We have come to the conclusion that people in the US are now divided into three distinct political groups.
Group 1: People in this group understand why and how the US came to be. They believe that the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are the written embodiments of that “why” and “how” respectively. Most importantly, they believe that adherence to the principles and framework of government laid down in these documents is what uniquely defines us as “American”. There is a fierce drive within this group to maintain those ideals, traditions, and governing structure indefinitely into the future to ensure America’s continued existence.
Group 2: This group also understands why and how the US came to be. However, they are not convinced that the Declaration of Independence, and particularly the Constitution, are able to maintain their relevance over time. Changes in culture, technology, and societal norms make it imperative to them that our founding documents evolve with those changes. The defining characteristic of this group is that while they have an intense desire to change the Constitution to reflect what they believe are current day societal norms, they still seek to make those changes via the rules and framework built-in to the Constitution (amendments, legislation, and court precedent).
Group 3: Unlike the other two groups, this group either does not understand why and how America came to be or prefers to believe an alternate history of our country. For them, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, if they ever had any relevance, are now largely illegitimate. There is no point in following the prescribed method for changing the Constitution because they believe even that part of the Constitution to be illegitimate. The defining characteristic of this group is that they strongly desire an entirely new form of government, and they are willing to go to almost any length to get it.
You probably recognize that Group 1 and Group 2 generally equate to the traditional definition of Republicans and Democrats. The US Constitution was written for both of these political philosophies and has successfully accommodated both for 235 years, longer than any other Constitution in the modern world. People in these two groups are proudly and justifiably “American”.
But what about Group 3? This group has borne various names – radicals, anarchists, socialists, and progressives. Their numbers rise and fall over time as does their influence. Today, the faces of this group are familiar to most of us – Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and her fellow “squad” members (Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib, Ayanna Pressley, Cori Bush, Jamaal Bowman), Senator Bernie Sanders, Nikole Hannah-Jones (and her fellow 1619 Project supporters), Critical Race Theorists – just to name a few. In addition, Group 3 has grown to include most all of the subscribers to current “woke” doctrine. Their creed includes fanatical and often militant stances on gender identity, racism, religious expression, defunding the police, transgenderism and the general notion of “victimhood”.
What distinguishes Group 3 from the other two is their belief that America came into being by way of a callous set of values, motivations, and goals that are other than those derived from the words in the Declaration of Independence and Constitution. Thus, rather than defend the sanctity of the US Constitution, they decry it, and want to entirely replace it with something of their own contrivance. They have little affinity or affection for the traditions and history of the US that are the core beliefs of groups 1 and 2.
Can we really call this third group of people Americans? If they don’t respect or believe in our form of government and want it to operate radically differently from the way it was founded, with a different set of values and morals, what and who are they representing? It appears that even they don’t really know. Whatever it is, it isn’t American.
The courses of action suggested by prominent politicians immediately following the recent decision by the Supreme Court to overturn Roe vs. Wade display one example of Group 3 thinking:
- Increase the size of (pack) the Supreme Court – This ignores the fact that having nine, and only nine, justices on the court has been the precedent in the US for over 150 years. In addition, this would only work in favor of the desiring party if the Presidency and Senate are also held by that party.
- Abolish the current Supreme Court altogether and allow the public to directly elect new Supreme Court Justices – this not only completely ignores the framework set out in the Constitution for appointing and confirming Justices, it assumes the general preference of the voter is the same as that of the party wanting this change. The phrase “be careful what you wish for” comes to mind.
- Setting up facilities for abortions to be performed on federal land and/or in federal buildings – this flies directly in the face of federal law, specifically the “Hyde” amendment1, which bans the use of federal taxpayer money for abortions.
Each of these suggestions are “extra-Constitutional” in that they intentionally bypass the prescribed methods for adding to or changing the Constitution. It is a vastly overblown reaction in response to a duly adjudicated judicial decision. They want to completely abandon our hard won and long protected framework of government simply because they don’t agree with one decision. This isn’t the principle on which America was founded.
Lately, we’ve seen a number of Democrat and Republican politicians, along with members of the news media, gravitate into Group 3 from what had been their usual association with Groups 1 or 2. Those leading the formation, methodology, and operation of the January 6th Committee hearings are a case in point. While the originally stated goal of this committee was noble and justified, its execution has been almost entirely extra-Constitutional. Specifically, Republican Congresswoman and Committee member Liz Cheney is transparently misusing the hearings run by this committee to pursue a personal vendetta. Her behavior, as well as that of the rest of this committee, has been an egregious abuse of a government power that continues unabated to this moment.2
The Constitution was never meant to be completely static and unmalleable. That is why there are provisions within it for amendments, new laws, and judicial review and interpretation. All of those mechanisms for changing the Constitution require approval from the people, either directly by way of a vote or through their elected representatives.
Those in Group 3 eschew these formal methods of change and would rather bypass them entirely. They also know that as a group, their numbers are relatively small, despite the fact that their media cohorts make every effort to show them as much larger and more significant. That reality comes crashing down on them when fair elections are held and public opinion polls are conducted objectively and without bias. To remain relevant, their only recourse is to create and live in an illusion of power fed by a confidence that they can circumvent the Constitution to achieve their goals. This is about as un-American as it gets.
1 This was an amendment to a funding bill for the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare which was originally passed on September 30, 1976. The vote was 312–93.
2 First, the January 6th Committee was improperly (some claim illegally) constituted. None of the Republican representatives originally selected by the minority leader of the House were permitted to sit on the committee. No cross examination has been permitted of any witness called before the committee. Video and transcripts have been heavily edited to favor the committee’s preordained outcome. No exculpatory evidence has been permitted to be introduced into the hearings. In a nutshell, it is a blatantly biased and largely fabricated presentation that presumes guilt and demands that those accused must prove their innocence. It bears no resemblance at all to the American system of justice.