As I said in the article published last Friday (Feb. 26) at WND.com, because there are three areas of principle vital to the survival of America’s constitutional republic, there are three headings under which the neglect or violation of principle on any given issue gives rise to fatal flaws in candidates and public officials: Constitutionalism, Sovereignty and Legitimacy (that which relates to the principle that establishes the lawfulness of government.)

Under these rubrics these we can identify and sort out the fatal flaws that disqualify an official or candidate for office from membership in the party that respects the vital prerequisites of liberty. Regardless of the formal party label candidates otherwise claim (Democrat, Republican, Constitution Party, Independent, etc.), if they clearly exhibit even one of these flaws it makes no sense for people who seek to preserve liberty to support them.

Rubric I. Constitutionalism:

Fatal Flaw #1. Practicing or else aiding and abetting judicial Usurpation of legislative power;

These days much of the legal profession wants people to believe that “the law is what the judge says it is.” When applied narrowly to the presiding judge during the trial of a particular case, the statement has some validity. When applied to the judiciary or the law in general, however, it contradicts the chief constitutional safeguard against tyrannical government, which is the separation of governmental power into three distinct and independent branches, so that no one may by itself claim to represent the whole power of government.

To be effectively maintained, the separation of powers requires that each branch actively assert its prerogatives, jealously guarding against any encroachments from the other branches. Chief Executives (State governors or the President of the United States) who supinely implement judicial decisions they conscientiously believe to violate the U.S. constitution or, in the case of the State governors the constitutions of their respective states, are guilty of dereliction. The same is true of legislators who negligently disregard the malfeasance of judges who “legislate from the bench”.

Examples: Jeb Bush, the former governor of Florida (re the judicially sanctioned murder of Terry Schiavo) and Sarah Palin, the former governor of Alaska (re the implementation of the Alaska Supreme Court’s opinion in the case Alaska Civil Liberties Union, et al. v. State of Alaska and Municipality of Anchorage.; Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney and members of the Massachusetts legislature who implemented or acquiesced in the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court’s opinion In the case Goodridge v. Department of Public Health.

Fatal Flaw #2. Practicing or else aiding and abetting routine executive disregard for constitutionally enumerated individual rights;

The constitutional rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights are intended to constrain the use of U.S. Government power. Acting within those constraints, while safeguarding the domestic tranquility and national security of the United States, is perhaps the greatest practical challenge of American statesmanship. Survival without liberty is not enough. When the Chief Executive or subordinate executive officials take order and security as an excuse to authorize and practice routine disregard for these rights, they contradict the purpose for which governments are instituted, which is to secure them.

Examples: Executive and legislative officers of the U.S. govern who proposed or else supported and acquiesced in provisions of the so called Patriot Act that disregarded provisions of the 1^st, 4^th, 5^th and 6^th amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

Fatal Flaw #3. Promoting or acquiescing in Federal usurpation of functions properly left to the State governments;

The Framers of the U.S. Constitution understood the difficulty of respecting liberty in the administration of government over a large territory. They made Federalism a key feature of the Constitution in order to address and mitigate this difficulty. Those who simply accept the mantra that national problems require national solutions abandon the Federalist solution to the problem of maintaining liberty in such a large country as the United States.  The nation’s problems are best understood and addressed at a level consonant with true and effective representation of the people. This is one reason why such vital matters as education, criminal law enforcement, family law and health, welfare and safety issues are preferably addressed at the state and local levels of government (or by the people in their private capacities).

Officials and politicians who use the national prevalence of a problem or situation as an excuse to promote U.S. government control and to implement socialism on a national scale dangerously disregard Federalism’s contribution to maintaining liberty.

Examples: Leftists, liberals, progressives and moderates of every label and description who have pushed the expansion of U.S. government involvement and control in every aspect of life, and the establishment of U.S. Government Departments (e.g., Education, HHS) and who resist reform of programs (Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid) that usurp or subordinate action at more effectively representative levels of government.

Fatal Flaw #4. Promoting or acquiescing in Federal disregard for the residual sovereign rights and powers of the State governments;

In Europe and elsewhere sub-national states or provinces are most often simply administrative appendages of the national government. Under the United States Constitution (in particular the 10 Amendment) the States and the people who inhabit them are explicitly recognized as the repository of all the sovereign powers of government not explicitly granted to the Federal Government or prohibited to the States. When politicians or officers of government at any level promote or acquiesce in U.S. Government dictation that suppresses or routinely interferes with the exercise of these powers they subvert the Constitution they have a sworn duty to uphold.

Examples: Federal judges who interfere with the States or the people respecting the establishment of religion; officials and politicians at every level who implement or acquiesce in their opinions.