The Constitution Most Certainly DID NOT Fail

March 7, 2019 in Columnists, News by RBN Staff


By Je Suis Spike for RBN


You’re Thinking of Me and You Who Failed; The People Failed

For whom was the Constitution written?

John Adams told us: “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”   He means to say that the people are to be self-governing to the extent that we needn’t fear that somebody might come along and make an argument that we need others to tell us how to live- and by force of law. Also, self-governing people concerned with doing what is right know that living in liberty is right, is what God intended, and these people will have the conviction and courage, the moral certitude, to defend their God-gifted liberty. More, even than others, when Christians take Christians to court, for an example, they show their failure to defend their God-gifted liberty and settle accounts in a Christian manner and then God and Adams are denied.

The Constitution has failed! That’s a popular argument right now, especially by those who want to have a Constitutional Convention and make even more laws for people to ignore.


The Constitution failed?

This is like suggesting that laws against robbery have failed because there is robbery. The Constitution cannot fail, it is mute- though wordy in a terse kind of way. We fail when, having consented to it, we fail to adhere to it and, at least as importantly, we fail to require that others, having consented, adhere to it.Is it a perfect document, a perfect plan?


It is an imperfect plan, imperfectly implemented by imperfect men in an imperfect world, a fallen world, a failed world, a world that rejected the wrong King, King Jesus.  If you think that the Constitution failed, then you put too much hope into ideas, ink and parchment. There was a failure, all right, and it continues to this day and into tomorrow, but the Constitution certainly did not fail. That’s right, the people failed, and no amount of hiding behind Christian- conservative- or libertarian- finger-pointing or incredulousness can change that. Do not think that I am hostile to libertarians, though, for I am not. In fact, I am a libertarian by nature, a constitutionalist by sensibility and, if saved, so only by the blood of the Christ. The Constitution can no more save you from tyrants than it can save you from a punch in the nose, a stubbed toe or from drowning. It’s a map, not a shield; don’t say that it failed to do something it was not ever supposed to do, or could not ever do. That’s like blaming my failure to grow grass in my yard on fire hydrants. Fire hydrants aren’t meant to foster grass growth.

I will shortly explain to you what the Constitution is, but let us not attempt algebra before learning to count.

II Corinthians 3:17 “Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.”

Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty, huh?   Note: That says “liberty,” not “license.”   You see, liberty came well before the Constitution since the Lord came well before the Constitution- about 6,000 years before. If you do not have liberty and you blame the Constitution for that, then you ought also to blame the Word of God, quoted, or blame God, Himself. (Yes, HIMself, you incredulous ladies.) God gave you the right to do right, He does not give you the right to do wrong. It is more than obvious to this prolific sinner that we, the people, have only the right to do right. When I do wrong, when I sin, it is not with God’s approval. And just as liberty came before the Constitution, so did evil men who would control and exploit the people. It is to be expected that these evil men would band together, and so if we, the people, didn’t use the tool of the Constitution to protect ourselves from these evil men, but allowed them to take over the government and twist the Constitution to suit their evil plans, that’s not the fault of the Constitution, that’s the fault of the people.

Getting a little more specific than necessary for a moment and for a purpose, this is why those who wrote the Constitution said that Congress shall make no law respecting (with respect to) an establishment* of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Every single one of the people is to be able to, in accordance with the dictates of his conscience, worship the Creator without interference from government.   That’s the right to do what God wants, or the right to do right. The Constitution didn’t give us the right to keep and bear arms, God gave us that. God gave us the ability to behave as we choose, including doing wrong, that’s free will, that’s choice, but He didn’t give us the right to do wrong. All of our rights and every good thing come, ultimately, from God. With that background, let’s get to it, how is it that the Constitution did not fail us, i.e. why was it written?

KJV, unless noted otherwise –

Galatians 3:11 “But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith.

Hebrews 4:12 “For the word of God is quick [living], and powerful, and sharper than any two edged sword, piercing even to dividing asunder of soul and spirit and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.” This brings to mind a quote, the source of which I cannot discover, “The tiniest departure from the fundamental principle of liberty is the first sign of the lurking presence of evil.” Just as The Word exposes and divides the thoughts and intents of the heart, so does the Constitution expose the actions of the evil when they depart from the fundamental principle of liberty. Though, unlike the Word, the Constitution is imperfect, yes, for it filters the ideals of liberty and self-government through the imperfect mind of man.

In fact, in exposing would-be tyrants, I maintain that THE CONSTITUTION HAS SUCCEEDED. I would suggest that the most evident success of the Constitution is the exposure of those who would act inimically to the desire of men and women to live in liberty, and in accordance with the “No Skin Off a Nose” philosophy that some call the Non-Aggression Principle, and at peace with their neighbors; not desiring to either wield- or having to act to defend one’s self from- the exercising of government power, i.e. compulsion by the threat of force. The fact that those who attempt to put a boot on our necks are not swinging, hands bound behind their backs, is evidence of failure, all right, but a failure of the people…my failure and maybe your failure. (Maybe we should just say that those who put a boot on our neck through government should be frog-marching in orange jump suits to a new life of making little rocks from big rocks instead of that swinging, bit?   We certainly do not have the moral courage or certitude of the founders of the several nation-states we collectively call America.)

Romans 7:7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.

