The Constitution --- Plain and Simple

In Perspective (Conclusion)

Curtis W. Caine, MD

This column on the Constitution appears in the Medical Sentinel to remind us that it is the unConstitutional (and thus illegal) activities in medicine and all other facets of our lives that have trampled on and outlawed our God-endowed freedom and liberty.


Here are the concluding remarks of Howard Phillips on the Constitution of the(se) United States.
Once again, let us each resolve to expend ourselves to the reestablishment of our Republic to its Consti-tutional limitations and Biblical undergirding presuppositions.

Although the Constitution contains the language that "Congress shall have Power...To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations," George W. Bush, like Bill Clinton and like Bush's father, has sought to eliminate the Constitutional role of the people's elected representatives with respect to matters of trade, not only when it comes to NAFTA, the World Trade Organization, and the President's Special Trade Representative, but, even with regard to something called "fast track" authority --- now euphemistically relabeled "trade promotion authority."

Under this "fast track" authority, the president, with congressional concurrence, would deny members of Congress the opportunity to do anything except say "Yea" or "Nay" with respect to agreements negotiated by Mr. Bush and his commercial minions.

This procedural approach may be appropriate to the Supreme Soviet, but it is not in line with the historic principles of American liberty --- nor is it appropriate that a president may grant Most-Favored-Nation trade status to a foreign regime with the support of only one-third plus one of the members of one House of Congress.

Yet this year, for example, George Bush gave Red China a financial gift which last year amounted to some $84 billion, as a result of Most-Favored-Nation trade status --- a gift which, thanks to Constitutional abdication by Congress, could only be withheld if two-thirds of the members of both the House and the Senate objected.

The Constitution assigns Congress the power "To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States."

Is it "in the service of the United States" for U.S. military personnel to function as mercenaries for the New World Order in the service of General Secretary Kofi Annan and his United Nations armies?

The Constitution gives the Federal republic, through the Congress, the opportunity to exercise authority over "all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings."

Nowhere, however, does the Constitution give the Federal government authority to confiscate or hold lands, whether under the aegis of the U.S. Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management, the Department of Interior, or any other unit of government, except for these military purposes or for functions related to the establishment of a Federal City.

Despite this fact, there are all too many states where 70 percent, and even more than 80 percent of the physical territory of those states is occupied and controlled by the Federal government, without explicit Constitutional purpose or authority.

Indeed, even one percent of territory unconstitutionally occupied by the Federal government is one percent too much.

Certainly, with respect to the Judiciary, we have forgotten the fact that it is the third branch of government, not the first, and that the inferior courts which "the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish" may be abolished and held subject to the power of the purse whenever Congress so decides.

Article III stipulates that "The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour." Originally, "good behavior" was understood to mean fidelity to the Constitution.

But, if members of Congress do not themselves understand what such fidelity entails, how can standards of "good behavior" be upheld?

Perhaps that is why no judge has, in our lifetimes, been removed, short of impeachment, on the exclusive grounds of failing to exercise "good behavior."

It is also interesting to observe that, when the Supreme Court promulgates an unpopular opinion,
usually deservedly unpopular, politicians, ignorant of the Constitution, jumping on the bandwagon, are quick to demand the approval of an amendment to the Constitution, something which is extraordinarily difficult to secure when a contentious issue is involved, and always hazardous to attempt, given potentially unforeseeable implications of particular constructions of language.

It is, at worst, demagogic, and, at best, a reflection of Constitutional ignorance when politicians, appealing to foes of forced busing, of abortion, of restrictions on school prayer, move, as a first resort, to the idea of a Constitutional amendment, when, in fact, the Constitution itself gives the Congress authority to reject Supreme Court edicts.

Article III, Section 2 makes clear that while "the Supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact," this authority is "with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make."

In other words, without the need of a two-thirds vote of both Houses to ratify and the three-fourths concurrence of the several states, Congress by simple majorities can Constitutionally overturn unwise, wrong-headed Supreme Court rulings.

Currently, it is nowhere more urgent that Congress should act than with respect to abortion.

Indeed, right at the center of the Bill of Rights in the Fifth Amendment, it is flatly guaranteed that "No person shall be...deprived of life...without due process of law."

It is a scientific fact as well as a theological fact that we are persons from the moment of conception. It is a Constitutional fact that we are thereby assured that our right to life is guaranteed.

Before any abortion may be Constitutionally undertaken, the stem cell embryo, the fetus, the unborn child must first be accused of a capital crime, and then brought to trial before a jury of his or her peers, then convicted of a capital crime on the testimony of two or more witnesses, then sentenced to death, and, if all appeals fail, made subject to execution.

But, because of the ignorance, the indifference, the indolence, and the moral cowardice of our representatives in Congress, as well as our Chief Executives, some 45 million human souls have had their lives cut off with the approval, indeed, with the active support of the Federal government.

My friends, this can change. This must change, and with your total commitment of your lives, your fortunes, and your sacred honor, by God's grace, it shall change.

This is the mission of the Constitution Party.

Remarks by Howard Phillips, Chairman, Constitution Party of Virginia, 450 Maple Ave., East, Vienna, VA 22180

Dr. Caine is an anesthesiologist in Jackson, Mississippi, and a member of the Editorial Board of the Medical Sentinel. His e-mail is LandCCaine@msn.com

Originally published in the Medical Sentinel 2002;7(1):27-28. Copyright©2002 Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS)