A Bridge Too Far, by Andrew Joppa

A Bridge Too Far

by Andy Joppa

 

“A Bridge Too Far: An act or plan whose ambition overreaches its capability (or legality), resulting in or potentially leading to difficulty or failure.”

 

As we enter a new year and face the ominous prospect of being under the control of a federal government that ostensibly holds many values that are alien to our nation, alien to our freedom, alien to the rights of the individual, the time is now upon us, where some basic considerations concerning government legality and the right to govern, must be clarified. I believe all considerations I will offer are without legal or logical controversy, but in the America of 2021, controversy can be stoked over any idea that is unacceptable to the political Left.  These thoughts will not be any different.

 

Basic considerations pertaining to the role of government:

 

1)  Our government is not our country.  Its role is only as a caretaker of our nation.  It cannot, and must not, exist as an agent of total redirection of our nation’s essential values. It is there to ensure that our (their) chosen actions are harmonious with The Constitution of The United States of America.  It is within that document, and only within that document, that America exists and can be found.

2)  Therefore, with their oath of office, the officials of government commit themselves to only one purpose…”I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.”

It should be emphasized that the oath demands, “…true faith and allegiance,” and they take this oath, “…without mental reservation or purpose of evasion.”  I will return to those requirements in a moment.

3) Our government (and its officials) gains its legitimacy in only one manner…it’s fidelity to The Constitution. Every elected official owes their very existence, and any power they possess, to that founding charter.  Representatives, Senators, judges, and the president, have only one basis for their very continuation, and that is The Constitution. If tomorrow that document did not exist, then every action they take would have no more command validity than the actions of any other citizen.

4) Any action that is outside the original document can gain legitimacy in only one manner…amending The Constitution through the mechanism prescribed by the document itself. It cannot be ignored or evaded.

5) Any government that consistently and blatantly acts outside The Constitution, or does not show TRUE FAITH and ALLEGIANCE to that charter or has acted in manner to avoid that documents requirement through EVASION has, therefore, rejected the document itself and with that rejection will be their loss of any legal status and influence.  That is, they are decertified by the rejection of the document that certified their very existence to start with. You cannot say…The Constitution has given me the right to office, then reject the document itself that gave you your very political existence….and remain in any position of influence.

 

With all that said, what purpose does this all serve?  A point can be reached where that government, any government, within all of its specifics, no longer exists as a legitimate governing body of our nation.  A point can be reached where a union of concerned citizens, dedicated to the constitutional legitimacy of their nation, gains the right to call for that government’s removal and seek and provoke it if it were not voluntarily surrendered. This would not be an insurrection, revolution, or a coup.  It would simply place into reality the logical outcome of the constitution having been Illegally rejected. Of course, that illegal government and all of its members would not go quietly into the night.  They would surely resist using all the means at their disposal…both legal and illegal.

 

But now I am ahead of where I want to be.  The question must first be asked and answered is…what benchmarks can we use to determine when a government has made a general commitment to constitutional illegality that is so dramatic in its manifestations that it has forfeited its right to exist? In the case of 2021 America those benchmarks must be pre-decided…now.  If and when these benchmarks occur, we would know that the existing government can be rejected with impunity. Considering those benchmarks now, allows time for well-considered positions and, also, puts that government (or any government) on notice that if these benchmarks occur, they have gone, “a bridge too far.” They must understand that they must govern legally…or they will be denied the right to govern at all. That government itself cannot be an arbiter of their legality…they must recuse themselves because of bias.  The Constitution and their oaths of office must be the final arbiter.

 

Benchmarks for government decertification

 

1)  Stacking the Supreme Court- This action, if taken, would not be for the purpose of greater efficiency or diversity of thought but….to evade the originalists commitment to the founding charter.  This would be a blatant attempt to avoid the constraints of the constitution. While legal on its face, it becomes unconstitutional by its intent, and is clear violation of their oath of office.

2) The confiscation, or mandatory buyback, of firearms. This is such a clear rejection of the requirements of the Second Amendment that this action alone would constitute grounds for removal. If any federal court ruled otherwise it would and should be ignored.

3) The manipulation of voting majorities in the congress by making Puerto Rico and Washington D.C. states.  Again, both actions on their face are legal (debatably), but both would represent a contrived process to work around (that is, evade) the intent of The Constitution and, therefore, be a violation of their oath of office.

4) Suppression of free speech for any reason.  While existing hate crime violations based on speech are clearly unconstitutional, any further extension to create safety zones (as but one example) would be another “bridge too far.” Free speech is such a basic requirement for a free republic that a government denying that right has forfeited its own right to exist.

5) Any confiscation of private property for any purpose other than that clearly defined within the original renderings on eminent domain, would be a dramatic rejection of the constitution. No one is free if their own property rights are not sacred. No government in a free republic could deny that basic right without falling outside all its legal and moral requirements.

6) Renderings of the federal government that reward or punish anyone based on race, gender, or ethnicity would be grounds for rejection of that government. A government that immerses us in totally inconsequential characteristics of our humanness is so regressive it must be removed.

7) Direct and consistent subservient interactions with a foreign government would be a “bridge too far.”  A subservient action is an action where there is no measured benefit to America within that transaction.

8) The granting of citizenship with voting privileges to millions who have entered this country illegally will not be acceptable.  This does preclude permanent residency…just citizenship and the vote.

9) All immigration must be based on merit and the benefit to be derived by America.  With the exception of clear refugee status to escape measured political persecution, there can be no exceptions.

10)                   A persistent voting process, other than in person      with ID and proof of residency, will be seen as a blatant attempt to have continuing degrees of fraudulent voting.  The legal vote is a constitutional primary and must be respected and defended.

 

The result of the failure to meet constitutional benchmarks:

 

A legal government, fulfilling its constitutional responsibilities and oaths of office, would have no difficulty with any of these benchmark provisions.  To a constitutionalist they are all clear and unchallengeable in their legal appropriateness or as a result of the actions necessary to fulfill their oaths of office.  We would hope, without optimism, that that government would peacefully remove itself from its positions of power.  If not, then any actions that are necessary, on an escalating scale, would become appropriate…nothing would be off the table.  If that government has gone, “a bridge too far” they can be removed by whatever means is required.

Check Also

Calling 911, by Andrew Joppa

Calling 911 By Andy Joppa   Mike frantically called 911. The officious voice of the …