How Many US Constitutions Are There?

 

The fundamental notion of a “rule of law” (in contrast to a “rule of the powerful”) is that the same law will be applied to everyone and that differential outcomes in the main are due to differing facts, not the preferences of powerful men/women. And so it is antithetical to a rule of law that the law, on the same facts, is open for interpretation. And yet, here we are: Differential outcomes on the same or extremely similar facts — from rioting, to border control, to health rules, and so on and so forth.

The latest outrage (and only just the latest), in my view, is the hubris of the Florida state attorney that Governor Ron DeSantis has suspended for failure to enforce a law that that attorney disfavors. Andrew Warren’s beef is, first, with the Florida law regarding abortion and child sex-change operations and, second, with Governor DeSantis taking Warren at his word that he would not enforce laws he thought “unconstitutional” which triggered Warren’s suspension for “neglect of duty.”

Now we are in the legal world, so things can get a little convoluted. It is true that legislatures can and have passed laws that are unconstitutional. But that doesn’t give a sole state’s attorney the right to unilaterally decline to prosecute violations of that law absent a determination by a court that it is “unconstitutional.” But Warren is one of the dozens of attorneys who George Soros backed for elective office (admittedly through his cut outs — the non-profits he funds to actually sow the chaos he seems to seek). And like the others, the favored technique of enforcing law is highly selective — picking and choosing what crimes to prosecute and what not to prosecute.

Warren is an elected official. So he can reasonably claim to be a product of “democracy.” As such, he now challenges the Governor as a petit tyrant seeking to “overthrow democracy.” Sound familiar? This is the current talking point against anyone that pushes for adherence to a rule of law that was understood just a couple of decades ago. Now, any move to restore the foundations of ordered liberty — to call to account the bomb-throwers in and out of office — is an attempt to “overthrow democracy.”

George Orwell would not be proud, but he would be prescient. He understood communist tactics in the first part of the Twentieth Century, which are now indistinguishable from Progressive tactics in the Twenty-First Century. Progressives want everyone to buy into a “living constitution” because once adopted, there is no one constitution, there are many constitutions of preference in service to power. We have five and a half Supreme Court Justices paying the price right now for fealty to but one constitution. Warren and his ilk find that constitution very inconvenient. But they happily call anything they personally disagree with to be “unconstitutional” in an attempt to cast others, not themselves, as lawless.

We are in great danger. We have placed the levers of government in a single Party that is in many ways lawless. And the counterweight we are asked to support — GOPe –will not subordinate establishment interests to this critical process of restoration. We have grown lazy and fat in the land of the Philistines, and like Samson, we have been robbed of our strength and are being blinded and bound to the pillars of the Progressive Temple. Even now, we can hear the feasting, dancing, and music of our captors. Is our next step a plea to G-d for strength to pull down that Temple?

Published in General
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 27 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Columbo Member
    Columbo
    @Columbo

     

    When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands
    which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate
    and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the
    opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

    • #1
  2. Stina Member
    Stina
    @CM

    I sense a theme this morning.

    • #2
  3. Seawriter Contributor
    Seawriter
    @Seawriter

    Stina (View Comment):

    I sense a theme this morning.

    Maybe we are all seeing the same thing.

    • #3
  4. Mark Camp Member
    Mark Camp
    @MarkCamp

     

    Rodin: The fundamental notion of a “rule of law” (in contrast to a “rule of the powerful”) is that the same law will be applied to everyone and that differential outcomes in the main are due to differing facts, not the preferences of powerful men/women.

    I completely agree. 

    Rodin: And so it is antithetical to a rule of law that the law, on the same facts, is open for interpretation.

    I’d comment on this too, if only the people from my planet (the Earth-like planet, Liter-Al) were reading. But folks from the other planet would read it too, and after they ran it through their word scrambler devices, and it would come out as something stupid and deplorable.

    Anyway, all you Liter-Aliens know what I’m thinking already.

    • #4
  5. Mark Camp Member
    Mark Camp
    @MarkCamp

    Mark Camp (View Comment):

     

    Rodin: The fundamental notion of a “rule of law” (in contrast to a “rule of the powerful”) is that the same law will be applied to everyone and that differential outcomes in the main are due to differing facts, not the preferences of powerful men/women.

    I completely agree.

    Rodin: And so it is antithetical to a rule of law that the law, on the same facts, is open for interpretation.

