All Congresspeople swore to stand behind and uphold the Constitution. Many of them are prior military with the same oath behind them. This also includes people in the CIA, FBI, Secret Service, and, additionally, all civil servants and police in Washington and across the country. They all took the oath of allegiance and service to the Country under the Constitution. It was a condition of employment and the first step to being accepted in government.
The oath states clearly what stance to assume toward being loyal to that document and to the country as well as how to deal with those who are opposed to it. Yet I have not seen or heard any of them stand tall and perform under that oath. No objections, no questions, nothing…! Have I missed something here? Have their voices been raised and yet unheard?
What are they saying by their silence? That silence apparently means that they will stand behind a man and his principles and shady/shaky background in preference to standing behind the document that clearly states what this country stands for and why. At this point, those under the oath of allegiance to the country and fail to comply with it must realize that their patriotism is at stake and they must be must be questioned regarding their silence.
Not only should every Congressperson be challenged for their lack of apparent loyalty to the Constitution (while they mouth their loyalty to the country!) and put them on the short list unless/until they can prove that they are indeed performing according to their mandate. No one is forcing them to take pay for doing their jobs, no one is forcing them to be where they are and no one among them is standing tall and criticizing their collective lack of loyalty to the Constitution. America would welcome such candidness and fearlessness. But it seems that those voices are not there.
There are a few people in politics who hint that Congress is lacking in adherence to one or another element of the Constitution but it is hit-or-miss and not enough. Their seemingly-perfunctory criticism is not adequate to address the problems of the country and most often merely seems to be a political expediency. Half a step does not make a journey -- it only leaves one unbalanced and exposed to scrutiny for incomplete continuity and achievement.
Congresspeople, especially those who have made a life of Washington politics, should know about continuity but what they perpetuate has become what We the People do not want from our representatives. Most of them remain in place from paying off their home state's voters with sweetheart deals and this must stop. They get paid for doing a job and the job must not be based on padding the pockets of the people back home. Prisons are running over and many prisoners are there because "Others did it, too!" and this rationale must end.
Are there no Americans loyal to the Constitution? By this I mean the entire, complete Constitution with no quibbling, no questioning, no on-the-spot, individual interpretation.
Where are those good people, those loyal Americans who would serve the nation in politics? Did they die with the people of George Washington’s time? Did Lincoln know many of them? No one is perfect but Truman and Ike and their types are rare in today's world of American politics. Since their time, America has been forced to accept that leaders that are most definitely not perfect and their imperfections are significant.
The greater political problem today is a form of permissiveness, no recalls, no challenges. When a politician is not questioned but allowed free rein, then this is interpreted by the politicians and his/her constituency as doing a good job. To them, mediocrity is a virtue, exceptionalism is a tenet of a dreamworld and they rarely achieve this.
Why is this attitude now somewhat prevalent? Because politicians' voters are satisfied with the 'go-along to get-along' attitude which is good enough for the ordinary representative. Voters assume that their representatives are sent to do a job and also assume that the money coming back to their state is ample proof of a job well-done. However, what does the Bible say about the "love of money"?
The only good thing in all this is that Americans, especially Conservatives, are being so critical in the selection of people to represent them. At least this proves that the spirit and culture of loyalty to the Constitution is not completely dead. This is also one of the reasons why the Left is so critical of the candidate selection process and hint that the Republicans do not have their act together, that we cannot find a leader and are "confused." The real reason for this criticism is that the Left does not understand the process as something provided by the Constitution, something that is allowed by We the People, because they are quick to deny the authority and power of the Constitution, showing little or no respect for our foundational document. Their mindset is to read the words without contextual implications and without the foresight to see that the Constitution has built-in safeguards to preclude overturn of the country from within and without.
If the Constitution were followed to the "letter of the Law" and if we had people in charge that fully understood their responsibilities under the Constitution and the obligations derived from it, we would not be seeing many of the problems that plague us today.
This brings us back to the question of Loyalty to the Constitution. Will we see the debate "moderators" -- those who feel they must compromise their questions to avoid seeming one-sided and less than "fair and balanced" -- simply ask those running for the Republican candidacy if they fully believe in the Constitution as she stands and not try to bend or twist the meaning? I doubt it because most teleprompter talking heads in the Media do not fully understand the implications and importance of abiding by the Constitution. For the Media, truth is not telling all the truth but leaving much of it unsaid and being able to interpret the news/facts to conform to their liberal mindset. They are follow-along readers and not good at predictive textual content perceptions.
Conservatives need to do their own research and find if any candidate is for the Constitution in its entirety and not in a pick-and-choose way. If we don't, we simply invite more of the same and no real hope and no real change back to the old standards, the old landmarks, that made our country the greatest in the world, one looked upon as the high standard that most want and few are able to actually achieve. We must not compromise and allow our country to be diminished so there will be global equivalency. Most successful countries do not want to see America diminished because it would mean that all are diminished. With no goals for betterment, there is none that can be measured and nothing of tangible value to reach for.
The answer is in our hands, in the hands of the voters. If Conservatives want to carry the day, to achieve the high standards and longstanding goals of traditional America, and not see the wishy-washy liberal continuance of the lessening of America, we must vote for change. Staying home will not do it and protests by voting for a Third Party Candidate will not do it. This is what gave us Obama in the first place. We must have the candidate that will prove to be loyal to the Constitution as a minimum, as a foundation to build upon and get us back to an America that is indeed a light on the hill, a light that provides direction and true hope.
Mr. Lunsford is a retired DoD telecommunications engineer, linguist and world traveler now living in eastern Kentucky. Still active in radio communications, he has several books copyrighted, one of which is now in final process of publication. He is politically motivated and, as much as possible, politically active.
