Constitution – a modest proposal

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

The second day of confirmation hearings for Judge Amy Coney Barrett have displayed more of the contempt the Democrats pour on the Constitution. They indeed wish to substitute, for the Constitution, the rule of five philosopher kings and queens. Therefore, in the interests of time, CNAV has a modest proposal to make, not merely to the Senate but also to the full Congress.

A propos

Before proceeding further, CNAV wishes to stress that the “modest proposal” here would not take the form of the sarcastic proposal by Jonathan Swift during the Irish Potato Famine. What is at issue here is a refusal to acknowledge the obvious. The Democrats have demonstrated their deepest fear: that they are about to lose the Supreme Court.

Barack Hussein Obama solidified the control the Democrats had over the Court through his appointment of Kagan and Sotomayor JJ. But because each of these replaced an almost equally liberal Justice, their appointments made no difference. A President can change the direction of the Court only by appointing a Justice sharing his ideology to replace one whose ideology opposes his.

In 2016, Obama gained—and maybe deliberately arranged—his opportunity. Justice Antonin Scalia died. Not one person in relevant authority has demonstrated, to the satisfaction of this column, that Scalia J died a natural death. CNAV treated this once before.

Reviewing the evidence

The evidence that leads CNAV still to suspect murder in the death of Scalia J is as follows:

  • John Podesta and Steve Elmendorf, future campaign manager for Hillary Clinton, exchanged e-mails that indicate a guilty prior knowledge of this death. See this e-mail by Podesta, then Elmendorf writing back. This exchange speaks of “wet works” (the old Soviet KGB term for “black ops”). It also speaks of “a bad night” and “buckling up and doubling down.”
  • Scalia J died three days later at the home of a friend of Hillary Clinton.
  • The local coroner pronounced Scalia J dead over the telephone.

Once is happenstance, twice is coincidence, and the third time it’s enemy action.

Ian Fleming

Scalia J had just written some ringing dissents in cases the Supreme Court decided in favor of President Obama and his let-them-in policies. Furthermore, Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) has furthermore written that we are “one vote away” from losing rights to life, liberty and property.

But then Obama came a cropper. He nominated his ringer, Merrick Garland, to the Court. The Senate, wise as wolves, refused to consider it. Donald Trump, not Hillary Clinton, won the election. And he nominated Neil Gorsuch to replace Scalia J.

Donald Trump changes the court – to respect the Constitution

Two years later came President Trump’s first opportunity to change the direction of the Court. Kennedy J delivered two “conservative” votes. Then he announced his retirement from the Court. So the President nominated the future Kavanaugh J. We all know how the Democrats forced a second confirmation hearing to try an utterly specious and decades-old accusation of, not to put too fine a point on it, rape. Kavanaugh J beat that bad rap. That is why we call him Kavanaugh J today.

Last month came the quintessential opportunity for Trump to change the Court’s direction. Ginsburg J died.

Reaction to her death was as electric as it was immediate.

And once again the Senate has disgraced itself. Today the Senate attempts to apply an anti-religious test as a qualification for the Supreme Court.

CNAV has already commented on the egregious defense, by Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) among others, of abortion.

The Democrats clearly want the Constitution to support…

The hearing has proceeded with more complaints by the Democrats, on three issues:

  1. Abortion,
  2. Same-sex roommates sharing bed and calling it marriage, and
  3. Socialization of medicine

And also on whether the right of the people to keep and bear arms is more important than the right to vote. Amy Coney Barrett happens to believe that it is. And with perfect justice. To vote is to take part in running the state. To keep and bear arms is to practice self-defense. One can certainly lose the former right while retaining the latter. Why certain Senators refuse to acknowledge that, has only one explanation. They don’t believe the Constitution does, or should, respect the right of any ordinary civilian to keep or bear arms.

