I have maintained in many columns that the cry, “Unconstitutional!” is used selectively by both major parties. Perhaps their sincerity cannot be doubted, because of ignorance, fueled by poor civics textbooks, instructors, generations of errors and an almost impervious wall of consensus within our culture to interpret the Constitution “loosely.”

I write this, of course, like a reformed alcoholic, meaning that I also once misunderstood how to interpret the much-vaunted yet much maligned document. But it isn’t hard to learn it properly. For decades, I walked my 12th graders through it, word by word, with historical background and the clashes that are so much a part of our history. It took an entire semester, and they all got it. I had a marvelous C student, not the sharpest in class but one who sincerely and diligently applied himself, who made a comment I have never forgotten.

“OK, Mr. Bird, you convinced me! They don’t obey the Constitution. So … what are we to do about it?”

What, indeed? I explained that we are all grains of sand inside a dump truck. Each one is utterly insignificant to the overall load, but each one is equally important as the next. I will let the Good Lord sort it out, and judging from the farewell comments my students left in their essays, and now 20-25 years later, their constitutional grind was well worth it. I am now home-schooling many of their kids.

We all have been told that “The Constitution is whatever the supreme court says it is.” Look through it and tell me where it says that in the actual document.

In 1990, when I made my first run for the U.S. Senate, I lamented the National Endowment for the Arts and its funding of anti-Christian and pornographic “art.” It made wonderful campaign fodder, but it was the wrong premise. No committee ought to be deciding what is good or bad art. We just will not agree. Even Michelangelo had his own critics with naked frescoes.

What I ought to have said was, “All subsidies for the arts are unconstitutional. There is no provision for it. The 10th amendment is perfectly clear. You want subsidies? Then ask your own state to do it. It is much closer to your own micro-culture of what is good or bad art. While we may have to give up something, what we get in the long term is much better: a balanced budget and a starved-out lobbying constituency that will whine and wheedle endlessly should they ever be denied what they were given.”

So, this brings us to public broadcasting, National Public Radio and the Public Broadcasting System. Forget their insufferable news content, which has been an undisguised propaganda machine for the Democratic Party from the very first day. Forget the truly excellent shows they have produced, and which I still admire. There is no constitutional authority to create or subsidize it.

If you are asking, “How can you say that these 535 senators and congressmen are all violating their oaths?” The question is easy to answer. Yes, even Rand Paul and Thomas Massie probably are, even though they are likely closer than most to the proper understanding.

We all have been told that “The Constitution is whatever the supreme court says it is.” Look through it and tell me where it says that in the actual document. Ah, but the Constitution is a “living document,” to be interpreted according to the whims and twists of time and culture?

Again, where does it say that?

You see, the Constitution built in its own proviso to adapt to change. Some things ought to have been easily amended to become properly constitutional, starting with the Air Force. And right now, we might be able to constitutionalize national parks. However, national forests, wildlife refuges and monuments might be denied approval by certain western states, as well they should be.

Right now, we are squealing over USAID and subsidies to the U.N. All are completely, obviously and inarguably unconstitutional. So is the Federal Reserve. The 14th and 16th amendments were improperly ratified as amendments, as required by Article V of the Constitution, and perhaps even the 13th, 15th and 17th Amendments.

And who would argue with the 13th being re-approved, ending “slavery and involuntary servitude”? I will tell you: the military. Why? Because it has been argued that “involuntary servitude” applies to military conscription, aka “the draft,” and don’t call me a crank for saying that, because there is plenty of thoughtful legal scholarship behind it in the last 150 years. If they ever try to bring the draft back, there will be lawsuits challenging it, and I will be a full-throated supporter of it.

And even without the 13th, Daniel Webster made a convincing argument against conscription when our supposed “Father of the Constitution” James Madison, tried to initiate a draft during the War of 1812, when he was president.

Citizens, the Left is saying that Trump is destroying “democracy.” Even that is the wrong premise, for we are a republic. But they are right, and of course, they are being utterly hypocritical and selective in their denunciation. You never heard this when Clinton, Biden or Obama were president. No, it was the Right that made the cry then.

This absurd ping-pong game will only end when the citizenry makes them. And the mechanism for change, the ballot box, is no longer a reliable tool. Coast to coast, “election integrity” is a legitimate issue, with or without RCV.

We are in an Ultimate Crisis.

God scourges His children, but he lovingly accepts sincere repentance.

Let us humbly pray.

The views expressed here are those of the author.

Click here to support the Alaska Watchman.