STAFF NEWS & ANALYSIS
The Death Knell of the Constitutional Republic
By Grayson Schultze - May 05, 2016

The president claims that Congress’s authorizations in 2001 and 2002 for the wars against Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein can be stretched to cover his current campaign [against ISIS]. – The New York Times

The U.S. Constitution is gone. Kaput. For years it stood as the bedrock of a republic that kept its government chained. For years the constitution limited government intervention, letting the free market operate instead of domestic, well-connected crony business interests.

Likewise, elected leaders consulted the constitution when government intervention abroad was considered. There once was a time in America when Congress debated the merits and risks of a government’s most pressing issue: war.

In these days of past, Congress – fulfilling their constitutional duties set forth in Article I, Section 8 – would be the ones to declare war.

The president could not act unilaterally to enter into hostilities.

That time is no more. Now, as it has been for decades, the people’s power through their representatives has essentially been eliminated. The U.S. is facing what Washington, Jefferson, and the other founders warned so strongly against: the return of the king to the former colonies.

All that’s needed is for the president – just a single person — to call for war, impacting the lives of millions, both at home and abroad.

Regarding the current operation in Iraq against ISIS, this Times article highlights a 28-year old Army intelligence officer, Captain Nathan Michael Smith, and his struggle with the constitutionality of the conflict. With the president still operating on the post-9/11 authorizations for war, Smith’s argument is that congress should reauthorize military operations.

And since the plaintiff has taken an oath to support and defend the constitution, he has brought forth a federal lawsuit to independently examine these arguments.

Ever the supporter of a more powerful executive branch when a Democrat has the reins, the Times reporter Bruce Ackerman asks, “Does the captain’s participation in this undeclared war involve him in a mission to destroy, not ‘defend,’ the Constitution?”

Hardly. By the letter of the law, the captain is correct. There’s the 1973 War Powers Resolution, which forces the president to obtain congressional approval of hostilities within 60 days of the conflict. With a White House-declared interruption in fighting in Iraq, the time is due for a renewal from congress.

It’s worthy to note that this war powers legislation was introduced only in response to presidential wrong-doing – Nixon’s expansion of operations in Vietnam – and should not set a precedent that overrides the original, Congressional war powers in Article I.

But, the precedent has been set. The wheels have been in motion to empower the king executive and his merry band of court jesters – leaders of foreign governments, unelected bureaucrats, and well-connected crony war profiteers. They are the ones with real power today in America.

And let’s not forget the actual nine-member court jesters who in theory split power with the executive and congressional branches. Ackerman writes that if the U.S. Congress and president cannot overcome their impasse on a war resolution, it is up to these ultimate guardians of the U.S. Constitution.

Captain Smith, one of the mere commoners, is unlikely to have a case. The deck is stacked, but no one seems comfortable to call out the swindler at the table.

The government’s heralded balance of power that all U.S. school children are taught is the gospel does not exist in reality. The process of how a bill becomes a law and visits to capitol buildings to marvel at the workings of government and meet representatives are still cornerstones of American’s education. Social studies teachers still march to work and espouse the great deeds of the U.S. Constitutional republic.

Indeed, all of the lessons about government that we’re taught as children are a farce. More so than ever, the people through their representatives have less of a say in nearly all aspects of life as the king executive runs a shadow government.

Conclusion:

Nearly a decade and a half after the post-9/11 war resolutions from congress, despite the unconstitutionality, President Obama still cites this as his authorization for continued operations in Iraq. This action represents the continued tilt of power towards the executive branch, essentially crowning the president and proving that America’s constitutional republic exists only on paper.

Posted in STAFF NEWS & ANALYSIS
  • Jim Kluttz

    That’s alright. A recent poll showed that most Americans think the Constitution should be updated anyway.

    • jackw97224

      I think it was Shelby Foote who warned against a constitutional convention as the scoundrels would impose rubbish that would put us all in chains. I know Mark Levin is a proponent of some restrictions that could be imposed but he assumes that the criminal elite would not somehow effect their evils upon the device.

    • Michael

      It can be updated. But the Framers understood that it should not be updated for trivial or superficial reasons. Henceforth the large majorities and cumbersome process required to amend it.

  • Hippity

    You have an appropriate last name. Your middle name should be Jim MENTAL Kluttz.
    The founders were worried about people like you, and they warned us what would happen in a low information society. Spoon fed by the mass media and corrupt politicians, spewing a Constitution is out of date, is the death knell of the Republic.

  • Praetor

    Excellent and true! I do not believe the election are true and accurate. People over time change, their thinking, their feelings, their personnel circumstances, it all changes.

    So, how is it we can have the same people in power for multiple decades of time. They go from Representative to Governor, and then back to be Senator, then on to the globalist corporate structure or highly paid lobbyist, and they then throw their hats in the ring to be Prez. its a ‘joke to vote’.

    Its more like a sporting event, than a representative government of the people by the people. Its way past time for ‘Dissolution of ‘this’ Government!!!!

    • jackw97224

      Political government is violenct (Tolstoy). So I agree the government must be eliminated. However, an organizational gov. based on voluntary agreements might just do. I like the Zero Aggression Project by Perry Willis and JIm Babka. Also, I like Lysander Spooner’s No Treason No. 6, The Consitution of No Authority and Marc Stevens’ No State Project (YouTiube).