In short, the Senate Judiciary Committee is wasting its time. We all know that the Democrats despair of losing their Heroine of the Marxist Revolution. Indeed Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) repeated her disgraceful performance during the Kavanaugh hearings. She blubbed—literally BLUBBED—while describing precedents she feared a Barrett J would overturn.

Cease this detestable boo-hoo-ing at once, or else seek the shelter of another place of worship!

Actor Rex Harrison, as Prof. Henry Higgins, in My Fair Lady

Herewith, therefore, CNAV’s modest proposal for a real debate on the Constitution

First: cease at once this detestable spectacle. Let the Senate proceed at once to a vote and let it vote as we all know it will vote. And as it should vote. Confirm Judge Amy Coney Barrett as Justice Amy Coney Barrett, United States Supreme Court.

And then let the Democrats write and propose a Congressional Joint Resolution to amend the Constitution more to their liking. If they want to have a debate on how the Constitution ought to read, let’s have it! But let’s not use it to abuse verbally a judge, learned in the law, who is worth all Democratic Senators.

Let’s see a series of proposals for amendments to the Constitution, in fact:

The Congress shall have the power to:

  1. Provide for and maintain free hospitals, free clinics, and appropriate medical, nursing, and ancillary staff,
  2. Forbid lesser governmental or private entities to operate hospitals or clinics,
  3. Prohibit the issuance of private insurance, or else regulate same as gambling activity,
  4. Provide for and maintain a permanent Medical Service Corps, and the recruitment, training, and disciplining of Corps members, and
  5. Make all laws that shall be necessary and proper to the execution of the foregoing powers.


  1. The right of female citizens of the United States, who are of childbearing age, to terminate their pregnancies voluntarily, at any stage of pregnancy, for any reason or no reason, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State on any ground whatsoever.
  2. Congress shall have the power to enforce this article through appropriate legislation.


  1. The right of citizens or lawful residents of the United States, who are sixteen years of age or older, to marry other such persons, who also are sixteen years of age or older, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State by reason of the two persons seeking to marry being of the same gender.
  2. Congress shall have the power to enforce this article through appropriate legislation.

Why stop there? Let’s see someone try to amend the Constitution to read this way:

With respect to rights under this Constitution:

  1. The term minor shall no longer have force or effect in the United States, or in any territory under its jurisdiction.
  2. The word person shall include members of any animal species, land-walking, aquatic, marine, or avian.

The above suggestions for amendments to this Constitution follow logically from rhetoric one has heard from at least one Democrat. Furthermore, these find support from many of the largest donors to the Democratic Party.

How safe is the Constitution from proposals of that kind?

CNAV will predict what will happen. Not one of these proposals to amend the Constitution will receive supermajorities in either House of Congress. Will Congress then call publicly for State legislatures to apply to it to call a convention for proposing amendments? Alarmingly, several legislatures have already made such application. This must stop. For once the Congress calls such a convention, that convention will run away. As did the original Constitutional Convention that gave us the present Constitution. For no institution can survive a second exposure to the process that created it.

But more likely, once anyone even tries to amend the Constitution in this manner, the outcry will deafen. Democrats know this. If they did not, they would be trying to amend the Constitution today. Instead they have their briefs ready to submit to amend the Constitution informally. But that will not happen anymore. Ginsburg J died. Kennedy J retired. So now a five-member team will act as Liberators, not philosopher kings. These will be Alito, Barrett, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Thomas JJ.

Behold, therefore, your guardians of the Constitution.

Editor-in-chief at | + posts

Terry A. Hurlbut has been a student of politics, philosophy, and science for more than 35 years. He is a graduate of Yale College and has served as a physician-level laboratory administrator in a 250-bed community hospital. He also is a serious student of the Bible, is conversant in its two primary original languages, and has followed the creation-science movement closely since 1993.

One Response to Constitution – a modest proposal

  1. […] poverty and beg that government doles continue, let them ask their Senators and Representatives to propose amendments to the Constitution to allow them to […]

Leave a Reply

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