At a tumultuous time in our history, with the long-held norms and expectations of the federal government being dissected, it is a time to have a frank discussion. One side that has professed a steadfast commitment to a strict interpretation of the Constitution seems content to ignore that commitment with each day.
But we must remember that the Constitution, The Bill of Rights and the subsequent Amendments were made by people with a wisdom that has endured for centuries. Can anyone in the current political arena rightfully claim an equivalent mantle to the founders of this nation? None have proven capable of proving their equivalency utilizing facts, arguments and reason. False bravado proclaiming historical greatness does not count.
As such, any attempts to alter the very framework of our governance cannot be a cheap political stunt. And any professed interest in bi-partisanship or bridging divisions must come first from the party in power.
To that end…..
What I will say is that if we would supplant the opinions and policy of our founders in any case, we should do so only upon evidence so conclusive, and argument so clear, that even their great authority, cannot stand.
If any person now sincerely believes that a proper division of local from federal or executive from legislative or judicial authority, or any part of the Constitution, no longer applies to them, they should enforce their position by all truthful evidence and fair argument which they can.
But they have no right to mislead others, who have less access to history, and less leisure to study it, into the false belief that “the framers of the Constitution under which we live” were of the same opinion — thus substituting falsehood and deception for truthful evidence and fair argument.
I would say to them: You consider yourselves reasonable and just people. Still, when you speak of anyone in opposition on any issue, you do so only to denounce them as “libtards,” or, at the best, as no better than outlaws.
You will grant a hearing or pardon for any offense in support of your cause, but nothing like it to the “libs.” In all your contentions with one another, each of you demands unconditional condemnation of anyone opposing your agenda.
Indeed, such condemnation of opposition seems to be an indispensable prerequisite among you to be admitted or permitted to speak at all. Now, can you be prevailed upon to pause and to consider whether this is fair to them, or even to yourselves? Bring forward your charges, your demands and then be patient long enough to hear and actually listen to them with an open mind to deny or justify.
You say you are populist, and they are sectional or elitist. They deny it. That makes an issue; and the burden of proof is upon you. You produce your proof; and what is it? It is that their party has little existence in your red state world.
The fact is substantially true; but does it prove the issue? If it does, then in that case they should, without change of principle, begin to get votes in your section, and thereby cease to be sectional.
The fact that they get no votes among your people is a fact of your making. And if there is fault in that fact, that fault is primarily yours, through a simplification and obfuscation of truth replaced by misleading people. The fault of division and a lack of cooperation remain until you show that they repel you by some wrong principle or practice.
If they do repel you by any wrong principle or practice, the fault is theirs; but this brings you to where you ought to have started — to a discussion of the right or wrong of their principle.
If their principle would wrong you or violate centuries of governing norms and the rule of law, then their principle is justly opposed and denounced as such. Meet them, then, on the questions of our times with open and honest dialogue to govern for all and govern without malice on the truths of the issues we face.
Do you accept the challenge? If not then you really believe that the principle which “our founders of the Government under which we live” thought so clearly right as to adopt it, and endorse it again and again, upon their official oaths, is in fact so clearly wrong as to demand your condemnation without a moment’s consideration.
Who am I to state all of this?
These are not my words. Everything italicized above is paraphrased and updated from Abraham Lincoln’s Cooper Union speech delivered 165 years ago today to a nation rent by divisions and a constitutional crisis.
Lincoln wanted a party in power to justify ignoring nearly a century’s worth of precedent or to cease from its actions.
Fast forward to 2025. And if the governing party (regardless of party) ceases to honor or respect the political norms and rule of law, it is the responsibility of the citizens to stand up and demand that the foundational wisdom of the centuries endures.