How does the Constitution expose those who would usurp the liberty of others?   Well, when it’s blatant, such as defining some people to be only 3/5ths of others it’s easy to see. (Even some of the founders erred tremendously, you see, being imperfect, while others knowingly accepted this terrible error to get this warning bell called the Constitution available as a tool for their posterity.)   But sometimes the lurking presence of evil must be courageously known by discerning and admitting the tiniest departure from the fundamental principle of liberty. The founders accused King George III, well-departed from protecting the people’s liberty, in the Declaration of Independence, when they wrote: “He has refused to pass other laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of representation in the legislature, a right inestimable to them, and Formidable to tyrants only.” This is a grave departure from protecting liberty; in fact it is an egregious usurping of liberty and so exposed the king, even more clearly, of being a danger to the people as they explicitly described him of despising something formidable to tyrants only. (Wow those guys could write!) They accused him of being a tyrant. Tyranny may be said to be measured by degrees, but a 90 degree tyranny is only one later point in the continuum of a tyranny that was once 2 degrees. In other words, tyranny is tyranny, and a little bit of it is not only a sign of the lurking presence of evil, it is the exercise of evil.

Just as the second amendment only affirms my/your right to keep and bear arms, there is no new news in it; it just says that God gave us the right to defend ourselves, and that a just government would not infringe it, and in this case it is noted by many founders that this particular warning was against an ever-encroaching government, which, like fire is a dangerous servant and a fearful master, (thank you to the other George (Washington)).

The 2nd amendment is in the Constitution for the express purpose of acting as does the canary in coal mine, alerting people to danger. How does that work? Well when the canary in the coal mine dies, it alerts the miners that there is some dangerous gas present and they need to take precautions. How does the 2nd amendment compare? It alerts us to encroaching tyranny, by letting us know who does not respect our right to keep and bear arms, as they seek to undermine it, as they seek to undermine our liberty, making us defenseless, weaponless, against the machinations of scheming and evil men.

Some undermining, say infringement, of your right to keep and bear arms is blatant and easily identified. Other infringements are sold as defending your right, and fool some people about government’s actions regardless of intent. For instance the Governor of my state and the legislature thereof, (all Republican then), will tell you that they enacted “Concealed Carry Legislation” in defense of the right to keep and bear arms. More a tiny departure (relatively speaking, maybe a 20 degree tyranny), than demanding registration, which is INARGUABLY solely for the purpose of one day collecting those registered guns, (a 100 degree tyranny and the termination of liberty). “Well, Spike,” you might ask, “how is letting you put a gun in your pocket, under concealed carry legislation, an infringement of our right to keep and bear arms?” Glad you asked. What that does is turn a right which CANNOT be taken away into a government-granted privilege which CAN be taken away. First of all, answer me this, do you need to pay to exercise the right to free speech or to be secure in your person, papers or effects?   “No,” you say. And you do not need to pay to put a gun into your pocket, you have that right; government has no right to know that you have a gun or a knife or fork or spoon or hard-boiled egg in your pocket.   But, to get a “Concealed Carry Permit” one is required by government to:

  • ·       Pay a fee. (Do you have to pay a fee for free speech, or exercise your religion? No, you have the right.)
  • ·       Submit to a background check, the nature and extent of which is determined by the government. (And you can bet that is more extensive than the check made on 19 year old male “youths” illegally entering our nation-states.)
  • ·       Agree to conduct one’s self only in accordance with government.
  • ·       Demonstrate proficiency in exercising the keeping and bearing of arms. (Can you imagine having to demonstrate proficiency to speak freely or exercise your religion or be secure in your person, papers or effects? A speech test? A prayer test?** A responsible documents test?)
  • ·       Agree that the privilege is subject to revocation. (Hint: Rights are inalienable; not subject to revocation)
  • ·       Agree that the privilege is subject to renewal. (Hint: You do not need to renew a right: Coming from God a right is eternal, whereas a privilege granted by government is temporal.)

If people agree to accept a revocable government-granted privilege in place of a right, this is not the fault of the Constitution, this is the fault of the people.


We have some of our pay taken from us before we see it (withholding), we must get permission from government to exercise the right to keep and bear arms by putting a gun into a pocket without being in peril of “law-enforcement;” we are required to pay taxes to fund those who act immorally: literally killing babies; teaching children falsehoods; bombing innocent people and, while claiming it was necessary to achieve some so-called necessary and laudable goal, not having the moral courage or certitude to admit it explicitly and say that it is unfortunate, and then calling innocent dead men, women and children a euphemism,*** “collateral damage;” subsidizing even good things like agricultural endeavors, but for the purpose of hiding the true cost of groceries at the check-out counter; creating violence by making illegal some things that people very much desire and so dangling “obscene profits” in front of the noses of the people, but profits at the expense of violence and destroyed neighborhoods. This list could go on for years; you know many more activities engaged in QUITE UNCONSTITUTIONALLY by government that you could list.

Yes, that’s me and you that failed.

Thank you for taking the time to read this,

Je Suis Spike


  •   I still maintain that “establishment” in the first amendment would better explain the framers’ intent as a noun and not as a verb.

** Lois Lerner’s IRS did ask some organizations (right-leaning, tea-party types) if their groups pray and, if so, to include a sample of their prayers with their request for tax-exempt status in forming Political Action Committees.   (And the Constitution is said to have failed? No, we failed.)

*** Euphemisms are often a departure from the truth for the purpose of making the people partners in horror.