The Personal Website of Mark W. Dawson

A Compact and a Contract -
Not A Living, Breathing Document

Many say that our Constitution is a Living, Breathing Document, and by this, they mean that they can interpret it in the manner they want and change the meaning of words to suit their ends. The Constitution is a living document in that it lives through the process of amending, based upon the will of the people and/or the States, and this change should only be through the Constitutional Amendment process. It is a breathing document in that it has ambiguity built-in so that each generation can interpret it as their needs arise (but it should only do so within the bounds of what the founder's purpose was in creating that ambiguity). However, under no circumstances should the Constitution be interpreted in such a way as to infringe upon the Liberties and Freedoms of the American people. Fidelity to the Constitution, as it is intended, is the only way we can assure Liberty and Freedom in our society, or has been said:

"Don't interfere with anything in the Constitution. That must be maintained, for it is the only safeguard of our liberties."
  - Abraham Lincoln

Also, the Constitution is not just a document but a compact between the American people and their government. A compact in which the American people cede some of their Natural Rights to the government for the purposes stated in the Preamble of the Constitution:

“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

The Constitution of the United States enumerates and delimits the powers of the government to assure the Liberties and Freedoms of all Americans and the preservation of their Natural Rights not ceded to the government. As such, it can be considered a contract between the American people and their government. A contract in which both sides must abide by the terms of the contract for the contract to be valid. When the government acts outside of the Constitution, they are not only acting unconstitutionally, but they are violating their compact and contract with the American people. When any person, persons, groups, organizations, or entities behave unlawfully, they are violating the terms of the contract. Both parties to this contract must adhere to the terms of the contract for this contract to be valid and enforceable, and both parties must fulfill their duties and responsibilities under this contract as I have written in my Article, "The American Theory of Government".

One of the purposes of the Supreme Court is to prevent unconstitutional acts by the Legislative and Executive branches of government when they act outside of the Constitution, as well as help preserve the Liberties and Freedoms of Americans. The Legislative and Executive branches of government are in themselves responsible for preserving, protecting, and defending the Constitution, as well as preserving the Liberties and Freedoms of Americans. When all three branches of government are not exercising their duties and responsibilities to the Constitution and to the preservation of our Natural and Constitutional Rights, they are violating the terms of the contact between Americans and their government.

When either party to a contract fails to live up to the terms of the contract, the contract is considered null and void. Much acrimony between the parties to the contract follows, usually with lawsuits to redress the grievances of the parties. When the contract between a people and their government is not being upheld, the redress is elections and lawsuits. However, if these redresses fail to set right, remedy, or rectify the actions of the government, then the only other redress is as stated in The Declaration of Independence:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

If the American people believe that the government is not living up to the terms of the contract, and the situation is unresolvable by elections and lawsuits, then they have the moral obligation to ‘the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it”. It is not up to the government to determine if they are upholding the Constitution, as the people are the ultimate authority as to whether the terms of the contract are being upheld by the government. If the people determine if the situation is unresolvable by elections or lawsuits, then an insurrection against the government is moral and justifiable, as is stated in The Declaration of Independence.

Electing politicians who would violate the compact and contract of the Constitution is not acceptable. Claiming that these politicians have a majority of the support of the voters is no reason, nor excuse, for violating the contract. For those that would respond that a majority of American people will not support the actions of those who insist on the preservations of the terms of the contract, I would retort that the majority does not get to violate the contract and impose its will on the minority, for that is antithetical to the contract with the American people. I would also remind you that during the American Revolution, John Adams, one of the leading proponents of the Declaration of Independence, a founder of the Constitution, and the second President of the United States, said about majority support. When asked how many of the colonists supported the American Revolution, he stated that about one-third supported it, one-third opposed it, and one-third had no opinion on it. Clearly not a majority in support of the American Revolution. The same could be said for the Civil War. Should we have not fought the American Revolution or the Civil War as it did not have majority support? Absolutely not - as revolutions and civil wars are often fought by a minority that feels oppressed by the majority. So, it should be for those that are resisting governmental actions that disregarded or abrogated the contract between Americans and the government. They are standing up for our contractual rights, and although they may be in the minority, they have the right to stand up for these contractual rights.

If a minority (but significant percentage) of Americans decide that the government must be changed to ensure the provisions of the contract are being upheld, then this insurrection should not be for the purpose of overthrowing the Constitution, but for the purpose of, as President Lincoln said:

"We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution."
  - Abraham Lincoln

To not assure that the provisions of the contract are upheld, and to not have an insurrection if elections and lawsuits are insufficient to uphold the terms of the contract, is to have an end to our "American Ideals and Ideas". To do or not to do so will result in:

"We shall nobly save, or meanly lose, the last best hope of earth."
 - Abraham Lincoln