    I’d comment on this too, if only the people from my planet (the Earth-like planet, Liter-Al) were reading. But folks from the other planet would read it too, and after they ran it through their word scrambler devices, and it would come out as something stupid and deplorable.

    Anyway, all you Liter-Aliens know what I’m thinking already.

     

    I have always believed in my heart that Rodin was from the old country, the Earth-like planet Liter-Al.  He gave this a “Like”, which gives me hope that he really is one of us, and was merely speaking loosely.

    • #5
  6. Rodin Member
    Rodin
    @Rodin

    Mark Camp (View Comment):

    Mark Camp (View Comment):

     

    Rodin: The fundamental notion of a “rule of law” (in contrast to a “rule of the powerful”) is that the same law will be applied to everyone and that differential outcomes in the main are due to differing facts, not the preferences of powerful men/women.

    I completely agree.

    Rodin: And so it is antithetical to a rule of law that the law, on the same facts, is open for interpretation.

    I’d comment on this too, if only the people from my planet (the Earth-like planet, Liter-Al) were reading. But folks from the other planet would read it too, and after they ran it through their word scrambler devices, and it would come out as something stupid and deplorable.

    Anyway, all you Liter-Aliens know what I’m thinking already.

     

    I have always believed in my heart that Rodin was from the old country, the Earth-like planet Liter-Al. He gave this a “Like”, which gives me hope that he really is one of us, and was merely speaking loosely.

    The defense of my formulation would be overly tendentious. Suffice it to say that within the several interpretations of my formulation, at least one is correct.

    • #6
  7. CarolJoy, Not So Easy To Kill Coolidge
    CarolJoy, Not So Easy To Kill
    @CarolJoy

    Warren may be one of those Attorney Generals who has looked to the Attorney General of California in order to figure out if he can get away with doing as he feels.

    This policy has worked here in California.

    Strict laws on the books regarding keeping our state free from being overrun with un-vetted and numerous hordes of humans from south of the border, but the laws are ignored.

    Criminals who are put away for the pain and suffering they have caused others, only to be let out en masse whenever the governor feels the need to address prison overcrowding.

    Biden has said that he envisions California’s policies as being the template for the nation he wants the USA to become.

    One nation, indivisible, with squishy and emotional legal proceedings for all.

     

    • #7
  8. Rodin Member
    Rodin
    @Rodin

    CarolJoy, Not So Easy To Kill (View Comment):

    Warren may be one of those Attorney Generals who has looked to the Attorney General of California in order to figure out if he can get away with doing as he feels.

    This policy has worked here in California.

    Strict laws on the books regarding keeping our state free from being overrun with un-vetted and numerous hordes of humans from south of the border, but the laws are ignored.

    Criminals who are put away for the pain and suffering they have caused others, only to be let out en masse whenever the governor feels the need to address prison overcrowding.

    Biden has said that he envisions California’s policies as being the template for the nation he wants the USA to become.

    One nation, indivisible, with squishy and emotional legal proceedings for all.

     

    Happily, Warren is not an Attorney General; he is comparable to Boudin and Gascon. But your point remains.

    • #8
  9. Mark Camp Member
    Mark Camp
    @MarkCamp

    Rodin (View Comment):

    The defense of my formulation would be overly tendentious. Suffice it to say that within the several interpretations of my formulation, at least one is correct.

    The use of less-than precise language in order to avoid tendentiousness is a characteristic of our people. This just confirms my hopes, cousin.

    • #9
  10. JoelB Member
    JoelB
    @JoelB

    I hope that Warren was handed a box full of the personal belongings in his office and escorted out of the  building.

    • #10
  11. Columbo Member
    Columbo
    @Columbo

    Clearly the Clinton’s have their own special version:

    • #11
  12. CACrabtree Coolidge
    CACrabtree
    @CACrabtree

    Warren is not so much the product of “democracy” as he is the product of progressive law schools who teach that the law is only what they say it is; no more; no less.

    In other words, the law schools of Alice in Wonderland.

    • #12
  13. Fritz Coolidge
    Fritz
    @Fritz

    Old: “prosecutorial discretion” being exercised to decide whether the provable facts supported bringing a particular criminal charge.

    New: “prosecutorial discretion” being exercised to decide whether to ignore the provable facts because the woke prosecutor doesn’t like the applicable criminal law.

