There’s word that Taylor Swift could affect the 2024 election (Biden is looking to her for help), the courts are out of control (crazy New York judges and juries are examples), and the people who take an oath to uphold the Constitution don’t know what it says, what it means, or how it applies. It’s not only Swift who could impact the election. Trump’s rape accuser says she will “do everything I can” to help Biden, including using money from her lawsuit to fund Democrats and their insane causes. George Soros invests millions of dollars to help flip Texas Democrat and using lawfare[1] to ruin careers. Let’s not forget that Democrats voted for Republican Nikki Haley in the New Hampshire primary. Minnesota’s Muslim congresswoman, Ilhan Omar, reportedly said she is “Somalian first, Muslim second.” Here’s the oath of office for members of Congress:

I 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.

Finally, there’s a foreign invasion at our southern border. It’s not immigration.

Restoring the Foundation of Civilization

Restoring the Foundation of Civilization

The main reason anti-Christian civilizationists survive and seem to thrive is that Christians have not engaged with, answered, and built a competing alternative culture—THE ORIGINAL CIVILIZATION—founded on the principles found in God’s Word and observable in creation. Moreover, many Christians don’t believe there can be or should be a Christian civilization, so they send their children off to the local government school that is anti-Christian believing that facts are neutral and public education is free. Such thinking comes at a terrible cost.

Buy Now

Ignorance of the Constitution and an unwillingness to follow its precepts and limitations have made our three branches of government lawless and people who misquote and misapply it enemies of the United States. California Congressmen Eric Swalwell and Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D-MA) took an oath to uphold the Constitution. How does a person swear to something that he or she doesn’t know or understand? Who would sign a contract without first reading it, and who would let people who violate the contract get away with it? Politicians know they can vote for unconstitutional programs because the people who elect them want goodies from the government and damn the Constitution if they don’t get them.

I suspect that many members of Congress either don’t know what the Constitution says, or they don’t care, otherwise we wouldn’t have so many unconstitutional programs including undeclared wars costing trillions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of lives. Do you know the word “education” is not found in the Constitution? This means governing education is not one of the enumerated powers of the Federal government, and yet we have a Department of Education with a budget of nearly $70 billion. 

Most members of Congress don’t broadcast their ignorance of the Constitution; they just vote their ignorance because most voters are also ignorant, so they get away with it. Here’s the latest bit of constitutional ignorance from Rep. Ayanna Pressley.

Rep. Pressley spoke on the House floor in early 2020 in support of a bill to extend the expired deadline for states to ratify the controversial Equal Rights Amendment, claiming during her speech that women are still in “shackles” and that the “Constitution is sexist by its very design.”

Rep. Swalwell wrote something similar: 

Do you know how many times the word “Woman” is mentioned in the Constitution? Zero. That is unacceptable. Women must be equally represented and equally protected. #ERANow.

These Representatives (and many more) should not hold political office.

Why is what Pressley and Swalwell wrote so wrong? Because like the words “woman” and “women” the words “man” and “men” don’t appear in the Constitution. Even the 19th Amendment, that gave women the right to vote, doesn’t use the words men or women: 

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

In addition, the Constitution does not use the words “race,” “slavery,” “slave,” “white,” “black.” Such omissions are curious since there are many people who consider the Constitution to be racist.

The word “slavery” did not enter the Constitution until after the Civil War in the Thirteenth Amendment.

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

The supposed racist intent of the Constitution is seen in the “three-fifths clause” found in Article I, section 2, clause 3. Contrary to what some so-called historians claim, the “three-fifths clause” is a clear indication that many of our constitutional founders wanted to end slavery through the legislative process. The three-fifths clause is not about personhood, that is, describing blacks as three-fifths of a white person.

The Northern states did not want to count slaves for determining the number of representatives a state would have. If the narrative of “personhood” was the meaning of the “three-fifths” clause, then Northern states were more racist since they didn’t believe a black person was equal to a white person in any way. The Southern states hoped to include slaves in the enumeration of persons to acquire additional representation and voting strength in Congress. The compromise was to count slaves (although the word is never used) as “three-fifths” of a person for representation purposes. The fewer slaves counted, the fewer number of representatives and the less legislative power the pro-slavery states would have.

There’s nothing new in this strategy. Today’s Democrats want to count non-citizens to bolster their legislative powers and give them the right to vote. 

The goal of the Northern delegates was to dilute Southern voting strength to outlaw slavery by constitutional means. “The struggle that took place in the convention was between the Southern delegates trying to strengthen the constitutional supports for slavery and the Northern delegates trying to weaken them.”[2]

If none of the slaves had been included in the population count for representation, as Northern delegates wanted, the slave states would have had only 41 percent of the seats in the House. If all the slaves had been included, as the pro-slave states wanted, the slave states would have had 50 percent of the seats. By agreeing to count slaves as only three-fifths of a person for representation purposes, the slaveholding states ended up with a minority voting position—47 percent. Robert L. Goldwin concludes:

[T]he point is that the “three-fifths clause” had nothing at all to do with measuring the human worth of blacks. Northern delegates did not want black slaves included, not because they thought them unworthy of being counted, but because they wanted to weaken the slaveholding power in Congress. Southern delegates wanted every slave to count “equally with the Whites,” not because they wanted to proclaim that black slaves were human beings on an equal footing with free white persons, but because they wanted to increase the pro-slavery voting power in Congress. The humanity of blacks was not the subject of the three-fifths clause; voting power in Congress was the subject.[3]

An oath is also given to those entering the judicial branch. How can they perform judicially if they don’t know what the Constitution says? It happens a lot. Consider the following:

A judicial nominee of President Joe Biden was apparently stumped by Sen. John Kennedy’s basic questions about the Constitution during her Senate confirmation hearing [in January of 2023].

Spokane County Superior Court Judge Charnelle Bjelkengren, who was nominated to be a U.S. district judge for the Eastern District of Washington, couldn’t answer when Kennedy, R-La., pressed her about articles of the nation’s founding document.

“Tell me what Article V of the Constitution does,” Kennedy asked as he began his round of questioning.

“Article V is not coming to mind at the moment,” Bjelkengren replied.

“How about Article II?” Kennedy asked.

Bjelkengren replied that didn’t come to mind for her either.

Article V of the Constitution outlines the process for amending the founding charter, and Article II details the executive powers vested in the president of the United States.

God and Government

God and Government

American Vision has thoroughly renovated, revised, and updated Gary DeMar’s monumental work into this beautiful one-volume hardback. With a fresh new look, more images, an extensive subject and scripture index, and an updated bibliography, God and Government is ready to prepare a whole new generation to take on the political and religious battles confronting Christians today. May it be used in a new awakening of Christians in America—not just to inform minds, but to stimulate action and secure a better tomorrow for our posterity.

Buy Now

There are more examples here and here. The Constitution is far from perfect, but it’s what we must work with. Our educational system has purposely been corrupted to keep people from knowing what their true freedoms are and the limitations on our national government. It’s only going to get worse with the unconstitutional invasion that’s taking place in plain sight.

[1] “Lawfare is the use of legal systems and institutions to damage or delegitimize an opponent, or to deter an individual’s usage of their legal rights.”

[2] Robert A. Goldwin, “Why Blacks, Women & Jews Are Not Mentioned in the Constitution,” Commentary (May 1987), 29.

[3] “Why Blacks, Women & Jews Are Not Mentioned in the Constitution,” 30.