Demanding Constitutional Compliance

This posting is regarding Constitutional Compliance.  As we have seen over the past few years, there have been many questions regarding moves made by President Obama overstepping his authority. Has he made decisions on his own without Congress that would be considered “illegal” in regards to the Constitution? Does the House follow the Constitution? Do they even understand what it says? I have a friend who has written a wonderful article.  Catherine Crabill is proposing that legislation that would make it a class 1 Felony to betray one’s oath to the Constitution. I will give you a brief history on Catherine and then I hope you will read her article on Constitutional Compliance.

Catherine Crabill was the Republican Nominee for the 99th Legislative District of the Commonwealth of Virginia in 2009. Mrs. Crabill ran as an unabashed Christian Constitutional Conservative inspiring great enthusiasm in her district from the voters and inciting a very public battle with the Republican Establishment.

Reading, verbatim, from Patrick Henry’s famous “Give Me Liberty…”speech, Democrat operatives edited the 17 minute speech Mrs. Crabill gave down to a minute and a half making it look as though Mrs. Crabill was calling for armed revolt against the government. This was submitted to the Huffington Post causing a great conflagration.

Then Candidates McDonnell, Bolling, Cucinnelli, Speaker of the House, Bill Howell, as well as Republican Party Chair Pat Mullins, held a special press conference, purportedly coordinated by Ed Gillespie, to denounce Mrs. Crabill’s candidacy and demand she withdraw from the contest. None of the above had ever contacted Mrs. Crabill’s campaign to determine the veracity of this coordinated attack.

Further, the RPV removed her from their website, did not contribute one dime to her campaign, and worked behind the scene to hamper her campaign efforts.

Mrs. Crabill, refusing to apologize of quit, garnered support state wide and brought about a resounding denunciation against the RPV.

Running against a very popular ensconced Democrat, out spent 6:1, battling the Democrats and Republicans, Mrs. Crabill garnered 48+% of the vote, losing by the smallest margin of anyone who had ever campaigned against Del. Albert Pollard. Del. Pollard did not run again.

Catherine’s Article:

11 December 2013:  As America stands upon a great and dangerous precipice, millions of Americans involve themselves battling against an ever emerging Tyranny.

We skirmish on so many fronts that even though our numbers are legion, our efforts are minimized in their effectiveness by the nature of the division intentionally created by those who wage war against our liberty.

As I have prayed and sought The Lord for wisdom, I believe He has shown me a ‘silver bullet’ by which We the People can and must reclaim control over EVERY renegade and corrupt President, Congressman, Senator, State Delegate, Judge, Sheriff, etc..

In fact, this concept will affect every Constitutional office holder and restore said Constitution to its rightful place as Supreme Law of the Land.

Anyone interested in running for any office, from Clerk of the Court to State Governor, Congressman or Senator, would be required by law to pass an examination on the Constitution 
before they could enter any contest as a candidate.I propose legislation, drafted and introduced on a state level, which would make it a class 1 Felony to betray one’s Oath of Office to uphold and defend the Constitution. The penalty would need to be significant in its severity, not only depriving such a criminal of their liberty, mandatorily, but also their personal property.

Just as any person wanting to become a Doctor, Lawyer, Accountant, Realtor, etc, must first be examined for competency, how much more should we expect from those who ‘rule’/represent us?

In addition, an examination proves that the examinee knows what is expected of them and which actions are criminally prosecutable, thus the examinee cannot claim ignorance. The examination is the lynch pin of accountability.

As it stands now, the remedy for removing someone from office, other than the ballot box, (which few trust the veracity of an election anymore), is a recall or an impeachment. While these tools are indeed available, the task of implementing all of the above is overarching in its scope. The vast majority of us feel impotent and frustrated.

I propose in this legislative initiative that a determined number of petition signatures, achievable by a single concerned citizen, would trigger a Citizen Grand Jury made up of volunteers who likewise would have taken and passed the same examination on the Constitution as the Constitutional Office Holder.

