Individual Liberty — Individual Responsibility 

Understanding

When I was growing up, I was taught that the Constitution of the United States was the supreme law of the land. Do they still teach that in school these days? Sometimes I wonder whether they teach about the Constitution at all. As I understand it, most American citizens couldn't pass a civics test.

Our Constitution mandates that the President swear an oath (or make an affirmation) to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution. How can the President preserve, protect, and defend a document he doesn't understand? Or in the case of our President-Elect how can he preserve, protect, and defend a document that he feels illustrates a fundamental flaw in our founding? One that he feels is too restrictive to allow the social change and redistribution of wealth that he desires to accomplish?

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
— U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 1.

The President is not the only elected official bound by oath to support our Constitution. Every Senator is bound to support it (Did you get that Mr. Reid? How about you Mr. McCain?). Every Congressman is bound to support it as well (Do you understand that Speaker Pelosi? How about you Mr. McDermott? Mr. Jefferson?). Every State Legislator is bound by oath to support the Constitution as well. The same is true for every Governor (How about it Governor Gregoire? Governor Blagojevich?) In fact, just about every elected official at the state level and up is bound by oath to support the Constitution.

Not just elected officials are bound by this though. Appointed officials as well are bound by oath to support the Constitution. Executive appointees are bound to support the Constitution. Judges are as well.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution
— U.S. Constitution, Article VI, Section 1.

So, how well are our elected and appointed officials doing? Not very well if you ask me. According to the same study that found that the average American citizen couldn't pass a basic civics test elected officials do worse on average than the average American citizen on the same test.

More than 2,500 randomly selected Americans took ISI’s basic 33 question test on civic literacy and more than 1,700 people failed, with the average score 49 percent, or an “F.” Elected officials scored even lower than the general public with an average score of 44 percent and only 0.8 percent (or 21) of all surveyed earned an “A.”

How, I ask you, can our elected officials support the Constitution when they don't even understand it? Speaking of understanding the Constitution, how about understanding the law? I'm sure by now that you've heard the old adage that “ignorance of the law is no excuse.”

“It will be of little avail to the people that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man who knows what the law is today can guess what it will be to-morrow.”
— James Madison (likely), Federalist No. 62, 1788

But, isn't that exactly the situation we have today? Congress enacts thousands of pages of new laws every year. Do you recall the (thankfully failed) Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007? It was huge. In fact, as printed by the Government Printing Office, this bill alone took seven hundred and ninety pages! Most of the people that discussed this abomination never even bothered to read it before declaring that “it's not amnesty.” Senator McCain and President Bush denied that it was amnesty, so I guess that was good enough for them. I read the entire thing. It took me a considerable period of time, fighting through language like this…

9 (a) ASYLUM.—Section 208(b)(2)(A)(v) (8 U.S.C.
10 1158(b)(2)(A)(v)) is amended by striking ‘‘or (VI)’’ and
11 inserting ‘‘(V), (VI), (VII), or (VIII)’’.
12 (b) CANCELLATION OF REMOVAL.—Section
13 240A(c)(4) (8 U.S.C. 1229b(c)(4)) is amended—
14 (1) by striking ‘‘inadmissible under’’ and insert
15 ing ‘‘described in’’; and
16 (2) by striking ‘‘deportable under’’ and insert
17 ing ‘‘described in’’.

Wade through enough of that and your brain gets numb. Especially if you're trying to figure out exactly what the bill is supposed to be doing. In order to do that, you've got to have access to the U.S. Code and read the sections that the bill is going to amend too. According to anecdote, most congressmen and Senators don't even bother to read the bills they're voting on. And yes, I read the entire thing. And it WAS an amnesty bill, at least according to the definition of the word.

“Ignorance of the law is no excuse?” With that kind of process, ignorance of the law is inevitable.  And that's just “statutory law.” Let's not even get started on the “common law.” You know what that is… it's law made by judges out of whole cloth. Oh sure, they start from statutory law and from precedent, but it's nothing more than the judge's opinion.

“Ignorance of the law is no excuse,” but it is inevitable. Apparently even in our elected officials our executive officers, and our judges, presuming they actually care about the oaths they take. We already know that some of them, like the President-Elect don't.

Good luck following the law. If you can understand it.