In the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court's treasonous disregard for its provisions, some are tempted to say that the U.S. Constitution is dead; others, that it is in suspended animation. The latter metaphor may more aptly convey the proximate cause of its demise. That cause is epitomized by the claim that the Constitution is a "living document." This notion is often invoked by the law-slaying justices responsible for the ongoing and wholesale offensive against the Constitution. These law-slayers proceed to tear away at provisions of the Constitution, dressing them down with this doctrine before devouring them altogether. So the Supreme Court's majority in the Obergefell decision put away the textual body of the Constitution in order to feed their judicial body's unruly appetite for power. They cast aside the prohibition (plainly stated in the Constitution's Ninth Amendment,) against denying and disparaging God-endowed, unalienable human rights permanently retained by the people, no matter which power of human government rules to the contrary.
As I made clear in last week's column, Obergefell is a treasonous usurpation of the sovereign's throne. But the sequence of current events suggests that the elitist faction's strategists understand the maxim that bedevils tyrannical power: "To be thus is nothing; but to be safely thus." They mean permanently to secure the power they grab. To do so they must give it the appearance of legitimacy. This will eventually require doing whatever is necessary to replace the present textual body of the Constitution with one of their own making.
One commandment in the handbook of the ruthless destroyers of liberty these justices serve says that they should never let a crisis go to waste. Of course, the best strategists take this as positive instruction. They carefully foment and time crises so that the distraction created by one move can be used to make or prepare some even more decisive blow against the enemy. So, in the moment when constitutional loyalists were preoccupied with reacting against the Obergefell attack, the U.S. Supreme Court aimed another even more offensive strike against the will of the people, expressed in constitutional terms.
Advertisement - story continues below
The U.S. Supreme Court's decision in the Arizona Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission case continues a trend that has fateful implications for the words in Article III, Section 4, of the Constitution. (Note well: The trend and its implications are clear to people who favor remodeling America's electoral process in ways that would transform our republic into the sort of "direct democracy" America's founders wisely rejected because it leads to demagogic tyranny.)
"The times, places and manner of holding elections for Senators or Representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations, except as to the places of choosing Senators."
Though we commonly speak of Congressional Districts and redistricting, the words are not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution. But since it is clearly left to the state legislatures to decide the places for holding elections in their respective states, it seems at first glance that it is clearly for them to decide whether the vote for members of the House will be decided by districts they establish, or by some manner of general election, without regard to geographical divisions.
But the restriction on congressional action with regard to "the places of choosing Senators" clearly implies that Congress' power to alter a state's legislative decisions in these matters includes the power to alter the "places of choosing" members of the House of Representatives. But nothing about the language of this provision gives any jurisdiction over the matter to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Advertisement - story continues below
This would suggest that, when any controversy arises with respect to the creation of congressional voting districts, or the correlation between groups of voters and the ballot of candidates from which they have to choose, it is a matter for the whole Congress to decide (including the Senate of the United States). The U.S. Supreme Court should have said as much and declined to violate the Constitution's clear vestment of power. Instead, in defiance of the Constitution, they usurped the Congress' power. Then, adding injury to insult, they directly usurped the sovereign power to dictate the words of the Constitution, which power belongs exclusively to the people of the United States. Where, in their Constitution, the people say "legislature," the Court impudently substitutes the word "referendum," i.e., direct vote by the whole body of the people.
The man often honored with the name of "Father of the Constitution" made it clear that what distinguished the republican form of government established by the Constitution from the failed "democracies" of the past was its reliance on the principle of representation. That principle substitutes action through their legislative representatives for the direct action of the people as a whole. By their decision, the U.S. Supreme Court reverses this substitution, thereby purposefully casting aside the form of republican government the Constitution (Article 4.4) explicitly requires the U.S. government to guarantee in all the States.
Democracy fails because it is too susceptible to the pernicious influence of demagogues, i.e., leaders who begin "their career by paying obsequious court to the people; commencing [as] demagogues, and ending [as] tyrants." But such demagogues are exactly what the elitist faction's tyranny-bound political culture aims to produce. They are the main tool for its insidious transformation of America's politics. Twentieth century "progressivism" began with things like the 17th Amendment, which falsely promised the people greater power if they abandoned the principle of representation in choosing U.S. senators. In fact, on account of their money and media power, direct election of U.S. senators has made it easier for a national (indeed, an international) elitist faction to consolidate preponderant influence over elections to the U.S. Senate.
Members of the House of Representatives are elected in a place and manner that makes election outcomes somewhat less susceptible to the elitist faction's money and media powers. The composition of the U.S. House is, therefore, more resistant to that faction's tyrannical will. But because they have completely traduced the GOP's quisling leadership, the elitist faction powers-that-be have dissolved this resistance when it comes to particular policies and issue areas. But their ambition aims higher. Their strategic goal is totalitarian power. To achieve it, and then give it the appearance of legitimacy, they need a degree of control over the composition of the U.S. House that matches their control of the U.S. Senate.
The Arizona decision sets the stage for elitist faction control of the redistricting process that matches their ability to manipulate and control key elections to the U.S. Senate and crucial appointments to the federal judiciary. Redistricting commissions will play the role similar institutions, like the Bar Associations, play in the selection of judges appointed by governors or the president. Current events in the United States clearly demonstrate that unless the people reclaim their sovereignty, across the board, arrogant elitist tyranny will be the inevitable result.
Advertisement - story continues below
Media wishing to interview Alan Keyes, please contact [email protected].