The People Must Regain the Consent of the Governed

by: the Common Constitutionalist

No Audio Version

We often hear, especially from the left, arguments either for or against American democracy. If you’re like me, every time I hear the word democracy mentioned as the correct form of American government, I roll my eyes and wonder if the politician or pundit is purposely trying to plant the notion in the viewer’s or listener’s mind that this is in fact our form of government, or do they just not know we have a representative republic.

I fear that in a lot of cases they just don’t understand the difference, despite being “Representatives” themselves.

Dr Larry Arnn and some students at Hillsdale College briefly covered this very topic in Hillsdale’s new online course – “Introduction to the Constitution.” Specifically, it was lesson five entitled, “Representation of the People.”

I would invite and encourage everyone to watch these short presentations and discussions, for this is not your average Introduction to the Constitution. They cover some pretty heady stuff. There are 12 segments, or mini-courses, averaging only about 9 minutes in length.

Watching these videos also allows for a fascinating juxtaposition of the knowledge of Hillsdale students vs. the pampered know-nothing snowflake variety from “mainstream” and supposed elite schools.

Having thrown off rule by the King of England, the founders had to decide on a form of national of federal government. Their choices were of course, a monarchy, a democracy or a representative republic. Obviously they were not going to return to rule by monarch, but a democracy, as attractive as this sounds, where everyone has a voice and a vote, was utterly impractical. In order to accomplish anything, every citizen would have to be present for every vote. This was as unworkable then as it would be today.
There was no way of assembling all Americans in one place every time a vote was required. read more

There is Little Risk in an Article V Convention of States

By: the Common Constitutionalist

Scroll Down for Audio Version

It’s not often that I disagree with my fellow conservative authors. And if I do, I rarely if ever outwardly express that disagreement. But I’m making an exception to voice my disappointment of one “conservative” author who wrote about the potential “dangers” of an Article V Convention of States.

The article is entitled “A Convention of States is Not Without Risks.”

Right off the bat, I thought – oh here we go – another attempt at persuading the less informed of the dangers of an out-of control, free-for all, convention. As if anyone can propose anything and the idiot States will just line up in favor, like so many lemmings.

The author begins by attempting to win over the right, by writing that, “Patriots and Constitutional Conservatives across America are sickened and disgusted by our Federal Court Judges and our Cowardly Congress filled with ‘Demon-crats and RINO’s’ who have largely ignored the will and wishes of the citizens and voters for decades.”

This of course will cause “Constitutional Conservatives” to stand up and cheer.

But then he ventures down the road that many fearmongers have by stating that, “We must recognize however, that there will be ‘deep blue liberal’ states present at any such Convention; Deep Blue New York, for example, is, alongside Deep Red Texas are two of the eleven states whose legislatures have called for a Convention of States.”

The 11 States that have made application are, in no particular order, AK, GA, FL, ND, TN, LA, AL, IN, MO, OK, AZ, and of course TX. Funny, but I don’t see NY there. read more

It’s Time Someone Slapped Down the Rogue Federal Courts

by: the Common Constitutionalist

Scroll Down for Audio Version

On Wednesday, at a rally in Nashville, president Trump proclaimed that, “A judge has just blocked our Executive Order on travel and refugees coming into our country from certain countries….We’re going to fight this terrible ruling. We’re going to take our case as far as it needs to go including all the way up to the supreme Court. The danger is clear – the law is clear – the need for my Executive order is clear…”

Trump has now been blocked multiple times by lower court judges.

So what does he or anyone intend to do about it? It appears he intends to fight this all way to the high court – or should I say, the black-robed legislators. And then what?

This is how far we’ve strayed from the Constitution and the design of the federal judicial branch’s authority. All on the right are wailing about the courts clearly overstepping their bounds, but from what I’ve heard and seen thus far, no one has offered a solution. read more

So Who is Really in Charge of Immigration

by: the Common Constitutionalist

Scroll Down for Audio Version

It’s obvious and has been demonstrated repeatedly as of late, that the Democrat Party cares less for American citizens than it does for foreign visitors and illegal immigrants.

The Party has also exhibited a willingness to flaunt or outright break the law in doing so.

Being that the Common Constitutionalist is not an actual Constitutional scholar, I cannot say for certain if President Trump’s temporary ban of people from seven foreign nations is or is not Constitutional – anymore than I can say Obama’s was. But I can read…and think.

However, the larger and longer lasting issue is that of illegal immigration, and States and cities refusal to follow federal law. However some would consider this a gray area.

If one were to look to the Constitution, which should always be first consulted, we would see that the word immigration doesn’t appear anywhere. What does is Article I, Section 8, clause 4, which states that, “Congress shall have the Power To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization…” read more

There is a Way to Override the Supreme Court

by: the Common Constitutionalist

Scroll Down for Audio Version

Yesterday, I posted an article regarding those on the left whining about the lack of a ninth supreme Court justice. You may review it here.

