Connect with us


Sovereignty under fire: crimes against the Constitution



The Constitution, which sets forth the principle of rule of law, defines what is unconstitutional, and guarantees freedom of speech and other liberties of a Constitutional republic, and also describes the impeachment power. (How many know of the Jewish roots of this document?) Hypocrisy threatens Constitutional government. Could Israel use a constitution like this? More to the point: would a Convention of States save it, or destroy it? (Example: civil asset forfeiture violates the Constitution.) Quick fixes like Regulation Freedom Amendments weaken it. Furthermore: the Constitution provides for removing, and punishing, a judge who commits treason in his rulings. Furthermore, opponents who engage in lawfare against an elected President risk breaking the Constitution.

I fully intended to limit this series to the areas where the UN is usurping our sovereignty through Agenda 21, the Convention on the Rights of the Child, and the Arms Treaty. However, those who have sworn to uphold and protect our Constitution have acted in ways that are so egregious that it is nothing short of criminal and demands discussion.

Heads in the sand

In the new millennium, citizen ostriches have proven to be more dangerous than conspiracy theorists. While conspiracy theorists keep a vigilant eye on our representatives; citizen ostriches keep their head in the sand often until things are too far gone to do anything about. Our country is in trouble. If our citizens don’t wake up and take their heads out of the sand, it is possible that we may lose our sovereignty in the very near future.

It is no small matter when the people whom we trust to protect and preserve our Constitution find it inadequate and seek to dismantle and circumvent it instead of amending and improving it. Seeking to dismantle and circumvent a system of government is tantamount to overthrowing it, and as such should be considered treasonous.

Recently one oath-sworn protector of the Constitution, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, demonstrated her disdain for the document when she advised those writing Egypt’s new constitution not to use ours as a model. In April of 2005, she made headlines when she addressed The American Society of International Law. In that address she stated that she will defer to decisions made in foreign courts. Translation – she will not defer to our Constitution. This statement alone should have triggered impeachment proceedings and removed her as a jurist from our highest court immediately.

Ginsburg is not alone in her disdain for the document she has sworn to uphold and protect. Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta stated in his testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee last week that he would seek international permission to initiate a no-fly zone in Syria. He made it clear that he would “inform” Congress but not seek congressional approval, as required by the Constitution. It should be noted that Congress played no role whatsoever in authorizing the action against Libya. Panetta intends to deliberately continue this practice. His resignation should be demanded immediately.

Earlier disdain for the Constitution

Presidents are supposed to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution.

The Presidential Seal

This is not the first administration to circumvent the Constitution. In 1945, President Truman signed the United Nations Participation Act of 1945 (UNPA). This Act effectively abolished Congress’s constitutional function in declaring war. Of course George W. Bush’s Patriot Act is equally culpable. It seems those whom we should trust most to adhere to our Constitution are the ones who have proven to be the least trustworthy. Whether their intentions are honorable or subversive, their circumvention of the Constitution should be an impeachable offense. Unfortunately, our presidents have learned that they can sign Executive Orders and Acts that amount to nothing less than power grabs. Inevitably, these power grabs infringe upon our rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Sometimes these power grabs are done in the interest of security; sometimes they are done in the interest of the general welfare. Whatever their motivation, they result in a loss of liberty and in an increase in unconstitutional federal power.

Lack of reverence for our system of government by the man now occupying the White House should have been clear in a radio interview in 2001, when he stated that the Constitution is deeply flawed. Based upon this logic, it should be no surprise that once in a position of power he has committed a myriad of violations against the Constitution. The 82 Executive Orders (EO) under his belt should raise some red flags.

Of course, George W. Bush’s flagrant use of the EO pen was just as vigorous. Bush’s excuse was 9/11 and Obama’s excuse is a failing economy. Presidents have learned that they can circumvent the constitutional process and Congress through the use of EOs, and the ostriches among us accept these excuses as being in our best interest. Upsetting the balance of power designed in our Constitution in the long run is never in our best interest.

Executive Orders

As this series progresses we will be discussing some of those EOs in detail. The most recent EO that should be of concern to us was signed on March 16, 2012. See Terry Hurlbut’s recent article entitled “Executive Order creates confusion” to learn more about this recent EO.

Other disturbing EOs include 13575 The Establishment of the White House Rural Council, which would cripple family farmers with extraordinary regulations, including one that required anyone operating farm equipment to have a CDL license. Think about the impact this would have on family members who help on the family farm. Then there is EO 13569 Policy on Automotive Communities and Workers that allows government to interfere in private industry.

