the Constitution: oh, so yesterday or forever.

If darkness is the absence of light, and cold the absence of heat, what then is the absence of truth? If one intentionally omits or twists words by design, manipulation, or prevarication to present falsity, does it become the absence of truth, or an agenda to redefine truth? Is the intended purpose to deceive by inverting truth, or worse, instill chaos? Exponentially, will the affect create national weakness, while those who lack knowledge unwittingly surrender in compliance to perceived positive results, but in truth, the opposite will occur. Except, and inclusive of the opposite occurrence, a consequence will present: a transition of power from those that held, to those who now control, making chaos, the absence of truth.

The intended goal being when one’s agenda can then be achieved if original truth becomes lies, and lies becomes truth, an inverse of factuality to obtain desired results. A complicity realized when leaders become deceivers, and teachers, facilitators, making the adage – Ignorance is bliss – a reverse apropos for America. And once deception is complete, the upended balance furthers those into complete powerlessness who were once powerful: the opposite of constitutional implied course, and our government’s original intended role; subservience to the people. And once an absence of truth becomes the design of intent, another opportunistic endeavor presents; divide the masses.

Example: an op-ed written by two Harvard/Yale law professors printed in the New York Times. If their teaching follows the editorial lines, it belies an intentionality to deceive, especially when debate is no longer an allowed part of arbitration. Which prompts two questions: For what outcomes? And why deception? Considering the editorial and many other voices present, America is at a crossroad, with multiple factions separate, yet conjoined, their unified desire: Autarchy, including higher institutions of learning, complicit in the process to achieve a nefarious outcome:

… when liberal law professors got together in the mid-2000s to dream of a different America, that yielded the book “The Constitution in 2020.” … A politics of the American future like this would make clear our ability to engage in the constant reinvention of our society under our own power, without the illusion that the past stands in the way. (The Constitution is broken and should not be reclaimed)

So, in light of the above paragraph, imagine if you can a continually reimagined, reinvented America with limits undecipherable depending on the agenda desired. The past irrelevant, pros and cons of mistakes, good or bad dismissed, a foundation, not applicable, or a new one as changeable as emotion presents. No longer liberal/conservative mantras, or party politics, but one voice to decide or define outcomes of law based on whim, or personal desire. And the people, remaining completely ignorant of intent and design as it would be fluid, based on another’s intent and design with forced acceptance when demanded.

Now, recall the past and those having lived through the premise of British America and compare it to what is currently being pushed. Then ponder, how after the American Revolution, the Framer’s desire was to prevent government from becoming tyrannical. Yet here again, history is repeating itself, our government striving to be similar to what the Framers disposed of. Only, in their original design, thirteen individual State’s with no Federal Head (Articles of Confederation), independent in most respects of each other. Although, when fissures formed, the Constitution was designed to allow a federal head, but its power was to be controlled, a limit on the reach allowed, their former oppressor a reminder:

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined … exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce …. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State. (Federalist 45)

Except, today the Federal is completely overarching in its desire for absolute control, the only roadblock, the Constitution. And with every aspect of American life now in Congress’ purview, which was not the idea the Framer’s set forth, the very nature of what has become is what they fought desperately to prevent. The desire was limiting power, allowing freedom. The Constitution, like Ragu; It’s in there (constitutional protection because it’s not written there):

For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? … when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power. They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the Constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority which was not given … (Federalist 84)

Yet, when the ability to deceive overtakes design, discombobulation ensues, especially when knowledge is absent. In the case of the Constitution, wording is everything. Article I/Sections 8 and 9 lay out the powers granted Congress. If the powers defined exclude an ability to regulate, or no power is granted, then anything outside those limits are constitutionally protected against the government. Although Congress has power to define what happens if one violates another person’s rights. A uniqueness allowing the people to regulate and control their lives without government intervention but protected by government intervention. Yet, the professors continued with antithetical viewpoints:

When liberals lose in the Supreme Court … the justices got the Constitution wrong … Arming for war over the Constitution … our current Constitution is inadequate … written by largely affluent men more than two centuries ago … Congress could simply pass a Congress Act … perhaps even reducing the Senate to a mere “council of revision” … without the power to obstruct laws. … [and Representatives can then] pretty openly [defy] the Constitution to get to a more democratic order — and for that reason would need to insulate the law from judicial review. (The Constitution is broken and should not be reclaimed)

America is amid a civil war to destroy its very soul, the Constitution. The attack, a multi-fronted assault to abolish the document. The combatants; legislators and education. Their desire to upend what has upheld the nation for almost two-hundred-fifty years, and the driver that makes it what it is or isn’t, the baseline, a moral compass. Without, anything goes, and with, a limitation to what is acceptable. Eradicate both, then the ability to do whatever the powerful desire, unlimited. The overall losers: WE THE PEOPLE, even those who currently believe the trend positive. And ask yourself, once the Constitution is rejected, what replaces it, who controls the powerful, and will permissiveness extend to any degree? The intriguing component in the push today to vitiate the document, which government has worked to abrogate, and others claim a shortcoming, is the freedom it allows, the power the Framers gave the people, yet withheld from government, underscoring:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. – That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed … (Declaration of Independence)

The Constitution is an ageless contract for the people to hold government in check, allowing evolution and the freedom for one to chart their own course without intervention or loss of liberty within reason. Control was placed in the hands of WE THE PEOPLE until surrendered, usurped, or untaught by those in power and who teach. So, when students are taught to hate their country, despise their governing documents and those who framed them, shouldn’t all ask an educator’s purpose? And when those governing, who swore to uphold and defend, then outright defy and attempt to destroy while suppressing any opposing voice, all must recall:

There are two methods of curing the mischiefs of faction: the one, by removing its causes; the other, by controlling its effects. There are again two methods of removing the causes of faction: the one, by destroying the liberty which is essential to its existence; the other, by giving to every citizen the same opinions, the same passions, and the same interests.

It could never be more fully said than of the first remedy, that it was worse than the disease. Liberty is to faction what air is to fire, an aliment without which it instantly expires. But it could be less folly to abolish liberty, which is essential to political life, because it nourishes faction, than it would be to wish the annihilation of air, which is essential to animal life, because it imparts to fire its destructive agency.

The second expedient is as impracticable as the first would be unwise. As long as the reason of man continues fallible, and he is at liberty to exercise it, different opinions will be formed. As long as the connection subsists between his reason and his self-love, his opinions and his passions will have a reciprocal influence on each other; and the former will be objects to which the latter will attach themselves. (Federalist 10)

So, while the Constitution continues to be misrepresented and maligned by institutions of supposed respect, and the absence of truth becomes more pervasive, let’s dismiss Patrick Henry’s words: Give me liberty, or give me death! He was affluent, a slave holder, an oppressor who was oppressed, a modern-day hypocrite. Then, let’s completely trust without debate the now affluent legislators and professors whose agenda is an entire makeover of what the Framers designed and follow their reimagining of country. And let’s flatly reject those who surrendered their lives in the American Revolution to end oppressive rule and offer us the Constitution, remembering, ignorance is bliss, until it isn’t. Yes, it’s old, outdated, most have never read it, nor understand it, history doesn’t repeat itself, unbiased judicial review to uphold its tenets is irrelevant, albeit politicized today, so dispose of it, but I do suggest: buyer beware. While the national fabric continues to be intentionally shredded, never forget: Divide et impera - Divide and Command! (Federalist 7)

The Constitution is broken and should not be reclaimed

Written by: Ryan D. Doerfler/Samuel Moyn

New York Times/August 19, 2022