The author of the piece I quoted went so far as to accuse the Republican Senate of being “nothing less than an existential threat to the supreme Court,” for not confirming, or at least voting on Obama’s nominee, Merrick Garland. As if this is their duty to accommodate our beloved president, despite the Constitution making no such assertion.

This is the frustration, or impatience of the left. They can wait no longer to pack the high Court with leftists, giving them the means to finally transform America into the socialist utopia they’ve been dreaming of.

But the frustration of the right always seems to end up back at that dastardly decision, Marbury v. Madison (1803), which was the first U.S. supreme Court case to apply the principle of “judicial review,” giving it the power to void acts of Congress that they feel are in conflict with the Constitution.

Over the years, the Marbury v. Madison decision has seen judicial review morph into the high Court becoming the final arbiter regarding all things – legal, social and cultural.

The federal Courts, including the supreme Court, were not designed, under Article III, to adjudicate everything as they seem to today. The federal courts were set up specifically to deal with federal issues, beyond the scope of State Courts. These issues are described in Article III of the Constitution. read more

My WND Weekly Exclusive

Obama’s gay national monument

Congratulations, America – we now have our first homosexual national monument. While America and the world are all caught up in the drama that is Brexit, Obama has declared a gay bar in Greenwich Village, NYC, a national monument under the jurisdiction of the National Park Service.

Yep – tearing down our society one brick at a time.

The Stonewall Inn was a homosexual hangout in the ’60s. In 1969 police raided the joint, and riots ensued. From then on it has become known as the birthplace of the homosexual movement – as there was no LGBTQ back then. They were just cross-dressers and didn’t spend their time “questioning.” read more

Thank Heavens for the Bill of Rights

by: the Common Constitutionalist

The Republicans in the Senate do occasionally find their backbones and were able to display them as they rejected four pieces of anti-gun legislation. Thank you Republicans and thank you founders for giving us the Bill of Rights.

Given the current state of the federal leviathan, imagine the condition of our individual and states’ rights without the specific declaration of those protections against federal intrusion. Turns out the anti-federalists were right to insist on a Bill of Rights!

We would have no right to own or carry a weapon of any kind without the language expressed in the Second Amendment. We on the right would have nothing specific to argue against the gun-grabbers of the left. For decades we have debated the language and meaning of the Second Amendment, but without it, our argument would be relegated to the abstract, for nowhere else does the Constitution specifically address this right. Given the nature of today’s courts – that would not be nearly enough. Thanks to George Mason and the anti-federalists, we at least have the Amendment specifying this natural right.

Our freedom of speech, assembly, religion, etc. would all be substantially abridged, if not for the First Amendment. We would have virtually no states’ rights left without the Tenth – and so on. read more

My WND Weekly Exclusive

OUR FOUNDING DOCUMENT: STABLE OR FLUID?

There has been a great debate roiling in America for more than a century: whether or not the Constitution is carved in stone or a “living document.”

Conservatives wish to govern in accordance with the Constitution and the “original intent” of those who crafted the document. I would agree with this, as obviously would the founders.

In 2006 Todd Gaziono of the Heritage Foundation said: “Original intent is the only legitimate means of interpretation under our written Constitution, and all other philosophies are illegitimate.” Mr. Gaziono is, of course, correct.

That same year Elliott Mincberg, the then-vice president of the George Soros ultra lefty group People for the American Way said: “It was the framers’ intent that the Constitution adapt to changing circumstances.” In other words, it’s a living or malleable Constitution. This has been the progressive movement’s mantra from Woodrow Wilson to today. read more

Appoint a Justice – Don’t Appoint One – What’s the Hurry?

by: the Common Constitutionalist

The upcoming presidential election is being hailed as the most important in our lifetimes – possibly in the history of this nation.

We always hear this type of thing every election cycle. This time however, the claim is absolute due to the recent passing of Justice Scalia and the subsequent tipping point in the balance of power of the supreme Court.

So I agree with those who claim that we will lose our country – we lose our Constitutional rights and liberties should just one more liberal justice be appointed. For this reason, it is imperative that the Senate leadership not even allow hearings, much less a vote on whomever Obama nominates.

The Senate leadership must understand that literally anything can happen should they allow an Obama nominee to come to a vote. There are simply too many spineless Republican Senators to take that chance. Short of an Article V Conventions of States, there would be no correcting the wrong outcome.

Many have pointed to the history of lame-duck appointments, giving deference to the next Executive – that it hasn’t been done in many decades. But historical precedent aside, Obama has every right under the Constitution to nominate someone, anyone to the court. The interesting thing is that if one reads Article II, Section 2, clause 2, the founders clearly did not make a fuss over the process. It was not some Earth-shattering event, but merely included in the several duties of the President. read more

My WND Weekly Exclusive

Let’s Treat Government Like a Sporting Event

Can anyone honestly say that a President Trump would accept not pushing some agenda item he really wanted because it just happened to be unconstitutional?

No, of course not. He would charge his legal team, as Obama does, with finding other historic yet unconstitutional precedents and point to those as justification for his actions. Or like past presidents, just make it up or ignore the document completely. read more