Yesterday I stumbled across a rather insightful editorial by Bart Hinkle at the Richmond Times. He demonstrated such clear thinking that I wrote the author a letter, presented here with minor corrections for spelling, punctuation, and grammar:
I found your recent article to be very insightful. It is a fascinating look at what ails America today. It boils down to dereliction of duty to “support and defend the Constitution” at ALL levels of government.
I concur with you that Congress has failed to do its duty to “support and defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic,” almost certainly because the loyalty of many Congressman to their party or various idealistic excursions has increasingly eclipsed their loyalty to the proven reality of the Constitution. Sadly, we see the same thing in the Supreme Court, which should never be the case. With respect to the points you made in your article, I believe additional factors have come into play, including the increasing fear of being labeled politically incorrect, and the corresponding unwillingness to take necessary and more permanent actions against elected officials who refuse to abide by “the supreme Law of the Land.”
Shortly after retiring from my career as an Air Force officer, I began working to educate people on the dangers facing our nation, particularly from the erosion of the absolute moral base our Founding Fathers cautioned was essential to the long-term health of our nation. With such a moral base, even an imperfect Constitution and its resulting society would survive, as leaders would retain the same principles, precepts, and moral values held by the framers. The resolution of unanticipated issues would naturally incline towards the time-tested precepts which have served our nation so well for so long. Without such a moral base, even a perfect Constitution would eventually fail. A nation lacking proper morals would be increasingly opposed to Constitutional principles and values, until its leaders began ignoring increasingly larger portions of the Constitution, eventually leaving it behind altogether.
Our Founding Fathers did a miraculous job crafting our Constitution. It is extremely difficult, however, if not impossible, to create a legal foundation capable of fighting the erosion of society when that society’s elected and appointed leaders, either out of ignorance or willful malice, fail to follow the written legal foundation.
In light of this perspective, I submit to you three additional avenues of failure, along with some proposals for amendments that might be able to stem the flow of our nation’s life-blood, even restore proper function in the presence of decreasing loyalty to the Constitution:
Failure 1: Education of the people: Sadly, too many Americans are voting for government officials at all levels not because of what a candidate can do for their country, but because of what a candidate can do for them. This self-seeking behavior and failure to delay gratification ultimately results in poorer results. Candidates are rarely able to deliver on their campaign promises. When a person believes rhetoric promising him or her a better life, and votes for that candidate, they wind up doing little to work hard and secure that life for themselves. Instead, they wait around for the candidate to make their lives better. When that fails, they become embittered at the “other guy” their candidate blames as the problem, or they become embittered with the system itself.
The Department of Education and liberal school systems has been largely complicit in this area of demise by lowering and even eliminating the bar in vital areas like civics and history while cluttering the educational landscape with requirements that eclipse a child’s opportunity to obtain a full, well-rounded education suitable for understanding how human society really works. This is really the root problem of what’s going on in America. If the people stopped electing those who are undermining our Republic, the problem would largely disappear. Our Republic would be preserved. Sadly, many people are no longer capable of correctly assessing the worth of a candidate, or envisioning the long-term effects of electing a candidate.
Possible solutions: Eliminate the Department of Education and use those funds at the state level to provide for a more graduated pay scale for teachers instead of the current rise and cap pay curves; raise standards required of teachers; ensure those standards reflect the requirements addressed as outlined above.
Failure 2: Personification of the corporate: No serious student of the Constitution would ever conclude that our Founding Fathers meant to give business the same access to our government as We the People, much less a 1000% greater influence over Congressional decision-making. The fallout from this decision has lead to increasingly darker decisions being made by Congress, ones that treat citizens as cattle to be mined for their ability to be skimmed for a fat, corporate/federal profit, instead of the rightful rulers of our once-great nation.
Possible solution: Check Citizens United with an amendment that declares corporate anthropomorphization to be verboten. Ensure it reaffirms the Constitution’s focus on We the People under sovereign States as the rightful owners of our own country.
Failure 3: Senators and Representatives are too similar. This arose as a result of the 17th Amendment. Article I, Section 3, which used to read: “The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof…” The Amendment now reads: “The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof…” While I understand this was an attempt to solve problems involving legislative corruption and deadlocks, I do not agree it was the best solution. For all intents and purposes, what we now have are a House and a Senate that look very similar. Even dividing Congress into two houses makes little sense when the people elect one Representative from their district and two more to represent the State as a whole. Why not instead simply elect “general Congressmen,” and scrap the two-house system?
