Dismantling constitutionalism

We’ve been taught the essence and principles of liberty and its continuing role in the strengthening of our democratic institutions. It’s basic material in civics classes.

Foremost, is the lesson on the fidelity to the “rule and execution of laws”—abiding by the laws of the land—the elected and appointed officials have sworn to uphold under the constitution.

In its simplest form, it’s about obedience to the laws to which elected and appointed officials have taken an oath to follow.

Strange though the spread of a virus among public officials creating delusions that any of them may unilaterally decide a law is non-existent or unconstitutional and refuses to follow the law or defend it in court. Is the NMI a government of laws or of men? Isn’t the new delusional virus smacks exactly the sort of monarchical power the founders of the U.S. Constitution sought to avoid?

Recently, the federal district court, administration, and the Legislature have colluded to ignore the constitutionally protected pension program from reduction and impairment. The combined overreach in authority may be a fiscal necessity, but it remains a constitutional violation.

The illegal acquisition of presumptuous authority is to ignore the constitutional limits set under Article III, Section 20. The district court, administration and legislature felt it fitting to reduce this constitutional provision into regulatory convenience. The self-expanded unshackled functions openly violate the separation of powers as the triad goes on autopilot largely unaffected by its adjudicated regulation.

Judging from their recent conduct, the departure from constitutionalism has grown more common, a permanent derangement of the political system so far removed from the plans and intentions of the founding fathers. More important is the collusion to violate constitutional provisions compromising them into their own creature of administrative convenience.

Furthermore, it effectively establishes an “administrative state” that strays from the principles of liberty and the clear objective of limited government. The entire country is already destined to receive over 100 major regulations under the Obama presidency where there would be more intrusions and violations of our individual liberties.

This design would careen out of control oblivious to constitutional restraint. It means that we must recommit ourselves to the principles and policies of federal and local constitutionalism. We can’t don the role of a guard dog walking off the territory of individual liberties without barking at invasive intruders.

The open violation and shredding of pertinent constitutional provision reveals that while we suspiciously believe in the fidelity to the rule of law, we equally see fit abrogating—via direct violation of constitutional law—to meet the political end of the retirement program’s settlement agreement. Understandable the fiscal aspect of the issue but the decision of complete abrogation remains unconstitutional.

Indeed, the governor has unique responsibilities under our constitutional system of government as head of state. His powers however do not include authority to make laws or decide which laws to enforce and which to ignore. He took an oath to uphold and enforce the laws of the land. Did he?

Moreover, the decision by the federal district court to ignore Article III, Section 20 of the NMI Constitution boils down to the familiar and most prominent form of judicial activism. The “usurpation of the functions of the other two branches of government and transformed in the courts has the equivalence of policymaking that wields wide-ranging powers.” It demonstrates in no uncertain terms that democracy isn’t functioning as intended by the founding fathers. The court must cease and desist from such exercise by the staying the path of constitutionalism.

No matter the challenges, each branch of government must accede to the dictates of the constitution honoring the doctrine of separation of powers. The founding fathers never intended for any branch to arbitrarily and without limit overreach the constitutional limits of its roles and functions. Constitutionalism is the path to strengthening our democratic republic.

Learning the basics

It isn’t surprising how many of our people lack basic knowledge on issues such as those found in the Covenant Agreement, NMI Constitution, first principles, the concept of separation of powers, natural rights to property, and other current issues.

Thus the apparent disconnect whenever an organized discussion is conducted on land alienation (Article XII), matters on foreign affairs, immigration, sovereignty, control of exclusive economic zone, and ownership of seabed resources. Some are convinced and have braved spouting views as though the NMI is a sovereign state. Call it anything you wish but it lacks intellectual integrity. It isn’t and it pays to review Section One of the agreement.

This view has spread like wildfire that even former policymakers have created the delusion that the NMI is under a “guarded” sovereignty. Nice try but then why fan the fire of intellectual dishonesty. Either the NMI is sovereign or not. We fit the latter full square.
Indeed, there’s a lot of room for open and healthy discussions including unraveling the purposeful spin of Section 805 of the agreement. It’s now being used as a seeming right to deny landowners their land. It’s a temporary provision to protect external exploitation of land during the incipient years of our constitutional government.

It was never intended to nullify the NMI’s land tenure system, a system of individual ownership where landowners own their land 100 percent. Moreover, final disposition of their property is solely theirs. Nor did federal courts ever address the constitutionality of the provision. It only took the flag and said the two sides agreed, therefore, it’s good.

The clever spin that the U.S. affixed its signature on the UN Charter on Indigenous Rights is true. But it did so with a guarantee of non-discrimination against citizens. Is this too hard to admit and explain in forthright fashion?