The US Constitution Under Fire
The US Constitution only has power when those for whom it is designed give it power.
The strength of the US Constitution is being tested and—under fire—it is revealing its true weakness.
The Constitution has become a well-worn dartboard into which the current administration with cooperation of the judicial and legislative branches deliberately pokes holes while brazenly playing false. In an unfair game of dart, only one clear winner emerges—in this case, it’s the rogue players and not the nation’s citizens.
The strength of anything is tested in the face of adversity.
In the current US political climate, the Constitution has met its first and true adversaries.
When thousands of elected lawmakers, judicial officers and other individuals sworn to uphold the Constitution under Article VI, Clause 3, fail in their duties, it is proof that this archaic document that once laid the foundation for democracy and fairness for over two hundred years is defunct.
When a lawless administration starts unjustifiable international wars that upend global economies, destroy precious limited resources and reduce quality of life for millions if not billions with disastrous repercussions that will reverberate throughout the world for decades, without following Article I, Section 8, Clause 11, that grants Congress the power to declare War, then the Constitution shows its true colors: a powerless outline of mere do’s and don’ts.
Despite the apparent challenges, it behooves the US to uphold its Constitution. It is a legal contract between the government and its citizens and should not be negotiable.
With few exceptions, most countries around the world follow a constitution. The United Kingdom, Canada, Isreal and New Zealand are among the countries that do not rely on a written constitution.
The UK, for instance, operates under a flexible framework of laws that Parliament passes and future Parliaments are at will to change. With constitutional changes made simply by a majority vote in Parliament, its uncodified constitution is highly adaptable to political change.
While changes to the constitution are made swiftly in the UK, this strategy would prove catastrophic for US stability. Considering the current administration, it’s easy to foresee elected officials passing legislation keeping them in power indefinitely—or as long as their reckless abandon does not plunge the country into third-world chaos, where corruption and a lack of legal enforcement are the rule of law.
Despite the apparent challenges, it behooves the US to uphold its Constitution. It is a legal contract between the government and its citizens and should not be negotiable.
When contracts are violated, cancellations do occur and both parties are freed from their obligations. Likewise, in cases of breached contracts, financial penalties are imposed. Restitution, where the parties are required to return all financial gains made from the breach, is a consequence that current lawmakers will not see as being in their best interests to ignore.
Presidential actions during a term are conveniently protected by immunity—an absurd paradox, considering the centuries-long legal principle that “no one is above the law.”
America’s reputational damage is another consequence for a nation that was long respected until now. Establishing the reputational damage to the US is easy to document, considering the major economic losses, the global negative perception and numerous other clear evidences of harm.
It’d be a breath of fresh air for the citizens of a once-lawful nation to demand restitution from its elected officials who’ve broken the legal contract between them. Personal financial gain is the only concept the current administration understands.
Presidential actions during a term are conveniently protected by immunity—an absurd paradox, considering the centuries-long legal principle that “no one is above the law.”
Presumptive immunity from damages for official acts is the unfortunate reality. The SCOTUS upholds absolute immunity for presidential actions within preclusive constitutional authority—however, this assumes the executive leadership abides by the US Constitution. If the leadership fails repeatedly, their actions are invalid and they rescind their right to constitutional authority. As a result, they are no longer immune.
US legislators enjoy the same protections when they engage in legitimate activity. However, by permitting unapproved wars and a blatant overreach of executive powers, the current elected officials do not engage in “legitimate” conduct but rather support misrule and thereby violate the guiding principles of the US Constitution—and this makes their legislative immunity invalid.
Perhaps financial penalties for those who breach the nation’s most sweeping contract will restore order.
A restoration of democracy would be an especially meaningful gift to the nation on its monumental Quarter Millennium anniversary.