I recently taught a lesson on the “Constitutional Duty of the State and Local Legislators” in West Virginia. In the spirit of education, I wanted to share a portion of a conversation I had with an Aide from Rep. Alex Mooney’s office. (My humble apologies to the Aide, as I do not remember his name. I am sure he remembers this event, so if he would like me to update the article with his name, I will be more than happy to do so.)
Aide: “I really enjoyed your teaching. I just call exception to one thing. The purist attitude you teach is exactly why we cannot get anything done in Washington.”
Me: “I call exception to your application of the word purist. Setting aside principle for compromise is not ‘getting something done.’ Compromising principle is the very definition of immorality. I will never give anyone a pass or permission to be immoral.”
Let us look at this Aide’s statement from a logical, critical thinking perspective…
When I teach, I teach based upon history, fact, and law and the principles established by these factors. I do not teach based upon theory or opinion. History is history, not changed by opinion. An event either happened or it did not. Fact is fact, not subject to opinion. It is either true or not. The law is the law, also not subject to opinion. It is either the Supreme Law of the Land or it is not. History, Fact, and law are not subject to compromise. If you compromise them, you change the very nature of what they are; History becomes theory, Fact becomes opinion, and Law becomes suggestion.
The Constitution is not created upon theory, opinion, or suggestion. It is created based upon History, Fact, and Law. It is a document of time-tested, blood-learned Principles. By the very definition of Principle, it cannot change; it cannot be compromised as it is foundational. If you can change a principle, it is not really a principle, but a mutable guideline. The Supreme Law of the Land is NOT a mutable guideline, subject to compromise. To make such a compromise would be to transmute the very nature of the established American Constitutional Republic.
So when your Congressman calls you a purist for demanding compliance with the Constitution, the founding Principles and Supreme Law of the land, he is suggesting that you should give him permission to act contrary to Principle, Truth, and Law.
What are their antonyms?
Therefore, your Congressman wants you to allow him to compromise the Constitution, and is asking you for permission and expects you to give him a pass to act immorally, based upon a lie, and in an unlawful manner. Remember, we elect people to represent us. Are we really represented by immorality, lies, and lawlessness? Is that who we are as a people?
Additionally, when a government and its laws are based upon immorality, lies, and lawlessness, it is not a just government.
I am not asserting that a Congressman cannot engage in compromise. I am proving that there are some things that are not subject to compromise, and the Constitution is one of those things.
I will say it again: I will never give anyone permission to act immorally, based upon lie, and in an unlawful manner. So don’t even ask. I am not a “purist” by its derogatory application. I am a person who endeavors to behave in a moral, truthful and lawful manner. I expect nothing less from the one I have elected to represent me.