  • thefinancedude

    misses entire point – read the instrument, “We the People of the United States”…

    now – what instruments came before these?

    declaration of independence, articles of confederation…

    read those…

    “the People”…are mentioned…

    law is dictated by the rules of source language construction…

    Constitution says a people of the United States…United States is defined in all their instruments as a corporation…

    constitution has nothing to do with the people…on the land…but in the world of paper where only corporations can live (the zombie undead about to take over your tv)…well well…

    government means literally mind control…

    dialogue/discussing merits of their sandbox is pointless…divide and conquer wins again…

    take back your mind, learn how to hold your own court and self govern in your sandbox where a wo/man is king not because of a private trust compact foisted upon ignorant, unwise people…b/c your inheritance is in creators kingdom, not mans…

    or not…i respect the law of allowance…as its been granted to one here.

    • jackw97224

      You might enjoy The Zero Aggression Project, if you have not already visited it. While I don’t believe there is any factual evidence that the constitution and laws apply to me or anyone, still they make some good points about the non-aggression principle and as Tolstoy mentions in The Law of Love and The Law of Violence, government/politics is violence; it is the use of force. No one is qualified to dictate to me how I must conduct my life and I certainly don’t think politicians and their hirelings are so annointed. The sad fact is that people vote to pay scoundrels to tell them how to live their lives and then punish them if they do not follow their duly elected overseers on the plantation state.

  • jackw97224

    I tend to agree with Lysander Spooner, No Treason No. 6, The Constitution of No Authority and with Marc Stevens No State Project (YouTube). What factual evidence do you (politician, judge, attorney, IRS Agent et.al.) have that the constitution and laws apply to me just because I am physically present in some geographical location like Georgia or Oklahoma or Texas or New Hampshire? An affidavit of truth stating what, when, where, why and by whom I was or could be made “subject to the jurisdiction thereof?” (14th Amendment). Of course no one can force one into citizenship or that would manifest slavery. If one was deceived or coerced by the intentional concealment of the truth, by refusal to provide up front full disclosure of any agreement that might be alleged to have caught one in the web of jurisdiction, then such web of deceit immediately voids any agreement and raises the ugly specter of fraud by government agents.

    • thefinancedude

      amaha!!!!!!! (original Amen)

      • jackw97224

        That is a new one for me. Thanks. I’ll try to commit it to memory, which is not easy.

  • autonomous

    Just what day was it the the music died? April 19, 1861? July 4, 1776? Sept. 17, 1787? Or was it a slow death?
    Perhaps the more important question is, when will the monstrosity that now governs the USA die? To be sure, the devil we know will be much harder to kill than King George III.

    • Michael

      The Alien and Sedition Acts or the Whiskey Rebellion are widely seen as the first assault on the Republic and the Constitution. Death by a thousand cuts.

  • Bruce C.

    The Constitution is simply a document that specifies the power structure, responsibilities and limitations of a Federal government. It is up to people to implement it, support it, defend it and act accordingly.

    In my opinion, a Trump Presidency will determine once and for all if this country can be salvaged by peaceful political means via the election process and the installment of delegates who are willing and able to carry out their Constitutional duties and respect their limitations.

    If that doesn’t happen then it becomes incumbent upon the citizenry ourselves to physically remove existing government employees and replace this government with a new one.

    Congress has failed in its duties in many areas, not the least of which is the failure to reign in the President by threat or action of impeachment. Ultimately, the responsibilities lie with us, however, because the government is of the people, by the people, and for the people.

    • Michael

      But what does that change look like? Armed insurrection? That’s a bridge that, if crossed, could be the harbinger of the total state. Or it could yield something akin to what was borne out of the American Revolution.

      • Bruce C.

        I know, and I’m not sure how it should happen. I hope it doesn’t come to that. At the very least it could take the form of “citizens’ arrests” of various people in office, and trials – something like impeachment trials – for treason.

        • Citizen’s arrests would only be effective if followed by a citizen’s trial and a tar and feathering. Until officialdom starts to look like hens, there is no hope.

  • olde reb

    Its death has been kept secret for decades.

    Only since 1946 has
    the government kept a standing army without a declaration of war.
    Previously, the state militias were called to “repel invasions”
    and “suppress insurrections,” The states had the responsibility
    to name officers in the army.

    The provisions of
    “liberty” in the 5th and 14th amendments
    still secure the pursuit of a livelihood as a constitutional Right.
    Such Rights are not suitable objects for taxation. If Rights can be
    taxed, they can be priced out of existence. If the government can
    lawfully tax your earnings, they could confiscate 100% of your
    income. You would be a slave. The nation of Sovereign People would
    be stood on its head into a nation of slaves with just one law.
    There is NO law in Title 26 that levies a tax on sovereign citizens
    (Title 26, section #871 levies an income tax on nonresident aliens.
    Their presence in this nation is a granted privilege suitable for an
    excise tax). Collection of the income tax on citizens is a scam by
    the government.

  • timothy price

    The government derives its power from the consent of the people. They give their consent based upon trust that their government is telling them the truth. LOL. That is not the case, so as creation of the people, as a helper of the people in managing their national affairs, the government has failed, and more so, has become treacherous to them.
    The people have no other choice but to dismantle this government to the degree necessary to make it conform to its intended purpose… as servant of the people.
    Spare the rod and spoil the child… take this government to task until it gains the respect for the people’s authority again… or remove the official in government entirely and elect honorable people for their positions.
    Activists must be “in-their-face” all the time. Cheer Trump when he is right, and call him out when he is a fool. But use the media to educate the people and embarrass the crooks. No time to be politically correct… be clear, frank, and honest.

loading