do presidential promises equal constitutional confusion

or does one negate the other and the other negate the one

Sometime in the eighties, Suzuki introduced the DR350. A motorcycle for individuals with limited budgets desirous of street-riding during the week, and trail tackling on the weekends. The perfect compromise for those who could only afford one bike, able to comfortably cruise the pavement, then clear obstacles on the trail. Dual-purpose; being the right blend of power, weight, and control. Pushing the envy envelope, the selling point: It’s a vicious cycle.

Only, what the engineers at Suzuki perceived to be the perfect balance of power, weight, and control, others thought differently. Their intent, the antithesis of the original, and went about changing the dual-concept to a barely street-legal single-purpose compromise. With modified pieces to fit an intended desire, the bike looked vaguely like the original on the surface, but underneath, vastly different than what designers brought forth. By manipulating another’s vision of perfection: a vicious cycle of rebuilding to obtain desired results.

When WE THE PEOPLE adopted the Constitution as the law of the land, I wonder if citizens then pondered the historical significance of their achievement through the centuries to today, including the future battles that would rage over it. In its infancy, even Benjamin Franklin commented: It’s a republic, if you can keep it. A testament to generational changes he knew would occur as advances rebuilt society, while some look to take advantage of others willing to surrender or seek the supposed easy answer. The American Revolution laid bare those who believed their safety and prosperity was only achievable through a king’s benevolence, not of personal volition, and suffered. Those who believed otherwise, sacrificed to obtain the freedom they sought. So, America became a constitutional republic, not an outright democracy. The Framer’s defined it:

The two great points of difference between a Democracy and a Republic are: first, the delegation of the government, in the latter, to a small number of citizens elected by the rest; secondly, the greater number of citizens, and greater sphere of country, over which the latter may be extended. The effect of the first difference is, on the one hand, to refine and enlarge the public views, by passing them through the medium of a chosen body of citizens, whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of the country, and whose patriotism and love of justice will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations. Under such a regulation, it may well happen that the public voice, pronounced by the representatives of the people, will be more consonant to the public good than if pronounced by the people themselves, convened for the purpose. On the other hand, the effect may be inverted. Men of factious tempers, of local prejudices, or of sinister designs, may, by intrigue, by corruption, or by other means, first obtain the suffrages, and then betray the interests, of the people. (Federalist 10)

A republic, where the majority select a minority to carry the constituent’s desires who elected them to serve. Additionally, as the Framer’s forewarned, how do those elected “preserve, protect and defend” (Article II/Section 1), if constitutional knowledge is absent, or agendas outweigh intent, the deceit to dismantle design? And WE THE PEOPLE: are they knowledgeable, ignorant, or apathetic of design and intent? The decision to have another represent when one or both are illiterate of precepts; a dichotomy of confusion all should comprehend. Who then protects and defends the Constitution, an eventuality where all either submit through force, or stand against with force. In the words of Winston Churchill: Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Ironically, the Framers practiced the philosophy long before Churchill enunciated, designing a government the antithesis of their former, proposing:

For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? (Federalist 84)

A simple understandable concept: the Constitution, in actuality, a restriction on the government’s ability to control, allowing citizens their freedom of “Life, Liberty, and pursuit of Happiness.” To understand, Article I/Section 8 of the Constitution outlines Congress’ legislative ability, and it’s limited for a purpose. The Framers were adamant about restricting federal power, to keep government from becoming tyrannical. Outside the defined limits, constitutionally protected rights Congress cannot control:

 A Constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law (Federalist 78).

Fundamental: Pertaining to the foundation or basis; serving for the foundation. Hence, essential; important; as a fundamental truth or principle; a fundamental law … (Webster’s 1828)

But as evolution is an always present, ever-changing osmosis of beliefs and ideals, the main control on WE THE PEOPLE was a moral compass, or lack thereof. Each decision allowing the setting of or abandoning of limits on the undefined rights bestowed on the people against the defined powers granted Congress. The Constitution’s design: preventing three branches from opportunity to step in and control where it has no power to intervene. The moral compass keeping the whole in check:

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined (Federalist 45).

