This is an update of an article which first appeared in 2021.
We’ve heard repeated claims over the course of the Trump presidency that we’re facing a constitutional crisis. We’ve been told that everything from executive orders to impeachment proceedings were such a crisis. Those claims were utter nonsense. Our Constitutional republic was designed to accommodate such things.
But what about when the constitution is ignored rather than respected? In that case it will cease being a guarantee of our rights or a constraint on government overreach. Under those circumstances the constitution will no longer have any bearing on how we conduct ourselves as a nation. It will become nothing more than an interesting historical document. That will be a true constitutional crisis, and it’s rapidly approaching.
The Supreme Court is supposed to be our bulwark against encroachments to the constitution. The justices are not only to be the interpreters of the constitution, but also its guardians. They are the robed scholars intended to understand the constitution inside and out, and to ensure the nation remains faithful to it. They are granted lifetime appointments so that they may remain above petty politics. Justices are intended to be free of party affiliation so that they may defend the constitution – independent of outside influences.
Somewhere along the line, the Supreme Court decided that it not only wanted to keep the constitution relevant, but it wanted the constitution to evolve with the times. Suddenly, we had an evolving constitution (I hate the term “living constitution”). We’ve now been introduced to “penumbras” and “emanations” — which are just legal speak for: We know what the founders meant, even though they didn’t write it down. And with that, fidelity to the constitution has been lost.
Let’s compare our approaching constitutional crisis to that of an approaching meteor. Astronomers assure us that avoiding a fatal impact from a meter is relatively straightforward – if the threat is detected early enough. With ample warning, it can simply be nudged off course. However, the longer it remains undetected, the more difficult it becomes to redirect.
I submit that threats to our constitution have been approaching for generations. Either through dereliction, or malicious intent (willful violation of their oaths), the Supreme Court justices have failed to interdict the approaching threats when it would have been relatively easy. Now we’ve reached a point where the constitution is becoming irrelevant, and it’s not clear that the Supreme Court has the interest or fortitude to change that development.
A brief history will help to illustrate how far we’ve strayed from the meaning of the constitution. I’ll start with Roe vs Wade. The court could have simply ruled that abortion is not a right guaranteed by the constitution. It was the business of the states and the Supreme Court would not engage in the argument. Instead, the Supreme Court found a new right, hidden in a secret compartment somewhere in the constitution. And just like that, the court announced: We are open for business! If you’ve got something you can’t get passed in congress, come talk to us. Maybe we can help. The constitution evolved. Deflecting the threat would have been easy in 1973, but the court became a political player instead. As a result, appointments became matters of ideology, rather than legal scholarship.
Fast forward to 2012. The court had been playing around with which laws it likes and which it doesn’t for years. But in 2012, one of its most notorious rulings landed on the American people. The affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare) had been challenged on the grounds that it was unconstitutional for the government to require citizens to buy products from private companies – and fine them if they failed to do so. As part of the argument supporting Obamacare, the drafters of the legislation argued that the fine was not a tax. In spite of this, the court ruled that Obamacare was constitutional because the government has the right to levy taxes, and the fine was really a tax, even though the legislation said it wasn’t. At this point, the Supreme Court wasn’t just picking the laws it liked and disliked, it was writing the legislation itself. It had moved from interpretation to legislation. It was doing so by saying the legislation meant something other than what it actually said. Don’t like what a law says? No problem, just change what the language means. That meteor was getting kind of big in the sky – No?
Let’s jump forward to the Trump administration. Since the judicial branch has become a political player, judge shopping has become standard practice. If there’s something your side wants from a court, you may simply select a sympathetic judge – rather like an ala carte menu item. That has brought us the phenomenon of rogue judges. It became commonplace for district judges to issue nationwide injunctions against presidential orders – regardless of the constitutionality of those orders. Chief Justice Roberts assures us that there’s no such thing as an Obama Judge or a Trump judge. He’s wrong, and looks foolish for saying so.
We also saw judges unilaterally appropriating the powers of Department of Justice (DOJ). The DOJ has the sole authority to decide when, and when not, to prosecute someone. Yet when DOJ decided to drop charges against Michael Flynn, Judge Emmet Sullivan decided to appoint his own prosecutor and continue the proceedings against Flynn. He became judge, prosecutor, and jury – all wrapped up in one robe. As judging goes, what could be more out of control (rogue) than that – assuming both Article 1 and Article 3 Constitutional powers?
The Supreme Court could have reigned in rogue judges with clear rulings about the inappropriateness of their behavior. But it didn’t, and equal justice under the law is no longer a given. The meteor was still approaching.
The end of Donald Trump’s first term brought us to the election of 2020. One of our most sacred rights is the right to vote in free and fair elections. In response to COVID-19, numerous election officials announced their intent to conduct the election contrary to applicable laws. The Supreme Court had a chance to say no. But instead, it took a pass. After the election, with a mountain of irregularities, the court again had a chance to ensure election integrity – through a public hearing of the evidence and unbiased adjudication of its implications. The Supreme Court again took a pass. In doing so, the justices effectively announced they had no interest in defending the citizenry’s right to fair elections. Let that sink in – Our constitutional guardians opted out of defending our constitutional rights. How honorable of them. That meteor is getting awfully close!
Now it’s 2023 and we’ve seen our free speech rights threatened by censorship, and our right to be free from unreasonable search violated by the Department of Justice. Our right of assembly was suspended for COVID-19 lockdowns. Members of congress have called conservatives insurrectionists and demanded our re-education – for having the temerity to protest. The Department of Homeland Security has even issued a domestic terrorism alert because right wing radicals might question the authority of the president. Is it possible that the Patriot Act may be used to surveil and curtail conservative political movements? Before you say no, remember the IRS targeted the Tea Party and the FBI spied on the Trump campaign. The executive branch is blatantly violating the Constitution because the Judicial branch became passive in defending the Constitution. That approaching rock is starting to block out the sun.
Trump’s most significant legacy will be his appointments to the Supreme Court. The squishy John Roberts is the Chief Justice in name only now. It’s effectively the Thomas court now. The originalists are attempting to restore fidelity to the Constitution by returning to its original meaning. They are being challenged by everything from bogus ethics complaints to actual assassination attempts – which the DOJ appears uninterested in preventing. It is unclear if there’s still time to deflect the approaching extinction level event. That rock is inside our orbit and moving fast. We better brace for “deep impact,” it’s going to be close.
Author Bio: John Green is a political refugee from Minnesota, now residing in Idaho. He has written for American Thinker, and American Free News Network. He can be followed on Facebook or reached at greenjeg@gmail.com.
If you enjoyed this article, then please REPOST or SHARE with others; encourage them to follow AFNN. If you’d like to become a citizen contributor for AFNN, contact us at managingeditor@afnn.us
Truth Social: https://truthsocial.com/@AFNN_USA
Facebook: https://m.facebook.com/afnnusa
Telegram: https://t.me/joinchat/2_-GAzcXmIRjODNh
Twitter: https://twitter.com/AfnnUsa
GETTR: https://gettr.com/user/AFNN_USA
Parler: https://parler.com/AFNNUSA
The Constitution has long been a thorn in the side of “progressives” – for it forced them to be clever in their disregard of it. Generations have accepted decreasing rights for “the good of the people” only because of effective salesmanship. Today’s “progressives” are no longer clever, which is why we increasingly see their flagrant disregard nakedly exposed.
“Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.” – Thomas Jefferson