Please Focus on The Big Issue, Now!: Can Anything Of The Constitution Be Saved, And If So, HOW?!

You’ve all heard of “a death of a thousand cuts.” The constitutional constraints on a central government has suffered razor cuts for my entire life. Today, the victim was officially declared in critical condition. To use another analogy, the constitutional dam has been leaking and bleeding for many years, some breaks so severe as to comprise a hemorrhage. If reparative care was not applied, the result could be critical; even terminal. A very critical such cut was Roe vs. Wade. Some members did and have continued to shout in protest and pain. But since it did not affect most people, the cultural body walked on. But that hemorrhage of life-blood has now taken its toll.

The safety valve against a constitutionally renegade government had failed us. The courts had A) overwritten the law of all of the states of the union, and B) dictated a defiance of the US Constitution’s protection of life, which the states had been charged to defend. And most crucial of all, the people have not risen up in protest. There was already a definite death of spirit in that.

So critical was the outrageous act of Congress on Sunday, I listened at the opening to Rush Limbaugh on a radio in one ear while listening to Dennis Prager with the other, to see if they would note the critical function and possible remedy of the courts. But no: not Rush (at least for the 1st ten minutes) and not even the usually more rigorous Prager. And even more serious than that, Prager had on two prominent Washington legislators and NEITHER OF THEM DID, EITHER!!

Now, let’s get back to that dam. If in this case, the courts do not uphold the coming suits of states, organizations, and individuals, that leaking, sprouting dam will burst and the very purpose for which The Constitution was constructed will be utterly decimated. A couple of weeks ago, a commenter challenged my assertion that there was a constitutional realm of authority reserved to the states most succinctly stated in The 10th Amendment. He said that federal law was superior and challenged my interpretation of The 10th Amendment. But he didn’t respond to my question: If The 10th Amendment doesn’t mean what it says, what does it mean?

If the federal government can reach over state and all government and dictate what individuals and businesses must purchase and how that product must be defined, then pray tell, what can’t it do? It surely appears that the answer to both questions is NOTHING! Not only does The 10th Amendment mean nothing, the essential purpose of The Constitution itself, to define the powers and limitations of the federal government, means nothing. The document is suitable only for a museum. The only remaining remedy for the protection of those inalienable rights cited in The Declaration of Independence is the same sort of brute resistance of the people that birthed this country in the first place.

THAT’S HOW IMPORTANT THE COURTS’S RESPONSE TO THESE LEGAL ACTIONS IS! I also looked at the articles that the morning’s emails delivered. As there were in broadcast media, there was discussion fretting the difficulty of repeal and of the adverse consequences of this legislation: a particularly pointed one by Mike Adams: Roe v. Pelosi. Well-known national writers had yet to respond. But please spread the word to everyone you know. If the courts fail us this time, the American experiment is dead, and only the action of a long dormant people remains to defend the inalienable rights endowed by the creator. The founders pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor. Frankly, such sturdy character may be found in places, but does not seem in great abundance, today.