The Constitution on Trial

The Constitution on Trial

By David Van Os, on special assignment

This week the Radical Republicans will place the United States Constitution on trial. Chief Prosecutor Frist and his assistant prosecutors have been reading the indictment over the past week. The Constitution stands charged with the crime of establishing a government with checks and balances. A sub-count of the indictment accuses the old document of setting up a bicameral legislative branch in which the upper chamber sits as a deliberative body. In a remarkable new definition of due process of law, constructed uniquely for this case, Frist and his team will serve in the triple capacities of prosecution, jury, and judge.

Lead Defense Counsel Reid appears to be basing the defense on the “advice and consent” language of the Constitution. Assistant Defense Counsel Byrd in particular laid out a detailed explanation of the consistent interpretations of that clause over the 217 years of the republic’s history.

The prosecution’s strategy appears to be to sidestep the arguments of the defense by arguing for a new interpretation of the “advice and consent” clause. The new interpretation would hold that the “advice and consent” language makes it mandatory for the Senate to “consent” to the chief executive’s lifetime judicial nominees. In particular, the prosecution team argues that higher powers command the new interpretation. When pressed for details, the prosecutors claim a special ability to receive and understand the commands of the higher powers, which the Senate must accept on faith.

If the Constitution is convicted of the charges, it is expected that the document will be reduced in rank to the status of a historical artifact, and the concept of checks and balances will suffer the death penalty. However, it is not expected that the Senate will be abolished at this time. Our sources indicate that it will be placed on indefinite probation. Sources further indicate that the two conditions of the indefinite probation will be (1) that the Senate relinquish its ancient but outdated claim that the Congress and the judiciary constitute separate branches of government co-equal to the executive branch; and (2) that the Senate join the chief executive in a declaration that religious law as interpreted by Pat Robertson and Randall Terry shall constitute the supreme law of the land. It is anticipated that the prosecutors will appoint a panel consisting of Osama bin Laden, Bandar Bush, Iranian mullahs, and Taliban leaders to supervise the Senate’s compliance with the terms of probation.

Reid’s strategy is to convince enough Senators to vote for acquittal on the grounds that no contemporary body possesses authority to overrule the Constitution by simple majority vote. Since Reid’s theory has been accepted for the last 217 years, many observers are astonished that the indictment was not summarily dismissed. Such observers, while well intentioned, appear to be naïve about the Radical Republicans’ zeal to reject certain theories of government that they consider to be quaint and unsound, such as those of Thomas Jefferson and Franklin Roosevelt.

Both sides have been appealing for public sympathy. While the prosecution is calling for abolition of the Constitutional framework of checks and balances, the defense team and its allies are relying upon massive support from the citizenry to save the Constitution.

I get email updates from Mr. Van Os and he always has something great and unique to say!!