Once a Citizen Grand Jury brings forth a Bill of Indictment, the Constitutional Office Holder would have to defend themselves before a jury of their peers, who would also be made up of those who have taken and passed the exam, and be presided over by a ‘judge’ who has also taken and passed the exam, who IS NOT ALLOWED TO BE A MEMBER OF THE BAR, thus avoiding corruption rampant in our judicial system.

Imagine the far reaching ramifications of such an initiative! It would destroy the left-right paradigm, nullifying the republican/democrat/libertarian parties. After all, if everyone in office were held accountable to their Oath it would not matter if you are an avowed Communist! Once you take that Oath you will be held to criminal account for betraying it.

Furthermore, it would decimate the numbers of those whose motive in pursuit of political office may be less than honorable. This legislation would be retroactive in requiring all current office holders to take and pass the same examination. From that point forward they would be held to the same standard as any incoming Governor, Senator, Congressman, Delegate, Sheriff, or Clerk of the Court.

In addition, since We the People would be rightfully empowered to hold these men and women to account, there would be a vast revival in the common man’s interest and study of the Constitution. Such conversations would be had in restaurants, bars, parties, churches, etc, because the Rule of Constitutional law would be restored into the hands of every American.

It would electrify the electorate.

The nay sayers have argued that no legislator would vote to shackle him or herself under these restraints. To that I say who would dare vote against it!? Who could stand before their constituents and explain how they voted against it because they refuse to be held accountable?

Holding our Congressmen and Senators to account would hold the President to account. If we could prosecute our Congressmen and Senators for betraying their Oath to balance the budget, protect our privacy, impeach and prosecute a rogue President and corrupt administration, etc, I submit they would do what they, by virtue of their Oath, should be doing already. We could also recapture control over The Supreme Court for betraying our Constitution by referencing any other law other than our Constitution.

At the time of this writing, I have submitted this idea to 3 state legislators in the Commonwealth of Virginia, one of which has responded and shown a genuine interest.

For those who have made a name in their respective field of expertise fighting unconstitutional assaults on our liberty, this initiative may feel threatening. After all, many have spent a lifetime and a fortune doing battle on their respective fronts. Nevertheless, this would end the need to fight the NSA, TSA, Agenda 21, EPA, etc, etc, as those who, to date, have betrayed our country, our liberty, and our prosperity will have to face We the People on a field they do not control as the Rule of Law is restored to America again.

It is not only our right, IT IS OUR DUTY.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmailby feather

9 thoughts on “Demanding Constitutional Compliance

  1. daughters says:

    It’s a pity yoou don’t have a donate button! I’d
    certainly donate to this outstanding blog! I
    guess for now i’ll settrle for bookmarking aand adding your RSS
    feed to my Google account. I look forward to new updates and will talk about this wewbsite with
    my Facebook group.Talk soon!

  2. Catherine Crabill says:

    The complexities of the Constitution boil down to God given, unalienable rights, easily identifiable by the Biblical understanding of right and wrong as opposed to left and right.

  3. buddy holcomb says:

    The Attorney General of the USA is not doing his job
    of telling the President he cannot legislate laws of

    Obamacare as that is the role of Congress.As long as
    we have these two working against us we need for
    Congress to impeach both.We are going to be a Socialist nation if our elected officials do nothing
    to curb their unlawful actions.

  4. Catherine Crabill says:

    The plain language of the Constitution is remarkably clear as it was intended to be understood by the common man. It has taken over 200 years and tens, maybe hundreds, of thousands of lawyers to screw up that which is most obvious.

    The most obvious problem with the Constitution is that it was not only written for the common man, but more precisely, the common MORAL man in a society made up predominantly of Christians, as was true at the time of our founding and its writing. No doubt our Founding Fathers could not grasp nor imagine a president trying to parse the meaning of the word “is” to justify his rampant immoral and repugnant behavior. Nor, do I believe, could they imagine the immorality and criminality we have allowed to run rampant in this currant administration.

    We are a nation that has chosen no morality rather than be accused of “intolerance”. Thus liars, degenerates, murderers, conspirators, occupy every branch of our government.