For those who appreciate irony, EO 13580 Interagency Working Group on Coordination of Domestic Energy Development and Permitting in Alaska is interesting. It almost sounds like it would be helping the development of our natural resources in Alaska but prohibits such through government over-regulation. Its introduction reads: “…and in order to establish an interagency working group to coordinate the efforts of Federal agencies responsible for overseeing the safe and responsible development of onshore and offshore energy resources and associated infrastructure in Alaska and to help reduce our dependence on foreign oil…” The order that follows continues the pattern of crippling over-regulation that prohibits development of Alaska’s natural resources and consequently insures our dependence on foreign oil.

Perhaps the most puzzling thing about the EOs is that they circumvent Congress but begin with the language: “By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America…” The truth is these EOs do just the opposite. They often exceed the authority vested in the presidency by the Constitution and circumvent the Constitution and Congress in the process.

It is very disturbing that I haven’t scratched the surface of EOs that are nothing more than power grabs by those who do not acknowledge or understand that our Constitution limits their power and authority. More disturbing is that these power grabs cross party lines. Our last four presidents – two of whom were Democrats and two of whom were Republicans – are the most egregious offenders. Most disturbing is that We the People allow this to continue.

Where is the outrage?

Matthew 24:12 states: “And because lawlessness will abound, the love of many will grow cold.” This verse refers to what is commonly called “the last days.” While this verse is often thought to refer to a godless society (which arguably we have today), I think it can also be interpreted to apply to the lawlessness of our elected officials who violate the very laws they were elected to defend, protect and preserve. The heartbreaking repercussion of this is that because of the sheer volume of their lawlessness we have become indifferent to their actions. We take it all in stride when we should be storming the halls of Congress and protesting outside the gates of the Whitehouse in outrage.

There is a phrase in our Declaration of Independence that seems to apply. It states: “…and accordingly all Experience hath shewn, that Mankind are more disposed to suffer, while Evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the Forms to which they are accustomed.” So, here we are in 2012, nearly 236 years after these words were written and we are still willing to suffer while evils are sufferable than to abolish the forms that cause our suffering? Or worse, have we even noticed that we are suffering?

Once again, I must ask – where is the outrage? Has it been lost in the voluminous unconstitutional acts committed by those in government? Or has it simply been ignored by the multitude of ostrich citizens? Either way, healthy outrage – or righteous anger as Andrew Breitbart has defined it – seems to have met an untimely death in America. With the death of outrage comes the inevitable death of liberty. I remember a day when this was not so. May God have mercy on America.


[amazon_carousel widget_type=”ASINList” width=”500″ height=”250″ title=”” market_place=”US” shuffle_products=”True” show_border=”False” asin=”B00375LOEG, 0451947673, 0800733940, 0062073303, 1595230734, 1936218003, 0981559662, 1935071874, 1932172378″ /]

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Website | + posts

RoseAnn Salanitri is a published author and Acquisition Editor for the New Jersey Family Policy Council. She is a community activist who has founded the Sussex County Tea Party in her home state and launched a recall movement against Senator Robert Menendez. RoseAnn is also the founder of Veritas Christian Academy, as well as co-founder of Creation Science Alive, and a national creation science speaker.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Notify of

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Nathan Bickel


You summed it up by saying: “With the death of outrage comes the inevitable death of liberty.”

I submit that as the culture become more selfish, it becomes more ungodly. Hence, the “death of outrage,” (as you say) and the effect of “ostrich citizens,” – also, your apt description.

Our culture has drifted away from its Christian foundations. It is more difficult for it to distinguish right from wrong. It has replaced the Ten Commandments and Christ’s teaching for the scourges of political correctness and multiculturalism.

Personally, I think that America is in for rough times. Our traditional America will continue to decline. Without the citizenry being able to realize the [sinful] depravity of human nature, the voting public is apt to re-elect the monster of a man who supported infanticide and who continues to snake charm Americans that he is a “Christian” when his actions don’t demonstrate it:

RoseAnn Salanitri

Pastor Bickel,

You are so right. In my opinion, one of the failures of the TEA Party was that they allowed themselves to buy into the notion that there were only certain issues that were appropriate to discuss. I have fallen prey to this as well.
It is my great hope that this country will stop asking God to bless what they are doing and start asking Him to lead. We have forgotten that the cry of the Revolutionary War as “No king but King Jesus”. Like it or not, this country was founded on Christian principles, which allowed for liberty of conscience. The Bible says that if our foundations are destroyed what shall the righteous do? I’m afraid we have allowed our foundations to be destroyed. The question is – can we rebuild them?


Interesting perspective on the TEA party and what its messaging & platforms should include.

What I’d like to understand better is how the concept of a nation “led by God” can be reconciled in practice with a Constitution that prohibits the exercise of religion on the part of the government.

