Who’s On First?

February 26, 2021 | Congress, Constitution, Judicial, Sovereignty

by Nicholas Testaccio

In the late 1930’s, Abbott and Costello introduced the nation to a comedic routine that they had performed in Vaudeville. It was a sketch that played on certain words in order to create confusion, but more importantly it gave us enjoyment, pleasure, and a piece of entertainment for the ages.

Today, our elected representatives have turned the English language upside down, around, and around, to confuse and confound the people they supposedly serve. While Abbott and Costello brought us laughter, our servant government brings us derision, turmoil, and angst. There is no upside to allowing government to wander from the strict meaning of the law as set out in the Constitution.

Playing words for an outcome that produces laughter is one thing, but when you twist the legal nomenclature of your founding documents you morph into a society hell bent on self-destruction.

Article IV, Cl. 3 of the U.S. Constitution requires that “The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution”.

The oath binding our representatives to the Constitution should not be taken lightly. The Constitution is a written contract produced by “We the People” instructing those we elect or appoint to be our servants. The words are clear, and they were extensively debated by those who took up the responsibility to produce the rule of law, by which this nation should be guided. It does not live in the minds of the foolish, the despots, and the corrupt. It means what it says to the extent, to which we may decide to alter or change its provisions, restrictions, and delegated authorities.

Article V allows for changes by “The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof”.

If there are changes to be made then it should be done by the process laid out in the Constitution. For more than One Hundred years, the government comprised of our representatives have made changes that restrict, encumber, and suppress the people those servants are elected to serve. While writing on the provisions set out by the delegates to the constitutional convention, Alexander Hamilton commented that “There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.”.

For more than One Hundred years, a government of the People has operated in a manner “that the servant is above his master”. Prior to the last century the idea of regulating every aspect of the lives of the people who elected them to office was met with stiff resistance. The courts ruled by “What *** those who framed and adopted [the Constitution] underst[oo]d the terms to designate and include”. The terms were not fictions of law, but rather hard and fast rules set out to maintain a Constitutional Federal Republic.

Article IV, § 4 reads in no uncertain terms, “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion”. Were I to be granted the task of some play on the word “Invasion”, I would consider it to be interpreted by the words for which was originally declared in that an internal force “has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.”. I see no other way to interpret the promotion of such agencies that enforce the myriad of rules and regulations that not only restrict, but also feast on the labor, production, and property of the populace.

We have “public officials” playing the words of the Constitution to suit their avarice rather than applying them in “the common parlance of the times in which the Constitution was written” for instructing “those for whom the instrument was intended”. In no uncertain terms, the rendering of the Constitution into a bastardized document has been promoted by usurpers, tyrants, and to their own foolishness a segment of the population that is functionally illiterate. As comedic was the confusion laid out by Abbot and Costello in their use of “who” and “what”, the reinterpretation of the Constitution into a living document is regrettably tragic. Should I say disastrous, foolish, and ignorant to a level so profoundly deep as to give new meaning to the word idiotic.

“In expounding the Constitution, every word must have its due force and appropriate meaning, and no word is to be regarded as unnecessarily used or needlessly added.” Where it states a specific delegated authority or restriction, it is not to be interpreted to mean anything other than what is clearly written. Under Article I, § 8 there are eighteen clauses that constitute the “Powers of Congress”. Under § 9, the Constitution enumerates eight clauses that list the “Powers Denied Congress”. And at § 10 of Article I, the Constitution lists three clauses that detail the “Powers Denied to the States”. So, when the Constitution provides for specifically enumerated powers, or denies certain powers it does not mean to leave room for the laws to go beyond, or in many cases, contradict the “appropriate meaning” of “the common parlance of the times in which the Constitution was written”.

While the good intentions of a comedy team clever enough to use words to elicit laughter is commendable, the constant assault on the “appropriate meaning” of the words carefully debated and approved is unacceptable.

“It is elementary law that every statute is to be read in the light of the constitution. However broad and general its language, it cannot be interpreted as extending beyond those matters which it was within the constitutional power of the legislature to reach.” To circumvent the details specifically enumerated in the Constitution, modern day jurists, and certainly subversives within and without the government have circumvented the rule of law by promoting a doctrine both comedic in nature and disastrous in outcome.

The notion of a living Constitution has given rise to a policy of contorting the words in the document to be used in a manner contrary to their intended meaning. At the core of this vaudevillian show is a justice system that lacks continuity. It may have come about by accident, or perhaps it morphed into an immoral enterprise by the wrangling of social justice jurists and devious politicians seeking to undermine the rule of law.

The words in the Constitution have lawful authority. Lawful authority cannot be changed or reinterpreted to suit a political agenda. While many words can be employed in a different manner, words in law are not to be construed to create an ambiguity. If a word is intended to have a specific meaning not common place, then the act in question should make note of the condition. As for the U.S. Constitution, we cannot contemplate a meaning other than that which was carefully debated and agreed upon by both the Framers and the representatives of the People who ratified the Constitution. In the congress, the question of “Who is on first” appears to be the norm of political intrigue devised to obfuscate and confuse. Abbot and Costello would receive rave reviews in todays world politics and media collusion.