Possible solution: Repeal the 17th Amendment. The original issue is that “There was a sense that senatorial elections were ‘bought and sold’, changing hands for favors and sums of money rather than because of the competence of the candidate.” That sounds the same as it is today, so what problem was actually solved? If none, then that’s strike one against the 17th Amendment. As far as electoral deadlocks, the solution is simple: Require states to provide for a tiebreaker, much as we have for the Supreme Court and the Senate. An example might be, “In case of tie, the Assistant Governor will cast the tie-breaking vote.” They could also flip a coin, roll die, or spin a wheel. States could choose whatever method they want, so long as it’s expedient. To help deter delays in breaking such ties, simply stipulate that if the states fail to provide two Senators, those positions will simply remain unfilled and the State will be underrepresented in Congress, something no State wants to face. Our Constitution set the precedence for that by requiring percentage votes of “members present” for many things, including very important things, such as treaties and impeachment.
Bart, I thoroughly enjoyed your article and have bookmarked you in the hopes of reading many more to come!
Here is Bart’s response:
Thank you for the note. You raise some very interesting points.
All the best,
It was my pleasure.
When our Founding Fathers wrote our Second Amendment, they had absolutely zero intention of establishing any sort of government oversight of the people’s arms. Instead, the intent behind their use of the phrase in the Second Amendment was — precisely — to render the government powerless to have any such authority whatsoever.
Bottom line: According to the U.S. Constitution and the Second Amendment, the Second Amendment itself is the only gun “permit” required of “the people” (U.S. Citizens), and all other permits, restrictions, fees, and denials of ownership (“keep”) and any type of carry (“bear”) are an infringement against our right to keep and bear arms.
Tell your Congressmen, your President, and the U.S. Supreme Court to…
And YES, Armed Citizens really DO stop mass shooters! In fact, for each one of these ten events, there’s probably another ten that flew under the radar.
We HAVE a “real alternative” to ObamaCare. It’s called Medicaid, “a social health care program for families and individuals with low income and limited resources.” Unfortunately, like the Veterans Administration, it’s largely mismanaged.
When something’s not working properly in the government, however, you DO NOT:
1. Create something new to run alongside it.
2. Throw money at it hoping the messed-up managers will “somehow” wake up and start managing correctly.
3. Hire a single individual for the top position without giving him the broad authority to direct major changes, including firing the chaff.
So, we win the ObamaCare battle. The Supreme Court declares the federal insurance exchanges in more than 30 states to be un-Constitutional. While the Affordable Care Act remains broadly unpopular, two new polls show a majority of Americans don’t want to do away with its subsidies, a core component of the law.
Ditch the insurance exchanges. Ditch ObamaCare. Ditch Obama.
Shunt the subsidies into Medicaid, hire top leadership capable of making it work, give them the authority to make whatever changes are necessary, and roadblock all corporate intervention, as the only thing they’re interested in doing is lining their damned pockets off the backs of hard-working folks like you and I.
A friend recently stated “SCOTUS is the final arbitrator [sic] of whether it is correct or not. The checks and balances ends there.”
He was wrong. Here’s my reply:
You’re usually right on target, so I’m really surprised you missed this one by a mile.
So, if you would, please tell me again what what We the People should do, “whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends?” “When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them.”
Is it not “the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness?”
Our Founding Fathers considered this universal truth to be so supremely important that they had it preserved for all time in the minds and hearts of all Americans. They keep these words in our Nationals Archives. They had them reproduced in the American History books available to every American who ever attended public school, as well as the vast majority who attended private school, as well.
This has nothing to do with overthrowing the government. It has everything to do with preserving our government by reminding those who currently inhabit the seats created by our Constitution that they were elected to serve our government — “of the people, by the people, for the people” — at the pleasure of the people.
We the People are the final arbiter of whether the decisions made by the Supreme Court are correct or not. We always have been, in every nation, and long before our own Declaration of Independence was more than a single thought in someone’s mind.
The Declaration of Independence itself says precisely why this is so: “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.”
No one is putting our government “on notice.” They put themselves on notice the moment they raised their right hand and took the same oath of office alongside every military, civil, and law-enforcement officer in our land: “I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”
If they don’t believe they put themselves on notice, they weren’t paying attention. That’s the entire purpose of the oath of office.
Our Republic is a nation of laws, but preserving our nation requires people of honor and integrity occupying positions of public trust. All the laws in the world are rendered worthless when those in government refuse to follow them, or worse, attempt to replace just laws with ones that are unjust. When that happens, we edge closer to the same pit in which our Founding Fathers found themselves shortly before they declared our nation’s independence.
But not quite. We the People have another course of action we should always use first, and use often, one protected by our First Amendment: “to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” Even in this simple exercise of requesting Congress to pass or block legislation, and to approve or deny appointments to the U.S. Supreme Court, We the People are rights as the ultimate arbiters.
We the People are the final arbiters in our own governmental affairs. Not the Supreme Court. Not the President. Not Congress.