We never know exactly how something is going to come off, but I got some good vibes when first Abraham Hamilton III (American Family Radio – The Hamilton Corner (afr.net)) and then Ken Cuccinelli (Election Transparency Initiative) joined us on Zoom during the setup period before the start of our video webinar.
This was the first time I had met Hamilton. He struck me as genuinely patient and kind. Perhaps that was why Cuccinelli was happy to see him. The two men, both top notch lawyers, were soon involved in a legal discussion as Cuccinelli shared the latest news. Consider these headlines.
- Federal Judge Sides With Biden, Rules Christian College Must Allow Biological Men To Share Showers With Women | The Daily Caller
- College of the Ozarks must follow Biden rule opening dorms, showers to opposite sex, judge rules – Washington Times
- Federal Judge Rules Against Women, Says Christian College Must Allow Biological Males to Share Showers with Females | Human Events
Oddly, there is not much in the so-called mainstream news media about this story. Why? What could the so-called mainstream news media say to defend the Biden administration? The College of the Ozarks | Hard Work U. (cofo.edu) is fighting for Religious Liberty (cofo.edu), and the Biden Administration is behaving like a bully. From the prospective of the so-called mainstream news media, this dirty deed is best done in the dark of night.
Will the College of the Ozarks | Hard Work U. (cofo.edu) give in? Cuccinell expressed amazement that a Christian college (Christian | Goals | College of the Ozarks | Christian Education | Small Christian College in Missouri (cofo.edu)) would even be required to make such a choice.
When I was a boy and I first learned how our Constitution works, it occurred to me that our leaders, if they had enough people siding with them, could ignore much the Constitution.
- When the president breaks the law, even if Congress impeaches him, he is safe so long as two-thirds of the Senate refuses to convict him.
- If Congress passes unconstitutional laws, those laws still stand so long as the Supreme Court does not rule against those laws.
Therefore, the Constitution stuck me as pathetically easy to subvert. It was only much latter that I considered why framers of the Constitution had included a requirement for an oath of office,
One specifically for the president.
Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:—”I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”The Constitution of the United States: A Transcription | National Archives (Article II, Section 1)
Another for all other officeholders.
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; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.The Constitution of the United States: A Transcription | National Archives (Article VI)
What do these oaths require? Like it or not, when we accept a public office, our oath — our honor before God and man — requires us to obey and enforce the law as it is, not as we might wish it to be.
How critical is the oath of office? Consider what Cuccinelli had to say about Alejandro Mayorkas | Homeland Security (dhs.gov) when Hamilton questioned him about illegal immigration.
When you look at how this implemented and the language they use, you talked about how they called humane…. Secretary Mayorkas drives me crazy because the word humane as he uses it equates to don’t enforce the law. Listen to how he speaks folks. He will say the Trump Administration was inhumane, meaning we enforced the law. And he uses that word over and over. He took an oath to enforce the law, and he had no intention of ever doing that. He lied when he took that oath! It is very clear.
Cuccinelli was shocked and angry by Mayorkas’ refusal to honor his oath. He went on to observe that there will be confirmation hearings for the lower level officials who will work under Secretary Mayorkas. Will these officials take their oath of office seriously? Cuccinelli did not think so.
When we elect and our elected officials appoint officials who have no respect for their oath of office, we elect liars who do not respect the rule of law. Why is that significant? Consider.
Rule of law, the mechanism, process, institution, practice, or norm that supports the equality of all citizens before the law, secures a nonarbitrary form of government, and more generally prevents the arbitrary use of power. Arbitrariness is typical of various forms of despotism, absolutism, authoritarianism, and totalitarianism. Despotic governments include even highly institutionalized forms of rule in which the entity at the apex of the power structure (such as a king, a junta, or a party committee) is capable of acting without the constraint of law when it wishes to do so. (continued)rule of law | Definition, Implications, Significance, & Facts | Britannica
Consider the fact that President Abraham Lincoln opposed slavery, considered it evil. Nevertheless, even in the midst of the American Civil War, Lincoln never entirely ended slavery. He knew the Constitution did not give him that authority.
Prior to the Civil War Lincoln had said that the Federal Government had to return runaway slaves that had escaped into the North back to the South, that this was necessary in order to preserve the rule of law and to keep the Union together.
As evil as slavery was and still is, the rule of law and his oath of office required Lincoln to accept slavery in the South. Lincoln understood the end does not justify the means. Lincoln understood that if he was successful in setting aside the rule of law and freed the slaves, that everyone’s freedom would be at risk. Soon, even the freed slaves would be back in chains. Lincoln understood that a Constitutional amendment was required to end slavery. Eventually, thanks to the 13th and 14th Amendments, the United States did end slavery. Lincoln’s restraint also preserved the rule of law.