    “Prosecutorial discretion” — cue the Princess Bride meme of ‘you keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.’

    • #13
  14. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    “. . ..constitution” because once adopted there is no one constitution, there are many constitutions of preference in service to power.”

    I’d never quite thought of it that way. But it’s true. Just pick your favorite. Just about anything goes.

    • #14
  15. Jim McConnell Member
    Jim McConnell
    @JimMcConnell

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    “. . ..constitution” because once adopted there is no one constitution, there are many constitutions of preference in service to power.”

    I’d never quite thought of it that way. But it’s true. Just pick your favorite. Just about anything goes.

    Sorta like the people who use “my truth” to justify their position; the last defense when they know they are short on facts.

    • #15
  16. Columbo Member
    Columbo
    @Columbo

    Stina (View Comment):

    I sense a theme this morning.

    This was a protest that was decades in the making. Ordinary citizens who had grown tired of the corrupt democrat party and the feckless cowardice of the gOpE. They needed no ‘incitement’. Their patience had worn out and they desired to make a show of their displeasure since it seemed everyone else was ignoring them. Except their President, whom they were proud to support. A spontaneous reaction to a great wrong that they had perceived, over decades. And a deceitful and corrupt old woman used it, aided by too many useful idiots, as a trap to ensnare the President of the opposing party. Sad.

    • #16
  17. Red Herring Coolidge
    Red Herring
    @EHerring

    Too many people failed to diagnose the cancer until it was stage 4 or stage 5. November will help clarify which stage the cancer has achieved.

    • #17
  18. Stina Member
    Stina
    @CM

    Red Herring (View Comment):

    Too many people failed to diagnose the cancer until it was stage 4 or stage 5. November will help clarify which stage the cancer has achieved.

    Or if the patient is still fighting or opting for palliative care.

    • #18
  19. Red Herring Coolidge
    Red Herring
    @EHerring

    Stina (View Comment):

    Red Herring (View Comment):

    Too many people failed to diagnose the cancer until it was stage 4 or stage 5. November will help clarify which stage the cancer has achieved.

    Or if the patient is still fighting or opting for palliative care.

    I fear the latter.

    • #19
  20. namlliT noD Member
    namlliT noD
    @DonTillman

    Tucker on this very topic, last week:

    (I think he nails it.)

    https://rumble.com/v1et5nt-tucker-carlson-tonight-8422-update-fox-breaking-news-trump-august-4-2022.html

    • #20
  21. Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patriot) Member
    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patriot)
    @ArizonaPatriot

    I have a question about this one.

    Do you feel the same way about the sheriffs who refused to enforce Covid restrictions?

    I don’t recall the details, but I seem to recall this issue arising several times in 2020.  The authorities put in place various Covid rules — which I generally thought were foolish, but which were within their authority — and a number of law enforcement leaders announced that they would not enforce such laws.  Is that OK?

    • #21
  22. Stina Member
    Stina
    @CM

    Red Herring (View Comment):

    Stina (View Comment):

    Red Herring (View Comment):

    Too many people failed to diagnose the cancer until it was stage 4 or stage 5. November will help clarify which stage the cancer has achieved.

    Or if the patient is still fighting or opting for palliative care.

    I fear the latter.

    I still have hope, but it’s tenuous atm.

    • #22
  23. Stina Member
    Stina
    @CM

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):

    I have a question about this one.

    Do you feel the same way about the sheriffs who refused to enforce Covid restrictions?

    I don’t recall the details, but I seem to recall this issue arising several times in 2020. The authorities put in place various Covid rules — which I generally thought were foolish, but which were within their authority — and a number of law enforcement leaders announced that they would not enforce such laws. Is that OK?

    Were they laws? Because I don’t think a lot of them were.

    • #23
  24. Mark Camp Member
    Mark Camp
    @MarkCamp

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):

    I have a question about this one.

    Do you feel the same way about the sheriffs who refused to enforce Covid restrictions?

    I don’t recall the details, but I seem to recall this issue arising several times in 2020. The authorities put in place various Covid rules — which I generally thought were foolish, but which were within their authority — and a number of law enforcement leaders announced that they would not enforce such laws. Is that OK?

    I believe that, especially and most urgently under current conditions–open rebellion, through subversion of the institutions of government by Federal authorities against the Republic and its highest law–County Sheriffs must exercise judgement in enforcing Federal Laws, which they are not obliged to the voters to enforce.

