"... it seems almost mandatory" - Granite Grok

“… it seems almost mandatory”

we the people - ConstitutionA snippet from a podcast between Glenn Reynolds (Instapundit) and Russ Roberts as transcribed by Ed Driscoll.  The topic was on another writer saying we should give up on following the Constitution (emphasis mine):

REYNOLDS: Here’s the problem with public officials — because that’s really [Seidman’s] audience — deciding to ignore the Constitution: If you’re the president, if you’re a member of Congress, if you are a TSA agent, the only reason why somebody should listen to what you say, instead of horsewhipping you out of town for your impertinence, is because you exercise power via the Constitution. If the Constitution doesn’t count, you don’t have any legitimate power. You’re a thief, a brigand, an officious busybody, somebody who should be tarred and feathered and run out of town on a rail for trying to exercise power you don’t possess.

So if we’re going to start ignoring the Constitution, I’m fine with that. The first part I’m going to start ignoring is the part that says, I have to do whatever they say.

ROBERTS: But his argument is that we already ignore the Constitution; it’s not really much of a binding document.

REYNOLDS: Oh, well, then I’m free to do whatever I want!  And actually, that is a damning admission, because what that really says is: If you believe Seidman’s argument; if you believe that we already ignore the Constitution anyway, then in fact, the government rules by sheer naked force, and nothing else. And if that’s what you believe, then all of this talk of revolution suddenly doesn’t seem so crazy, it seems almost mandatory.

Indeed – here in NH it IS mandatory if we are to follow the NH Constitution – Article 10:

[Art.] 10. [Right of Revolution.] Government being instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security, of the whole community, and not for the private interest or emolument of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, whenever the ends of government are perverted, and public liberty manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress are ineffectual, the people may, and of right ought to reform the old, or establish a new government. The doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.

And of course, I would be remiss in not quoting from Ian Underwood’s testimony that buttresses what Glenn Reynolds holds:

The first is that a bill like this undermines respect for the very rule of law itself. After all, if the legislature isn’t going to respect the limits placed on it by the NH Constitution, then why should individuals respect the limits placed on them by that legislature — whether regarding guns, or schools, or traffic laws, or anything else?

We are all equal before the Law, but when our lawgivers refuse to follow the Law (our Foundational Law, the Constitution(s)), why should we pay any attention to them?  After all, if Hillary can violate / flout laws that would send any regular person to the clinker for decades but she skates, there are serious problems.  What it indicates is that we ARE no longer equals and we have regressed back to the time that the aristocracy / royal class could do what it wanted.

Our Constitutions were to be the limiting factors to all three of the branches of Government: Legislative, Executive and Judicial.  When we see them ignored or despised (for a few examples, go here) and without them, there is no legitimate government.  But when those that are in said government refuse to acquiesce to the division of powers or to the limiting of their actions in representing the government, then why bother?

Kinda drives them crazy when confronted with it – but they seem to have learned that they don’t have to because there is neither pushback or negative consequences for doing so.

Sad state of affairs.

 

>