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 18th and 21st). 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 27th
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment