The U.S. Constitution, for all its strengths, revered and imitated worldwide, has a fatal flaw. A weakness of Greek-tragedy proportions. The Constitution lacks punishment for those who would violate its terms. Yes, there are avenues of recourse, but these have been neutered and rendered feckless in so many ways.
Politicians these days believe they can get away with anything, right? Graft, bribes, gaslighting, obtaining office by any means legal or otherwise, all-out bald-faced lies, scare tactics, misappropriation of funds... They’ll use the organs of government to assault domestic opposition (not the same as domestic enemies), place them under arrest, strangle their voices by deplatforming, controlling so-called “news” media and playing them like stenographers, it has gotten totally out of hand. Why? And what to do about it? Even when they’re exposed, red-handed—did you review John Durham’s report?—they seem to skate. Here’s why:
The ultimate protection of our “Life, Liberty and pursuit of Happiness”—a way to force government into compliance—is use of force. Our Declaration of Independence recognized and encouraged that “...whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it..."
That option, which held more meaning right after our bloody founding, has lost some if not all its impact. It’s too extreme, too hard, too violent for subtle infringements and little incursions on our liberties. That allows the thousand cuts to build up until they are intolerable acts. Then use of force is too late. We’re there now. But there’s hope.
What America needs, what our Republic and Constitution need, is strict adherence to a policy of, “No infringement shall be tolerated.” Small encroachments—like licenses to carry arms or speech codes—must subject people proposing such violations to penalties. Gross infringements like, “We’re going to take away your favorite rifle—and of course we’ll keep ours,” require prison terms. Stiff penalties.
Talking about violating constitutional rights is fine. That’s free speech, protected to an almost holy level. Acting to violate the rights though, like by proposing laws in clear usurpation beyond delegated powers, that is Simple Infringement, a misdemeanor.
Formally proposing infringement legislation is a bad thing. But acting on existing infringements, that is Aggravated Infringement, a felony, with stiff sentences and strict liability, even for a first offense. You cannot offer such tripe into the legislative hopper. It’s like proposing slavery. Argue for it with speech, this is an American’s prerogative. So many of my liberal friends argue for banning guns, taking away guns you own, outlawing the purchase of new guns, making new categories of prohibited people. We must support this, it is a right to speak.
You politicians, elected or appointed, and your bureaucratic functionaries—hired, appointed or in office by law—you are banned from doing these things. Without teeth though, the ban is feckless, as we see all around us. Under these proposed new statutes—you get fined for a first offense, jailed for repeat offenses. Don’t do it.
Hard punishable crimes need to be based on actions, not thoughts or words. Recently concocted so-called “hate crimes” are a deceitful fabrication. You are free to hate what you like, a splendid oxymoron. Real crime and punishment must be based on acts. The acts exist regardless of your mindset.
Punishment for assaulting or in any way damaging a person must be applied against the degree of harm done, not some Orwellian calculous of how much one person hated something. Disgusting and disgraceful hatreds cannot be outlawed. Your parents can punish you for hate, the state has no legitimate power to do so.
Acting or proposing actions to remove, deny, denigrate, delay or extinguish rights, this causes enormous harm. That is actionable. It infringes on your rights. Government is designed to protect your rights, not infringe them. With this new model of culpability, politicians and all government actors are placed under increased scrutiny. Acting to infringe in an official capacity opens the door to criminal liability, serving as a deterrent.
'Any elected or appointed official who promotes a proposal designed or capable of infringing upon the right to keep and bear arms, has committed Simple Infringement, a misdemeanor. Any effort to implement a new or extant infringement is Aggravated Infringement, a felony. These offenses apply to all other enumerated rights.'
Legislators can hang extra meat on these bones as they see fit. So many people, good natured and fair minded, are likely to object, even strenuously. Politicians will fight it tooth and nail, it so totally decreases powers they have usurped, and like. Mass media, now on the verge of officially abandoning objectivity as a standard, will likewise also object with lies, distortion, omission, misinformation, fear mongering, name-calling, label shaming, mis- and dis- information—every trick in their revised AP playbook.
When this objection arises: “Who decides what’s an infringement?” look to Scalia and Jefferson, who said, when in doubt first go to the words of the Constitution. Supreme Court Justice Stewart added, “You know it when you see it.” Gun bans are infringement.
Rational individuals, good citizens, stalwart protectors of The American Way, they’ll see the wisdom in a mechanism recognizing that “shall not be infringed” means what it says. Violation of the Constitution and the oath politicans took to gain office can no longer be tolerated or ignored. Enact Aggravated Infringement laws nationwide. It’s a better choice than harsher options floating, which include secession and punishments banned by the 8th Amendment.
Alan Korwin, a national columnist, award-winning author of 14 books and veteran of more than 1,000 radio and TV interviews, has been writing as The Uninvited Ombudsman since 2006. His next book, Why Science May Be Worng, in underway. Reach him at GunLaws.com. More of his Townhall columns are available here.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member