Donald Trump: The Maginot Line between our Constitution and Liberal Maelstrom

History tells us that the Maginot Line was a French defense strategy employed in WWII that ultimately failed.  This line of defense that stretched across Europe was magnificent in most of its construction; likely overbuilt in most sections.  Its failure resulted from its one weak link, a passage through the rough terrain of the Ardennes Forest that was both discounted by the French military leaders and exploited by the Germans.  The episode of the Maginot Line lends credence to the words of Thomas Reid, who wrote in 1786:  In every chain of reasoning, the evidence of the last conclusion can be no greater than that of the weakest link of the chain, whatever may be the strength of the rest.  Put in simple terms …we are only as strong as our weakest link.

The nation conceived and established by our forefathers through the Constitution, and specifically the Bill of Rights, is under attack.  The attack is ferocious, unrelenting, and is coming from various directions.  One arm of the attack implies that the authors of the Constitution really did not mean what they wrote; that their words did not adequately define what they were thinking.  Absurd on its face, this attack is struck down by the obvious and diversified intelligence that formulated the Constitution and the clarity of the concise language it employs.

Another, and far more serious, attack is coming from the direction of those who promote the theory that the Constitution is a living and breathing document that must evolve with the society and culture of our nation.  But how this evolution should take place is the pertinent question.  This particular opinion sets forth the premise that while the words of the Constitution may not change; the interpretation of what those words mean does change over time.  They claim that the same words have different meaning today than they did at the time of its writing.  Words do have meanings and the Constitution is pretty clear.  If people want to change the substance of the Constitution; there are avenues to accomplish that within its very content.  Our master plan for this country does not function by how we read the words in it; it functions based on the words it contains. 

This approach cannot be dismissed out of hand due to the fact that (a) there are provisions for amending the Constitution and (b) the Constitution has in fact been amended 27 times (the first 10 being the Bill of Rights).  But when one considers both the content of past amendments and the process of their passage; it is clear that our founders intended for the act of amending the original document to be both infrequent and based on issues of fundamental constitutional importance.  I think it is somewhat revealing that Prohibition was both implemented and repealed in our nation by two separate ratified amendments (the 18^th and 21^st).  When it comes to drinking and alcohol, our government can get its ish together in short order.  The term fundamental constitutional importance may be subject to interpretation; but the established process of amending our Constitution is clearly not.

The first method of amendment is the Constitutional Convention; a collection of legislative representatives from all states which has never been used.  This convention, theoretically, would be called through a 2/3 majority vote of support from the separate state legislatures in order to convene.  Any amendment that passed this Convention with a 3/4 majority would then be considered ratified.  The second, and historical, avenue of constitutional amending has been the passage of the proposed amendment by both houses of Congress with a 2/3 majority in each house.  The amendment must then garner support from 3/4 of our nation’s state legislatures in order to be ratified.  Some amendments have included deadlines and some have not.  The 27^th amendment was proposed in 1789 with no deadline and was ratified in 1992.  On the other hand, the Equal Rights Amendment was proposed in 1992 and had only acquired approval by 34 of the required 38 states by its congressionally-mandated deadline.  It failed to be ratified.

My point is that the framers of our nation, living in a much simpler time with far fewer people involved in the process, set forth a complex method of constitutional amending that would clearly require the proposed changes to reflect an overwhelming (super) majority of the American people.  They did not employ the rules of the House; which does business mainly on the basis of a simple majority.  They did not employ the rules of the Senate; which mainly (for how much longer is open to debate) does business by requiring a 2/3 majority.  They further required that 3/4 of the states must approve the amendment to achieve ratification.  Now ask yourself and be honest…Can you imagine a single topic that could achieve this level of agreement in the government that we have today? 

Some may argue that the amendment ratification process never envisioned the burgeoning and diverse nation that we are today and that the ratification hurdles are overly-onerous.  They might say that fundamental changes to the Constitution should be easier to ratify and should better reflect the opinions of government leaders (catch that now…the leaders, not the people) that are in office today.  Others (myself included) take the position that the framers knew exactly what they were writing, why they were writing it that way, and were confident that it would effectively lead their glorious experiment in liberty and freedom to success; which it has done for well over 200 years.  I seriously question whether any of the constitutional critics making the rounds today are on an intellectual and common sense level with James Madison and his bunch.

Many people on the far Left in this country are not content with the Constitution in its current form.  Given a free hand, they would probably use it as a foundation document to amend, revise, and rewrite to their satisfaction.  They would likely attempt to insert many new fundamental rights that are not necessarily endorsed by 3/4 of American citizens.  They would likely attempt to remove many existing fundamental rights that might very well be endorsed by 3/4 of American citizens.  To put it simply, they would enthusiastically attempt to implement fundamental changes to the principles upon which our nation was created and upon which it has operated for over 200 years.  They would not hold a constitutional convention to gauge the opinions of the masses.  They would not conduct ballot initiatives to test the support for their proposals.  What they would do is implement these changes based on what they think is best for you and your family; not what the clear majority of the people desire.  They would accomplish these changes in whatever fashion was necessary.  To the far Left, the ends justify the means.

Don’t miss the next post!

 Follow on Twitter @centerlineright.

