Practicing Constitutional Hypocrisy

The Constitution Is Sacred — Until It Gets in the Way

Politicians love the Constitution the way teenagers love curfews: only when it suits them. For over two centuries, politicians, special interests, and their clever lawyers have chipped away at the Founders’ blueprint, leaving behind a flaccid caricature of law and liberty. Presentism, ignorance, and apathy have turned fidelity to constitutional principle into a liability, a brickbat wielded against anyone who dares to stand on it.

What began as targeted attacks on specific Articles and Amendments has metastasized into a wholesale assault on the very idea of constitutional limits. In Washington’s cesspool, comity and order have drowned, replaced by the instant gratification of revenge politics. Today, defending the Constitution is treated not as patriotism but as obstruction.

When Principle Becomes Treason

Consider Senators Rand Paul and Thomas Massie. Both have opposed certain legislation proposed by President Trump on strictly constitutional grounds. Neither man is hostile to Trump’s broader agenda — they’ve said so repeatedly. Yet their refusal to abandon principle for expedience has earned them scorn not only from the President himself but from his most ardent followers.

Social media mobs erupted, branding Paul “delusional,” “ineffective,” even “in league with cartels.” One commenter sneered that Paul deserved the infamous attack from his neighbor. Another dismissed libertarians as “worse than libtards.” Fidelity to the Constitution was recast as betrayal.

Occasionally, a ray of reason breaks through the noise. One commenter reminded the mob that Paul was defending the rule of law, not drug cartels. He pointed out that constitutional fidelity is consistent, even when unpopular — citing the famous case of Illinois Nazis who were allowed to march because denying one group’s rights empowers government to deny them all.

But reason is rarely welcome in the fever swamps of partisan outrage. That lone voice was quickly skewered, proving once again that principle is the enemy of passion in modern politics.

Hypocrisy Across the Aisle

Republicans now mimic the very behavior they once condemned in Democrats: hair‑on‑fire reactions, personal attacks, and contempt for constitutional limits. For Democrats, this has long been standard operating procedure. For Republicans, it is a growing embarrassment.

The hypocrisy is glaring. When constitutional fidelity aligns with partisan goals, it is celebrated. When it conflicts, it is vilified. The Constitution becomes a prop, waved when convenient, discarded when inconvenient.

Historical Precedents of Constitutional Hypocrisy

This hypocrisy is not new. American history is littered with examples of leaders who bent, twisted, or ignored constitutional limits when expedience demanded it.

• Lincoln’s Suspension of Habeas Corpus: During the Civil War, President Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus, allowing the government to detain individuals without trial. Defenders argued it was necessary to preserve the Union. Critics pointed out that it shredded constitutional protections in the name of emergency.

• FDR’s Court-Packing Scheme: Frustrated by Supreme Court rulings against his New Deal programs, Franklin Roosevelt proposed adding more justices to tilt the Court in his favor. Though the plan failed, it revealed the willingness to manipulate constitutional structures for political gain.

• Japanese Internment: Also under FDR, over 100,000 Japanese-Americans were forcibly relocated and incarcerated during World War II. The Constitution’s guarantees of due process and equal protection were ignored in the name of “national security.”

• Post-9/11 Surveillance: The Patriot Act expanded government surveillance powers dramatically, eroding Fourth Amendment protections. Leaders justified it as necessary to combat terrorism, but it entrenched a surveillance state that persists today.

Each case demonstrates the same pattern: constitutional fidelity abandoned when inconvenient, justified by crisis or expedience, and later rationalized as “necessary.”

The Permission Society

Look around today: freedom is measured not by what you can do, but by what you’re allowed to do. Want to fish? Get a license. Want to mow lawns for money? Get a permit. Want to build a deck? Ask permission. Each slip of paper is proof that your liberty has been converted into a privilege, contingent on government approval.

This is not freedom. It is managed existence. And it thrives because citizens have grown accustomed to trading responsibility for comfort.

The Deflection Game

The deflection from Individual Responsibility is a special breed of insanity. Lawyers, politicians, and pundits devise ways to shift blame from human beings to inanimate objects. It’s easier to regulate a gun than to demand responsibility from its owner. Easier to demonize fentanyl than to confront the choices of those who ingest it. Easier to vilify cars than to enforce accountability on reckless drivers.

But every deflection strengthens government’s grip. Every abdication of responsibility tightens the chains.

The Cost of Abandoning Principle

Freedom cannot exist without Individual Responsibility. When responsibility is abandoned, government steps in to fill the void. Instantly, the Individual morphs into the Subject. Liberty is traded for regulation, choice for command.

This is not a sudden collapse but a slow suffocation. Bit by bit, freedom dies — not with a bang, but with a bureaucratic whisper.

The Call to Vigilance

The antidote is simple, though not easy: reclaim responsibility. Accept the burden of freedom. Recognize that every choice carries weight, that every action has consequence. Stop blaming objects and start demanding accountability from individuals.

When principle becomes a punchline, hypocrisy isn’t just practiced — it’s perfected. And the warning is clear: abandon the Constitution, and you abandon freedom itself.

BW