James Antle addresses today’s constitutional crisis the the American Spectator.  He writes:

 

All of this is both important and, in certain ways, beside the point. It is important for elected officials to heed their oath to uphold the Constitution. I’ve often argued that the Constitution has been reduced to Robert’s Rules of Order, a procedural guide with no bearing on the substantive powers of the federal government. If politicians start ignoring it even on process questions, it will be another marked departure from the rule of law.

Yet this debate is also somewhat beside the point, because the most important part of the Constitution is the strictly limited powers the document confers upon the federal government. Those confines are routinely transgressed and ignored by all three branches and both parties.

The federal government wants everyone to buy health insurance? No problem, just pass a law. Want to pick winners and losers in some industry? That’s fine. The federal government can get involved in that too, either by legislation or executive order. No need to worry about whether any interstate commerce is involved either. Does the president want to intervene militarily in some foreign country? No consulation with Congress — and no national interest — is required.

 

 

The Constitution has become less than Roberts Rules of Order. Consider:

A law that is not enforced is no law at all.

The Constitution is not being enforced, so it is no law at all, much less the highest law of the land.

The Constitution is passively enforce instead of actively enforced. There is no referee or law enforcement officer taking actions against transgressors of the written “laws” that make up the Constitution. Instead, the members of the three branches of government enforce the Constitution if they happen to feel like it.

The politicians in the Federal government enforce the Constitution at their politically motivated whims. Which means that the Constitution is basically a blunt instrument for the politicians to wham each other on the head with.

So the Constitution is less than Roberts Rules of Order.

The problem in a nutshell is that the Constitution is flawed. It provides for passive enforcement of itself, not active enforcement as it would be if there were an office charged with enforcing it.

You can complain and point fingers all you want, but all the whining and finger pointing won’t fix a broken Constitution. The behavior of the other guys is a symptom of the problem, not the cause of it.

Congress cannot fix the Constitution. That isn’t in their character. The Supreme Court can’t fix it. That isn’t in their character or the power. For that matter the Supreme Court is a creation of the corrupt Congress. The States can’t fix the Constitution because they are structured the similar to the Federal government and a similar character.

The only way the Constitutional Enforcement Office can be created is by Presidential coup d’etat. Basically, a President has to recognize that the Constitution has a flaw in it; that the flaw must be fixed or the government will collapse into statism; that the Legislature, Courts and States cannot fix the flaw; and that Presidential coup d’etat is the only way to fix the problem.

Once all of those conditions are met, the President in keeping with his oath must write an Amendment, place it in the Constitution, and see to it that it is enforced.

That’s phase 1 of fixing the current problems of the US government; recognizing the need for a fix and recognizing how the fix must be made.

Phase 2 of fixing the problem is designing the Office of Constitutional Enforcement, ensuring that it conforms and supports the original principles used in the design of the Constitution which is, not limited, but minimal government with distributed powers.

Stumble it!