Their reasoning in limiting control was multi-fold, but a simple framing ideal that had yet been tried in the annals of history: That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed … (Declaration of Independence). Government before had always been through force by the few over many. So, with similarity to the government they’d broken from, yet different, the Framers instituted three branches, a check and balance, with distinct responsibilities:

The Executive not only dispenses the honors, but holds the sword of the community. The legislature not only commands the purse, but prescribes the rules by which the duties and rights of every citizen are to be regulated. The judiciary, on the contrary, has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever. (Federalist 78)  

Yet, the fourth branch, declared in the Declaration of Independence, with power over the two, the one which allowed “just powers from the consent of the governed,” to those who would govern:

Nor does this conclusion by any means suppose a superiority of the judicial to the legislative power. It only supposes that the power of the people is superior to both; and that where the will of the legislature, declared in its statutes, stands in opposition to that of the people, declared in the Constitution, the judges ought to be governed by the latter rather than the former. They ought to regulate their decisions by the fundamental laws, rather than by those which are not fundamental. (Federalist 78)

To fathom the Framers intellect, sagacity, and perception in drafting the Constitution, is understandably a difficult proposition in today’s society, especially if one is ignorant of history. These men are frowned on as evil, contemptuous, despicable. Yes, they were imperfect, and their societal norms the antithesis of the same nation now. Yet the document, conceived in 1787, was a revolutionary change in governing from the forced rule by the few over the many, to control of the few by the many. And depending on one’s personal viewpoint, interpretation could be either conservative or liberal, based on one’s personal desire, their freedom to choose. And to further protect the people from the tyranny of overreach, the Framers believed they’d placed additional controls to restrict government, an additional check on balance:

Independent of parties in the National Legislature itself, as often as the period of discussion arrived, the State Legislatures, who will always be not vigilant but suspicious and jealous guardians of the rights of the citizens against encroachments from the Federal Government, will constantly have their attention awake to the conduct of the national rulers, and will be ready enough, if any thing improper appears, to sound the alarm to the people, and not only to be the VOICE, but, if necessary, the ARM of their discontent. (Federalist 26)

Yet, a looming question presents: What does protect and defend even mean? Is it ambiguous, or a command, the desire for future generations to keep intact the document some sacrificed to provide for those generations yet to come? The Framers were deliberate in word choice, and intentional in the nation’s framing, begging, how can one defend and protect, if nescient of the ideals set forth? Consider the following:

After losing control of the executive and legislative branches in a failed election bid, Federalist, intent on retaining control of Congress through dubious means, court packed against the opposing party’s incoming administration. Was constitutional intent upheld in Marbury v. Madison? And John Marshall, a participant in the act to subvert, judged his own case. Did integrity and compass present regarding protect and defend?

During the Civil War, did secessionists uphold the Framer’s ideals, even though they themselves failed initially. Then, after WWI, and the Versailles Treaty, Germany could have an air force no more. Yet, by 1938, they had rebuilt one second to none, and the world was again enveloped in war. Did FDR uphold or was his desire to place the nation in conflict, larger than an ideal. This war of deceit, where even Charles Lindbergh, whose only crime was claiming America wasn’t ready for war after seeing the German air force, was cancelled by FDR. Of the two, which upheld more the ideals of protect and defend?

When Reagan granted amnesty to untold thousands of illegals on the commitment Congress would fix an untenable problem, was it even in either branches purview based on the Constitution and the Framers precepts? Yet up to today, the issue has never been resolved but has only grown worse. Now, DACA, a presidential executive order, upheld by the Supreme Court when the next incoming president attempted to end, begs, has “uniform rule of naturalization” (Article I/Section 8) ever been upheld by Congress or the Supreme Court? Today the border itself bespeaks the loss of national sovereignty by the government itself. So, before long, at the rate of allowed influx, America stands to be a nation no more. And everyone involved who’s sworn to protect and defend, knowingly, or blindly, are part in the duplicity to upend.

Then Ukraine, and America, with no treaty alliance (Article II/Section 2). Yet, the president and Congress have proffered billions in money and military equipment while America itself crumbles. For a historical perspective, go back to Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, Korea. A familiarity should present. Then reflect if any of these conflicts match the ideals of protect and defend or more of deceive and deceit.

In a recent conversation with a PHD in Political Science, the Constitution and Federalist papers became a topic of discussion. He iterated the essays were nothing more than a propaganda piece. I believe them an owner’s manual to the Constitution, his comment representative of the state of education in our nation.

So, similar to Suzuki’s DR350, the Constitution is no longer an original while protect and defend depends on the ideals of those who demand wholesale national change. And as the tectonic shift in power continues to transfer from, WE THE PEOPLE, to the federal, protect and defend will become more mythical than the precepts laid by the nation’s Framers.

To close, when Jesus walked the earth, one of his lessons was pointing out the hypocrisy of the Pharisees over the Jewish people. He saw through their veils of deceit and deception, and the struggle of those weighed down by rules and regulations, forced to carry and obey, while the Pharisees were exempt. His words, applicable to Americans today: Leave them; they are blind guides. If a blind man leads a blind man, both will fall into a pit (Matthew 15:14). Today, citizens are allowing the vicious cycle for control, oblivious to the Framers ideals of protect and defend, all while the Constitution they designed is transformed into something obtuse to obtain another’s desired result: an outcome yet to be revealed. Oh, and protect and defend; the responsibility of WE THE PEOPLE!