Who violated the spirit of the Constitution first?

The Constitution, which sets forth the principle of rule of law, defines what is unconstitutional, and guarantees freedom of speech and other liberties of a Constitutional republic, and also describes the impeachment power. (How many know of the Jewish roots of this document?) Hypocrisy threatens Constitutional government. Could Israel use a constitution like this? More to the point: would a Convention of States save it, or destroy it? (Example: civil asset forfeiture violates the Constitution.) Quick fixes like Regulation Freedom Amendments weaken it. Furthermore: the Constitution provides for removing, and punishing, a judge who commits treason in his rulings. Furthermore, opponents who engage in lawfare against an elected President risk breaking the Constitution.
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

“Congress should declare war and Congress should spend the money. I mean, those are two bedrock constitutional principles,” Sen. Paul said, explaining his vote against the White House. “It has nothing to do with the president, it has to do with the Constitution.”

Senator Paul’s mistake on the Constitution

Senator Paul’s understanding of the underlying principles of our Constitution is very shortsighted. He needs better glasses. I am sorry to say this about Dr. Paul, because usually we are of the same side, but here he made a big mistake.

The Constitution is written assuming that all three branches will consider the national interest and/or the views and interest of his/her constituents.

But when members of one branch places party politics and party interest above the national interest the branch that restores the national interest and puts it above party interest, which branch violates the Constitution? The one which exercises its constitutional power for political purposes against the national interest to resist a constitutionally elected president it does not like, or the one that uses its constitutional and legal authority in the national interest?

Congressional Democrats’ breach of the Constitution

The Democrats voted for the equivalent of a wall when we had a different president, and now vote against it in a spirit of resistance because they do not like the current president.. Sen. Paul and the other eleven Senators support the resistance, not the Constitution!

They owe a great, public apology the President Trump!

The President did is share in thanking his supporters when he tweeted:

I’d like to thank all of the Great Republican Senators who bravely voted for Strong Border Security and the WALL. This will help stop Crime, Human Trafficking, and Drugs entering our Country. Watch, when you get back to your State, they will LOVE you more than ever before!

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1106611696548884480

What about that case of Jamal Kashoggi?

According to one report, “The bill was seen as a response to Trump’s inaction on the controversy surrounding the killing of Jamal Khashoggi.”

If this is true, it makes the betrayal of President Trump even worse. In the Jamal Khashoggi case Trump attempted to balance the national interest in the Middle East against human rights, and decided, correctly, that the national interest comes first.

The Jamal Khashoggi case was tragic, but not sufficient to override the national interest. This was not the first case that we have sided with dictators and human right violators when the national interest desired so.

Some Senators don’t understand the national interest

The “resistance” Senators have a lot to learn not only about American history, but also about the national interest.

The picture would not be complete without pointing out the difference in political culture between the two parties. While close to thirty percent of the Republican Senators betrayed their party’s president, the Democrats moved in lock-step behind Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer. It would be a praiseworthy move if senators vote their conscience, but when one party is clearly resisting for political reasons and senators of the other party join the resistors, it is clearly deplorable!


Editor’s Note:

Recall that CNAV said, in an appendix to this article, something similar to the first point Mr. Balogh raises here. The Constitution does not in fact reserve the authority for emergency action to the Congress. A declaration of war has implications far beyond the immediate resistance to, or retaliation for, a sneak attack. That’s why the Constitution reserves to Congress the power to declare war.

Furthermore, any chief executive has the inherent power to respond immediately to an invasion. And neither the Constitution nor natural law distinguish between acute and chronic invasions. Time does not sanction a slow invasion of the nation-state for the purpose of altering its form of government.

Senator Paul believes he is acting in good Constitutional faith. He certainly is acting in better faith than are his colleagues. Those colleagues are doing a favor to wealthy donors wanting cheap, exploitable labor. But Senator Paul doesn’t seem to realize the full implications of the situation that prompted President Trump to act. If the chronic invasion succeeds, then the Constitution will be of no moment. Republican government will disappear, and banana republican government will supersede it.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.