    I think that if, in contrast, a Sheriff cannot in good conscience enforce a law which his oath requires him to enforce, he is duty-bound to resign.  To do otherwise is open revolution by the people against our newest oppressor, in the case where the oppressor has taken control even of our highest levels of government: State and local governments. We should consider revolution to be our last, least desirable option, as it was thought of by what turned out to be our Founding Fathers in the time of the English constitutional crisis in the colonies in the 1760s and 70s.

    • #24
  25. Red Herring Coolidge
    Red Herring
    @EHerring

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):

    I have a question about this one.

    Do you feel the same way about the sheriffs who refused to enforce Covid restrictions?

    I don’t recall the details, but I seem to recall this issue arising several times in 2020. The authorities put in place various Covid rules — which I generally thought were foolish, but which were within their authority — and a number of law enforcement leaders announced that they would not enforce such laws. Is that OK?

    It is like they told us in the AF, we have taken an oath to support and defend the Constitution.  If we didn’t want to refuse an order because we believed it was unlawful, then we better be sure we can prove our argument. Ergo, re your question, it is situational dependent and therefore can’t be answered generally, without the details and arguments. 

    • #25
  26. Stina Member
    Stina
    @CM

    Mark Camp (View Comment):

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):

    I have a question about this one.

    Do you feel the same way about the sheriffs who refused to enforce Covid restrictions?

    I don’t recall the details, but I seem to recall this issue arising several times in 2020. The authorities put in place various Covid rules — which I generally thought were foolish, but which were within their authority — and a number of law enforcement leaders announced that they would not enforce such laws. Is that OK?

    I believe that, especially and most urgently under current conditions–open rebellion, through subversion of the institutions of government by Federal authorities against the Republic and its highest law–County Sheriffs must exercise judgement in enforcing Federal Laws, which they are not obliged to the voters to enforce.

    I think that if, in contrast, a Sheriff cannot in good conscience enforce a law which his oath requires him to enforce, he is duty-bound to resign. To do otherwise is open revolution by the people against our newest oppressor, in the case where the oppressor has taken control even of our highest levels of government: State and local governments. We should consider revolution to be our last, least desirable option, as it was thought of by what turned out to be our Founding Fathers in the time of the English constitutional crisis in the colonies in the 1760s and 70s.

    Or willingly suffer the penalty.

    Valentine, by lore, lived in a time where men were forbidden to marry (an Augustinian law forbade married men from joining the military). Valentine ignored the law and performed marriages in secret. He was arrested and sentenced to death.

    If what we are doing means so much that we are willing to flaunt the law, we must be willing to suffer the consequences. Including the sheriffs, even while I agree with them.

    Jury nullification needs to be preached in the halls of law and order. That is the right place to tackle unjust laws. A sheriff has no way to guide a jury. I prosecutor does.

    • #26
  27. Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patriot) Member
    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patriot)
    @ArizonaPatriot

    Red Herring (View Comment):

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):

    I have a question about this one.

    Do you feel the same way about the sheriffs who refused to enforce Covid restrictions?

    I don’t recall the details, but I seem to recall this issue arising several times in 2020. The authorities put in place various Covid rules — which I generally thought were foolish, but which were within their authority — and a number of law enforcement leaders announced that they would not enforce such laws. Is that OK?

    It is like they told us in the AF, we have taken an oath to support and defend the Constitution. If we didn’t want to refuse an order because we believed it was unlawful, then we better be sure we can prove our argument. Ergo, re your question, it is situational dependent and therefore can’t be answered generally, without the details and arguments.

    I understand, I think, but this does undermine the argument presented in the OP.

    There is another issue.  The OP assumes that it is the exclusive job of the courts to determine constitutionality.  Why isn’t that authority shared by the other branches?  If legislators think that a proposed bill is unconstitutional, they can decline to pass it.  If the executive thinks that a law is unconstitutional, he can decline to enforce it.  The courts should not be empowered to force the executive to enforce such a law, as the courts should no more interfere with the executive’s operation in his area of authority than vice versa.

    It seems to me that there are two methods of resolving an executive refusal to enforce a law.  The first method is the approach taken by Gov. DeSantis, which I approve — a superior executive officer can remove the lower executive officer who refuses to enforce the law, if the superior officer disagrees.  The second method is that the executive refusing to enforce the law can be replaced by the voters.

    • #27
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.