For clarification, I will draw a distinction between a liberal (small L) and a Liberal (capital L).  The Liberals I am referring to are the ones who refute the basis upon which this nation was built.  The ones who want to reshape the country in the image they envision; regardless of what those with different opinions may say.  I am talking about the people who romanticize the European models of globalist idealism.  I am talking about the ones who demonize their opponents and will justify any strategy that helps to enable their agenda.  There is certainly a place, a necessary place, in our nation for those with differing opinions and ideals as compared to conservatives.  In a perfect world, the machinery of democracy would be operated by those who reside within a reasonable distance either side of the political center.  But just as Republicans should condemn and refuse to support the excesses of President Trump and far right Conservatives; so should Democrats condemn and refuse to support the excesses of the Liberals who have seized effective control of their Party.  The hard truth is that if you not about the solution and remain silent, then you are part of the problem.

The firewall that stands between this form of constitutional revision and the government as it currently exists is supposedly centered in the presence of the Supreme Court.  The framers envisioned that the laws would be formulated by the people’s house, the House of Representatives (2-year terms).  The hot tea served up by the House would then go to the Senate (6-year terms) to cool in their saucer and to be reflected upon; ultimately leading to a compromise agreement between the two houses.  Having achieved passage by Congress, the legislation would then go to the President for his consideration.  His approval would make it law; his veto would send the law back to Congress for a potential override by a 2/3 majority required from both houses.  Once the law has acquired approval from both the Congress and the President (the Executive and Legislative branches of our nation), the constitutional validity of its content and administrative implementation protocols fall under the jurisdiction of the Judicial branch of government; the Supreme Court being the highest authority in that branch.  The framers conceived that this creation of checks and balances, spread among the three branches of government, would insure that the will of the people (the clear majority of the people) would be upheld when operating within the confines of the Constitution.  I think it is fair to say that as wise as they were, the framers did not anticipate the excessive political venom that has been injected into our nation and the degree to which each of the three branches might exceed, or fail to perform, their responsibilities and authorities. 

As badly as we have abused the vision set forth by our founders, the enduring strength of our nation has been and remains the Constitution itself.  It is why this nation was founded and what this nation represents.  It should be our guiding light in times of darkness and strife.  Given the opportunity of a majority status in both houses of Congress along with an ally in the White House, the extreme Liberal community in this nation would no doubt attempt to render the current Constitution unrecognizable and/or irrelevant.  They would do this through legislative authority enhanced by a nuclear option on Senate majority rules, through continuing empowerment of rogue federal judges throughout the nation, through wide-ranging and frequent Executive actions, and with the implicit and bald-faced support of the mainstream media in this country.  The only remaining firewall that would remain under these circumstances would be the Supreme Court.  That Court now has an even divide between liberals and conservatives with Chief Justice Roberts being the deciding vote.  Although he typically bends to the right, his actions belie any solid confidence that he would be a reliable bulwark to the Liberal assault I have described. 

We as a people do not vote with our heads and we don’t necessarily vote with our hearts either.  I do not pretend to understand why people vote as they do; but I know that they do so in both a very personal and unpredictable way.  Donald Trump ascending to the White House is the perfect example of this.  Our nation reflects the well-conceived and glorious success of the framers’ ideals in life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  Their governmental formula has passed the test of numerous and monumental struggles throughout its brief existence and has proven time and again the wisdom in its founders words…our Constitution.  But if the current partisan zeal that we are witnessing today is paired with a Liberal legislative and White House victory in this upcoming national election; the strength of our nation and its adherence to this fundamental blueprint will be tested as never before.  Could it withstand such a challenge?  With a Liberal Executive and Legislative majority in hand, would a Supreme Court majority be far behind?  Might they even consider restructuring the Supreme Court in order to achieve their goals?

Donald Trump might just be the Maginot Line that stands between what we have today and what I have described above; that being a more Liberal nation that relies on a more compassionate and socially-reflective Constitution.  This Liberal leadership would declare the Constitution a governmental blueprint that reads one way today and another way tomorrow; depending on their agenda du jour.  Just like the Maginot Line, President Trump is certainly an imperfect scheme of defense; an individual clearly sufficient in some areas and seriously lacking in others.  And regardless of your assessment about Trump’s adequacy as President; there is little doubt that his political enemies are carefully analyzing his weaknesses for the opportunity of future exploitation. 

The Maginot Line was breached and France still stands today.  Perhaps I am being over-imaginative in my predictions of exactly what a Liberal majority in American government might lead to.  I have no intention of comparing the Liberal Left to Nazi Germany; my comparison is on the episode, not the players.  But all voters, Republicans in particular, should seriously think about the choices that lie before them.  Instead of celebrating their strengths and advantages with bravado and a false sense of security; the Republican Party and Donald Trump had better be re-examining their vulnerabilities and shoring up their weaknesses.  The next President will likely determine the idealistic tilt of the Supreme Court by their future appointments.  Those appointments will rise or fall in the halls of the Senate.  It is a regrettable thing to say…but once your Senator or Representative packs their bags and heads to WDC; they will be representing themselves, not you.  We had better be picking good people to represent us.  Good people who will honor our Constitution and respect its content and origin.  I for one anticipate with dread the ultimate test to our Constitution.