We all want good ethics and values driving the actions of the people serving the public in government roles. However, several of the original colonies like those in Massachusetts had a tight coupling of “Christian values” with the actions and policies of their governments. Unfortunately, what resulted in practice was not just harsh treatment by those governments if you were a non-Christian, but harsh treatment if you weren’t following their specific interpretation of what it meant to be a “true” Christian.

How would equal treatment under American law not fall into a similar paradox if our government embraces “No king but King Jesus” as a core principle? For example:

– Mormons believe in Jesus, but not the way a Methodist or Roman Catholic would.
– What would it mean to be a Jewish American if America is governed through deference to a Messiah they don’t acknowledge as one?
– Who gets to decide what is or isn’t proper adherence to the intentions of Jesus for purposes of government and law, when there’s no single Christian church? And how does this not make us like Iran, where the opinions of Mullahs define right and wrong under the law, not the civil government?
– Do we go back to practices like the those of the State of Maryland, which banned non-Christians from holding office for decades after the U.S. Constitution was ratified?

The desire to separate religion from government does not require hostility to religion. Religious values can guide and inform the choices of the individuals who serve in government, but no election or appointment of a person is a mandate for their religion itself to drive policy.

I’d like to think that the choice most TEA party organizations make to focus on “secular” issues like the economy, individual rights and the proper reach of government isn’t a weakness – it’s following the spirit of the founders who experienced the sectarian divisiveness across different states. In their wisdom, they founded a government structure that has no deference to any religion, and prohibited religious tests to hold Federal office.

We can have a nation governed on meaningful values without any specific religion arbitrating what those values should be.


If nothing else, this is a timely essay and discussion. Consider this statement by Pastor Bickel:

“Our culture has drifted away from its Christian foundations. It is more difficult for it to distinguish right from wrong. It has replaced the Ten Commandments and Christ’s teaching for the scourges of political correctness and multiculturalism.”

and this one from RoseAnn:

“We have forgotten that the cry of the Revolutionary War as “No king but King Jesus”. Like it or not, this country was founded on Christian principles, which allowed for liberty of conscience.”

The importance of having freedom of conscience can’t be overstated, but promoting the idea that the government of the United States was intended to be tightly coupled with the tenets of Christianity is not just false, but tries to take us down a path that can’t end well.

The timeliness is the new story circulating about Rick Santorum appearing at an Evangelical event where he was introduced by Pastor Dennis Terry. Much of what Pastor Terry said would probably be endorsed on CNaV, but in the opinion of many he crossed a line with the following statements:

“Listen to me. If you don’t love America, and you don’t like the way we do things, I’ve got one thing to say: Get out!” … We don’t worship Buddha, we don’t worship Mohammed, we don’t worship Allah. We worship God. We worship God’s son Jesus Christ.”

Here’s one of several links to the story:

What received equal comment is that Santorum stood, head bowed, and clapped with each of these applause lines. Afterward, Pastor Terry tried to say that his statements were taken out of context, and Santorum said that he disagreed with some of them and didn’t clap for those. Video doesn’t lie though – Pastor Terry said what he said, and Santorum clapped to the lines.

Disagreeing with others openly, even vehemently, is a free-speech right. When you start calling for people who disagree with you over religion to leave the country, it may still be speech, but it’s the kind of speech that dismisses Freedom of Religion if it’s not the “right” religion. When a man many take seriously as a presidential candidate stands with head bowed and claps to these words, others have good reason to question where the country would head with him in charge.

There’s no question that the Founders were mostly men of faith, and references to the divine are embodied in many of the official documents of the time. However, the one document that actually matters where the definition and rules for our government are concerned, the Constitution, deliberately omits any such references, and prohibited religious tests for holding Federal office from the start.

Pastor Bickel may scorn multiculturalism, but that’s just another way of rejecting diversity in favor of a preferred monoculture. With Christianity there is no monoculture though, and just like in pre-colonial times, the divisions and persecution over “which” way of practicing Christianity is the one that should drive government acts are inevitable.

There’s a difference between “a nation of Christians” and “a Christian nation”, and if there’s no difference in your mind, try living as a non-Muslim in an “Islamic republic” and see if you don’t feel like a second-class citizen. This nation thrived because it wisely let all people practice their faiths freely, but enabled that by keeping the government itself neutral and detached from institutionalized religion.


So a metaphor instead of a direct reply to the points raised?

Wars and violent conquest with the goal of political conquest are a poor analogy for the discussion at hand. And if one follows that metaphor, then you’re saying that Christians should impose a Christian monoculture by force across America?

Not exactly how Jesus got His message and values across.

[…] Sovereignty under fire: crimes against the Constitution […]

[…] Crimes against the Constitution […]


Would love your thoughts, please comment.x