Ignoring the Constitution is Becoming an American Pastime
In an effort to address the economically crippling labor shortage in New Mexico, Governor Michelle Lujan-Grisham today issued an emergency order suspending the 13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution abolishing slavery to allow critical New Mexico industries to resume working at full capacity.
In a statement accompanying her executive order, Lujan-Grisham wrote, “We have a great need for labor and a large population of residents whom we can easily exploit. A temporary resumption of the practice of chattel slavery is the best way to protect our safety and prevent the further decline of our economy.”
This, of course, never happened.
Gov. Lujan-Grisham never proposed or even discussed a resumption of the most atrocious practice in our nation’s history. Had she done so, intense worldwide outrage and immediate steps to remove her from office would have followed.
What Lujan-Grisham did do, however, was to suspend a portion of the right of New Mexico citizens to bear arms, rights protected by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. She did so unilaterally, without an opinion from her state’s courts or the state legislature.
One has to wonder why the public has not met her effort to ignore the Second Amendment with the same outrage that would surely have arisen if she had chosen to subvert something like the Thirteenth.
Violating Her Oath
Upon taking office, Lujan-Grisham swore and then signed an oath of office in which she promised to “support the constitution of the United States and the constitution and laws of this state.”
What good is an oath of office if a state’s governor can take one and then ignore it?
Aside from some state Republican lawmakers who called for her resignation or impeachment, there has been relatively little serious public outcry against her actions.
Providing some hope for the rule of law, there have been a few courageous defenders of both the U.S. Constitution and that of New Mexico which also has an article prohibiting gun bans.
Democrats Oppose
In a letter to Lujan-Grisham, New Mexico Attorney General Raúl Torrez (a Democrat) wrote, “I do not believe it passes constitutional muster” and said he will not defend the order. Sheriff John Allen of Bernalillo County (also a Democrat) announced that he would not enforce the Governor’s ban either, calling it unconstitutional.
This week a U.S. District Court Judge (a Biden appointee) ruled that the governor’s actions were, in fact, unconstitutional.
The public reaction to Lujan-Grisham’s actions have paled in comparison to what they would have been if she sent state police to a local synagogue to arrest those entering to worship under the religious protections of the First Amendment, or shut down a local newspaper that published articles with which she disagreed but within the scope of freedom of the press.
Government officials do not get to pick and choose which of the articles or amendments to the Constitution they will enforce and with how much vigor. They each carry equal weight. It does not matter how popular or unpopular they may be at a given moment in time. Alterations to the document and its authority require an intentionally difficult and prolonged process.
Lujan-Grisham’s actions are akin to suspending the First Amendment and jailing anyone who spoke in a way that she disliked. She would be no less wrong if she suspended the Seventeenth Amendment and chose New Mexico’s next U.S. Senator herself, rather than by voters through a statewide election.
Not Optional
It is not acceptable, or lawful, for her or any government official to suspend the Second Amendment because she believes it is, for the moment, an unpopular idea. Requiring a positive vote of two-thirds of the state’s legislatures makes it time-consuming and difficult to change the Constitution and for an important reason. It builds a barrier between the short-term emotions of the present and the long-term principles of freedom.
On September 12, 2001, for example, many Americans, shocked by the terrorist attacks of the day before, endorsed the suspension of certain constitutional rights only to regret this decision months later, when cooler heads prevailed.
Lujan-Grisham’s experimental attack on the Second Amendment should be no less an affront to Americans as would be an attempt to reinstitute elements of slavery. Respecting the principles contained in the document requires that officials give each the same weight—always—no matter the current whims of the populace in favor of or against any one idea.
Unfortunately, we have slipped into a time when those in government seem to consider parts of the Constitution as optional. This is a growing trend that should terrify all of us.
Biden and Free Speech
Within days of taking office, for example, the Biden Administration began to forcefully demand that social media outlets such as Facebook and Twitter suspend the accounts of those whose posts they disagreed with. Not because they violated any law, the new administration just disliked them. When those companies complied, the actions of the White House became serious violations of the First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech.
In July, a federal judge agreed and ordered the administration to stop communicating with social media companies, saying the actions “likely violated” the free speech rights of the suspended users.
Romney Revelation
This past week, U.S. Senator Mitt Romney released excerpts from his new biography Romney: A Reckoning. The book includes the description of a message Maine Senator Angus King sent Romney in which King passed along a warning from the Pentagon. The passage in the book reportedly describes Romney’s relaying of this message to Senate leader Mitch McConnell. It reads:
“In case you have not heard this, I just got a call from Angus King, who said that he had spoken with a senior official at the Pentagon who reports that they are seeing very disturbing social media traffic regarding the protests planned on the 6th.”
While others began parsing this quote in relation to the current set of controversies surrounding Donald Trump, my initial reaction was: What the Hell is the Pentagon doing spying on Americans?
No One Noticed?
Sadly, I have not heard a single other source that picked up on that aspect of the excerpt. In fact, a Google search of key words to this effect yielded no relevant results.
That the part of the U.S. government that controls its most lethal weapons and has the ability to send thousands of armed soldiers out to enforce its will, is spying on the Facebook accounts of private citizens and sharing what they find should have elicited an enormous reaction and a call for investigations of the nation’s top military brass.
What other information is the military collecting and sharing with impunity? Your bank account information? Your medical records? The Pentagon is not a law enforcement agency of the federal government, and even if it were, it has no more right to ignore the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against unlawful searches than it does to hold slaves. The Fourth and Thirteenth Amendments hold the same weight, not to mention the First Amendment’s right to exercise free speech on social media without worrying that the U.S. military is spying on you without a warrant—and for what possible legitimate purpose?
Ballot Tampering?
Whether you love Donald Trump or hate him, the idea that a handful of “Rich men north of Richmond,” are currently developing a strategy, based on the Fourteenth Amendment, to remove Trump’s name as a candidate for president from election ballots across the country should enrage you. By doing so, this small group of people hopes to take from citizens the right to choose their own president.
The Fourteenth Amendment’s language prohibits anyone who “shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same” from holding office. Trump’s critics argue this applies to Trump, and they seek to prevent his election by getting states to strike his name from their ballots. Despite the large number of accusations and indictments against the former president, no court has convicted him of any of them. To remove his name from ballots at this juncture would cause electoral chaos and cast serious doubt on the legitimacy of the election. Ironically, this is as much an attempt at tampering with an election as his accusers claim Trump has done.
Sadly, these are just a few examples of circumstances where violators of the U.S. Constitution far outnumber defenders, and average citizens appear docile and listless in the face of an erosion of their rights. These rights specifically exist to protect all of us from overreaching government officials intent on enforcing their political views over those of others.
There is a saying that many falsely credit to the philosopher Edmund Burke, but its inaccurate attribution does not diminish its value.
“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men (and women) to do nothing.”
The muted response to these repeated attacks on our constitutional freedoms has created an environment in which evil can and will thrive.
Thank you for showing me that my home state still has some people w/principles there. Whenever I go back to visit relatives, I am stunned to see what happened to the place I grew up in. The natural beauty there can’t hide the despicable of it’s rulers or their supporters I’m afraid.
Another Yankee tax refugee
As a former NM citizen, I can assure the writer, New Mexicans will likely simply ignore the governor’s clearly unlawful suspension. The expression there is, “Don’t get mad, get even.” It is simply too dangerous in ABQ and elsewhere not to be armed. Although people put up with our public buildings’ doors being closed to the public for years on equally unlawful state of emergency declarations by MLG during alleged covid without legislative deliberation, they will probably resist this frontal assault. Thank goodness.