Ethical Resistance in a Constitutional Republic
Are we in the grip of domestic enemies of the Constitution? I believe so. Because I believe so, I have a duty to consider action to defend the Constitution. Much hinges upon two questions:
- Am I correct? And if so,
- What action is appropriate?
I will attempt to answer both of these in a train of thought I call Ethical Resistance. More pointedly, I will try to set up a framework for answering these questions rather than answer them specifically, and hope thereby to teach a man to fish, rather than provide fishsticks. Finally, I’ll do it a little at a time and adjust fire as necessary, as people have said that I reading what I write is like singing stereo instructions.
Duty
Employees of the United States Government — including all members of Congress — are required to take the oath specified in the following public law before assuming elected or appointed office.
5 U.S.C. 3331:
“An individual, except the President, elected or appointed to an office of honor or profit in the civil service or uniformed services shall take the following oath: ‘I, AB, 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 is clear that there is a duty to defend the Constitution against domestic enemies. In discharging any duty, an amount of diligence is required, or dereliction may still be found even in the most fervent but ignorant and misguided pursuit of “duty”.
I have intentionally not relied upon any formal legal opinions, as I am woefully unqualified to do so, and resistance is only really justified if our system of laws is sufficiently compromised or ill-equipped to deal with the threat. That is a question for another day, but a good one to keep in mind just the same. I wish to rely upon those clear pillars of liberty; government limited by the Constitution, and the Constitution defended by a free citizenry. The key difficulty in legal opinions is that a string of case law may provide a legal basis for a point of view, but it is no guarantee that the point is ethical. There is a reason this article is not called “Legal Resistance”, and that is that civil disobedience may be required. I can certainly foresee departure from regulation or the breaking of laws as necessary components of defending the Constitution.
I contend that a good-faith effort, well-defended with reasonable arguments, by reasonable people, is sufficient diligence to pursue duty without being reckless. We may risk much for great goals, but not for small ones.
Duty commands those bound by an oath to defend the Constitution to let the remaining chips fall where they may. In any conflict between orders and the Constitution, leaders and the Constitution, or government and the Constitution — the Constitution of our oath wins. The key to duty here then is to be very sure what that means, and duty may not be carried out in ignorance of that distinction.
That is what this series will cover.
