes in the 2008 election. But if the Constitution can be amended by an ordinary election (instead of the amendment process its words require), why blame Obama for disregarding its provisions? So long as he, or any other occupant of the White House, wins majority support, anything goes.

It is that kind of thinking, not just Obama’s actions, that is killing the Constitution. Majority rule becomes unconstrained majority tyranny. Instead of elections that express the lawful sovereignty of the people, we get plebiscites that hand arbitrary power to this or that clique, ungoverned by the constitutional constraints required by respect for God-endowed unalienable rights.

Who is killing the Constitution? It is being done to death by every judge who refuses to give the Constitution’s “natural born citizen” requirement a fair and reasonable hearing; and by every office holder or politician who refuses to speak up or take action on the issue when the only thing at stake is the integrity of the Constitution’s authority.

Of course, now that it may serve their ambition for power, some politicians will make a show of caring about it. But we should treat them as they have thus far treated the Supreme law of the land. We should refuse to take them seriously. Or maybe we should see their conveniently self-serving discovery of constitutional piety as what it is – proof that they practice a brand of politics in which nothing matters until and unless it paves their path to power; and in which no constitutional constraint will be respected if it interferes with their ambition.

This corrupt, Machiavellian brand of factional politics is all the twin-party sham and its adherents have to offer. This means that they will all act like Obama if given half a chance. Do you really think that makes them “lesser evils”?

  • Text smaller
  • Text bigger
Note: Read our discussion guidelines before commenting.