    Lawlessness in the name of tolerance is ultimately a terrifying thing. And we have only begun to taste the full force and affect of a consciously created chaos to hasten in a New World Order.

    • Clete Shultz says:

      Catherine, yes, the Constitution was intended to be understood by the common man, and I’m sure that it was. Then, over the following 200+ years there have been many changes to the simple, largely agrarian society of the day, changes which have made it far more complex…one example being even the THOUGHT that government, vice the local church/neighbor, would arrange to feed the hungry, or that the government should even monitor, much less regulate how I handle waste products from my lifestock because if handled improperly, it might adversely affect my neighbors downstream. Yes, the lawyers certainly had their hand in fostering these changes, it’s perhaps a bit simplistic to blame it all on the legal profession. Regardless, right, wrong or whatever, after 200+ years, our country is what it is.

      We still, and I believe quite rightly so, rely upon the Constitution as our rudder to direct this democratic Republic called the United States of America. However, the determination as to whether individual opinions and/or actions pertaining to complex issues of today are compliant with the Constitution written during a far simpler time for the common man requires some fairly deep study.

      I do not believe that the issues of today are quite so simple that a candidate for office might take a study class on the Constitution and then be required to pass a test to certify his/her understanding of the Constitution before the candidate’s name could be added to the ballot for election. If this process were to be adopted, no small task would be the design of a test to ensure a candidate’s understanding of the Constitution. Do you suppose the Democrats would agree with the Republicans concerning the test questions? Hardly.

      In my humble opinion, a pre-election test far more valuable than one certifying a candidate’s understanding of the constitution would be a test for the voter — to evaluate a voter’s basic qualifications relevant today, e.g., the ability to read, the ability to write, the ability to understand basic economics, and the ability to understand the concepts of economic freedom versus economic bondage. If voters were to pass such a test, they would, as a matter of natural course select qualified candidates for elective office. However, when we can’t even pass the requirement for a photo-ID, the likelihood of adopting a test to measure even the basics of “hello and goodbye” is close to nil.

  5. Kim Metts says:

    Love this. Should be law. There are more “new citizens” that know the US constitution better then those born in this country. It is not being taught in our schools. Keep up the good work.

  6. Clete Shultz says:

    Ms Craybill’s concept of prosecuting those who have received training on the Constitution and then violate their oath to support and defend it is interesting. If interpretation of our Constitution were a “yes/no” proposition, I could support her plan, but it’s not. In fact, we have a nine-member SCOTUS with the specific purpose and function of interpreting the Constitution…and rarely does even this body represent a unanimous view. So, if an elected official were to take an action that I believe to be a violation of his/her oath of office and the United States Constitution, is it likely that you, or your neighbor, or your neighbor’s neighbor would disagree with me? Yes, it is, and where would we be then? We’d be in a position of requiring interpretation — something that can not be “taught” prior to the election and oath of office.

    Just yesterday, I heard a Virginia state senator defend Atty Gen Herring’s decision not to support Virginia law against same-sex marriage because he (Herring) believed it to be in violation of the Constitution, which he pledged to support and defend. I disagree, of course, and believe that the Atty Gen should support and defend Virginia law, but he didn’t ask me.

    • Leigh says:

      Do you to believe that at least requiring them to know and understand the Constitution would be an improvement of where we are now? At least if they were unable to pass the test, they would not be allowed to run for office, making the retention and understanding of the very laws that we are supposed to live under a priority?

      • Clete Shultz says:

        Leigh, I am confident that every Congressperson (as well as every candidate for political office) believes that they know and understand the Constitution as well as, and probably even better than either you or me. Since they are already “all knowing” of the Constitution, and since, in their opinion, those proposing or administering the training/testing would be biased, there would be no such thing as acceptable training or testing.

        The theory behind training and testing candidates on the Constitution is wonderful so long as the training and testing materials follow the same interpretation that you and I have, right? However, should the training and testing materials meander off course and follow precepts of liberal democrats, NO WAY, right? 🙂

        Therefore, I do not believe there would be value in even attempting to develop, much less implement training and testing materials.

Comments are closed.